Should Creationism be taught in classrooms?

Post by **otseng** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:41 pm

Should Creationism be taught in classrooms (as science)?
More specifically, should it be taught in public schools?
If so, how should it be taught as a science?

perfessor · Post by **perfessor** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 2:51 pm

Jose wrote:I'd hate to single out a particular religion for such a test, since the results might not support it, with the result that science classes would be viewed as actively turning students away from that religion. That would be worse than not mentioning it.

I think this point touches on the crux of the issue. Far be it for me to offer advice to the sincere and committed Christians out there, but here goes: I think you are shooting yourselves in the foot by focussing on the material aspects of the Christian heritage, rather than the spiritual. To clarify: the ideas of God's love, redemption, eternal life - these are the spiritual aspects around which Christians have built their theology. Questions about when the earth was created, or why a particular species came to have a certain feature - these are material questions, dealing with the material world. These are questions that science can answer best. When you try to highlight the material aspects at the expense of the spiritual, you detract from your (presumably) true message, and hurt your credibility.

Note that science does not try to determine the truth or otherwise of spiritual ideas.

dangerdan · Post by **dangerdan** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:19 am

The proposal of teaching creation in the classroom is simply an instantiation of the proposal by Chamberlin. In terms of having a hypothesis of life origins, there is really only two, evolution and creation. And teaching both would fulfill having multiple working hypotheses.

Sure, but first you’ll have to convince…well…almost the entire scientific community that evolution is wrong, and creationism is a far more rational, demonstrable, and credible theory. Seems kind of odd to be teaching creationism (as a credible alternative) in a science class if no expert scientists in the field think it’s credible. Because as it stands, encyclopedias like Encarta write –

While On the Origin of Species was an instant sensation and best-seller, Darwin’s theories faced hostile reception by critics who railed against his blasphemous ideas. Other critics pointed to questions left unresolved by Darwin’s careful arguments. For instance, Darwin could not explain the mechanism that caused life forms to change from generation to generation.

Hostility gave way to acclaim as scientists vigorously debated, explored, and built on Darwin’s theory of natural selection. As the 20th century unfolded, scientific advances revealed the detailed mechanisms missing from Darwin’s theory. Study of the complex chemistry of all organisms unveiled the structure of genes as well as how they are duplicated, altered, and passed from generation to generation. New statistical methods helped explain how genes in specific populations change over generations. These new methods provided insight into how populations remain adaptable to changing environmental circumstances and broadened our understanding of the genetic structure of populations. Advances in techniques used to determine the age of fossils provided clues about when extinct organisms existed and details about the circumstances surrounding their extinction. And new molecular biology techniques compare the genetic structures of different species, enabling scientists to determine heretofore undetectable evolutionary relationships between species. Today, evolution is recognized as the cornerstone of modern biology. Uniting such diverse scientific fields as cell biology, genetics, paleontology, and even geology and statistics, the study of evolution reveals an exquisitely complex interaction of the forces that act upon every life form on Earth.

The article that that was taken from is here –

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761 ... ution.html

…which is just the basic overview on evolution. Interesting reading, if anyone is interested in the subject. Though I suppose the authors and editors at Encarta could merely be indoctrinated…

Post by **otseng** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:27 am

dangerdan wrote:
Sure, but first you’ll have to convince…well…almost the entire scientific community that evolution is wrong, and creationism is a far more rational, demonstrable, and credible theory. Seems kind of odd to be teaching creationism (as a credible alternative) in a science class if no expert scientists in the field think it’s credible.

Well, one leading mind has been converted. So, we're making progress.

I think the only thing I can do is show here on this forum how creationism is far more tenable than the theory of evolution. If it cannot even stand up here, then there's no way it can stand up in the scientific community.

Also, it is incorrect to state that "no expert scientists in the field think it’s credible". I would agree though that it is not a large number, but it is certainly more than zero.

dangerdan · Post by **dangerdan** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:35 pm

Also, it is incorrect to state that "no expert scientists in the field think it’s credible". I would agree though that it is not a large number, but it is certainly more than zero.

Perhaps you could cite some examples of world leading biologists / paleontologists / etc that think “creationism” is a credible theory?

Post by **otseng** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:00 am

dangerdan wrote: Perhaps you could cite some examples of world leading biologists / paleontologists / etc that think “creationism” is a credible theory?

I have created a thread to discuss this - Are there any scientists that believe in Creationism/ID?

Max Byzantium · Post by **Max Byzantium** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:54 pm

Without hesistation Evolution should be the guiding light in science classrooms. Certainly in all biology related courses.

To be sure no teacher wants to get into a shoot out at the OK Corral with some parent who believes talk of Neandrathals, Lucy and Natural Selection is evil, and the last sign before the coming Apocalypse....

But Creationism is NOT a science. I am not excluding that God was behind the Big Bang....but for purposes of general educatin. Evolution should be introduced. Not Genesis. Courses in comparative religion and philosophy still allow the student to reach out to God.

I hope I am not out of line with my views.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:26 pm

Thanks, Max B, and welcome to the discussion! Us old geezers appreciate the large font size, but it's kinda like speaking extra loud for those who have yet to experience the joys of presbyopia.

Are you out of line with your views? I'd guess, from looking back through the thread, that you fit pretty well into one of the two lines that we have formed--those who think we should teach science, vs those who think science should include the creation stories that they have learned as True. I fall into the former group, so I can't say what the latter group actually experience when they think about this, but I'm guessing that it's something like "but why can't we teach what's actually true in science classes?" It's interesting to think about it from that viewpoint.

svd4ever · Post by **svd4ever** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:22 pm

I agree that in a science class you are to teach science not religion. However, whenever the subject of evolution comes about, creation must be addressed as another alternative. Keep in mind that the evolution theory does not address creation but simply evolving species - this is common misunderstanding of evolution. Of course, it begs the question for how the world was created but does not provide a solution.

Always remember that evolution still remains as a theory and has never been able to be recreated even in a controlled environment. The scientists' solution to this problem is "chance" or something out of nothing, which is not scientific, at least not much more than creation by intelligent design - God.

Not providing the alternative solution, creation by intelligent design, would be a narrow minded as non-believers would say. You can also you use the argument that teaching evolution is in a way another religion/belief - atheism.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:55 pm

svd4ever wrote:I agree that in a science class you are to teach science not religion. However, whenever the subject of evolution comes about, creation must be addressed as another alternative. Keep in mind that the evolution theory does not address creation but simply evolving species - this is common misunderstanding of evolution.

That would mean creationism is not really an alternative, since they cover different areas.

Of course, it begs the question for how the world was created but does not provide a solution.

Why must we? I think we should only provide solutions that we are reasonably confident about. Because we have no definite solutions, only hypotheses, we should probably not be in a rush to add anything to high school curriculums.

Always remember that evolution still remains as a theory...

A theory in scientific terms means that it is the explanation about which we have the most confidence. Think, for example, about Einstein's Theory of Relativity, tectonic plate theory, or any other number of theories we take for granted.

...and has never been able to be recreated even in a controlled environment.

Correct me if I am wrong, but being able to recreate an effect, even in a controlled environment, is not a part of the scientific method. All that is required is for the results of experiments that prove theories to be repeatable, and you will find many posts on this forum that show this to be the case with evolution.

The scientists' solution to this problem is "chance" or something out of nothing, which is not scientific, at least not much more than creation by intelligent design - God.

Something from nothing? I don't understand. Earlier you wrote evolution only addresses the changes within species. Clearly it deals with what already existed, and not what or how it all came to be.

Not providing the alternative solution, creation by intelligent design, would be a narrow minded as non-believers would say. You can also you use the argument that teaching evolution is in a way another religion/belief - atheism.

Why would not teaching how life came to be, yet teaching the processes of change they go through, be any different from teaching the life stages and nuclear reactions of the sun without teaching its origins? And why would teaching the process of change life goes through be atheism? Couldn't we also say all astronomy is atheism if it does not refer to a Creator?

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 9:31 pm

Gosh, Corvus, you have highlighted the very things I wanted to comment upon. I hereby offer 100% credit to Corvus for providing the quotes from svd4ever.

svd4ever wrote:I agree that in a science class you are to teach science not religion. However, whenever the subject of evolution comes about, creation must be addressed as another alternative. Keep in mind that the evolution theory does not address creation but simply evolving species - this is common misunderstanding of evolution.

It is, indeed, a common misunderstanding. People are continuously saying that evolution is silly because it proposes that life arose out of nothing. But, the real issue is the last bit: that evolution is "just a theory." Remember what "theory" means in science: an explanation that has been tested, and never disproven, so many times that it is almost acceptable to call it "fact." You know--things like the cell theory of living things, or the theory of gravity, or the heliocentric theory, or the germ theory of disease. The difference is that evolution has more independent lines of evidence than any of these others.

Always remember that evolution still remains as a theory...and has never been able to be recreated even in a controlled environment.

Sure it has. There are numerous papers in the scientific journals, spanning several decades, that demonstrate evolution in a controlled environment. [Or do you mean the creation of life out of chemicals, rather than evolution itself?]

The scientists' solution to this problem is "chance" or something out of nothing, which is not scientific, at least not much more than creation by intelligent design - God.

Aside from the notion that something out of nothing isn't evolution (but certainly is part of life's origin, and should be covered in science classes), it is definitely not "chance" that we're talking about here. "Chance" only pertains to which bases in the DNA are changed by gamma rays or whatever causes a particular mutation. Selection provides plenty of direction. See the thread, "evolution is a non-random directed process." Calling it "random" is a gross misrepresentation.

Not providing the alternative solution, creation by intelligent design, would be a narrow minded as non-believers would say. You can also you use the argument that teaching evolution is in a way another religion/belief - atheism.

The two problems with this are that evolution is not a relgion or belief, and that ID is just plain silly. It says, in essence, that if there is anything that we don't completely understand as of today (Dec 18, 2004), then the only possible alternative is that God did it. (Not just any old designer, the Christian god--see the DI mission statement.) So, we know how evolution would cause most of the differences between chimps and humans, but the ID folks say we don't understand the eyeball. OK--god created eyeballs, but other than that, chimps and humans have a common ancestor. Huh? what kind of "science" is that? The "theory" of ID has no theory. It just says "God did it" when the science is incomplete. With time, this "theory" will show that God did less and less of it. Is this what we really want to teach?