which version of creationism should be taught ? , page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 28-8-2009 @ 09:00 PM by ignorant_ape

a direct consequence of this thread

the obvious next question is :

if you believe creationism should be taught in schools - which one ?

here is a partial list wiki list

there are several major differences in many faiths / cultures creationism tails and some are mutually exclusive

most people insist that the one they personally believe in should be taught - but belief does not have any bearing on its veracity

reply posted on 28-8-2009 @ 09:05 PM by SpacePunk

reply to post by ignorant_ape

All versions. Including how man was created when an unsuspecting monkey was touched by the FSM's noodly appendage.

reply posted on 28-8-2009 @ 09:25 PM by gandhi

OMG people are so ignorant. people should be taught in nature, in the real reality. learning about life at first. then on to the acedemics. we like to rush, if we tried to make everyone live longer we would be able to in no time, we can make people like 2 times longer right now with some adjustments to their house and eating habbits.

reply posted on 28-8-2009 @ 10:32 PM by Trams

reply to post by gandhi

Cool, maybe you can lead a movement to making us live twice as longer, a movement to help adjust our lives. I know I sure as hell won't.

Wait, why hasn't it been done before?

To the O.P. I seriously think that creationism should not be taught in schools, excluding Catholic/Christian/Islamic private, or in some places normal schools. If anything, people should teach philosophy. Why? To help us realize why we have religions. But that won't explain some of the miracles in some religious stories happened.

I just don't see a Chicago Public School, or any other city public school, teaching Christian or Islamic beliefs. There's to much diversity.

reply posted on 28-8-2009 @ 10:32 PM by pteridine

It should be the version that the church that it is taught in approves of. No public education system should teach "creationism" because it has a religious base.

reply posted on 30-8-2009 @ 10:52 PM by Raumcole

Religion, mostly the more new ones, make the mistake of feeling like they should teach people about their beliefs that really have no fact to be taught in the first place. The minute a religion starts "recruiting" people it turns into a cult.

If religion were taught then it would be treated as history, which would automatically mean you would have to choose to teach proven history or unproven history. If you got past that problem then you would be teaching about something that not only conflicts with reality but would be the odd one out of the group since it would be taught with science, math, etc, which are based on facts. Actually now that I think about it, maybe religion should be taught in schools so kids could see at an early age how flawed it is, because being taught that the world is 4.5 billion years old exactly using carbon dating from science class then going to the next being told that it's 6,000 years old because of a book with no references.

reply posted on 31-8-2009 @ 01:45 AM by ShiningSabrewolf

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
a direct consequence of this thread

the obvious next question is :

if you believe creationism should be taught in schools - which one ?

here is a partial list wiki list

there are several major differences in many faiths / cultures creationism tails and some are mutually exclusive

most people insist that the one they personally believe in should be taught - but belief does not have any bearing on its veracity

Damn, you guessed my next question. Oh well, I have more

reply posted on 31-8-2009 @ 02:16 AM by cavscout

reply to post by Raumcole

Sorry, but macro-evolution itself can be viewed as a component of several athiestic religions.

You say only science that is proven fact should be included in public school education. Why then would we teach evolution? The theories of creation enjoy the same level of possibility as the theory of evolution.

Although not always part of any orginized religion, many respected scientists agree that one cannot solve the riddles of physics without accounting for some form of creator god. Einstien used to look at problems and ask himself if his or others work to solve the problems was too 'ugly' or chaotic to fit with the idea of a creator. If it was to 'ugly,' he would scrap it. This is how he came up with his most famous equation, an equation that when written only takes up an inch. It is simple, sleek, and functional because that is how God works. Nothing as chaotic and cumbersome as the evolution of species could be the work of God, or of a lasting universe, IMO.

To the OP: why would we teach only one theory?

I homeschool my children. We talk about evolution and creation. I teach them both theories and then tell them my opinion the issue and let them decide. When we talk about creation, I teach them various theories and we then discuss them. This is how such things should be done with small minds. Make them think it through. We took thinking out of schools a long time ago and if we are ever to improve our educational system it must return.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by cavscout]

reply posted on 31-8-2009 @ 04:42 AM by Lannock

Originally posted by Raumcole
the world is 4.5 billion years old exactly using carbon dating from science class then going to the next being told that it's 6,000 years old because of a book with no references.

I certainly hope they don't teach that at school since that would be a lie. Carbon-dating is only effective up to about 60,000 years and only on carbonaceous material.

I see another evolutionist who confuses creationism with Christianity

EDIT to add:

I've always said that creationism should be taught along with evolution, but the OP makes a valid point. So, unless they can come to some kind of agreement which version of creationism to teach (extremely unlikely) it should stay out of the curriculum.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Lannock]

reply posted on 2-9-2009 @ 06:27 PM by Bluebelle

The main two or three should be taught. There's nothing wrong with letting onto kids that grown ups dont actually know everything.

reply posted on 2-9-2009 @ 06:37 PM by schrodingers dog

reply to post by ignorant_ape

which version of creationism should be taught ?

lol, the answer is simple and very much along the lines of where's the chase and how do I cut to it ...

"Morning class, I'm Mr. Person and I'll be teaching you creationism ...

Lesson 1: God did it.

That's it"

reply posted on 3-9-2009 @ 01:24 AM by ButterCookie

The ExtraTerestrial version....

Mankind was cloned using DNA from an advanced Alien Race ( Annunaki) and Homo Erectus ( Apes) that already existed on Earth before the arrival of the Annunaki....

Genensis 1:26 is a clone story

reply posted on 3-9-2009 @ 05:16 PM by PieKeeper

Originally posted by cavscout
You say only science that is proven fact should be included in public school education. Why then would we teach evolution? The theories of creation enjoy the same level of possibility as the theory of evolution.
[edit on 31-8-2009 by cavscout]

Sorry, you're wrong. Evolution is a proven process, we know that it happens. The Scientific Theory of Evolution seeks to explain how evolution works and also to predict when it may happen.

The "Theories" of creation are not Scientific Theories.

Pages: ^^TOP^^