If Creationism were taught in the classroom as an alternative to evolution, how would students be graded if -

Question

they didn't believe in creationism even after "learning" about it?Obviously if creationism ever would be taught it would be based on the Abrahamic religions.How would students be graded if they had other beliefs about creation that were not Abrahamic?Would students be allowed to sit out and not lose their grade averages if they were part of a non Abrahamic religion?What would stop teachers from abusing their ability to teach their pesonal beliefs to students who don't want to learn about religion or beliefs that do not coincide with their own?How is creationism even considered education?Part of learning is knowing that what we learn is open to new ideas and is generally supported with evidence.Creationism is not open to or supported with either.

Answer 1

I wouldn't mind if creationism was one of the topics discuss in a philosophy course, but creationism shouldn't be taught as an alternative to evolution because creationism is not scientific. It's not based on any collected data or experiments. And, as you mentioned, academically grading it would be a nightmare. If you want to learn about creationism, go to church. Science class should deal with scientific information.

Answer 2

There is a long process before a new Science subject can be taught in Schools. As the Trial in 2005 Dover Pennsylvania showed , creationism is about as far from science as God is from man ... infinity minus 1 . Dr Dino , Kent Hovind , has some entertaining lectures on Creationism I could see much of his ideas being taught in creationist syllabus. You would need to cover all the same areas ... palaeontology , geology , biology , chemistry , cosmology etc , but you would teach them from a different point of view and give evidence that a Creator had a hand in things. A few Examples that might be taught: The idea of intelligent design or irreducible complexity is the key to the creationist argument , that is to say there is something out there that cannot be reduced to a more simplistic form and thus must have been made ‘ as is ‘ , the tail of the flagellum was offered as such an item that must have been created. When you dig up a fossil there is no Bar coded date stamp on it and carbon dating only works well over only over 50,000 years and that assumes there was the same amount of carbon 50,000 years ago as there is today. You would have to teach that the world was a completely different environment when it was just created and that accounts for the apparent age of dinosaur fossils . When it comes to the cosmological topic you would probably have to teach things like the fact the sun is losing mass and if you added back all the mass the sun lost over the past 4.5 billion years . The sun would be too massive to produce our solar system the way it is. So it must have been Created ‘as is’ or recently created. You would have to teach that the chemistry and the structure of atoms and molecules was created that way otherwise the universe would fall apart. Who decided that an electron should spin around an atom at just the right speed to keep the atom intacted ? You could teach that the probability of things being just the way they are to improbably to happen just by using natural laws – they must have had a guiding force. Needless to say, none of the examples I gave stood up in court ! Creationism simply is not science , unless like Mr Hovind , you redefine the English word ' Science ' ;)

Answer 3

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I am familiar with the theory of evolution, I just don't agree with all of it. If the theory of creation is taught as theory, what would be the difference? Obviously, you have some understanding of creation but don't agree, right? Could you still pass a simple test on it? Probably so.

Answer 4

The evolutionary RECORD is FACT.

The evolutionary METHOD is THEORY.

Creationism is BELIEF, not THEORY.

Labeling creationism a THEORY doesn't make it one.

To be a true THEORY, there must be enough FACTS for scientists and lay people to evaluate the STORY and decide if it is likely to be TRUE. Creationism has NO FACTS. There is NOT ONE verifiable FACT in the entire Creationist belief system. Therefore it is not a THEORY and should not be taught in schools, except in mythology class.

Answer 5

Any academic subject has to have a logical structure to it. You read the literature, analyze it, reconstruct the basic ideas and argue about the meanings. Literature, mythology, economics, philosophy all have source materials or "facts" that can't be disputed. They also have proponents with conflicting views. You don't have to believe in Hegel's philosophy to understand it. You don't have to agree that Shakespeare wrote all his plays to know what happens in Act III, scene ii of Hamlet.

So a creationism class would have basic texts to be learned and interpretations to be compared and contrasted, all without the necessity of belief. As long as the credit hours applied, and as long as that fourth period English class ("Tolkien's Mythology") is full, you should go for the easy A.

Answer 6

many children are taught and graded on the theory of evolution even if they disagree with it.

Creationism isn't and shouldn't be taught because it has no relevance to Science, and evolution should only be taught as a theory since no one person knows for sure, they weren't there to wittiness it, so they cant be 100% sure.

If a religion has a theory and has scientific evidence to back up the claim, I see no reason for it not to be taught in school. Its either all or none.

Answer 7

Creationism isn't an alternative any more than it is science.

Answer 8

Plus, how would the Flying Spaghetti Monster section on the SAT look?

Answer 9

Creationism doesnt fit into any school subject, so it shouldnt be taught.

Answer 10

it's funny to consider that some people actually think their beliefs have anything to do with truth. like saying, i don't believe in evolution, so it must not be true.