Creationism SHOULD be taught in school. ( alongside science theories! )

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
So many here preach acceptance of others, acceptance of other beliefs and personal expression. But when you suggest teaching about every belief and leaving the student to make up their own mind...NO WAY! You can't teach something other than what I believe...you can't offer a different perspective than MINE!

This isn't about two equal "perspectives", beliefs or opinions. One is science, the other is religion. I am totally accepting of people who believe in the religious stuff. I support individual's freedom of religion and expression. That doesn't mean everyone's beliefs should be taught in public schools.

Schools should teach science and parents should teach opinions, beliefs, religion, etc.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
So many here preach acceptance of others, acceptance of other beliefs and personal expression. But when you suggest teaching about every belief and leaving the student to make up their own mind...NO WAY! You can't teach something other than what I believe...you can't offer a different perspective than MINE!

But when it comes to sexual orientation, race, illegals, etc...the same people scream for equality and tolerance. The one thing I have learned about many on ATS is that those who demand acceptance, tolerance and equality are the first to tell others, on topics they chose...that they are STUPID, IGNORANT, WRONG...and that only their belief is acceptable.

Hypocrites. I could name them and give you a list of each and every one and they do it without fail. Easy to bait...immediate and reliable in their intolerance.

But that would mean teaching creation according to Islam, the Native American Creation stories (There are a few), Sumarian, Norse, Greek, Roman, Aztec, Mayan, Hindu etc etc. That's a lot of Creation Stories. Too many I would say. Then you might say let's simplify it and just say God Created it, but then you'd have to teach which God and all of their Names Odin for one and the Great Father etc.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

If there are multiple beliefs to an unproven topic, it shouldn't simply be the most popular that is taught. Obviously you would include the most popular, but should include at least a few other popular beliefs. Otherwise...you are teaching only what is popular, even when it may be completely wrong.

Not that I believe it is wrong.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Oh, and while we

And while we're at it, we can offer astrology as an alternative to astronomy. Why not, since my phone book shows far more listings for astrologers than astronomers, so more people must believe in it? And alchemy as the alternative to chemistry. Oh yes, and a class in entrail reading as an alternative to probability theory.

ATS will always feed the creationist trolls.

a reply to: F4guy

The major difference is, over 80 percent of people have a religion, and while the religions differ on specifics, creationism is something that is more wide spread, it's an idea held by far, far more people than other theories, and even people that don't claim religion believe it. Even people who believe in things like the big bang theory, including myself, believe both can go together so..

If 80 percent of the entire world, including scientists believed in astrology, that'd be a different argument, and you'd be making a better point... Right now, you're not. You're talking about using the ideas of minorities and teaching them to majorities.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Evolution, and creationism should be taught in the same classroom as these are both the most widely accepted theories on how the world came about.

So you also think the Pastafarian method of creation should also be taught,

We believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world much as it exists today, but for reasons unknown made it appear that the universe is billions of years old (instead of thousands) and that life evolved into its current state (rather than created in its current form). Every time a researcher carries out an experiment that appears to confirm one of these “scientific theories” supporting an old earth and evolution we can be sure that the FSM is there, modifying the data with his Noodly Appendage. We don’t know why He does this but we believe He does, that is our Faith.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Except your type only describes it as a theory when you get called out on its untestability from an experimental perspective.
Actual science is done by forming a hypothesis, conducting repeatable experiments to prove that hypothesis, and then having it reviewed, otherwise known as showing your work.
I have yet to see any legit experiments that prove any of the creationists "theories".
Know why?
Because you'd have a better chance proving that I'm a giraffe.

After having read the entire thread, just some points I'd like to make:

- The idea of Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. The only scientific theory that can *almost* be considered the "opposite" of the idea of creationism is The Big Bang theory, but even that could potentially -- and in fact most likely was -- be the result or symptom of something prior.

- Taking into consideration the above point, and when considering the premise upon which scientific theories and ideas are built from (observational evidence) -- clearly the idea of creationism (a belief built primarily upon faith) does not belong in the same class room as science. However I do believe it wouldn't hurt for it to made clear to students within the science classroom, that when it comes to the scientific theories and facts we'll be teaching you that deal with the origins of our Universe and life, we can only go back in time so far -- to the point where observational evidence seizes to exist -- but this does not mean that nothing existed before this point - just that we are not sufficiently equipped at this time to say otherwise. At this point if the kid wants to pursue possible answers about our origins that go beyond the limit of observational evidence -- they'll more than likely find their way towards learning about the ideas of creationism and from there it's up to them to decide if they want to take that leap of faith to satisfy their curiosities -- whether that be in a philosophical class room, the internet or by asking questions of their parents.

- Some people have made claim that creationism cannot be considered or discussed without having to bring religion into the equation - supposedly because "creationism came from religion". That seems like a ridiculous thing to say considering clearly it's the other way around, religion came from the idea of creationism -- and there have been many forms of religion built from the idea of creationism. I myself am agnostic but felt the need to make that point. One can most certainly ponder the idea of creationism -- which doesn't necessarily have to mean anything other than the idea that life as we know it exists as a result of deliberate and intelligent design -- without ever having to learn about Christianity or any other religion. Certainly doesn't have to mean some old guy with a big grey beard. Personally I'd sooner choose the idea that we are the result of some other highly advanced alien lifeforms.

a reply to: deadlyhope

...as these are both the most widely accepted theories...

Are you saying creationism is a theory?

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Creationism SHOULD be taught in school. ( alongside science theories! )

Absolute crap!
Creationism is impossible, and only lives in 'belief land' in the imagination!
Why not teach about the FSM and leprechauns and fairies in the 'science' class, also!
Why?
Because it is not 'science', it is imagination and 'beliefs'.
Beliefs are an infection of the imagination, the ego!
Psychological issues, NOT science!

Maybe in a 'church' school, where science means whatever the preacher wants it to men to conform and confirm his Faithless vain 'beliefs'!

'Creation' is scientifically and philosophically IMPOSSIBLE!
It only exists in the vanity of the infected imagination, and ignorance!

a reply to: deadlyhope

Given that the origin of creationism is religious based, the separation of church and state stipulates that US government funded public schools cannot teach this theory unless those schools accept being defunded.

It is taught in private schools across the planet - which are funded by the churches and individual adherents to the many sub-branches of Catholicism that exist under the banner of Christianity.

Some countries give tax breaks for those private schools.

a reply to: namelesss

So you're billions and billions of years old and have acquired all knowledge and wisdom about everything in that time?

Congratulations, mate. That's awesome.

Seriously though, you can't prove it to be false.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

You never seem to have an agenda, or seem to rant much, thank you sublime.

Actually, I've changed my mind.
You can teach creationism.in school, if I can come to your church and teach a class on evolution and critical thinking.
Sound good?

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: deadlyhope

While I realize I'll get some flack from the other side - please keep it civilized, and attempt to explain why the most common theory - THEORY - about how the world was made, should not be taught to children.

Because teaching kids "Magic" as opposed to "Science" is like going back to the Dark Ages.

When Science, actually shows us how it was done get back to us.

Cause every part of the scientific theories leaves us grasping as bad as "magic".

And all the stars you got, shows the illiterate and programmed minds are just as prevalent today, as in any century.

Except for one point, you actually believe that you will get to the answer eventually, and claim that what you have now is just a part of an evolutionary process, something that is actually part of the theory.

It boggles the mind that you cannot step back, and take a look at all that is presented, and not realize that you and your "science" have achieved ABSOLUTE ZERO on this topic.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: deadlyhope

If creationism should be taught in our schools then so should mysticism.

It actually is, it is hidden under names like "science" and "philosophy".

originally posted by: cuckooold
This articulates my point of view far better than I can:

Tell me how controlled science does it better, lol why do you insist on it being either or.

And why do you trust the system of science when things are so complex on vast scales, that you would NEVER KNOW if the systems being used are not total distractions from the TRUTH.

Creationism has no basis in fact, at all.

It is completely faith based.

Faith should be taught in Sunday school, not in public school.

Actually, ideas on how the Earth was created are based in scientific FACT.

We don't have a DVD on how the Earth was made, but scientists are able to piece it together based on other known FACTS.

Creationism is pure myth, and should never be taught opposite earth science.