Creationism/ID in the science classroom is the worst idea for science education

It really is. I posted this here instead of in O&C because this really relates to education rather than to the actual issues of the dispute. It's about the unjustifiable attempts at placing religious doctrine into science classes.

Here are the arguments in favor of it:

"Teach the controversy!"
There is no controversy! There are currently more scientists with the name Steve (or some variation of Steve) that support evolution than there are total scientists that oppose the teaching of evolution.

"Let the children decide!"
What? I'm sorry, but do we teach geocentrism next to heliocentrism? Do we teach humours next to germ theory? Do we let kids sort it out between M theory, supergravity theory, and string theory? They're kids, the decision here is to be made by professionals.

"It's about religious freedom!"
No, it really isn't. Evolution is not a religion, it's a scientific theory. It isn't something that's only adhered to by a minority of the public, it's something that's found in people of all sorts of religious beliefs

"It's just as valid as evolution!"
No, it isn't. There hasn't been a single proper academic paper published in support of creationism. There is no amount of scientific research into the subject, so how can it really be anywhere near as valid as a subject with hundreds of thousands to millions of papers published? If you really think you can prove Creationism/ID, please come and do so in this thread over here.

"Evolution is wrong!"
No, it isn't, and I'd direct you to this thread if you'd really like to discuss that, because there hasn't been a single case of scientific inquiry falsifying evolution.

There frankly isn't a single good reason to teach this nonsense in any classroom. We need to protect our educational systems from this, not encourage the indoctrination of students into unjustifiable belief.



Ok, it's not the worst idea. Teaching geocentrism, flat-Earthism, expanding Earth etc is probably just as bad/worse. And there are probably a whole host of other equally bad ideas, but it is definitely in the top 5

I agree with everything you have written...not much else to add..

well, almost everything...I find the expanding earth theory interesting and worthy of investigating further...but shouldn't really be taught in a science class yet...except for "alternative theory day" or some such

ID isn't even at a theoretical stage yet...sorry folks, but saying "a magic man made it" isn't a theory..

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You're right. To teach kids the Judeo-Christian version of history is no better than teaching everybody that Hopi Indian prophesy and religion explains evolution. It's nonsense brought about by overzealous individuals who are obsessed with death.

Visit this link I started about the New World primate mystery in the current theory of human evolution: www.abovetopsecret.com...

"They're kids, the decision here is to be made by professionals"

you been doctrinated people who agree with mainstream?


global warming is one example of how "professionals" are not on the same page . Any tom dick or harry can be a professional aslong as you have your masters approval . Degrees =p

"They're kids, the decision here is to be made by professionals"

you been doctrinated people who agree with mainstream?


global warming is one example of how "professionals" are not on the same page . Any tom dick or harry can be a professional aslong as you have your masters approval . Degrees =p

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Not only is it a bad idea for science classes but its also a bad idea for the religion itself. If actual creation myth were presented alongside scientific evidence for evolution the religious myth would have its rear end handed to it. That's why most ID proponents really just want to teach "flaws" in Evolution, meaning they want their pathetic strawmen of Evolution set up and knocked down so kids don't get a proper education. It seems most are merely proposing weakening Evolution without putting anything in its place. Let's face it, if they did try to put Genesis in place of actual science Genesis would lose every time. Hmm... genetic variation overtime supported by every shred of evidence we've ever found OR a magical being breathing life into a pile of dirt to make a human being but neglecting to make a female so he has to steal a rib from the male to make the woman who will later be spoken to by a snake

Another reason it would be bad is that if Creationism/ID ends up in schools there will be backlash from a lot of parents, even many theistic and Christian parents, and I know that if it does end up in schools I'm gonna end up on the forefront of a push to teach Evolution in every Church in the world.

reply to post by WashingtonGrewHemp


For what it's worth I respect the Hopi Indians and their mythologies far more than I do the Abrahamic religions. Just wanted to add that.

reply to post by seedofchucky

you been doctrinated people who agree with mainstream?

You mean "taught science by professionals."?

global warming is one example of how "professionals" are not on the same page

Professionals are on the same page about global warming.

Any tom dick or harry can be a professional aslong as you have your masters approval . Degrees =p

Which means the person went to school to learn about the relevant subject, this means they have a decent understanding of it to say the least. I fail to see what this has to do with creationism.

Which part of the science class do they just teach how some magical being creates everything out of nothing while disregarding everything science stands for?

Originally posted by seedofchucky
global warming is one example of how "professionals" are not on the same page .

True, Professional scientists all generally agree in this, whereas professional lobbiests and politicians purchased by lobbiests disagree.

You didn't say which professionals...I see what you did there...nice spinning...you must work for fox news...total props on the misinformation ability...like a sith power really.

I've posted this before yet I believe it needs to be posted again.
I've always raised my children to know the truth in everything, assuming it's a truth they NEED to know.
Therefore, there has never been a santa claus, an easter bunny...although the idea of the tooth fairy they got from TV and we've had a time convincing them otherwise so that one has stuck. They would rather believe there IS than there is not.
When they asked who god was, or who jesus was - we tell them that it's a story that some people believe that tells how we got here. They've never asked about church, nor have they ever been to one.
When we were asked "where did frogs come from" we gave a very diluted version of evolution that they accepted.
When we were asked "what happens when you die", we gave an overall picture of that as in body processes ceasing to function, and the body returns (quoting the bible, lol) to dust...which in turn goes on to fuel other processes of life, such as plants which become food for other animals.
They weren't scared of this prospect. Not even the first "But......" escaped their lips. The BIGGEST problem they've had is believing that their mom and I had times in our lives where THEY weren't present, there were times where WE didn't know them, and we lived in a time where they didn't exist.
I think it would go a long way in strenghtening morals if more people understood that god is NEVER going to save them from anything. He's never going to show up and make things allright. He'll never chase away the monsters and never make the bad people go away. He's not going to show up and heal the sick, make the blind see, and eradicate all disease. WE are the ones who will do it, if it gets done. For every one person cured by a "miracle of god" there are thousands more that were cured by man. We have to understand that we are of THIS world, this planet - this is our HOME and it's turned into quite a mess and there's no one to blame but ourselves. Can you seriously imagine what this world would be like if there were no bloody religions squabbling, provoking wars that reach across the globe? If 3/4 of the people fanatical about their religion were that fanatical about HELPING others, and giving to others? Religion has become the very thing that it was supposed to protect us against - and maybe it was that way from the very start of it. It seems that even the best intentions turn sour once the money starts to build up. How does spending 24 million dollars on a new church building help ANYONE at ALL? THAT much money would alleviate hunger and vaccinate thousands of children against diseases that haven't existed on US soil in hundreds of years....and to make it even worse, they PRAY for these people in their new sanctuary...that they might have food, shelter, clean water....
This has turned into a rant, and for that I apologize.

reply to post by seedofchucky


Yes, global warming is under discussion...by professionals. You shouldn't make the choice up to children.

And here is an issue where the professionals are in agreement.

reply to post by sykickvision

I applaud your parenting skills!
Thats pretty much how I was raised myself and how I would school my kids.
Makes no sense to me how people are capable of deceiving their own children.

Originally posted by sykickvision:
[...]
God is NEVER going to save them from anything. He's never going to show up and make things allright.
[...]
WE are the ones who will do it, if it gets done.
[...]
We have to understand that we are of THIS world, this planet - this is our HOME and it's turned into quite a mess and there's no one to blame but ourselves.

This pretty much sums it up!
If we dont teach the correlation of ations and reactions, if we stop finding solutions for our problems but rather trust in our invisible friend to come and fix everything for us... were doomed!

It cant be in the interest of any parent to let fantasy tales interfere with their kids education.

Hello! Christian here. You know, science is just that. Science. It is a way of explaining things about the materialistic world. There is no way it can begin to talk about spirituality. I plan on teaching my son about God when he asks. I'd have it no other way. I mean, worked for me, right?

No no see, evolution should be taught in science class. ID/Creationism should be taught in the religious history classes like where they teach about greek mythology and things like that.

It's okay to teach religious stuff in school. Schools do it all the time just like when they teach about the greek gods. but they do it in the religion classroom. Not the science classroom. After all, religion is an important part of history. It may or may not be true, but it tells us about how our past societies were formed and governed.

reply to post by The Endtime Warrior


Glad to see I've got even theists on my side. I'll make sure to keep chemistry class from encroaching into your home (unless you've got an eyewash station, tiled floors, goggles, and gas hookups). Unless of course, you'd like a visit...ok, I don't teach chemistry, I teach English as a foreign language during summers. I'll make sure to keep those classes out too.

reply to post by tinfoilman


Well, a lot of people would be offended if someone started teaching Christianity alongside Archaic Greek religious belief...they would call it 'demeaning' or 'offensive'.

Not everyone, but plenty.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Well it doesn't matter if someone is offended. Someone can be offended because my car is red or I take cream in my coffee. If you're going to teach about religions then all must be given equal weight. Islam, Christianity, Greek gods, voodoo, Hindu or whatever.

A religion is a religion. Is there any logical reason why it would be okay to teach the history of say Islam in a religious history class, but not Christianity? A religion is a religion. There is no logical reason other than, someone hates Christianity and doesn't want JUST Christianity taught. The science/versus religion argument goes out the window and we would see the person for what they really are. Just someone that didn't like Christianty. Greek gods aren't anymore science than Christianity is. It's just another religion. As long as it's taught in an appropiate context there shouldn't be any problem with it.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Well I enjoyed science class, especially Physics and chemistry, I must admit my views have changed about this, originally though I did not understand some concepts and realized that the 2 (religion/science) should not mix but can be in harmony with each other for myself. I don't view this as compromising these concepts to fit my view, I take what science has taught me and what it has discovered about the universe, matched with what spirituality has taught the "inner me" and how it can help me grow as a person. Total agreement with you madness.

reply to post by tinfoilman

Teaching religions influence throughout history is all right with me.
Kids have to learn about the different religions and their trends, their effects around the world, their wars and their role in nations and politics.
But thats history or politics class, like you said.
All Im against is the controversy concept regarding science class, as the OP stated.
Religious worldview has no place in science class. Belief-systems or faith can not replace solid science scholarship.

Originally posted by WfknSmth
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

Teaching religions influence throughout history is all right with me.
Kids have to learn about the different religions and their trends, their effects around the world, their wars and their role in nations and politics.
But thats history or politics class, like you said.
All Im against is the controversy concept regarding science class, as the OP stated.
Religious worldview has no place in science class. Belief-systems or faith can not replace solid science scholarship.

edit on 29-11-2010 by WfknSmth because: (no reason given)

It's a just a wedge issue really. I don't think anyone that believes in their religion would disagree that it's a religion. Obviously a religion should be taught in the religion classes then. And those are usually elective and not mandatory anyway so there shouldn't be a controversy.

Just like you don't teach english in math class. You teach religion in religion class. It really is just that simple.

The only thing scientific about intelligent design is that it is a scientific hypothesis. People say intelligent design isn't scientific, but that's not exactly true. It is a scientific hypothesis, it just doesn't have enough evidence to become a scientific theory.

A hypothesis is an educated guess. We guess that because life is so complicated that it might of had a creator. A good guess, but it didn't pan out when we looked at the evidence. At least not the evidence we have.

A scientific hypothesis only becomes a scientific theory when there is evidence to back it up. A scientific theory implies there might be some proof or evidence to the hypothesis. ID doesn't have that. It's just a hypothesis. If you wanted to teach about ID, it would have to be in science class because ID is a scientific hypothesis, but it would have to be taught as a hypothesis that didn't pan out.

The science teacher would have to say, this is what some people guessed, but it turned out to be wrong. We have no evidence of ID. We do have evidence of evolution so that's what we're going to teach. That's all you could really say about ID. That it is a hypothesis with not enough evidence to be considered a valid scientific theory.

But kids only have so much time to learn things in school. There's no requirement to have to teach the kids about all the hypotheses that didn't pan out and turned out not to be true. You can if you want if it has some relevance to the class, but if it doesn't it's okay to skip over the hypotheses that aren't true such as ID and just go straight to the theories that do have evidence to back them up.

So you wouldn't have to teach the kids intelligent design, but if you did you would have to stress it is just a hypothesis and never made it to the level of being a scientific theory.

On a lighter note: