It's only fair to teach creationism in science class????

Question

I don't see it as fair at all. All other scientific theories have to be peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal before it can be taught in a classroom. Every other scientific theory has to win a scientific consensus if it is to be taught in a classroom. What creationists are saying is that their theory should be able to skip all that and go straight to the classroom without undergoing any peer review, and without having to win a scientific consensus. How is fair that every other scientific theory has to fight its way into the classroom but your theory doesn't??? How is that fair????

Answer 1

Creationism is not science, of course, and fairness is most certainly not the creationists' goal. They're simply trying to censor science when science conflicts with their false religious beliefs. They'll tell you otherwise, and even claim that it's the scientists who are attempting censorship: they're lying, of course. You cannot find a single example of scientists trying to force churches to stop teaching creationism.

Furthermore, the creationists' own rhetoric about evolution makes it utterly clear that if they had the choice between having both creationism and evolution taught in the schools or having nothing but creationism taught, they'd take the latter.

Creationism is about censorship of science.

Answer 2

When students come into a classroom, they bring thier lives with them - and that includes students who have been taught outside that evolution is bunk and creation (or "intelligent design") is truth. And usually, students are aggressive about defending their beliefs.

So the problem of religious stories about origins of the Universe, the world, whatever, is that of recognizing the elephant in the room. To refuse to see that elephant is not only a disservice to the students, but also puts teachers at risk of losing the confidence of students who dare bring the subject up.

Diplomacy, tact, and absolute preparation are called for. While I agree that addressing creation as proclaimed by Christians or any other religion as a serious subject component of a science class is absolutely inappropriate, I do not agree that the topic can be ignored or dismissed as "not science."

Perhaps the most skillful thinker on this subject is the late Steven Jay Gould, who built much of his career on gently correcting or answering those who attacked evolution science (and yes, it is "science," not mere "theory"). Where in a debate I am a bulldog, Gould is ever the respectful gentleman. His materials are almost a mandatory element in the preparation of any science teacher when dealing with this subject area.

"Creationism" is, of course, like any other "-ism," an ideology. It is not a scientific principle or system of experiment and evaluation. It is part of a desperate battle by religious believers to resurrect their dying faith and impose orthodox "right thinking" on all regardless of what others believe. But addressing their perspectives is yet a necessity and an obligation. If done effectively, the pushy religious folk are going to discover they have handed the world a means of replacing superstitious gabble with clear thought and proven science.

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

You are absolutely right. The push for having creationism taught side by side with evolution in the classroom (teach the debate, as I hear it put often) is just a way for creationists to circumvent the actual scientific rationale for having a theory at all. And since they can't win the approval of the scientific community for their cause, they revert to political means, most of which have failed (so far).

Edit: to Alan above me--That's not a bad idea, but I don't know if it will help. When it comes up in my classroom, I try to get my students to give me scientific evidence that backs up their claims, and they usually can't or aren't interested enough to "take it to that next level" (where they have to do their own research as to why creation is "better" than evolution).

Answer 5

I think the scientific consensus should decide what get taught in science class not general public opinion. Otherwise we might as well just throw our hands in the air and star teaching astrology, crystal ball gazing, and big foot ecology in science.

Answer 6

Right on.Creationism/design is just a well funded propaganda machine.Their only interest is to divide and conquer.They said so themselves in the wedge document.It's amazing how much money is wasted on pseudo science and how little is donated to real science.We will continue to slide as long as creationism/intelligent design steals money from the masses. The polonium halo argument is worthless.Nice try though.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html And Dr. dino.now you've just made a fool of yourself.Your hero Dr. dino isn't really even a doctor.Dr. Dino is in jail because he's a crook,plain and simple.Just go to you tube and see all you need to about Dr Dino.Or here's a few links below.>>>>>>>>>>EDIT:here's a bit of a rebuttal to "the ID supporter" copy and paste that he keeps recycling http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ah01jVtJ8R3RhuAcoU3omqzsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071127162020AAEH91F&show=7#profile-info-AnHvUOpNaa

Answer 7

I think it is fair to acknowledge the prevailing religions views on certain things, such as creationism, but look at it as what it is, i.e. theology (i.e. a natural event which is made out to be supernatural) and then look at other religion's theologies.

Still teach evolution obviously, but not as an alternative to creationism, as the only possible way.

Answer 8

It's not fair, if you teach Creationism, you must also teach the story as told by Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, get my point? There's one major accepted theory in science, and several 100's in the topic of religion.

Answer 9

I am a 100% believe in Evolution and a 100% disbeliever in Creationism.

Nonetheless, I think that Creationism should be taught in science classes to show exactly why it IS NOT good science. They should also teach about the absurdity of UFO's, Paranormal, Healing Touch, Fortune Telling, and Astrology to name a few.

This will teach children what science is and what it isn't.

Answer 10

You want to talk about fair? Okay. Robert Gentry and his evidence about Plutonium Halo's that granite was formed INSTANTLY has been censored and banished in the Scientific community because he will not "go with the program" and worship the sacred cow of evolution. What is unfair is the Scientific "peers" you are talking about ......backed by thousands and sometimes millions of dollars from people who want to Get rid of God and the sin accountability that goes with it........support only Scientists who chant the mantra "there is no God there is no God"

Most of society believes in Creation Science in Many Countries, such as America. What is unfair is a few elitist proud and Rich people get to run to the show. For now. Until Jesus comes back and sets things straight. Hope they are having fun because they like Vapor will pass away. The word of God abides forever. Maybe you should visit www.drdino.com or some other God Believing Scientific sites and open your mind a bit.