If creatonism or inteligent design are taught in schools along evolution, woudlnt that just obliterate ID?

Question

I think if anything, teaching both would only make more people believe in evolution than before

I think alchemy is a great way to introduce to people how early chemistry got it's start and what makes chemistry a science.

Answer 1

no, because it would be lending credibility to it when the kid says:

"gee mom, guess what we learned in science class today?"

"we learned that because a 2000 year old book says so we were created by a magical bieng"

It would be sound justification for a student to answer questions on thier science test with theories from star treck or star wars or some other sci-fi thing.

Answer 2

If it were done right it would.

In my high school biology class, we actually spent a couple lessons staging three-sided debates between:

Creationism
Darwinian Evolution
Lamarckian Evolution

To make it fair, the debaters could only use facts that were known in Darwin's time. The result was actually a pretty decent discussion. Of course when you add the mountains of evidence that have piled up since then, creationism and Lamarck get wiped out (and to be fair, Darwin's theory needs to be touched up a bit).

As some of the other posters pointed out, though, I have no confidence that it would be done well. There is no viable scientific creationist theory today, so there isn't really anything to teach unless you are just blowing smoke (which is about all you see from the anti-evolution fundamentalists today).

Answer 3

You are confused as are many folks. ID is a scientific theory proposed by Albert Einstein over 50 years ago. It is not creationist theory, neither is it evolution. Just an idea he had to explain what he saw in nature that could not be explained scientifically. ID has recently gained popularity among some in scientific circles and has caught the attention of a few in the creationist camp. Creationist think it is a good step in the right direction but is far short of creation. Some scientist like it, others scoff at it. If all three were taught in schools, evolution would dwindle away.

Answer 4

For me Creationism, it does state that there is a God but it finds the things wrong with evolution. I have no problem with the teaching of evolution. The only problem I have is them saying it's science, and the evidence shows it's fact. Science must be observable, repeatable and draw a definite conclusion. Evolution doesn't do this. You can teach it but you should treat it as a religion because you have to have faith to believe evolution and in God.

Answer 5

No, I think if both were taught side-by-side, people would believe in creation more, because creation has more facts and logic to back it up than 200 years of frauds, lies and hoaxes.
A Creationist and an evolutionist recently gave a debate at a large American University in front of a large crowd of typical college students, most of whom were trained to believe evolution. By the time the debate was over, the creationist was receiving a standing ovation by most of the audience, with about 3 people politely clapping for the evolutionist. This is exactly why evolutionists refuse to debate creationists. They know they will lose the debate.

Answer 6

No, it wouldnt.

You have to keep in mind what kind of person is going to be teaching evolution. If it was an educated scientist type then fine, more likely though he'll say both are theories and pretend one is based on random chance and one is design.

If that was true we'd give design some consideration but its simply NOT true.

Answer 7

technology is approximately uncovering the certainty faith is approximately protecting up the certainty They prepare it each and all the time. "god created the heaven and the earth". this is all creationism/ clever layout is. that is purely an worry-free way out of a no longer worry-free question. to surely think of that some scientists think of that somethings are so complicated that we will not ever parent them out. What if Newton mentioned that gravity is so complicated that we could continually merely settle for that it replaced into created and not seem into it. Or if Maxwell mentioned "god mentioned there replaced into mild and so it replaced into" and he desperate to no longer pursue it any extra. it rather is merely the lazy guy's way out of a no longer worry-free question. No we are in all probability no longer likely to be certain each and all the solutions superb now. yet whilst we proceed to make infant steps we can proceed to get closer and closer to all truths.

Answer 8

Then why not teach alternatives to proper English?
Or teach Alchemy instead of Chemistry?

Answer 9

This is defeinitely true for straight biblical creationism.

ID on the other hand, makes no falsifiable hypothesis so if it were presented as science (without an examination of its scientific underpinning) it would fool more than a few people.

Answer 10

The christian kids already tell my kids that they are going to hell for not believing in their version of the religious popular fantasy.

I think that would make it even worse.

Love and blessings Don