Science classes should teach
only evolution
89.5% (221)
89.5% (221)
both evolution and creationism
7.7% (19)
7.7% (19)
only creationism
0.8% (2)
0.8% (2)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Creationism in the science room

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

We were discussing this very subject in my History of Life class. I found it disturbing that about 50% of Americans wanted creationism and evolution taught in science classes. Rant in 3...2...1 I can't believe that people want creationism taught in the science classes, it's a religious belief and has no place in a science class. If you want to teach creationism in a religious course, fine. Seriously, go right ahead, but creationism isn't testable, can't be proven through experimentation or observation, therefore, it's not science! Science classes are for science and science only, otherwise it would be some other class. Now that my opinion is out of the way, I want to hear what you Escapists believe. Please vote, discuss, debate, and enjoy it.
P.S. There are only three choices. Pick one. Those guys who vote 'I don't know' or 'I have no opinion' just piss me off, but this isn't about me.

Blindswordmaster:
I can't believe that people want creationism taught in the science classes, it's a religious belief and has no place in a science class. If you want to teach creationism in a religious course, fine. Seriously, go right ahead, but creationism isn't testable, can't be proven through experimentation or observation, therefore, it's not science! Science classes are for science and science only, otherwise it would be some other class.

Pretty much precisely the same as my opinion on the subject.

Creationism? In my science class?

image

GET OUT.

In America, there was a movement in the 80's where a bunch of religious nuts and conservative politicians decided that this was a major priority that could be sold to Americans under the false pretense that it was encouraging "critical thinking" by demanding magic be brought into the science classroom. The movement lost steam by the 90's and a series of (sane, rational) court decisions completely destroyed the idea of this actually happening in any capacity resembling what the creationists had in mind, but it's still sold to this day, mainly for politicians to pander to morons and for the religious nuts to sell books in bunches to church groups. You can still find people like Lee Strobel, Michael Behe, Kent Hovind (once he gets out of the pen, of course), and other jackoffs that are making millions off of "teaching the controversy," but the political movement is a twitching puddle of goo for the most part.

I think they should teach about as many theories as possible to be taught. At the very least, Evolution, Creationism, Lamark's Theory, Mendelian Genetics, Neo-Darwinism, Synthetic Theory and Intelligent Design.

I'm surprised so many people would be this intolerant towards learning something different. If your theory is so sound what do you have to fear? If it is this sound of a theory wouldn't it easily expose the others as being way out there and wrong if compared side by side?

littleseabass2003:
I think they should teach about as many theories as possible to be taught. At the very least, Evolution, Creationism, Lamark's Theory, Mendelian Genetics, Neo-Darwinism, Synthetic Theory and Intelligent Design.

I'm surprised so many people would be this intolerant towards learning something different. If your theory is so sound what do you have to fear? If it is this sound of a theory wouldn't it easily expose the others as being way out there and wrong if compared side by side?

I'm intolerant towards pseudoscience being taught in the science classroom. When creationism, Lamarckian evolution, intelligent design, etc. have considerable evidence in favor of them, and wide acceptance among the scientific community, they can be taught as science. Otherwise, all we're doing is lying to our kids, dishonestly implying that pseudoscience is as valid and well-supported as actual science.

littleseabass2003:
I think they should teach about as many theories as possible to be taught.

Scientific theories need to be supported by falsifiable evidence.

Can you provide me some for creationism? Can you justify its place in a classroom of science?

littleseabass2003:
I think they should teach about as many theories as possible to be taught. At the very least, Evolution, Creationism, Lamark's Theory, Mendelian Genetics, Neo-Darwinism, Synthetic Theory and Intelligent Design.

I'm surprised so many people would be this intolerant towards learning something different. If your theory is so sound what do you have to fear? If it is this sound of a theory wouldn't it easily expose the others as being way out there and wrong if compared side by side?

because science classes can't waste time acknowledging and testing on every crackpot theory that claims to explain the diversity of life on this planet.

littleseabass2003:

I'm surprised so many people would be this intolerant towards learning something different. If your theory is so sound what do you have to fear? If it is this sound of a theory wouldn't it easily expose the others as being way out there and wrong if compared side by side?

Uh, because it's a waste of time that the students should be spending on SCIENCE in "SCIENCE CLASS" (wierd idea huh?).

Creationism isn't a "theory", it's religious ideas. These belon in religion classes, not science classes...

littleseabass2003:
I think they should teach about as many theories as possible to be taught. At the very least, Evolution, Creationism, Lamark's Theory, Mendelian Genetics, Neo-Darwinism, Synthetic Theory and Intelligent Design.

I'm surprised so many people would be this intolerant towards learning something different. If your theory is so sound what do you have to fear? If it is this sound of a theory wouldn't it easily expose the others as being way out there and wrong if compared side by side?

The thing is, they teach science in science class, fake science, bad science, and things that don't even pretend to be science don't make the cut.

They can teach creationism in a religious history or religious studies course, but keep it the hell away from a proper science class.

Believe it or not I voted for "only evolution". Its a Science class so you should only teach Science. In a theology class (assuming you go to a religious school which most American's dont) or at Church you teach creationism.

As far as I am concerned teaching evolution in Theology Class or creationism in Science Class is akin to teaching math in an English Class.

I actually don't get the benefits of teaching creationism or intelligent design at all, not because of my philosophical objections, I just wonder how much you could actually say. Either one of them can be summed up in one sentence, and you can't elaborate on the intelligent force without exploring religion, in which case you might as well be teaching the religion you're trying to shoehorn into the class.

By all means teach creationism in Religious Education/Religious Studies/Theology (whatever you want to call it, it varies by region) but keep it the fuck away from science classes. Unlike the theory[1] of evolution, creationism (and "intelligent design", since there's no difference) is merely a hypothesis - and what's more, it has absolutely no supporting evidence. I could assert that the universe was designed by a colossal space-faring SNES controller which oozes pure cocaine from its mighty B button. This is an assertion which is no way backed by peer-reviewed study or empirical evidence and observation, so it is not to be taught in the science room. If it ain't science, don't teach it in a science lesson. It's as simple as that.

[1] And I'm talking "theory" in the scientific sense, not the colloquial sense in which its definition is much more similar to "hypothesis". We're talking the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, germ theory etc.

Can't read through whole thread I is tired so i'll just answer.

My teachers... all of the science ones through highschool and middle school as well where all intelligent design theorists. I realize your talking about creationism which is different but they would teach evolution of course, but they would preach Intelligent design. Its to complicated for science to explain we don't know how this happened there are no provable theories for anything thats why i think it would be god; example of things i've heard before. Of course they missed quite a few things that someone that was willing to look deeper into science and actually tell us these theories and other things that aren't in the book.

I won't say these teachers where bad because like i said i wanted to hear things that weren't necessarily in a five year old textbook. They would usually provide things outside of the textbook for other subjects but for evolution it was only intelligent design.

To give an example of one of my teachers:

https://www.fedaforcongress.com/feda-fires-up-the-fifth/

Please watch it until at least the evil empires part.
This is literally one of my teachers, she is a nice lady(for the most part) despite everything.

I say no to Creationism in scientific classrooms because it's faith-based. Technically it's used by any and all societies on Earth to explain why we're here, rather than how, so it fits much better with Cultural Studies or Theology.

I don't understand why Creationism needs to be 'taught'. Just say, "God did it!" and that's pretty much the whole course, right?

I think there is room to at least spend a day saying here's why they believe X Y and Z and here's their interpretation of evidence. Nothing wrong with that. Of course here on teh skapist there seems to be a worshipfulness at the alter of science, and God forbid anyone have a differing interpretation of things.

sneakypenguin:
I think there is room to at least spend a day saying here's why they believe X Y and Z and here's their interpretation of evidence. Nothing wrong with that. Of course here on teh skapist there seems to be a worshipfulness at the alter of science, and God forbid anyone have a differing interpretation of things.

You'd think a Christian would know how to spell "altar".

You haven't yet given a good reason why creationism should be taught in a science class as opposed to a philosophy/theology class by the way.

Sounds like people are just afraid to expand their minds and thoughts. It really doesn't even need to be taught but at least presented to allow a student to come up with their own conclusion. With closed minds and never even being exposed to Creationism or the other theories I presented how will they react when first exposed to these theories?

Take for example a student exposed to all these theories. A Creationist approaches them and tells them their theory. The student explains that they were taught this in school and it's just a bunch of hocus pocus. The Creationist then asks why. The student is able to explain all the things they found wrong with the theory.

Conversely a student not exposed to the theory might be easily susceptible to the Creationist's theory due to never being exposed to it.

Exposing people to different theories is always a good way to embolden and bolster a sound theory. Which ultimately crushes the unsound theory and even gives the person mental ammunition against such theory.

If people want creationism taught in school I need to ask two questions: What type of creationism? Which class? After that we can get into specifics, but a good rule of thumb is "No".

Amnestic:
sneep
You haven't yet given a good reason why creationism should be taught in a science class as opposed to a philosophy/theology class by the way.

I don't think there's any harm in it. Creationism is pretty much a varying interpretation of evidence, and what harm would there be in outlining that in a science classroom? Or to acknowledge criticisms of evolutionary theory? It seems to me like any other science wherein there are competing and completely opposite theories just throw them all out there.

Stop pretending the ideas are equal.

Only truth and fact should be taught in the science classes.

You can teach Creationism in RE classes if you want to. Though I dunno if you'll still have time for anything else if you actually teach all the different religious Creation accounts. I mean, the Judeo-Christian one isn't the only one.
As for science classes? Hell no.

sneakypenguin:

Amnestic:
sneep
You haven't yet given a good reason why creationism should be taught in a science class as opposed to a philosophy/theology class by the way.

I don't think there's any harm in it. Creationism is pretty much a varying interpretation of evidence, and what harm would there be in outlining that in a science classroom? Or to acknowledge criticisms of evolutionary theory? It seems to me like any other science wherein there are competing and completely opposite theories just throw them all out there.

Creationism is not a science.

End of story.

sneakypenguin:
I don't think there's any harm in it. Creationism is pretty much a varying interpretation of evidence, and what harm would there be in outlining that in a science classroom? Or to acknowledge criticisms of evolutionary theory? It seems to me like any other science wherein there are competing and completely opposite theories just throw them all out there.

Then teach the actual controversies within Evolution, not misinterpretations and blatant lies about scientific evidence. You know, like punctuated equilibrium versus phyletic gradualism as well as the combined ideas. Or whether to classify a specific animal as a reptilian mammal or a mammalian reptile.
There is no controversy about whether Evolution itself is real apart from a few Creationists stirring up nothing but media trouble in the USA and not even publishing anything to support their views or credibly attack Evolution. There are still questions about the details of Evolution, though, and those would be an interesting topic to discuss in science classes.
All arguments against Evolution I've heard so far have either been debunked or are based on a ridiculous strawman of some description.

littleseabass2003:
Sounds like people are just afraid to expand their minds and thoughts. It really doesn't even need to be taught but at least presented to allow a student to come up with their own conclusion.

You know, some people say the HI-virus is the direct cause of the reduction of CD-4 T-lymphocytes over a course of years and thereby the AID-syndrome. But there are others who don't think that's the case and have no tangible evidence for it whatsoever, so go ahead and make up your own mind.
Yeah. That's how it sounds to me when people like you put science on equal footing with literal religious dogma.

Also, why would you teach Lamarckian Evolution? It's proven wrong! Why would you teach the world is flat when we've seen it from outer space? Yeah, I apply this standard not only to pseudoscience but also real science that has been proven wrong. I know it's weird but I'm consistent like that.

in SCIENCE, ideas are not what is argued between scientists, EVIDENCE IS! guess which one lacks that.

Skeleon:

littleseabass2003:
Sounds like people are just afraid to expand their minds and thoughts. It really doesn't even need to be taught but at least presented to allow a student to come up with their own conclusion.

You know, some people say the HI-virus is the direct cause of the reduction of CD-4 T-lymphocytes over a course of years and thereby the AID-syndrome. But there are others who don't think that's the case and have no tangible evidence for it whatsoever, so go ahead and make up your own mind.
Yeah. That's how it sounds to me when people like you put science on equal footing with literal religious dogma.

Also, why would you teach Lamarckian Evolution? It's proven wrong! Why would you teach the world is flat when we've seen it from outer space? Yeah, I apply this standard not only to pseudoscience but also real science that has been proven wrong. I know it's weird but I'm consistent like that.

Your view on Lamarckian Evolution is disturbing to say the least.

Also, I like to see things from all sides even those that are obsolete. It helps stimulate new ways of critical thinking.

Creationism isn't a science.

Creationism is not science.
/thread

littleseabass2003:
I think they should teach about as many theories as possible to be taught. At the very least, Evolution, Creationism, Lamark's Theory, Mendelian Genetics, Neo-Darwinism, Synthetic Theory and Intelligent Design.

I'm surprised so many people would be this intolerant towards learning something different. If your theory is so sound what do you have to fear? If it is this sound of a theory wouldn't it easily expose the others as being way out there and wrong if compared side by side?

I don't think that being intolerant of pseudoscience in a science classroom is a particularly heinous crime.

As long as it points in the direction that we evolved from monkeys, I really could care less...as long as it isn't God suddenly made that monkey a man, that talked and walked, and worshipped him.

littleseabass2003:

Your view on Lamarckian Evolution is disturbing to say the least.

Also, I like to see things from all sides even those that are obsolete. It helps stimulate new ways of critical thinking.

But Creationism isn't about critical thinking in general, it's right there in the name, to prove we were created by a higher being.

Boris Goodenough:

littleseabass2003:

Your view on Lamarckian Evolution is disturbing to say the least.

Also, I like to see things from all sides even those that are obsolete. It helps stimulate new ways of critical thinking.

But Creationism isn't about critical thinking in general, it's right there in the name, to prove we were created by a higher being.

And prove it by any means necessary.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked