News:

Actually sport it is a narrative

Main Menu

Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools

Started by Squid, January 21, 2010, 01:28:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Filanthropod

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"hahah, as if we're not already awash in a world suffused with religion.

If Almighty God wanted humans to be aware of him, what use would he have for mortal educational requirements?

You're being facetious. We should all be aware of what other people's views are. And it doesn't matter if you disagree because the principle is about awareness.

Thumpalumpacus

My second point is dead-serious.  We have the Establishment Clause in the Constitution for a reason, and the government has no right, nor business, to violate it in schools.

What if the religious explanation taught to your children was Hinduism's, or voodu's?
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Filanthropod

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"My second point is dead-serious.  We have the Establishment Clause in the Constitution for a reason, and the government has no right, nor business, to violate it in schools.

What if the religious explanation taught to your children was Hinduism's, or voodu's?

What you're basically still saying is that you don't want people to be aware of views other than your own. I say that everyone should be given that awareness.

Thumpalumpacus

No, what I'm saying is that when there is no evidence to support a view, it ought not be taught in a science class.

Also, please answer my question:  What if the creation-myth taught was Hindu or voodu?
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Filanthropod

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"No, what I'm saying is that when there is no evidence to support a view, it ought not be taught in a science class.

Also, please answer my question:  What if the creation-myth taught was Hindu or voodu?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Before you were all but explicitly saying that other views shouldn't be taught, and now you're saying that they should be taught, just not in science class. The problem with that of course is, who decides what is fact?

As for your question, what about it? What if the creation-myth taught was Hindu or voodoo?

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Filanthropod"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"No, what I'm saying is that when there is no evidence to support a view, it ought not be taught in a science class.

Also, please answer my question:  What if the creation-myth taught was Hindu or voodu?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Before you were all but explicitly saying that other views shouldn't be taught, and now you're saying that they should be taught, just not in science class. The problem with that of course is, who decides what is fact?

As for your question, what about it? What if the creation-myth taught was Hindu or voodoo?

Reality decides what is facts.  ideologies not based in reality should be taught in a comparative world religions class.

Your refusal to answer my question is duly noted.  You will not receive any further answer from me until you answer my question; it is common courtesy.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Filanthropod

Fair enough, it was a bit of a silly question anyway.

Thumpalumpacus

No, it was to-the-point.  It's just that the answer bodes ill for your point.

:)
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Tank

Quote from: "Filanthropod"I believe in evolution of the physical body, but I think people should be told about all the views which are out there, and then they can make up their own mind. By preventing people from knowing what others think, all you're doing is effectively forcing them to believe as you do. Also, people need to know what others think about different things, at the very least simply for the sake of knowing.
If we had to know everything when we left school, we'd never leave. So why teach bullshit like creationism?
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Filanthropod

Of course not, Tank. I just mean that the most common and popular views should be looked at in school. The question of what should be taught as fact and what shouldn't is a slightly different discussion, but people should at least be made aware of what views are out there. They should be able to make up their own minds, and they should have a good idea within themselves as to why they agree with one view and not another. And you can't do that without awareness.

Tank

Quote from: "Filanthropod"Of course not, Tank. I just mean that the most common and popular views should be looked at in school. The question of what should be taught as fact and what shouldn't is a slightly different discussion, but people should at least be made aware of what views are out there. They should be able to make up their own minds, and they should have a good idea within themselves as to why they agree with one view and not another. And you can't do that without awareness.
Are you in the US? I ask that as in the UK creationism could be taught in Religious Education, while I believe in the states it can't be taught in public schools because of the separation of church and state?
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Filanthropod

Quote from: "Tank"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"Of course not, Tank. I just mean that the most common and popular views should be looked at in school. The question of what should be taught as fact and what shouldn't is a slightly different discussion, but people should at least be made aware of what views are out there. They should be able to make up their own minds, and they should have a good idea within themselves as to why they agree with one view and not another. And you can't do that without awareness.
Are you in the US? I ask that as in the UK creationism could be taught in Religious Education, while I believe in the states it can't be taught in public schools because of the separation of church and state?

No.

I'm more concerned that all the popular views are at least made available in school, somehow, just so people can decide for themselves.

Tank

Quote from: "Filanthropod"
Quote from: "Tank"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"Of course not, Tank. I just mean that the most common and popular views should be looked at in school. The question of what should be taught as fact and what shouldn't is a slightly different discussion, but people should at least be made aware of what views are out there. They should be able to make up their own minds, and they should have a good idea within themselves as to why they agree with one view and not another. And you can't do that without awareness.
Are you in the US? I ask that as in the UK creationism could be taught in Religious Education, while I believe in the states it can't be taught in public schools because of the separation of church and state?

No.

I'm more concerned that all the popular views are at least made available in school, somehow, just so people can decide for themselves.
I agree that it's important that prevalent views are discussed. I would only get the placards out if it was decided to teach something like Intelligent Design as science in a science class. ID and creationism could be taught/discussed alongside other beliefs systems in Religious Education (RE) without a problem.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Filanthropod

I agree to an extent. I can't say I've looked into ID much, but, whenever I have read about it, it's not as if the person writing is using biblical verses and mythology to back up their claims about ID. They are using scientific terms. So what we have is a major disagreement among scientists (and they are scientists, like it or not) as to whether or not the universe is a design / creation. I know it probably frustrates those who don't believe in ID, but as long as those who believe and write about use scientific terms and ideas to at least try and back up what they say, it falls within the realm of scientific theory or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it. We are all aware that over the centuries, scientists have disagreed immensely over a lot of matters, usually involving those of one school of thought ridiculing those of another. In some cases, the ridiculers have a point and are right, and in other cases it is the other side that turns out to be right after all. So to put ID in with religion is a rather cheap tactic. It's no good putting them in the same box as religion because that just amounts to an attempt to discredit and not engage. You can disagree all you like with ID, but as long as it is scientists who are talking about it, and as long as they are using legitimate scientific terminology and arguments which, let's face it, do engage non ID believers an awful lot, it belongs in the realm of science.

Thumpalumpacus

IDs links with Creationism are clearly laid out here.
Illegitimi non carborundum.