need lots of opinions!!!?

Question

in the supreme court case eduards vs. aguillard the question comes up of should teachers teach about god's creation or evolution or is it right to teach both. supreme court ruled yes they can. whats your opinion is it right or wrong. if you dont fully understand go ahead and e mail me

Answer 1

It is only a matter of time this issue will die forever. Religion is a personal matter and should not be taught in schools. The only reason why religions don't want evolution to be the only thing taught in school is children come home and start asking parents questions they can't answer about evolution.

Creationism is not a science. Evolution is a study of how life evolves on this planet. Even if you could prove the existence of a God there is still evolution after creation.

Religion is static and directly impedes man from discovering truth of his history. Religion even gets in the way of man discovering the future. All religions have died and it will be know different for all the religion in the world today.

Answer 2

I think that if people are going to say that we should teach only the Theory of Evolution because it's science, then we should make them stick to their word. If that's the case, then they should be willing to do the following:
1) expose Haeckel's drawings for the fakes that they are;
2) dismiss Stanley Miller's experiment for using an unrealistic atmosphere (and disclose that when the experiment is repeated using a more realistic atmosphere, the "organic chemicals" produced are formaldehyde and cyanide);
3) admit that the sudden appearance of most of the major phyla that are alive today in the Cambrian explosion are a virtual death knell for Darwin's tree of life;
4) tell all the facts about the alleged missing links, such as "Java man consists of nothing more than a skullcap, a femur (thighbone), three teeth, and a great deal of imagination".

If the evidence for the Theory of Evolution is as so overwhelming as some make it out to be, then why should some be so scared to have it compared side by side with intelligent design?

Answer 3

The 1987 United States Supreme Court decision STRUCK DOWN down a Louisiana law that required if evolution is taught in public schools then creationism must also be taught. This 7-2 decision ended any prospect of public schools in the United States being legally forced to teach explicate creationism. One consequence of this case was that some antievolutionists choose to use the term "intelligent design" instead of "creationism. Get your facts straight.

Answer 4

I was unaware that public schools should be teaching myth. Just because Christianity is America's most popular cult, does not make it right in any way. Amazing that here in the year 2007, we are having this discussion. Take a historical study of Christianity at any secular university -- the answers are out there, they're just not digestible in sit-com form and length.

America makes fun of those wacky Scientologists. Rather hypocritical considering the incredible wackiness of Christianity. But, I guess, since it's been around for so long, the myth isn't as shocking as Tom Cruise's alien invasion.

No, we should not be teaching the creation myth.

Answer 5

In a real Science class, you cannot teach "Creationism" b/c since God cannot be scientifically proven to exist, He cannot be given scientific credit as Creator...

However, in a Religious Studies class, this topic of God as Creator could be approached.

Even though some people focus on the fact that "Evolution isn't 100% set-in-stone fact", the evidence exhibited by fossil records and by comparing genetic makeup does support the theory of evolution...we just don't know exactly HOW it occurred. Evolution doesn't necessarily attempt to point to a "starting point of Creation"; it simply explains how life here on Earth branched out in complexity. So Evolution focuses on the Process, not the Initiator.

On the other side, Creationism focuses on the Initiator (i.e. God), instead of the Process. God created everything, end of story...but we know that WASN'T the END of the story!!

So, neither "theory" is complete; Creationism tries to pinpoint who/what STARTED Life, while Evolution tries to explain HOW Life has changed over the millions and millions of years that this planet has existed. IMO, both theories have importance for us as Humans, and we should try to focus on an incorporation of the two...as I've said before, not everything is "black or white"...some things are grey :)

Peace.

Answer 6

I think your premise is wrong.

This ruling slapped down a act that attempted to require creationism to be taught alongside evolution.


From the ruling:

1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. Pp. 585-594.

(a) The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom." It does not enhance the freedom of teachers to teach what they choose and fails to further the goal of "teaching all of the evidence." Forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education. Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. Furthermore, the contention that the Act furthers a "basic concept of fairness" by requiring the teaching of all of the evidence on the subject is without merit. Indeed, the Act evinces a discriminatory preference for the teaching of creation science and against the teaching of evolution by requiring that curriculum guides be developed and resource services supplied for teaching creationism but not for teaching evolution, by limiting membership on the resource services panel to "creation scientists," and by forbidding school boards to discriminate against anyone who "chooses to be a creation-scientist" or to teach creation science, while failing to protect those who choose to teach other theories or who refuse to teach creation science. A law intended to maximize the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction would encourage the teaching of all scientific theories about human origins. Instead, this Act has the distinctly different purpose of discrediting evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism. Pp. 586-589.

(b) The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act's primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment. Pp. 589-594. 2. The District Court did not err in granting summary judgment upon a finding that appellants had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Appellants relied on the "uncontroverted" affidavits of scientists, theologians, and an education administrator defining creation science as "origin through abrupt appearance in complex form" and alleging that such a viewpoint constitutes a true scientific theory. The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that the postenactment testimony of these experts concerning the possible technical meanings of the Act's terms would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the state legislature when it passed the Act. None of the persons making the affidavits produced by appellants participated in or contributed to the enactment of the law. Pp. 594-596.

Answer 7

Why is the bible not presented in schools? The creation account could only be presented by people who understand the entirity of God's will for mankind.
Since the introduction of evolutionary theory ( 1912 the earliest it being introduced, am i wrong ?), there has been a huge question mark where once was god's place.
I think it is wrong to teach evolutionary theory which is less than 200 years old and not a theory which explains the origins our species.
Genesis 2 v 7. Revelation 2 v 7-9.

Answer 8

Evolution only. The teaching of creation and of any religion have no place in public schools. I would take a very dim view of any child of mine being taught creationism.

If people want that then there are the relevant private schools,or home tuition.

Answer 9

I think they both need to be taught. If they are not, then how is a child going to grow into and adult who can make an educated decision. I personally think they should teach about ALL the different religions. Comparative Religion Class is what they call it in high school here. I think it is a marvelous idea.

Answer 10

Neither should be taught

Evoution is only a theory

and Creation is usually a religious perspective



Religion is not to be taught in school (atleast in America) and teaching a theory without giving other choices shouldn't be taught either.

If evolution is to continue to be taught then there should Creation should be taught only on the basis of having an alternative to choose from.