It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Creationism Should be Taught in Science Class

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Perhaps teaching why cretinism, sorry, creationism isn't science might just be able to sneak into a science curriculum, if only to illustrate what science is and how creationism isn't science....convoluted? sure, but not as convoluted as calling cretinism, sorry, creationism science...




posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Ok, lets see how this goes. I agree, but the creationism taught should be the Muslim teachings.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Muslim!?!?! There is only one true Creation! And that is Last Thursdayism!



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: Vector99

Muslim!?!?! There is only one true Creation! And that is Last Thursdayism!


No. No. No. The Sumerian story of creation is the only one that is correct.

edit on 7/7/2015 by Klassified because: add emote



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I smell....desperation.
All over the place.

Theology is not science. Period.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

Personally, I quite like the Maori version; all Papatuanuku and Ranginui.



...but it's not science.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
The Australian aboriginal people are the living representatives of the OLDEST culture still extant.
Their story is the "Dreamtime."

It should be the one presented.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
It's a shame when someone has their own approach to evolution and is openly mocked.

I guess they asked for it.

And people wonder why I'm such an asshole.




posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   
And in church they should also teach Darwinism & evolution, because that makes sense.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
The only place either of these should discussed is in a debate class. There is no proof that man evolved from some other creature or whatever they want to call it, it's just guess work, pure science fiction. And there is no proof that any religious God exist, all we have is billions on earth that believe some kind of God does exist.

Since there is no solid evidence for either then neither should be taught, simple as that.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
ATTENTION

The topic of this thread is not other members. You guys know the drill....post on topic, not each other. Go after the ball not the player. Etc, etc.

Do not respond to this post.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Why not? Simply because its an alternate belief based on God
Why? Simply because so many people believe in it.


In a nutshell?



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Amazingly I don't think it matters for the purpose of this thread, simply because the OP shows a bias that shouldn't exist.
I would ask the OP what is the border of science and theology, where is the consensus in science and where is the consensus in theology?
The Vatican has both scientists and theologians, and piggys in the middle, the philosophers, if they are separate at all, Et al.
edit on 7-7-2015 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

I think that students should be taught about logical fallacies long before they get into what might or not be true . At least arm them with the mental ability to defend themselves . Let them ask the questions and if there is no answer let them decide if they want to write fiction or fact when they grow up . Both can provide a living but fiction is probably more profitable .



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
The only place either of these should discussed is in a debate class. There is no proof that man evolved from some other creature or whatever they want to call it, it's just guess work, pure science fiction. And there is no proof that any religious God exist, all we have is billions on earth that believe some kind of God does exist.

Since there is no solid evidence for either then neither should be taught, simple as that.


Right.... Because there is no solid evidence for human evolution....





And the fact that all fossils line up in perfect order in appearance with all adaptations in the timeline. And how we share the majority of our DNA with that of existing Great Apes.

None... no evidence... Got it


There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

Intermediate fossils include

Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).
edit on 7/7/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Creationism belongs in a theology class, not a science class. Should schools be allowed to provide optional theology classes? I think so. When I went to high school, the Mormons had a religion class during school hours but they had to meet across the street from campus. I thought it was a good compromise.

Creationism is not science. Science involves empirical research, peer-review, and all kinds of other things. Religion and science are separate entities. I could see a day being taken out of science class to show people what other cultures think created the Earth, but once again, do you notice how this seems more like it belongs in a history or theology class?

That's because it does.
edit on 07pmTue, 07 Jul 2015 20:16:27 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
If people are willing to contemplate "creationism" why not also contemplate teaching about the best UFO cases in class? The revelation of the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrials visiting the earth is as important as the origin of our species.

Also, just as evolution and possibly creationism would be taught in a serious fashion, Ufology should also be taught in a serious manner using the best cases and the most well researched books.

Yet, despite the strong empirical evidence for UFOs I don't believe it is addressed in a serious fashion in any public school curriculum in the U.S. or the world for that matter. Not to mention that if it is addressed they almost always only present the skeptics side, the Fermi Paradox, Oberg's explanations, etc.

So, if society desires ideological, economic, religious, and political balance in the education of our kids, then why not address the UFO issue in a balanced manner as well? The manner in which the secret government reacts, it appears to be one of the most important issues facing humanity.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147
But Ghost...Those are all a deception of the devil. Don't you realize that?



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy
Amazingly I don't think it matters for the purpose of this thread, simply because the OP shows a bias that shouldn't exist.
I would ask the OP what is the border of science and theology, where is the consensus in science and where is the consensus in theology?
The Vatican has both scientists and theologians, and piggys in the middle, the philosophers, if they are separate at all, Et al.


The border of science and theology exist at the same place fact and fiction do. One is quantifiable the other is smoke up the arse. Simple







 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join