This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Should Creationism be taught alongside Evolution in science class?

#31GBALoserPosted 2/26/2013 8:22:46 AM
UnfairRepresent posted...
GBALoser posted...
SpawnShadow posted...
JonWood007 posted...
For once I agree with polish. How can you even teach religion without going into creationism?


Teach about literally anything else in the mythology? Pretty sure you don't need to know about Adam and Eve to hear the story of Moses, or understanding the Titanomachy to understand the story of Persephone and Hades.


True, but creationism would be more appropriately studied in religious course rather than science course. That they ever get to the discussion is another issue.


How?


Creationism, at its very base, is a religious concept that attempts to justify itself "scientifically" by stating the problems with evolutionary theory can be fixed through the concept of "irreducible complexity," meaning that some designer was necessary to account for the complexity of certain biological functions. Of course, this doesn't work as a theory because it's reliant on a metaphysical construct that cannot be observed or replicated through physical means, a big no-no in science. It, therefore, shouldn't be in an honest scientific course. Even to blurb it in said course its giving too much credence to creationism as "theory."

However in a religion course you can show creationism as an example of how people try to compromise a concept of their faith with the constantly growing body of science. It is a relatively small matter in regards to religious study, so I don't think it would necessarily be essential to spend much time on it.
---
Every once in a while I realize the human race may be worth saving. Of course, then I come back here, but still, those are good moments. -Readyman
#32TheRealJiraiyaPosted 2/26/2013 8:26:10 AM
Yeah while different aspects of religion might be prioritized to the exclusion of others, it seems pretty strange to say that the idea that God created the world, which is a pretty standard belief across most religions (even religions of the past usually believed in a creator deity of some kind) doesnt belong in a religion course. Its one of the few near-unifying beliefs from religions. Even theistic evolutionists like myself believe God was the guy who lit the initial spark and guided it to its current state.

Might be excluded for other things? Okay, maybe. Doesnt belong? Lololol of course it does!

And the fact that it belongs there is argument enough that it doesnt belong in the science classroom
---
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#33GBALoserPosted 2/26/2013 8:26:27 AM
Moorish_Idol posted...
I think the problem we're having is people aren't making a distinction between creationism and "creation science / intelligent design". Creationism, as far as I'm aware, is just the idea that God or gods are behind the existence of Earth and humans. The latter is the movement that insists on pseudoscience.


However, the popular term that people are familiar with IS Creationism and has become the de facto term for creation science in media. Actually, I don't even like the term "creation science." Gives it too much an air of respectability.
---
Every once in a while I realize the human race may be worth saving. Of course, then I come back here, but still, those are good moments. -Readyman
#34UnfairRepresent(Topic Creator)Posted 2/27/2013 5:12:30 AM
I think #2 has won
---
^ Hey now that's completely unfair.
http://i.imgur.com/45yVrRr.jpg
#35gamesrgreatPosted 2/27/2013 12:47:12 PM
Well most religious studies courses in the West are going to focus on the Greeks, Judaism, Christianity, etc. with lesser emphasis on more "Eastern" religions., so I would expect Creationism to come up in the discussion
---
D-Jesus, Christ Bosh, King James 3:16
The Miami Heat 2012 Champs- Miller Time
#36Moorish_IdolPosted 2/27/2013 1:26:24 PM
GBALoser posted...
Moorish_Idol posted...
I think the problem we're having is people aren't making a distinction between creationism and "creation science / intelligent design". Creationism, as far as I'm aware, is just the idea that God or gods are behind the existence of Earth and humans. The latter is the movement that insists on pseudoscience.


However, the popular term that people are familiar with IS Creationism and has become the de facto term for creation science in media. Actually, I don't even like the term "creation science." Gives it too much an air of respectability.

True, but I think most people here saying that creationism should be taught in religious courses are referring to the simplest form of it, and not to the I.D. movement. Some people in this topic were thinking we were supporting a course on I.D. or something.
#37kozlo100Posted 2/27/2013 1:36:07 PM
I think there's a little bit of a quirk in language going on here that I find kind of interesting.

Looking at different subjects, we teach math, history, economics, things like that. We teach about WWII, the scientific method, and the religious beliefs of 14th century French nobility.

Now, I know we all understand what each other means, but I do find it interesting that we ask if we should teach creationism, instead of asking if we should teach about creationism. There's some connotation there that I wonder if it was originally injected into the discussion on purpose.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#38Moorish_IdolPosted 2/27/2013 1:39:36 PM
Kozlo makes a good point.

To those in the opposition: are you against learning about Creationism in school?
#39UnfairRepresent(Topic Creator)Posted 2/27/2013 1:47:18 PM
kozlo100 posted...
I think there's a little bit of a quirk in language going on here that I find kind of interesting.

Looking at different subjects, we teach math, history, economics, things like that. We teach about WWII, the scientific method, and the religious beliefs of 14th century French nobility.

Now, I know we all understand what each other means, but I do find it interesting that we ask if we should teach creationism, instead of asking if we should teach about creationism. There's some connotation there that I wonder if it was originally injected into the discussion on purpose.


You're overthinking nothing.
---
^ Hey now that's completely unfair.
http://i.imgur.com/45yVrRr.jpg
#40kozlo100Posted 2/27/2013 1:52:44 PM
UnfairRepresent posted...
You're overthinking nothing.


I agree. I rather think I am giving the right amount of thought to everything, at least in regards to this particular point.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick