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?

[Spongemom]

Creation science should be taught in school because science supports it.

I've heard that argument a million times, and I have yet to see it proven. Please, state some examples. What exactly does science support when it comes to creationism? I'm very interested in seeing how this thread turns out.

[Yarr the Pirate]

Okee doke, YEC - Do you believe creation science should be given equal time with evolution as a science course? Or do you believe that evolution should be eliminated and creation science only should be taught?

[Piper Plexed]

Folks, before you get going, there is a thread on this already, located....
Should Creationism be taught in classrooms?

Welcome Yarr the Pirate, While I merge the threads please take a moment to review the forum rules Rules As you will find it is customary to begin a debate sub-forum thread with clearly defined questions for debate, you will also find that in the discussion forum this is not necessary. Actually this thread began as a discussion and quickly moved towards debate.
Regards, Piper

[otseng]

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

In the news, if a reporter only gives one side to a story, it can easily be considered biased, even if the reporter reports the mainstream view and has all the facts straight. In teaching, suppose a world history teacher only teaches about the US (and even thinks that the US history is world history), it would also be biased. In politics, if only one party was allowed to have advertisements on TV, even if it was the dominant party, it would also be considered biased.

I think there's really only one reason to not teach creationism - if there is not any qualified teacher to teach it. If there's not a qualified teacher to teach it, then it should not be taught. But if there is, it should not be denied.

[Yarr the Pirate]

In history, other countries have a different opinion of how things happen.

In politics, different parties have different opinions on how to do things.

In news, one side of the story has a different opinion on events than the other side.


Creationists have a different opinion on how the species came to be.

In science, however we do not deal with opinion. Science is about cold, hard fact

[Nyril]

In the news, if a reporter only gives one side to a story, it can easily be considered biased, even if the reporter reports the mainstream view and has all the facts straight.

If the reporter fails to include the opinion of the KKK in his report, is that reporter bias? If the reporter fails to include the opinion of the mental ward in New York City, is that reporter biased? Certainly everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it is the responsiblity of the reporter to determine who has a valid opinion, and who is a nutcase in a New York Mental ward.

In teaching, suppose a world history teacher only teaches about the US (and even thinks that the US history is world history), it would also be biased.

Incomplete? Yes.
Biased? No.

If the history presented is actual history, there is no bias.

In politics, if only one party was allowed to have advertisements on TV, even if it was the dominant party, it would also be considered biased.

I suppose this would be bias.

I think there's really only one reason to not teach creationism - if there is not any qualified teacher to teach it. If there's not a qualified teacher to teach it, then it should not be taught. But if there is, it should not be denied.

It really depends on where it was taught. If it was taught in a class that discussed the various creation myths, I would encourage it being taught.

However, if you want it taught as a valid alternative to evolution, why? Why should you attempt to teach creationism, when Christians can't even agree on it. We have Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, those that believe in Theistic evolution, those that believe in intelligent design, and yes, Christians that accept evolution. The pope accepts evolution, and I hear that he is something of an authority on biblical matters.

[mrmufin]

I think there's really only one reason to not teach creationism - if there is not any qualified teacher to teach it. If there's not a qualified teacher to teach it, then it should not be taught. But if there is, it should not be denied.

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

Regards,
mrmufin

[otseng]

In science, however we do not deal with opinion. Science is about cold, hard fact

And creationism likewise can and should be taught by the facts.

If the reporter fails to include the opinion of the KKK in his report, is that reporter bias? If the reporter fails to include the opinion of the mental ward in New York City, is that reporter biased? Certainly everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it is the responsiblity of the reporter to determine who has a valid opinion, and who is a nutcase in a New York Mental ward.

My statement was not to include all the different sides, but to bring in more than one side. Also, your examples are not realistic. Any investigative reporting often brings up opposing sides to a story. So, to use marginal examples does not prove your point.

However, if you want it taught as a valid alternative to evolution, why? Why should you attempt to teach creationism, when Christians can't even agree on it.

Who said anything about it being taught as an alternative to evolution? Nobody is claiming that evolution is false or that they are mutually exclusive to each other.

People can't agree on many things, yet they are taught. Consensus is not a requirement for a subject to be taught.

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. )

[Nyril]

My statement was not to include all the different sides, but to bring in more than one side.

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.

Who said anything about it being taught as an alternative to evolution?

Who said anything about teaching it in biology? Well, I did mention it, but I did say that I would support teaching creationism, if it was taught in a religious studies class, or something in which it would be relevant.

[Yarr the Pirate]

And creationism likewise can and should be taught by the facts.

Unfortunately, not a single fact supporting creationism has ever been proven. How can we teach something based on so-called facts when each and every one of them has been debunked thoroughly?