Should Creationism be taught in classrooms?

[otseng]

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?

[Lucifer]

Well if we teach about the events in the Bible and evidence for those happenings without teaching ABOUT the Creator, I will be content - sticking to scientific issues. I have a big problem when evolution leads to the origin of mankind (which it always does in science classes). It should not go there. And because it so often does, I think Creation should also be mentioned.

And why shouldn't Evolution have to do with the origin of mankind? Do you have a problem with "believing" that we came from apes? Apparently, some people don't see that origin isn't necessarily synonymous with creating something. It can arise out of something that is already existing, and all it takes for the origin is for that thing to be different. And how do you go about explaining the origin of mankind with creationism, if we can't explain, much less go into the details about the creator scientifically? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose?

[chrispalasz]

And why shouldn't Evolution have to do with the origin of mankind? Do you have a problem with "believing" that we came from apes? Apparently, some people don't see that origin isn't necessarily synonymous with creating something. It can arise out of something that is already existing, and all it takes for the origin is for that thing to be different. And how do you go about explaining the origin of mankind with creationism, if we can't explain, much less go into the details about the creator scientifically? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose?

Well, I'm sorry to be technical, but the theory of evolution does not state that man came from apes. That is incorrect. Men and apes are not on the same evolutionary branch. The theory of evolution states that men and apes have a common ancestor, and we know nothing about this ancestor.

Even if something comes from preexisting things, it can still be considered "created". I can create chocolate chip cookies out of preexisting materials. Does that mean I did not actually create the cookies?

No, that would not defeat the purpose, since there are many many people in this world that do not accept the theory of evolution in its current form. Among these people are some very smart and well-researched scientists.

[palmera]

Perhaps a good place to turn in this debate would be to Biblical study to ask the question: was the Torah ever intended to be a literal origin of all things? If so, why does it present two accounts of creation?

Secondly, a working definition of "creationism" is in order here- many "creationists" do not take the Genesis account literally but merely adhere to God as the guiding factor behind the creation of the world.

So, how are we to talk about "creationism?": as arguing for the origin of all thigs to be less than 10k years old or arguing that what created the world, and what created humankind as divine spark, God?

There's a spectrum of "creationists." So, to which "creationism" do we refer when offering that is should/shouldn't be taught in classrooms? If the question is should/shouldn't we teach the Biblical account of creation (literally interpreted) then perhaps we should, as stated earlier, as the question: does Genesis in fact give us a cohesive story of creation to teach?

[Lucifer]

So why is it called creationism if there's no explained creator, and if there isn't, what is the mechanism that "creates" us?

Yes, sorry for the badly worded "humans to apes", but I would suspect this ancestral form would be some sort of homonid, probably similar to the apes. Variation caused the humans to form, and there was probably some reproductive barrier that caused speciation to occur.

[dangerdan]

No, that would not defeat the purpose, since there are many many people in this world that do not accept the theory of evolution in its current form. Among these people are some very smart and well-researched scientists.

Well the credentials of “creation scientists” are an interesting issue...

Greenlight, surely you must say that the majority of scientists think evolution quite a weighty theory. Hence one might say that the majority of scientists “believe” in evolution. Why would you teach creationism as science if the majority of the scientific community think it not credible?

Do you think that “the majority of scientists” are merely indoctrinated? Or do you think that “the majority of scientists believe in ‘creationism’ “?

[chrispalasz]

Well the credentials of “creation scientists” are an interesting issue...

It is

Greenlight, surely you must say that the majority of scientists think evolution quite a weighty theory. Hence one might say that the majority of scientists “believe” in evolution. Why would you teach creationism as science if the majority of the scientific community think it not credible?

This is true. The majority of scientists hold evolution to be a weighty theory. In fact, most of them, I would say, will refer to it as factual.

Do you think that “the majority of scientists” are merely indoctrinated? Or do you think that “the majority of scientists believe in ‘creationism’ “?

Are those my ownly two choices? I think a good majority of scientists believe there is a god.

[dangerdan]

This is true. The majority of scientists hold evolution to be a weighty theory.

Then why is it so odd that evolution is taught in classrooms?

The job of a science class is to teach what the consensus is amongst the scientific community...is it not? If one doesn’t like evolution and think it shouldn’t be taught, then one should really take it up with the scientific community, not the education department.

Are those my ownly two choices?

Well I couldn’t think of any other reason why someone would have an objection to evolution being taught in classrooms.

I think a good majority of scientists believe there is a god.

I do not mean any disrespect, but I fail to see how this applies to evolution being taught in classrooms…

[chrispalasz]

It's not so much that I object to it being taught - but in a classroom, the way it's taught is not right. I've taken many classes. The way teachers teach it is they draw faulty conclusions from the evidence and lead the students into issues not science-related (such as the origin of life). I am saying... if science class is going to go there anyway, it needs to offer other theories as well. On top of that, science is a required subject. Religious Studies is optional. So... scientists can impose their beliefs on everyone... but students don't necessarily have to learn anything about religion? How does that work?

Oh, and my comment that you didn't see the relevance of: I could tell you... but I think I'd rather just take it back. Please disregard. Thanks!

[Corvus]

It's not so much that I object to it being taught - but in a classroom, the way it's taught is not right. I've taken many classes. The way teachers teach it is they draw faulty conclusions from the evidence and lead the students into issues not science-related (such as the origin of life). I am saying... if science class is going to go there anyway, it needs to offer other theories as well. On top of that, science is a required subject. Religious Studies is optional. So... scientists can impose their beliefs on everyone... but students don't necessarily have to learn anything about religion? How does that work?

Because a belief in the religious sense is different than a belief in the factual sense. One goes to school to learn facts and free children from ignorance by shackling them to knowledge, some of which is absolutely useless and some of which is useful. Some facts have to do with the world as it is or was, some have to do with how to live in the world. This works because logic and facts aren't contingent on a belief of them in order to exist, and although you might disagree, evolution is at the moment considered a scientific fact. If you want to contest the teaching of facts, then you might also raise concern that children are being taught about Abraham Lincoln, the French Commune, Nero, or the existence of Paraguay. The beliefs of Historians and Geographers are being pushed onto them, as well as adherence to imperial measurements by mathematicians.

If one does not feel evolution to be a fact, then one must try to get it disproved somehow. The point is not to blame the school for doing what is supposed to do by informing and educating children based on what most scientifists are certain has happened. If anyone is to blame it is the scientific community for making enough deductions to form a theory that is so gosh darn convincing and solid. If your only objection is that it is not taught right, then you have a legitimate complaint.

I have no idea how religious studies are taught in the U.S, but learning about any religion is normally optional for obvious reasons. Schools are not going to teach about something that they cannot prove or disprove.

[Jose]

Would a good way to do this be to find scientific evidence for events that the Bible claimed happened?

This would provide evidence that those particular events occurred, which would be of great interest historically. It is not unexpected, since the Bible is believed to be the assembled wisdom, history, and mythology of the particular tribe(s) that wrote it down. Some of it should correspond to historical facts.

Unfortunately, finding that some of the Bible is rooted in historical occurrences doesn't tell us that all of it is, especially the creation story. For that, we need to study God's Creation itself, and determine whether the clues He left us are consistent with the Biblical account.

Along the same lines, it is not sufficient to observe some aspect of nature, and say "the Biblical account can explain that." Other explanations may also exist. The key is to distinguish among the different explanations by bringing in additional information. As I see it, it really is necessary to take the creationist account, phrase it as an official scientific hypothesis, and determine whether the predictions made by that hypothesis are met.

Well if we teach about the events in the Bible and evidence for those happenings without teaching ABOUT the Creator, I will be content - sticking to scientific issues. I have a big problem when evolution leads to the origin of mankind (which it always does in science classes). It should not go there. And because it so often does, I think Creation should also be mentioned.

It is difficult to teach about events in the Bible without making it seem that we are teaching religion--a single religion--in science class. This isn't right, even if we don't teach about the creator herself.

It is interesting that your main issue, as expressed here, is human evolution. People seem to be very worried about the fact that they are anatomically and physiologically very much like apes. Indeed, on the basis of morphological characteristics of living things, we are classified right smack in the middle of the Great Apes. I wonder why God would have done that? Were the other apes a kind of "practice" while he tried to get it right? Who knows...but the real question is: how would we bring in creation in a scientific way? Evolution provides an explanation for a great many observations concerning human evolution. It even explains why we have these weird quirks like being unable to produce the amino acid, lysine, and why our gut is too short to enable us to absorb enough vitamin B12 from our intestinal bacteria. What is the hypothesis that Creationism puts forward? Is there more than just "God created us"? That's not a scientific explanation; it's a religious one. It is based upon no data, other than one of the world's many Holy Books. Can you tell us what scientific approach could be used for this?

The way teachers teach it is they draw faulty conclusions from the evidence and lead the students into issues not science-related (such as the origin of life). I am saying... if science class is going to go there anyway, it needs to offer other theories as well.

It is insufficient, in this discussion, to make blanket statements without backing them up. What are the faulty conclusions that teachers draw from the evidence? You need to explain what you mean here. And, just out of curiosity, why is the origin of life not science? Life is part of the natural world; it is a perfectly reasonable question to investigate scientifically. Is it "not science" because the scientific evidence contradicts the Bible?

On top of that, science is a required subject.

As well it should be. If we, as a nation, fail to understand science, we become an international backwater. If we, as individuals, fail to understand science, we are at risk for any of a number of serious problems, from incurable infection due to antibiotic-resistant bacteria to death from respiratory problems brought on by the pollution caused by lousy energy policy. We are also at the mercy of charlatans who pretend they know the answers, and sell us wacky stuff--like the Nutritional Supplement Industry. We are already doing pretty poorly as a scientifically-literate nation, and are shooting ourselves in the national foot by choosing ignorance over learning. We need more, and better, science taught in the schools, not the replacement of science with religion.

If one does not feel evolution to be a fact, then one must try to get it disproved somehow.

This is an issue for the researchers, not the schools. I should note that it is not adequate to say, as the ID folks are saying, that this or that example of evolution isn't valid (because it's microevolution, for example). This is inadequate because arguing over one example ignores the many others. Just as I've been suggesting in this thread for some time to the Creationists--that they put their model forward as a formal scientific hypothesis and test its predictions--we must do the same with evolution. The hypothesis makes clear predictions. The challenge for the anti-evolution researchers is to find unambiguous instances in which the predictions are not met, and cannot be met by any form of revision of the theory. Until this has been done, evolution will stand as the only scientific theory that explains the data, and thus the only one that can be in science classes.

In short: figure out how to teach creation scientifically, or find unambiguous data that disprove evolution.