Wouldn't it be silly to teach creationism in Science class in public schools?

Question

Those who object to the teaching of evolution feel that it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible, and want students to be taught "all of the theories" of how the world started, am I right?
Well, creationism isn't a theory that is backed up with any scientific facts, but let's throw them a bone and put it on par with evolution. What about Hindu creation myths? Native American creation myths? The ancient Greek tale of the titans?

Answer 1

Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes. What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts (they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light). And we want intelligent design to at least to be presented. Unlike leprechauns and a flat earth, etc., a significant percentage of the (tax paying) population believes in ID.

So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every "creation" story, even aliens seeding life on this planet.

Here is a brief overview of the scientific case for ID: http://www.arn.org/docs/positivecasefordesign.pdf

And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

Answer 2

It would be more than silly. Creationism isn't science but religion and intelligent design is just creationism wrapped in a pseudo scientific jacket. If these people get their way the US will fall behind in regards to scientific knowledge which in the long run will also negatively influence the American economy in this global market.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

Answer 3

Good point. However, there is nothing silly about the effort to insinuate creationism into our public schools.

You came close to the real issue. All religions have creation stories. What the religious right seeks is not "teaching all theories " (leaving asid the fact that they don't even know what the term 'theory' actually means) but the teaching of THEIR religious beliefs in our public schools. Nor do they make any secret of their motives or their goals. They openley openly espouse the introductionn of a government based on their religious beliefs--"creationism" is merely a way to indoctrinate young people into their belief system, using the power of the state to do so.

That is unconstitutional--a direct and clear volation of the First Ammendment. Let's be clear about this: teachers who teach "creationism" (or its alter ego, Intelligent Design) are breaking the law. They are not exercising academic freedom, they are not "presententing all sides." They are criminals and should be treated as criminals.

Answer 4

Science should be taught in science class. Religion can be taught in the "about Religion" class.

And for American (like you have a corner on that market): Public schools are the cornerstone of the United States Democratic Republic. An educated electorate is necessary for it to work.

Answer 5

You people are probably to young to remember that many of the scientific advancements were made by people with religious backgrounds and beliefs. Most were educated in schools where prayer was encouraged and Bibles were required.

Schools that only teach the "THEORY of evolution" are only doing their students a disservice. They are presenting evolution as fact, when it hasn't been proven. So they are asking students to believe in something unproven. Does that make "evolution" a religion? People who believe in evolution to the exclusion of any other explanation sound like fanatics.

Answer 6

I have no objection to various cultures' creation stories being taught so long as they are taugh in as Social Studies or Intro to World Religions or even including some Bible stories as literature or history or poetry or something. However, I do object to Bible stories being taught as literal truth or as Science.

Answer 7

At first I agreed with "intelligent design" being discussed as a sidebar to Darwin.

But then the right-wingers got greedy and turned it into more of the same...

If certain christians hadn't hijacked "ID" and made it all about the Bible, there wouldn't be a problem.

Talk about being given an inch...

Answer 8

It would be very silly. Creationism isn't a scientific theory as it doesn't submit itself to the scientific process. Creationism would be better for a philosophy or theology class. As would your other examples.

Answer 9

Creationism/ID isn't a theory. It is non-falsifiable hypothesis, which precludes it from being a theory.

Creationism (and ID) are based on religion, and therefore should be part of a mythological/religious curriculum. They have no basis in science and should not be part of a science curriculum.

~X~

Answer 10

Not only silly but incorrect to put in science classes. Creationism isn't scientific. So it doesn't belong in a science class. That's like putting Welding in Civics&Economics.