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?

[otseng]

But if they report the news and use only two sides, Conservative news sources, and the mental ward, their position is no more valid. Including sides for the sake of including them offers nothing.

The comparison is not valid, in my opinion. If your insinuation is that creationism is on the level of something to be found in a mental institution, then it is an unfounded criticism.

Who said anything about teaching it in biology?

I certainly have not mentioned about teaching creationism in biology. The point is, should it be taught as a science? The very first question for debate in this thread is "Should Creationism be taught in classrooms (as science)?"

Unfortunately, not a single fact supporting creationism has ever been proven.

Depends on what you mean by proven. Do you mean proving to be entirely true or simply evidence for? If it is the former, perhaps so. But, it can be argued that many points of evolutionism cannot be proven either. If it is the latter, there are numerous evidence to point to creationism. I'm not going to get into those here, that is what this entire subforum is all about. Also, as perfessor as pointed out, we've talked enough pages about the scientific merits of it in this thread.

[The Happy Humanist]

I have a question. Would anyone object to the teaching of Creationism alongside Evolution, if the teacher were not censored or constrained from telling it like it is, and saying that there are no scientific facts to support Creationism, in fact science mainly contradicts it?

I'm just trying to imagine a high school biology class in which the teaching of Creationism is required. For instance, the question is bound to come up, "If the universe is only 6000 years old, how can we see stars that are billions of light years away," to which the teacher will respond, "Well, according to Creationism, God made them with the light already in transit. Of course, that violates relativity six ways to sundown." If the teacher were not constrained from stating that last fact, would that constitute an acceptable way to teach Creationism?

In other words, I'm not sure I fear Creationism in biology class, as long as it's put in its proper perspective. I think students are usually smart enough to spot a fairy tale. I would certainly object to it being taught without exposing all of its weaknesses (and the same goes for Evolution, by the way! Of course, Evo's weaknesses pale in comparison to Creationism's!)

I think I know what some will answer, that the mere treatment of it at all in a high school science class will unjustly elevate it in stature, or give it a patina of credibility that it doesn't deserve. In some ways I agree with that, but in some ways it strikes me as perhaps a little...I don't know...condescending, with a tinge of state censorship, as if some of us are secretly afraid it might make sense to too many people. I say, we have nothing to fear from bad ideas, that "natural selection" will favor the good ones in the long run. I don't think it will create more creationists; indeed, if taught properly, it will create less of them.

[Yarr the Pirate]

I dont think I would have any problem with that at all, Jim.

Unfortunately, I don't think we would be able to enforce such a way of teaching creation.

As in response to Osteng - Creationism has never been observed. Evolution has. The only parts of 'evolution' which are questionable are the strawmen evolutions that aren't actually a part of the theory of natural selection - and to this I point to cosmological evolution, origin evolution and all the other fake names ascribed to evolution that have nothing to do with the actual theory of evolution as well

And if we are to decide that theories aren't real science, we are also to throw out the notion that atoms construct the universe, that gravity attracts large bodies of mass, and even that our body is comprised of cells - the latter two having been directly observed!

[The Happy Humanist]

I dont think I would have any problem with that at all, Jim.

Unfortunately, I don't think we would be able to enforce such a way of teaching creation.

How do we currently enforce the teaching of anything within certain guidelines? What would be different?

As in response to Osteng - Creationism has never been observed. Evolution has.

Then let's say so! Can this not be put in a textbook, and/or made a question on a standardized test?

Q.39
T or F: Creationism has been observed
o T
o F

[Nyril]

If your insinuation is that creationism is on the level of something to be found in a mental institution, then it is an unfounded criticism.

In what sense? If one person says that they believe it is the honest truth, that a turnip created the universe (but did not require creating), you would say that this person was not in the proper state of mind. But if this person says that a god did the same, you commend them, and suggest that this be taught in school.

I certainly have not mentioned about teaching creationism in biology. The point is, should it be taught as a science? The very first question for debate in this thread is "Should Creationism be taught in classrooms (as science)?"

Ah, thanks, I was indeed getting off topic.

[mrmufin]

Just outta curiousity, what would be the qualifications or credentials necessary to teach creationism?

I don't really know what is the process for how teachers get selected in general. I can't imagine though that it would be too much different for a teacher of creationism. (And if given the opportunity, I wouldn't mind teaching a high school class myself. )

Okay, then, let me rephrase the question. Would belief in creationism be a prerequisite to teaching creationism? Or (assuming all other criteria are met) could a heathen like myself pick up a copy of the teacher's edition and proceed to lecture students on creationism?

Regards,
mrmufin

[gluadys]

But if they report the news and use only two sides, Conservative news sources, and the mental ward, their position is no more valid. Including sides for the sake of including them offers nothing.

Right, and the cult of objectivity and balance sometimes actually leads to mis-reporting. Reporters do look for that second opinion, and while they won't necessarily quote a nut-case, they will write an article "balancing" an overwhelming consensus with the view of a single obscure dissenter.

I don't necessarily fault them on this. Who knows but that the obscure dissenter may one day prove to be right. But they should quote the dissenters in a way that makes clear they are a voice in the wilderness-at least today-not spokespersons for a "alternative".

When they fail to do this with scientific reporting, they make scientific controversies appear to be much more evenly balanced than they really are. No wonder the average person thinks scientists can't make up their mind.

The fact is that in some matters there simply is no alternative to teach. That is the case with evolution.

[Jose]

Another argument for teaching creationism - the principle of unbiased dissemination of information.

Yes, but in what classes? The real issue is that some (by no means all) creationists want to teach creationism as if it is science, in science classes. There are also those who believe it should replace evolution entirely in science classes. The trouble is, the creationism that they want taught is the biblical version, which is based on received wisdom, not observation and analysis of the world.

As we have said before in this thread, the challenge is to figure out how to teach creation as science, using the methods of science. Science is the interpretation of information that can be observed, or measured, in the world--and determining the best-fit explanation without pre-conceived belief about what the answer should be. While many would now claim that evolution is a pre-conceived notion, it wasn't when it was first proposed. We keep teaching it because it still fits the data best! Where can we find data that force us to conclude that creationism is the best answer?

[Yarr the Pirate]

here's a quick point:

Most creationists say they want equal time for creation and evolution in science class.

All evolutionary scientists want evolution taught in science class.

This leaves us with an agreement between evolutionary scientists and creationists - that evolution should be taught in science classes.

That leaves for the creationists to prove that creationism is science - Unfortunately, we have yet to see any examples of it being demonstrably true as opposed to evolution. I know everytime I bring that up, I get told we discuss that in other places in the forum, but I urge anyone discussing this matter to honestly look into the long history of creationist claims that are plain false or misleading, look at the ICR's 'loyalty oath' which requires that the Institution members accept as literal truth the bible and then to work from there. Ask yourself: Is creationism science if they're working outward from an assumption, bending laws as they become unfit for this assumption?

[Yarr the Pirate]

here's a quick point:

Most creationists say they want equal time for creation and evolution in science class.

All evolutionary scientists want evolution taught in science class.

This leaves us with an agreement between evolutionary scientists and creationists - that evolution should be taught in science classes.

That leaves for the creationists to prove that creationism is science - Unfortunately, we have yet to see any examples of it being demonstrably true as opposed to evolution. I know everytime I bring that up, I get told we discuss that in other places in the forum, but I urge anyone discussing this matter to honestly look into the long history of creationist claims that are plain false or misleading, look at the ICR's 'loyalty oath' which requires that the Institution members accept as literal truth the bible and then to work from there. Ask yourself: Is creationism science if they're working outward from an assumption, bending laws as they become unfit for this assumption?


Sidebar, sorry: Has anyone else stopped getting email notifications of threads they're watching? If so, can somebody tell me how to fix that?