If creationism was taught in science class - how would it be presented?

Question

(Before answering PLEASE read my definition of what a science is. This question (unlike the hundred others posted here) is NOT asking you if you think evolution should be taught in public schools. It is asking you how it could (or couldn't) be taught in a science curriculum)

Science is defined as acquiring knowledge using the scientific method. Scientific method is essentially gathering observable, measurable evidence. Based on this evidence a hypothesis is created. Based on experimentation a theory is reached. A theory comes from the experimental evidence created that proves the hypothesis as true.

Now that we know what science is. Please explain to me why you think (whether you are Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish... I don't care) evolution could (or couldn't) be used in science class. Basically, how would evolution be taught if it can't be measured, dissected, etc... ?

EDIT: I would like to clear up a mistake I made.

The following sentence:
"This question (unlike the hundred others posted here) is NOT asking you if you think evolution should be taught in public schools."

Should say "if you think creationism should be taught." Obviously, creationism in the controversy of being taught in public schools, not evolution. I apologize for any confusion.

pcheesewhiz,

I strongly disagree. There is a reason for why the state has standards in what can be taught in science and what can't. Evolution is selected as a solid theory to teach because of the definition I've provided - therefore it's far from being irrelevant. Although there may be "holes," all theories can be expected to have some problems, but evolution is the only one that goes so far as to meet the standards of the scientific method.

I think I understand "how things work." Scientific consensus (rightfully so) determine what can be taught in science class (as you've said yourself - the vast majority of scientists feel evolution is a valid theory). Therefore, it makes sense that states require those things to be taught in science courses. I'm trying to see how creationists can proclaim creationism as something that can adhere to the scientific method. I think you somewhat misunderstand the reasons for my posting this question

Answer 1

I'm a chemical engineer, very science and math oriented. I'm also very religious.

I don't think creationism can be taught in a science class.

Evolution can be taught due to mutations we can see today. Viruses mutate very rapidly...which is what evolution is.

"creationism" it hink can only be taught in a science class if 1 of 2 situations happened. 1. There is only one religion...everyone agrees on it and the text associated with religion is viewed as factual.
2. is to take aliens into account. If you read 2001 by arthur C clarke......he's the reason why we have satellites......he dones't persay believe in god, but believed in a/many higher being(s). He thinks the evolution process is theoretically able to happen on its own, but thinks some higher life form had to help out.

His books show this with the "monoliths". Evolution happened, but then this "alien" being...which was just a stone....made us take the evolutionary jump.

Unless we have concrete evidence of highe rlife forms....this can't be taught.

I agre with the other response, that said it shoudl be taught in social studies..... we will ...if creatoinism was to be taught....get into the argument of whos creationsim is to be taught.

This beign taught in a social studies course would allow it to cover opposing viewpoints...where science course...not soo much.

In my highschool....it was pretty conservative area....but evolution was taught in history....science never touched it.

One science teacher spoke out against evolution....even though the populace of the area would agree with him........he lost his job.

Answer 2

You don't understand the way things work. Every state has standards by which teachers must abide. When I taught science the school checked my lesson plans every week to make sure I followed the state syllabus.Evolution is on almost every standard in every state in the union. Your definition of science is irrelevant. While there are definitely some "holes" in the fossil record, the majority of scientists feel that there is enough to call evolution a solid theory. Hence it is taught. No I do not think that creationism should be taught. It is not based on science. It is entirely based on the Bible. Even when I taught science in a Catholic school, I was told NOT to teach that in a science class. The kids have to take proficiency tests. Evolution is on almost every proficiency test. There is no way to present creationism as science. Would I teach it if I was allowed to. No, that would be the height of foolishness.

Answer 3

I would love to know why people swallow the theory of evolution and decide that scientists believe it so there must be proof.if there was proof it would no longer be called a theory. It is merely accepted as an alternative to creation. If you want to know about creation vs evolution read any book by Ken Ham. Evolution is scientific in no way that creation is not, and has as direct logical errors. It contradicts the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and yet it is taught in schools. In my opinion many believe this because they assume what they are taught in school to be fact. Creationism and evolution should not be taught, however, in science, but in R.S, alongside the full real science behind the arguement for each.

Answer 4

Yes, it should be taught. But before going into further discussion, it should be established what is the point of teaching creationism? For me the purpose of studying any science or teaching a subject is to see the proof that there is a bigger design behind everything. Every science scratches the surface and tries to figure out things from the visible palpable layer. But what was invisible yesterday, becomes measurable and visible to science today. So, the great scientist is the one who is able to keep his mind open, the one who realizes that there is more to life than he can measure, dissect, etc. Einstein, (and no one can dispute his greatness in science) has always been a religious man and felt that science and religion should not exist separately from each other. He also said: “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.” (http://www.heartquotes.net/ Einstein.html)
Einstein had a sense that there was some bigger design behind everything and his mind was in the right mode; that’s how he was able to make such great discoveries. Religion by itself is actually quite scientific; it’s the same science, only from inside out. (it has really been butchered and distorted by shallow worship, though)
Having said that, the evolution should serve as another example or demonstration of the way certain laws and mechanisms work, how the Nature operates. The glimpses of these mechanisms can be seen through scientific discoveries and currently established sciences.
Evolution can be taught in the science class, but there is more to creation than that. However, since science has only that part figured out, only that part has to be taught. All we can do is humbly present the facts and evidence that were gathered so far. If the students’ minds are put in the right mode, they will develop their own theories and hypotheses based on the raw data after seeing certain cause and effects relationships.
Not all the sciences are based on the material that can be dissected or have measurable evidence. Some are based purely on observation (like astronomy) because there are things that are too far away from us in space or time to get them dissected.
So, when teaching any subject in science class, in order to decide HOW to present it, you should first of all have a right reason or purpose why you want to teach that subject. To me that purpose is to show a person that he is a part of the whole and ignite him to discover the great mechanisms and principles of creation, how they apply to him, and find his place in it.
The evolution shows how nature by trial and error has been figuring out which organism would be able to survive, adapt, and exist comfortably on this planet. There is enough data gathered on evolution to have a use for it. The evolution can be used as demonstrator of the cause and effect links; and since everything can be projected upon everything, people based on that knowledge would be able to draw parallels with other aspects of life and areas in science.

Answer 5

Peace!
To answer your question, I have to give you the doctrine of the Catholic Church on the subject.
The Catholic Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man's body developed from previous biological forms under God's guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.
The theory of evolution is being taught in Catholic schools with this doctrine in mind.

Answer 6

Theories are also discussed in science classes. I have no problem with a scientific THEORY being discussed as long as it is EXPLAINED as a THEORY. Most science teachers today do not understand the difference in a theory and a LAW. I believe that in such a class both Creationism and Evolution could easily be presented without making any reference to GOD or ALLAH. This would be most comfortable to everyone that I know. It should appease everyone. Have a great day.
Eds

Answer 7

Evolution can be taught in science class (according to your definition of science). There is a mountain of evidence that supports evolution, especially in the fossil record. In addition, scientists have demonstrated evolution to occur in very rapidly reproducing organisms (certain strains of bacteria and their evolution into multi drug resistant strains)

Creationism does not have this evidence to support it, and creationism does not have testable hypotheses with which to work scientifically.

The proper use of objective, verifiable, validatable evidence is the cornerstone of scientific inquiry.

Answer 8

I think it should be taught in social studies personally, along with other religous traditions. I think it's really important to understand religions because they affect culture so much. It's important people know what Christians think, but at the same time it's no more scientific than any other creation story.

Answer 9

If a public school actually attempted to even address the issue of Creationism they would do it so poorly and so inaccurately that they would do more harm to the students than good.

Creationism shouldn't be taught in public schools, let the church and the parents handle it.

Answer 10

you mean to say that you wish confine the infallable Word of the Living God inside the paramaters of fallable human science?
what foolishness.
you have absolutely no concept of how great God is, do you.
.....swish....
right over your head.....