Should creationism be a part of public school curriculum?

Then why wasn't there some Intelligent Design involved in the Rockets new logo?

 

This reminds me of my Biology AP class in highschool. We watched an evolution vs intelligent design debate, discussed the "theory" of intelligent design, etc. Our "teacher" then hinted that she believed in this psuedo-science. In a class full of many bright people, I felt like I was the only one who actually believed in evolution. Needless to say, this "teacher" won Alabama science teacher of the year.

 

Yep, just get two thirds of the world to believe it or something else from the same foundation and you're golden.

 

If they can teach creationism, can we also allow them to teach about:

Alternate Planes of Existence
Worm Holes
Non-linear Time
Aliens
Mental Projection
Reincarnation

In the realm of theoretical science and quantum mechanics, these are all very real possibilities. Physics getting closer and closer to proving the real link between matter and energy on a quantum level gives us a rationalization for the soul but not in a theological way.

I don't have a problem with teachers teaching creation as a possible theory. But, doesn't that open up the door to every other theory that has even the slightest degree of scientific possibility?

To me, it isn't really about religion. it's about giving teachers and students the ability to realistically study science without injecting a lot of theory, speculation and debate.

It is difficult enough to get a 12-year-old to understand the functions of bodily excretion without giggling and saying "eewww, gross" ever 10 seconds. Do we really need to add religious controversy to that mix?

 

There is your problem, all of those examples are of things that have a basis in science, unlike creationism.

Agreed. Great post!

I personally lean toward intelligent design, but I do not believe it should be in a science class, it should be in a theology class.

 

My parents were teachers. Most of the time, they had a hard enough time just getting kids to pay attention, let alone dissect with them the myriad of theories available to us.

Hell, I don't even think the average science teacher would understand half of the theories put forth by theoretical science, quantum mechanics and theology. I doubt they are qualified.

Whenever you hear the debate raging about what should be taught to our children, the collective groan you hear in the distance is that of teachers who have to figure out how to squeeze in whatever new doctrine the politicians have foisted upon them this week.

I'm always leery of people with no real-world classroom experience deciding what and how teachers should teach. They seldom understand the real challenges facing educators in a classroom setting. If they did, they probably wouldn't propose half of the things that they do.

 

During year 12 Bilogy, we spent nearly a whole semester studying Evolution. The very first thing my teacher said was: "I don't want to get into a debate about evolution vs. creationalism. I am going to teach you about evolution, and if you want to pass this subject, you will have to learn it. You don't have to believe it or accept it, just learn it."

And this was in the height of the debate, in a private 'Anglican' school (only by name though).

 

I personally don't trust the public education system to teach my kids about God. I'd rather they not try. Talk about comparative religion in social studies in high school, but leave the rest to the parents. Teach them the scientists' current best guess as to how it happened...and I'll teach him who the Creator is at home and church.

 

I personally don't think it's ridiculous to see God in the details of creation. I don't think it's ridiculous to say that all the complexities tend to point toward a creator. Certainly alternate arguments could be made...including counter arguments...but that doesn't mean the idea is ridiculous.

 

Exactly.

 

Not ridiculous, but not for high school science class either. That topic is more geared to a college theology course or some such.

 

agreed entirely...

 

I agree that creationism shouldn't be part of the curriculum.
I also believe in the responsible teaching of science, meaning theories should be presented as theories and not as unsubstantiated fact. Problems with the evolution model should also be presented, such as contradictions in the fossil history, limitations of dating techniques, and history of changes within the evolutionary model from its first formulation to its current form.

As Jeff pointed out, that would overburden any teacher to include all of it with everything else, and as such, should be a stand alone class separate from Biology and Physical Sci. (leaving classification of all living things to the Biology teacher) My suggestion would be to make evolution a high school elective science, but not offer one for creationism.

I just wanted to clarify some of these ridiculous evidences:

 

Creationists never mention about the fact that The surviving child of Adam and Eve went down to a local village to select a mate from the eligible 200 maidens*. If you believe in The Garden of Eden one should ask the question was God also having other types of Humans, evolving and existing when he created Adam and Eve? This intermariage* suggests that the Genes of Adam and Eve are inter mingled with ours.

 

please cite me to the passage you're talking about.

 

Does the Discovery Institute ever mention the resultant evidence from the genome project with regards to evolution?

Max, I don't think he was citing, I think he was suggesting that, unless God created other humans, we all are directly the result of Adam and Eve mating. Could be wrong. Additionally, Adam and Eve would have had to have a son and daughter in order to continue the trajectory...meaning that we come from a line of nothing but inbreeding.

 

"I'll drink to that!"