I think you don't understand what science is. There are different ideas on beginning of the universe, and those can be discussed. Creationism is not scientific in the slightest. People can believe and discuss creationism. I don't care. But it's a matter of faith, and not a matter of science. I have no problem with debate. Evolution has plenty of areas that are open for debate. Science class is a great place to debate that. However if any student presents creationism as an alternative, then they need to be informed that it isn't science and shoudn't be discussed in science class. I actually am a certified teacher and I certainly do have a place dictating what is in a science classroom. Though nobody has to be a teacher or scientist to understand the scientific method and whether or not that method has been applied.
I refuse to get into another debate regarding this. You won't change your mind no matter how much evidence/logic/rationale I produce. Oh the irony.
So as a science teacher, do you teach children that Humans evolved from lower life forms such as apes? Because, really, this is the elephant in the room, which people always tiptoe around. Evolution would not be such a hot-button for people except for this one issue - where did Humans come from? As scientific as evolution undoubtedly is, it does not explain where human beings came from any better than the religion-based ideas. But it is the underlying implications which matter to people.
Irony? Ironic that I would favor the free exchange of ideas, and you oppose it? Tell me, what exactly is the harm in allowing free exchange of ideas? Even in the holy cathedral of 'science' (where we have now somehow created this holy inviolable notion of *SCIENCE AND ONLY SCIENCE AND ONLY THE SCIENCE WE SAY* can ever be mentioned in a science class), what exactly would be the harm in allowing children to think for themselves? What are you so afraid of? Do you even realize how much like Stalin you guys sound? And you are right about one thing - no matter how much 'evidence'/'logic'/'rationale' you produce, none of it, no matter how much you want it to be so, none of it eliminates other possibilities, as they are not mutually exclusive.
The ideas is that humans did evolve from lower life forms but not apes. Apes evolved along the same lines from a common ancestor but in a different way. I have no problems with people debating the validity of evolution in science class. But if the idea of creationism is brought up as an alternative is important to point out that it is a matter of faith and not a matter of science. Class time should not be wasted debating something for a religion, or history class.
You guys forget that Nero believes in the Winger method. His conclusions about evolution and creationism come from a survey of his associates and his "functional memory." He, and they, can't remember evolution ever occurring, therefore it is has never happened.
She spoke at their convention and asked them to keep up the good work. Her husband was a member until 2002. They are a group whose founder espouses a hatred of the US government.
I don't the see the harm in discussing creationism. I doubt there would be any sort of emphasis on it for a whole semester. Maybe a casual debate about it for a week. I don't see the harm in talking about ID though either, and I don't believe in Creationism or ID. It's the same with studying world religions. It doesn't contradict my belief system if I learn about other religions which does have scientific debate to prove its accuracies whether they're right or not. Learning about other religions just means I'm broadening my horizons. So if its introduced in an intelligent manner that doesn't belittle creationism but discusses its scientific inaccuracies and accuracies then I think that would be ok. Learning new things isn't a bad thing. I think we should give students more credit than that. And if they support creationism after discussion about it, so what? It's their life. It's their belief system. As long as it doesn't impose anyone else's belief system then I could care less. I know this is sort of sidetracked but I really love this Oscar Wilde quote. The funny thing is there's another quote that would basically call me an idiot for quoting him. "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. -Oscar Wilde EDIT: I don't believe in ID or Creationism and am voting Obama. I just think this mark against her is a bit of a stretch.
But don't think it would be valuable to discuss why it is not science in the classroom, if that is in fact the case? I think that's a pretty important topic that any true scientist should understand. Science isn't only about performing good science. It's about discerning what is good science and what is bad science. I would compare it to discussing a faulty proof for a theorem in a math class. It's valuable to the math student to understand what's wrong with it.
I am against Church and state, but I would be in favor of a theology class as an elective which discusses all religions. DD
Why is that a hot button issue? It's a scientific fact that we are biologically more similar to apes than any other animals. It seems a far more sensible explanation that we evolved from an ape-like creature over hundreds of thousands of years (via processes that have been tested and verified), as opposed to us just materializing out of thin air like magic. All the evidence supports that view.
In general there is not enough time in the day to cover all the standards being taught. To discuss something that isn't science in science class wastes valuable class time, and might cloud the students' understanding of exactly what science is(depending on the grade level being taught). I don't mind students discussing various creation stories in some sort of comparative religion class, or study of various cultures or whatever. But it should not be confused with science.
This is a wonderful idea, and the lack of this very thing is one of the big disadvantages our children have in a world in which many many countries have no such thing as separation of church and state. People have taken this separation too far, and it leaves our people with some very serious knowledge and information gaps. To teach about it is not the same as endorsing it. I am in agreement with you on this.
Creationism/ID is theology/philosophy not science. I'm not sure how you could approach it to kids as science.
It shouldn't be approached as science. It should be approached (if at all) as an example of something that is not science, to give the students a better understanding of what science is.
By the way, Factcheck has taken the unusual step of checking the facts on the way the McCain campaign is using this article...
Separation of church and state is not at fault for the lack of a "world religions" class at schools - in that case, the public university I attended (or any other public school) would also be unable to teach it. It's a matter of education boards not putting such a class on a curriculum.
