Teaching of creationism and its religous overtones

[otseng]

In the Politics and the teaching of creationism, it has been mentioned that creationism should not be taught as a science class because of its religious overtones.

Jose:

First, the CM does have religious background, and, seemingly, a particular religious background at that. Second--and this is directed at hannahjoy's comment below--the biblical CM is woven into our culture pretty deeply. We can refer to it without even mentioning it by name.

However, the Creation Model itself is based upon religion. It is not a generic model that fits with all religions, but is specific to a relative few. As I see it, if we attempt to eliminate all bias toward any particular religion, and thus teach creationism in a religiously-neutral way, then we will have only a very small statement to make: "maybe, instead of natural processes, a supernatural being created everything." If we invoke timing of the creation event, or locations of events, or the Flood, we necessarily invoke a particular religious viewpoint. [I might summarize this by saying that I've been attempting to show (perhaps with limited success) that creationism is, by definition, religious interpretation.]

Also, it was touched upon in the Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional thread.

bernee51:

What is the original (only?) source of the christian creation theory?
What is the supposed word of god?
What is the basis of the christian religion?

Yep - the bible.

The remaining question - is it a religious or scientific text?

Seems to me to be pretty well religious, but YMMV.

So, for discussion:
Should creationism not be allowed to be taught as a science in public schools because of its religious overtones?

[juliod]

Should creationism not be allowed to be taught as a science in public schools because of its religious overtones?

No! Not because of "overtones". History has serious religious overtones, and one could not adequately teach history without including religion.

But that is not what is meant by those posts you quoted, IMHO. Teaching creationism is school is not a question of "overtone" but of "indoctrination".

Creationism is religion. It may be perfectly reasonable to teach the content and history of creationism in a history class, it is not appropriate to present creationism in a science class (except if a school has a section on history of science).

The position of we "evolutionists" is twofold:

1) It is innappropriate to fail to present the theory of evolution within a general science education.

2) It is innappropriate to state or imply that there is any fundemental scientific controversy relating to evolution.

Christians are free to teach creation to their children. As long as they do so in the shameful darkeness of their own private cellars.

DanZ

[bernee51]

So, for discussion:
Should creationism not be allowed to be taught as a science in public schools because of its religious overtones?

I guess this begs the question...which version of creationism do you want to teach?

And if one is taught, why not teach the others?

I get the impression, perhaps mistaken, that Christians seem to think that their version of god is the only one that did any creating but that is far from the truth.

Pick a myth. My favourite, and I admit to bias, is the Australian one.

All that said...creationism is religion, it should not be taught as science.

[bdbthinker]

Intelligent Design (euphemism for the Biblical Creation myth) should not be taught:
1. In public schools period.
2. Especially not as science in a science class.


The reasons are as follows:

1. Creationism is a biblical based hypothesis. Church and state should be seperate per the establisment clause in the First Ammendment. This keeps all of our schools fair for every person regardless of their religion (or lack thereof).

2. Creationism is not science. Science follows the scientific method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

Let's try to plug Creationism into this model:

1. Creationism cannot be observed, directly or indirectly. It requires faith in a deity. But then there's the argument that all things come from God... so for the sake of argument, let's continue using this.
2. Ok, we got our hypothesis: God created everything.
3. Big problem here. How can you make predictions with our hypothesis? How will we know if we are right or wrong? Our "God created everything" hypothesis is not falsifiable.
4. Again, how can we test or predict with our theory of "God created everything"?? You either believe it or you don't.

Christians, what's wrong with teaching your children what you believe at home and in church? Why must you use political pressure to try and force your beliefs on others? School is for learning, not for indoctrination. Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, etc.. all must pay taxes to send their children to school. You have no right to impose your beliefs on the non-christians of America.
Also, you need to realize that Creationism is a belief not science. There's no point (other than the wish to impose your beliefs on others) to have your god belief taught in a science class. It makes about as much sense as teaching Greek Mythology in Algebra class

[Jose]

Christians, what's wrong with teaching your children what you believe at home and in church? Why must you use political pressure to try and force your beliefs on others? School is for learning, not for indoctrination. Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, etc.. all must pay taxes to send their children to school. You have no right to impose your beliefs on the non-christians of America.
Also, you need to realize that Creationism is a belief not science. There's no point (other than the wish to impose your beliefs on others) to have your god belief taught in a science class. It makes about as much sense as teaching Greek Mythology in Algebra class

Ah, but to some, there are reasons to replace evolution with creation. The logic is that the only source of morality is the Bible. If evolution is true, then Genesis isn't, and if Genesis isn't true, then the Bible cannot be God's word. Ergo, there will be nothing to make people behave morally, and society will collapse into chaos. Some of these issues are addressed in threads here, such as What if Evolution is True? Consequences of Believing Evolution, and Where did Morality Come from?

To some, this is not a scientific issue. Rather, the fate of all mankind hangs in the balance.

[bdbthinker]

Christians, what's wrong with teaching your children what you believe at home and in church? Why must you use political pressure to try and force your beliefs on others? School is for learning, not for indoctrination. Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, etc.. all must pay taxes to send their children to school. You have no right to impose your beliefs on the non-christians of America.
Also, you need to realize that Creationism is a belief not science. There's no point (other than the wish to impose your beliefs on others) to have your god belief taught in a science class. It makes about as much sense as teaching Greek Mythology in Algebra class

Ah, but to some, there are reasons to replace evolution with creation. The logic is that the only source of morality is the Bible. If evolution is true, then Genesis isn't, and if Genesis isn't true, then the Bible cannot be God's word. Ergo, there will be nothing to make people behave morally, and society will collapse into chaos. Some of these issues are addressed in threads here, such as What if Evolution is True? Consequences of Believing Evolution, and Where did Morality Come from?

To some, this is not a scientific issue. Rather, the fate of all mankind hangs in the balance.

christianity being the "base for all morals" is a debatable opinion. it would definatly make for good discussion in an ethics or debate class. However, it's not science and has no place in science class.

[Jose]

christianity being the "base for all morals" is a debatable opinion. it would definatly make for good discussion in an ethics or debate class. However, it's not science and has no place in science class.

Perhaps, to those who are used to the nature of science, this makes sense--but most Americans do not really understand the nature of science, and therefore see evolution and creation as equally viable alternatives. In each case, some presumed expert tells them the answer. In each case, most people are unable to evaluate the data for themselves. So, if evolution and creation are equally valid (ie equally mysterious), but one of them leads to salvation and the other to the destruction of mankind, then...well, you see how the local and state school boards are reacting.

Much of the rest of the world will have the same reaction you do, to the idea that Christianity is the base for all morals. "Hey, what about my religion?" That doesn't seem to matter. To the fight-to-the-death fundamentalists, it's simply that everyone else is wrong.

This is one reason that it is so important to have official statements from so many religious organizations supporting the teaching of evolution, and arguing against the teaching of creation (now relabed as ID).

[bdbthinker]

christianity being the "base for all morals" is a debatable opinion. it would definatly make for good discussion in an ethics or debate class. However, it's not science and has no place in science class.

Perhaps, to those who are used to the nature of science, this makes sense--but most Americans do not really understand the nature of science, and therefore see evolution and creation as equally viable alternatives. In each case, some presumed expert tells them the answer. In each case, most people are unable to evaluate the data for themselves. So, if evolution and creation are equally valid (ie equally mysterious), but one of them leads to salvation and the other to the destruction of mankind, then...well, you see how the local and state school boards are reacting.

yea...i can certainly understand why they would want to. but that's not what this thread is all about.
You bring up a good point also. Americans don't seem to understand the fundamentals of science, so who's at fault here? IMHO it's the education system in America. But let's fix the educational system! Don't degrade it to where science class turns into storytelling time

Much of the rest of the world will have the same reaction you do, to the idea that Christianity is the base for all morals. "Hey, what about my religion?" That doesn't seem to matter. To the fight-to-the-death fundamentalists, it's simply that everyone else is wrong.

This is one reason that it is so important to have official statements from so many religious organizations supporting the teaching of evolution, and arguing against the teaching of creation (now relabed as ID).

Im with ya! If people can't educate themselves and need to follow someone...the people who they follow should be at least leading them in the right direction. If they aren't they need to be called out as often and loud as possible

[mrmufin]

Should creationism not be allowed to be taught as a science in public schools because of its religious overtones?

No. It should not be taught as science because it has no scientific merit. Simply removing scriptural references and links to creationist websites does not turn creationism into scientific theory. Even though nobody has actually witnessed Earth revolve around the Sun doesn't mean that students should be taught a geocentric model of celestial mechanics as a "competing theory."

In science class--particularly in public schools--there is a responsibility to provide students with prevailing scientific theories which best explain the evidences. Should students be encouraged to ask a lot of questions? Absolutely. Should they be taught the views of such a tiny fragment of the scientific community in order to appease a very vocal public minority? No; given the limited resources and time in most public schools, creationism probably wouldn't warrant presentation, even if it was scientific. Let's not pretend that the push to sneak ID into science class is driven by a busload of agnostics...

Bring back the luminiferous ether!

Regards,
mrmufin

[Jose]

No; given the limited resources and time in most public schools, creationism probably wouldn't warrant presentation, even if it was scientific.

I dunno...it seems to me that if there were scientific support, we might very well want to discuss it. The hooker is that the data happen to support evolution.

yea...i can certainly understand why they would want to. but that's not what this thread is all about...You bring up a good point also. Americans don't seem to understand the fundamentals of science...

But, if Americans don't understand the fundamentals of science, and therefore think creationism is science, and think evolution is religion, then how can the school boards fend off the attack by the Wedgies (or whatever we want to call the folks following the Wedge Strategy)?

You bring up a good point also. Americans don't seem to understand the fundamentals of science, so who's at fault here? IMHO it's the education system in America. But let's fix the educational system!

We're working on it. With the National Science Education Standards there was hope, especially since the Standards push for more inquiry and less rote memorization. Unfortunately, there's this backward NCLB law that is forcing schools to create word-memorization tests, and forcing teachers to teach to the test to keep the school from being labeled "failing." The only think I can think of to do here is rework the state standards so that the Nature of Science, and scientific thinking, are explicitly part of the required curriculum and part of the testing.

I've been working on SueEllen Reed and the other folks at IN-DOE to get a task force together to fix the Standards. I've even been giving them quotes from local industries (re: the BioCrossroads Life Sciences Initiative) that they don't want to hire students who have been trained to memorize facts; they want to hire students who have been trained to think scientifically. I think we'll get somewhere eventually, but yikes, it's a big task.

But back to the thread: there are real religious overtones to creation. I think that's clear. The question is whether there is any possible way to present it scientifically...we have several threads on this general topic, looking at various of the support-for-Genesis ideas (two Flood threads, one for the Grand Canyon, one for fossil footprints, one for Polonium Haloes). If creation is real, and the biblical account as valid as its supporters say it is, then these threads should be places where the evidence can be put forward. If it can't be done here, there's no validity in moving it into the science classroom.