If you are open minded, why not allow creation to be taught as a possible theory?

Question

I have to ask even though this may seem offensive.

People complain that Christians are closed minded, but at the same time, these same people refuse to allow Creationism to be taught as a possible theory. If we are trying to teach students critical thinking skills, why not teach any theories that are widely considered as possible theories and then allow the students to decide for themselves.

After all, isn't that what you would want a person to do about choosing a religion?

Here's my point of this question - I see quite often that Christians are considered on this board as closed minded, but here is an example where we want more theories taught. Why should we keep this theory out of the hands of students. After all, evolution is only a theory as well (no one was actually there to prove evolution, but according to creation theory, there was someone there to prove it existed).

Answer 1

If it were based on science I would be open to it. Creationism or Intelligent Design however, doesn't work on the same principles or utilize the scientific method. It simply says this is what we believe and then tries to poke holes in evolution theory in order to say that what they believe may still be true evolutionary theory notwithstanding.

Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. In the hearing, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called empirical science). Intelligent design proponents seek to change this definition by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "theistic realism", and what critics call "methodological supernaturalism," which means belief in a transcendent, nonnatural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, nonnatural deity. Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe.

If you let in creationism/ID you would have to call all other creation myths as likely as well, astrology, and magical alchemy would now qualify as science as well. It would mean degrading the whole standard and system of knowledge.

I don't mind creationism/ID in religion or philosophy class though.

Answer 2

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory".

The problem with Creationism, is that it is all to easily disproven. It's time-scale is much too small. Just the observation that light is getting to us from 13 billion years ago negates Creationist tenets. Not to mention countless other examples from many different disciplines of science.

Unlike Evolution, it can make no testable predictions. Evolution has predicted that we find a number of different type fossils, making clear statements as to the type and kind; a good many have been shown to be true. It also makes predictions that organisms will continue to evolve. Bacteria and viruses have shown that to be true (HIV didn't exist prior to the very early 1900's, but mutated into a new species (HIV) from SIV, presumably through contact of hunters butchering monkeys for their meat).

Answer 3

While I'm sympathetic to your sentiment, this has problems and several implications that you should be aware of. The major problem is that there is no evidence that would suggest that creation happened as opposed to evolution which has overwhelming evidence.

The implication of teaching Creation is that you would also have to teach the Native American, Egyptian, Norse, Greek, Celtic, etc Creation stories/theories all of which have the same amount of proof as the Judeo-Christian one. Now, teaching these Creation stories as part of a culture class might be a reasonable thing to do, but not as a science class which demands that there be at least some proof.

Answer 4

Because creationism (I assume you mean fundamentalist creationism, Earth being 6000 years old and all that) is no more plausible than the idea that the sun revolves around Earth, and has no more business being taught in our schools than does the idea that Zeus was responsible for our planet's creation.

Now I think about it, I suppose teaching creationism in the same way we teach ancient mythology wouldn't be such a bad idea. Just so long as the students realize how ridiculous the whole thing is.

And, fortunately, there are a great many people around to prove the fact of evolution, seeing as it's happening as we speak. I think you've mistaken the fact of evolution to be an explanation for the arrival of life on Earth, and this simply is not true. Evolution simply explains how such a large number of species came from just a few.

Answer 5

Well that would be Theology class. And you are right. If they taught it as an elective for those who wanted to learn about religion or the creation theory it would be fine. But the problem lies in the fact that people want it to be taught in the place of proven facts about science. And that's wrong. So yea, a religious class would be fine for those who would like to take it.

Answer 6

First of all no offense taken. I find being a Christian and being closed minded to a "theory" a compliment! Many religions are closed minded due to belief and faith! And as far as the evolution theory, thats all it will ever be is a theory. There are no facts, too many holes in the growth from ape to human! I don't mind them teaching my kids the creation theory, but you got to realize that it is a theory, why teach our kids a theory? Aren't they in school to learn the facts? Besides, God is the creator! That is the way Christians see it. And to doubt God or that he is the creator would be against God.

Answer 7

This "THEORY" is only founded in "BELIEF", and is not supported by any scientific facts. It's a good story but thats' all it is, a fictional story contrived by men. That is why we as citizens cannot and should not allow this fiction to be presented in public schools, in any way to be the truth. However, if you can proove the validity of your argument, and be able to support your position with verifiable facts, then at that point you might have a reason to present your theory.

Answer 8

creationism is better relegated to religious studies as it's proponents offer it as fact and not a theory. evolution is a theory but, bear in mind that it does not discount a creating god. the evidence of life developing through an "evolutionary" process is
fairly overwhelming. you question is NOT offensive.

Answer 9

Hi, this is Chad at the Crisis Center. We appreciate your call. We here at the center believe that as long as creationalism or any other theory is presented as a therory and a therory only, then we will be off on the right foot. Thankyou for calling and have a nice day.

Answer 10

There is no scientific basis for teaching creationism. And if you really want your kid to learn it be a good parent and take them to church so they can learn about it in sunday school and talk to them about it. If someone is not ok with their kid learning about something with no basis in fact then I think that's fine- if you want your kid to then go ahead and do it in your own time. Do you also think we should teach them every single creation myth as a possible theory?? I think that would take too much time and I think they could learn something useful during that time you know like math or science or art.