Creationism in the science classroom

[TXlib]

Do you believe that creationism ought to be taught in high school science classrooms alongside evolution, or do you feel it ought to be taught in Sunday School? Please explain why you feel as you do.

As for me, I feel that creationism in any guise, including Intelligent Design, has no place in a science classroom. The reason is that science, as a discipline, must begin with the assumption that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything, and that explanation must be in the form of a scientific theory, having the capacity to explain what we already have observed, predict things we haven't yet observed, and that those predictions be falsifiable.

Creation, and Intelligent Design, are not scientific theories. They don't fit the paradigm given above of what constitutes a scientific theory. The Georgia state requirement that biology textbooks be affixed with a sticker with the caveat that evolution is "only" a theory, not a fact, only underscores that many in our population do not really understand what a theory is, in the scientific sense, or what constitutes evidence. Of course evolution is "only" a theory. But in the scientist's mind, requiring some sort of naturalistic explanation pretty much leads one to the conclusion that evolution is generally correct, although we are still fuzzy on the exact details. To a scientist's mind, a theory is not necessarily "Truth"... it is a model which is capable of explaining and predicting. It will be refined over time, and perhaps be occasionally turned on its head and replaced by something entirely different when we encounter a claim made by the theory that turns out to be false, or observe something not explainable by the theory.

Interestingly, in the academic battle between the heliocentrists (the likes of Galileo), and the Catholic Church, the Church was content to allow the heliocentric model to be taught, provided it wasn't claimed to be absolute Truth, but merely a model that made calculation easier. WRT the Georgia decision, this seems vaguely reminiscent of the battle between evolution and creation today.

By the same token, a true scientist is not going to thumb his nose at religion and say, "You're wrong!", except to the extent that religion might make specific falsifiable claims. But if somebody claims that there is a deity who is the master architect who layed out the laws of physics, and who uses naturalistic mechanisms explainable by those laws, a scientist cannot honestly claim that this idea is false. All a scientist can do is shrug, and state that the claim cannot be evaluated. If an Intelligent Design proponent believes that evolution is the naturalistic means by which some deity designed us, that this deity is the "Why" behind the "How" of evolution, that's fine. But this is the line between faith and science.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Creationism should stay in the churches where it belongs

Schools should teach science, not useless false propagandistic religious bullshit.

[ret5hd]

3. dont pray in my school...

and i wont think in your church.

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. hee hee hee

[Arkana]

2. Creationism is Bible science

Thus it should stay in the church where it belongs. Evolution is REAL science. Therefore it is the one that should be in a classroom

[Az]

5. Its fine is schools as long as its in the right class

Creationism can be taught in public schools as long as it is taught in a comparitive religion course.

Creationism is not science. As such even if it were true it should not be taught in a science class. A class such as Biology (where we usually find evolution being taught) is a science. Its ideas and theories come from scientific exploration. They are the result of a specif methodology of finding out just what is going on in the world.

Should a scientific process lead us to conclude that a god did in fact create the world and everything on it then that theory can be taught in a science class. To date though this has not happened. All claims of creationism are based on religious doctrine rather than scientific methods. Even claims of ID merely expose issues we still need to resolve in our understanding of the universe and are unsuccesful at proving any evidence for a creator, intelligent or otherwise.

[Fenris]

6. Creationism should be kept out of the science classroom.

Religion and science need to stay in their separate spheres.

Religion has no place in school, just like facts have no place in organized religion.

[Bunny]

7. Good God no.

Teach that stuff in a comparative religion class, or else leave it for Sunday School. There is nothing scientific about creationism, and it should never be taught in a science class.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

8. If we allow "alternative" theories

(despite the fact that scientific theory is defined differently from "regular" theory), then we must also allow for my favorite: aliens came to the planet and established civilization (as seen on "Stargate").

Of course, there is no way for me to prove or disprove this happened, but apparently this is not a concern for the creationists and/or intelligent design people.

[SarahB]

9. No more so than any other Myths.

How about some ancient Mayan ideas of creationism or Nordic or whatever? Anything other than science is just that... myth.

[Lerkfish]

10. I'm a liberal christian, and think that "creationism" can only be taught..

in social studies, in terms of comparative religion, or societal and political issues.
It has no place in the science class. Its not science.

Further, I think there is some difference between "creationists", and christians. As I understand it, creationists discount fossils, believe the earth is only 6000 years old, etc.
Most christians accept scientific findings.

I also don't think there should be prayer in school, either. I take the separation of church and state very seriously.

[fnottr]

24. Well, right now there tend to be two schools of creationists

There are the 'young earth' creationists who believe the earth was created 6000 years ago exactly as outlined in the bible. Then there are the 'intellegent design' creationists who don't necisarrily believe the bible literally, but they believe life is too complicated to have originated by naturalistic means. The common theme between all creationists is that they believe that science cannot explain everything in the universe, particularly life. Certainly though, one can be a Christian and not be a creationist of any form. Someone like that would believe god created life by allowing it to evolve naturally.

[4_Legs_Good]

11. Creationism belongs in school!

In the religious studies section. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

In the science department it has no place. None, whatsoever. I would not, however, have a problem with a science teacher who said:

"Today we are learning about the scientific theory of evolution. This is the theory of creation based on science. If you're interested in other theories of creation based on faith, religion or spirituality, Mr. Whittaker in World Religions can tell you what you need to know."

Viola!

david

[progressoid]

12. Sure, why not

They could do it on one of those goofy 'spirit' days; you know like, "hat day' or 'pajama day'.

They could have 'really stupid idea day' and tell kids all about how to pretend something is science when it's really religion. Or how being patriotic means you have to stop questioning your leaders and give money to the GOP. And how boys shouldn't marry boys because marriage is sacred. And that Sadam Hussein actually flew one of the planes on 9/11. etc etc etc etc etc etc

[Stop_the_War]

13. Christianity should not be taught in classrooms. eom

the only place for christianity is in their churches.

[punpirate]

14. What a goodly number of people...

... don't understand about the teaching of evolution is that it is taught not just as an essential part of the biological sciences, but also as a means of describing scientific method, something that creationism or ID cannot do, because neither depends upon scientific method, but, rather, upon faith.

It's also not that the two fields of thought are incompatible; it's just that creationism is irrelevant to science. That is suggested by the repeated refrain of the fundamentalists that evolution is "just a theory." If they had actually studied scientific method, they would know that "theory" has a very specific meaning and connotation within the scientific community, one based upon scientific method--that is, science is progressive and builds upon prior discoveries.

Evolution is not a belief--it's the tested and cumulative knowledge of biological change.

Creationism is a belief--that the inerrant Bible accurately depicts the development of the world. It can't be proven scientifically (and virtually all of science is at odds with the conclusions in Genesis). The key to understanding both science and Genesis is to see Genesis as a metaphor or a mythos for what the theory of evolution describes in scientific terms.

Unfortunately, the fundamentalists cannot accept that, since it might introduce relativism into their rigid code of beliefs. That's where the crux of the biscuit lies, and that's why they want creationism taught as if it were science. Ultimately, I think, getting creationism into the science curriculum is the first step in achieving the displacement of science by belief. In the fundamentalist's world view, this is necessary to stamp out everything which contradicts Biblical text. That's also why creationism should never be taught as if it were a branch of science.

Cheers.

[TXlib]

21. I posted this thread both here, and at a conservative site

because i wanted to see how the discussions differed.

It seems that the problem is that many fundamentalists see the teaching of science as the teaching of incontrovertible facts proven to be true; anything else is "just a theory".

What they don't seem to understand is that what makes a theory is that it makes falsifiable claims, and is subject to modification (or abandonment) as new evidence comes to light.

That is why evolution, big bang, general relativity, etc are theories. They have a body of *objective* evidence supporting them, and they have all made falsifiable predictions which were vindicated. None of them are "absolute truth", in the sense that they all have limits to what they can currently explain, and we're still working on improving them.

Creationists, on the other hand start with the notion that god created the world, and this is undisputable truth. They only accept the bible as evidence, and any scientific evidence which might falsify their claims is hotly disputed. They'll go so far as to explain away contrary scientific evidence by suggesting that god is testing our faith, or that the devil is throwing out false clues, or that the universe WAS created 6000 years ago, but was created already ~15 billion years old. They invoke ever more unfalsifiable claims to hold onto the central notion. And that is why creation is not a theory in the scientific sense: it will never allow itself to be falsified, regardless of any amount of evidence.

[DrGonzoLives]

15. Science involves things that, at least in theory, can be proven

ID and Creationism cannot be proven without proving the existence of God. However, religion is based on faith, the acceptance of something without direct evidence, i.e. God. If one were to prove God exists, it would render religion moot. Since faith, according to Christian teachings, is required to get to heaven, if you no longer have faith, what then?

Besides, what experiments can you do to "prove" either?

[Worst Username Ever]

16. Oh man here we go

Pass the popcorn

[donheld]

17. YES!

actually though not in science. It should be taught in the hysterical myth dept.

[Bridget Burke]

18. No Creationism in science class....

In my day, most of our science teachers were also coaches. They had a hard enough time conveying the basics of science.

And quite a few Sunday Schools won't bother, either. Whatever its other problems, the Catholic Church made peace with science some time ago.

[MissMarple]

19. It belongs in a history of science section of a general science class.

IMHO. You know the part where they explain all the weird theories like alchemy and how horse hairs are how snakes originated, and the sun revolves around the earth. That stuff.

[EstimatedProphet]

20. "Creation science" is a misnomer...

because it doesn't use the scientific method.
The scientific method exists in various forms; the simplest one was proposed by Bacon in the 1600's:
1.Observation
2.Formulate hypothesis
3.Test hypothesis
4.Reject or accept hypothesis
Creation science more follows the method:
1.Observation
2.Formulate hypothesis
3.Accept hypothesis
Creationists don't ever bother to examine whether their theory is true or not, because they already know it's true. That's why it CANNOT be true-it is never tested. (Note that I am talking about creation science and not religion.)
If creation scientists were educated in how science actually worked, they would understand how laughable it is to say that something is "just a theory". Theories are operating groups of hypotheses which have been tested and found true-theories aren't facts, they are GROUPS of facts.

[WoodrowFan]

22. NOT HERE!!!

No, not in the Lounge!! please move this thread!! EEEEIIIIHH FLAMES!!

[realisticphish]

23. actually

everyone seems to be in agreement so far :shrug:

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Rabrrrrrr]

25. And I'm STILL in agreement

Even lo these many hours later.

Keep the fairy tales out of the science rooms.

[TXlib]

27. I'm MORE in agreement than you!

So there! :P

[Telly Savalas]

26. I'd be pissed if they were teaching creationism at my Sunday School...

Ancient Hebrew creation myths are an important part of my heritage as a Christian, but to claim they're an accurate account of how the world began flies in the face of reason.