Because ignoring evidence is exactly what Christianity teaches from the very beginning. Adam, Eve, and the forbidden fruit. Gaining that knowledge lead to the fall of man. It was supposedly the first temptation man ever faced, and it continues to undermine faith by convincing them they have bridged that gap of infinite qualitative distinction.
So, you're just going to sit there like Ham and believe God created everything in 6 days. Is that what you are saying. Do you actually believe that?
I don't understand why science would debate religion in the first place, they attempt to answer different questions so they never really overlap. Science tries to answer "how" religion tries to answer "why". Neither should infringe upon the other because they really aren't equipped to answer any more than the one question.
Did you see the debate? They did spend time talking about how it is taught in schools. That's where they "infringe upon the other." And, imo, that's a legitimate debate, but which Science should always win...and regularly does at school district/city levels. Science classes are teaching the scientific method. If you want to teach creationism, then lobby for a new dept and curriculum. Leave science classes out of it. I mean, really, if you study the history of science, many (MANY) of the proponents of advancing science came from scholarly Catholics and Protestants.
No I didn't, and I honestly don't see why it would matter if both theories were given some time in classes. At the same time, I wouldn't see why it would matter if just the "science" meaning the "how" was taught. Like I said, science and religion aren't incompatible because they don't cover the same ground. I don't think creationism in a broad sense contradicts anything in science, or rather, it shouldn't.
Well, as far as public schools are concerned, advocating the teaching of creationism as an "alternate science" may be the only way to go because of the establishment clause. Schools that wanted to teach creationism may be able to pull off teaching it in science classes, but setting up a separate department, curriculum, and hiring qualified staff would definitely give Christianity the appearance of government imprimatur, unless every religion's creation myth is taught, which would probably defeat the purpose for most advocates of teaching creationism. So really, people who want creationism to be taught should just send their kids to private schools that are receptive to that kind of thing.
imo, this does not have to be a Separation of Church and State, issue, as every State University I know teaches Theology. We probably wouldn't be here right now, except for the fact that HS's do not offer Theology, like most good private schools do. And you might be making too big of a deal about expense and "hiring qualified staff." Did you think your math teacher or chemistry teacher was qualified? Schools would just re-assign their current staff to Theology classes. And it might very well lead to more good teachers taking jobs. stay positive!
Perhaps it's due to the fact that one is based on faith... and the other is based on empirical evidence...? Which one would you say has more place in a classroom...?
Sure, but the difference is that Theology classes at state universities teach multiple religious viewpoints and nobody is forced to take those classes. I highly doubt that most creationism advocates would want anything besides Christian creation doctrine to be taught in schools or would prefer such classes to be optional. And I'm not saying that expense and hiring are a big deal, though that may certainly be argued given the financial state of many of our nation's schools. However, when you have public resources, regardless of the amount, being used to advance a particular religious doctrine, you necessarily have to deal with establishment issues.
Like I said, they attempt to answer different questions. They shouldn't ever really intersect. I don't think it would be inappropriate to at least mention the idea of creationism in a classroom, it's not like there is an air tight theory of how the universe began anyway. To be honest, I don't see how teaching origin theories would really benefit kids in the first place no matter which one was chosen for memorization and regurgitation. They should probably stick to more solid science in the first place.
btw...just to lighten things up...I have a joke that maybe some of you have heard. It's from David Byrne's movie about driving through Texas..."True Stories" which I highly recommend. Spoiler ------------------------- So, when God made the world over several days, he first made light then the planets. Then Earth was just a ball of clay waiting for him to shape. So, as architect of all things beautify, he started shaping the Earth. He made glorious oceans, mountains, valleys, hill, rivers and streams. And then he filled them with beautiful plants and animals. And it took much planning and effort. And several days. On the sixth day he looked upon his creation and was pleased, and tired, looking forward to his seventh day of rest. Then, in his last gaze upon his sculpture he noticed he forgot to shape Texas. It was still a flat surface waiting to be shaped. He said, "Oh, I forgot to do Texas. But I'm so tired. I'll do it in the morning. So God went to sleep after the sixth day, to wake up to find that Texas had hardened over to a cracked and crusty surface that was unshapeable even for Him. He said, "Oh, no, what will I do." But, in God's infinite wisdom he figured out what to do. "I know! I will make people who like it that way." ------------------------------ I watched this movie in Dallas with my girlfriend when it first came out. We were the only two people in the audience who laughed at the joke.
This reminded me of a university related new article I read on this very subject... http://www.timeshighereducation.co....logians-have-to-believe-in-god/109880.article Pushing "creationism" into public schooling comes off as quite different... If we're going to make that comparison.... then why not push to validate and include all the pseudo-sciences like parapsychology/ghost hunting/cryptozoology and so on as part of the curriculum...? That is, if mere "faith" alone is sufficient an argument for making something a course of serious study in schools....
Again there is a substantial difference.... one is as airtight as a hulled ship and as solid as an invisible figure in the sky.... It's like taking Lebron James and Jeremy Lin and saying, "why even argue who merits recognition, neither can shoot 100% from the field..."
