What is wrong with teaching Creation Science in schools?

Question

There is nothing against the law in doing so. When some people hear Creation, the first thing they try to do is disprove it through opinions yet they don't give any information on how the Theory of Evolution is any more than a glorified hypothesis. Creation Science use the same scientific methods but gives room to the tought of there being a designer. Which one is more open? That is up to you.

Please don't judge me. You don't know about my life. I am leaving an open forum for open people.

Answer 1

not a thing. I wouldn't put my young children in public schools because of their biased ways of teaching.

Actually flozzy our schools are funded by us...the tax payers.

Answer 2

Actually, it is illegal. Calling it "science" doesn't make it science, nor does it stop it from being a specific religion. Creation Science does not apply the scientific method. The Theory of Evolution started as a hypothesis which explained the evidence, and made numerous testable predictions which have been demonstrated. You may as well call gravity and electromagnetism gloried hyptheses if you are just going to redefine the word "theory".

"When Arkansas passed a law requiring "equal time" for "creation science" and evolution, the law was challenged in Federal District Court. Opponents of the bill included the religious leaders of the United Methodist, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, African Methodist Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Southern Baptist churches, along with several educational organizations. After a full trial, the judge ruled that "creation science" did not qualify as a scientific theory (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 [ED Ark. 1982]).

"Louisiana's equal time law was challenged in court, and eventually reached the Supreme Court. In Edwards v. Aguillard [482 U.S. 578 (1987)], the court determined that "creation science" was inherently a religious idea and to mandate or advocate it in the public schools would be unconstitutional. Other court decisions have upheld the right of a district to require that a teacher teach evolution and not teach "creation science" (Webster v. New Lennox School District #122, 917 F.2d 1003 [7th Cir. 1990]; Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 [9th Cir. 1994])."

Answer 3

The notion that there is some sort of equality between evolution and creationism is a pretty common misunderstanding that frankly I think bespeaks of laziness on the part of the creationist.

Evolution is not a "glorified hypothesis." Sadly, if you believe that a) life forms tend to reproduce and b) DNA exists, then you are helplessly compelled to know that evolution exists. If you fail to do so, then you are simply not well-versed enough in the science of genetics. The processes of both micro and macroevolution are implicit in the existence of DNA. Pleaes, read up on it.

Creationism is a different matter. Contrary to the sort of funny, sort of sad opinion you hold regarding creationism, there is no evidence for creationism. Not a jot, not a tittle of the creationist standpoint has stood up to more than five or six seconds of scientific rigor. It has all been discarded like so much stale cheese. There is exactly enough reason to believe in creationism as there is to believe in the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Shall we also teach our children to tred carefully around lakes, lest they disturb the Creature?

Creationism is like Holocaust denial. People argue vigorously and loudly that the Holocaust never occured. People have written books about it and dedicated to it. Yet, an absurd enterprise it remains. Should we "teach the controversy," even if there is no substance to one side of the controversy? Should we also teach the theory that pi is exactly three, as the book of Kings teaches us? If you don't know what I'm talking about, it's time to get your Bible back out.

Creationism is dead. It died in the Middle Ages. Leave behind your goofy fairy tales and lets all move on, together, into a future that is dedicated to learning and knowledge, not to slavishly accepting the natural sciences of some iron-age Hebrew peasants as eternal truth.

Answer 4

Creation Science? There is nothing at all scientific about the fairie tale of biblical creationism. To attempt to lump it into science is an illusion the ID proponents use in trying to somehow justify it being thought of as anything more than mythology. There is not a single shred of evidence, either empirical or theoretical, that supports the creation story as anything but fiction.

Answer 5

Our students do not have enough time to learn the basics. Have you not paid attention to sorry state that our public school are in?

Right now, we have college students who cannot decipher New England from England. They cannot properly pronounce Socrates (without sounding like they are from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure) and the most strenuous thing they have to read is Cosmo.

Wake up, we are creating generations of idiots who will in turn create more idiots. Creation Science won't help.

Way to support the religious right. Should we start a new witch trial while were at it?

Answer 6

What exactly is Creation science. What are its basic hypotheses. Let's start there and see if they can be supported by unbiased and repeatable experimentation or by physical evidence.

I have taken the time (some would say wasted the time) to read creationist and ID literature and I have yet to see one testable hypotheses. Both seem to spend considerable effort doing nothing more than hgihlighting areas where biologists have incomplete inforation.

Neither represents any sort of constructive science as far as I can tell.

Answer 7

We don't teach creation in science class because that's where we teach science. Material that enters legitimate science goes through a peer review process by the scientific community to assess its validity. When creation stands up to that, then we'll teach it

Answer 8

Which version of creation would you like to see taught in schools?

Christianity???
Budhism?
Hinduism??
Native Americans theory of the "Great Eagle Spirit"?
Raliens??? (the people who think space aliens created us)

Please, you christians seem to think you have a monopoly on the creation story. Hinduism is 2,000 years older than christianity and they have a creation story too.

The difference in creation and evolution is that every credible, mainstream scientist (regardless of their religious views) agree that evolution is a documented FACT. I know you think "theory" means "wild guess" but in the realm of sceince it has a totally different meaning. You know the one about the earth revolving around the sun???? That's a "theory" too. I urge you to goolge "scientific theory" to learn more.

Answer 9

Creationism is not a science. Just because some men wrote something down about how they thought the world started doesn't make it true. BTW who did Cain and Seth have children by since according to "creation science" the only woman available was Eve, their mother? Does this mean that "creation science" supports incest?

Answer 10

Creationism is not a science it is a superstition. Why waste time that could be spent teaching children something useful rather than something that is just not true. Also, if you decide to teach creationism, whose creation myth are you going to choose?

Answer 11

For one thing, there is no such thing as "Creation Science". Creationism is not science. It is religion disguised as science. It does not even remotely follow the scientific method. Its practitioners have a conclusion before they do any "research" and the results of that "research" MUST agree with the conclusion. That is not science. It's just play-acting.

Let's teach science in our science classes, NOT mythology.