US states consider laws allowing Creationism to be taught by science teachers

[RFayette]

This is nonsense.  Evolution is a demonstrable fact, supported by numerous fields of study from genetics to physiology to paleontology.  Speciation has been observed in the laboratory, and comparative analysis of endogenous retroviruses in our DNA strongly points to shared common ancestry of humans and other primates over the past few million years.  

The only honest argument for creationism is for one to reject all of this evidence a priori because one uses a Bayesian prior of 1 for a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation account, and as such no amount of evidence could possibly change their mind.  Needless to say, this mindset is not scientific and thus should not be in a science class.  The whole point of the scientific method is to formulate models that approximate reality, and these models are derived on the basis of experimentation and observation; if these observations or results contradict a model (and these aberrations can be replicated), that model must be modified to fit the new data.  Creationism is by definition unfalsifiable, makes no testable, specific predictive claims, and in the minds of those who hold to it, cannot be changed based on new evidence.   Reliance on revelation from religious texts automatically excludes such viewpoints from the domain of science, even if they are true (which in this case it obviously is not).

[Ban my account ffs!]

I've realized over the years that much of science relies on many of the same tactics and tenants as religion... it started with things like framing teaching only evolution in science class because "that is science's explanation for the origins of life on earth" or the Big Bang because "that is science's explanation for the origins of our universe"...

We don't see science as such because none of us have lived through the corresponding development period of whichever religion we might follow.  The "science" of Christianity is now much more settled than it was 1500 years ago.

It is so important that we stress science as a process that is particularly prone to the flaws of humans... not a haven for "answers".

So honestly.. should they be teaching creationism in science class?  No.  Do I think this will undermine science or America any more than it already is?  No.

[Stranger in a strange land]

How about teaching both viewpoints? Or teaching evolution and atleast mentioning the ideas of creationism?

[RFayette]

If it is taught in an elective class yes but not in a science class

All science classes should be electives, except for math. I do agree that evolution should be taught in science classes.

The only required classes in school should be math, post-classical European history including the secular study of Abrahamic religions, and civics. Why is teaching Darwinian evolution to every student a good thing?

     Students would benefit from a solid conception of how the world operates. If science can be dispensed with, then why not math after the grade school level?

Plus, it's important for students to understand the basics of science in order for them to be informed voters.  Understanding the scientific method and how one can draw conclusions from it has implications far beyond evolution - the idea that changing one's mind in light of new evidence can be noble and not simply a result of "spinelessness," for one, is an important principle.  And advanced study of science also inherently improves numeracy and quantitative skills (not to mention critical thinking and problem-solving ability), which can help even if one never uses that domain-specific knowledge later in life.  I can say that my 2 years of physics in college did more to prepare me for collegiate math and computer science courses than anything else, just because of the nature of how to solve difficult problems, break them down into manageable components, etc. is quite generalizable.

[Santander]

If it is taught in an elective class yes but not in a science class

All science classes should be electives, except for math. I do agree that evolution should be taught in science classes.

The only required classes in school should be math, post-classical European history including the secular study of Abrahamic religions, and civics. Why is teaching Darwinian evolution to every student a good thing?

     Students would benefit from a solid conception of how the world operates. If science can be dispensed with, then why not math after the grade school level?

Yes, but the definition of "the world" we live in is subjective and metaphysical. I never suggested dispensing with science, I am saying that our education system ought to reflect our founding principle of individual liberty. The only reason I would keep math, European history and civics is because I believe those are necessary subjects to ensure that the education system can "civilize" and integrate children into our society, which should be the first and only social objective of public education.

[RFayette]

Geez, I'm feeling like quite the liberal in this thread, but as much as I like you Santander, some of this stuff just annoys me.

If it is taught in an elective class yes but not in a science class

All science classes should be electives, except for math. I do agree that evolution should be taught in science classes.

The only required classes in school should be math, post-classical European history including the secular study of Abrahamic religions, and civics. Why is teaching Darwinian evolution to every student a good thing?

     Students would benefit from a solid conception of how the world operates. If science can be dispensed with, then why not math after the grade school level?

Yes, but the definition of "the world" we live in is subjective and metaphysical. I never suggested dispensing with science, I am saying that our education system ought to reflect our founding principle of individual liberty. The only reason I would keep math, European history and civics is because I believe those are necessary subjects to ensure that the education system can "civilize" and integrate children into our society, which should be the first and only social objective of public education.

This may be true, but surely you acknowledge the utility of the axiom of existence?  I contend that the study of the natural world with the presupposition of us being able to make conclusions about the natural world based on observation and experimentation, through the reliability of our own sciences - is the key driver of the massive increase of our quality of life over the past 400 years.  So much economic growth is the result of technology, which has its roots in scientific innovations that came form the scientific method, and the worldview associated with it.  if you want to talk about forces that have "civilized" society and brought us forward as a people, surely science has to be at the top of the list?

Liberty doesn't mean that people should not be exposed to empirically-supported viewpoints concerning scientific issues.  People have a right to believe whatever they want, but society should encourage frameworks that have proven to be useful in uncovering the secrets of our natural world and developing technology.  Also, if evolution isn't taught in schools, that isn't a big deal.  But not requiring science at all - specifically, the methodology behind how conclusions are reached at in the discipline - would be a great disservice to students and the future economy.

Also:

All science classes should be electives, except for math. I do agree that evolution should be taught in science classes.

The only required classes in school should be math, post-classical European history including the secular study of Abrahamic religions, and civics. Why is teaching Darwinian evolution to every student a good thing?

All science classes should be electives, but required classes include study of history and religion? I'm not saying history shouldn't be taught, but not requiring science in the 21st century is patently absurd. If anything, science/STEM needs to be pushed harder and taught more effectively.

Amen to this.  Science, like foreign language and computer science, needs to be introduced at younger ages (and in a more rigorous way than "here's some Bill Nye videos") in our K-12 system. 

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Trumpublicans know that the more ignorant the public is, the less able the voters are to think critically, the better their chances of staying in power are.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If it is taught in an elective class yes but not in a science class

All science classes should be electives, except for math. I do agree that evolution should be taught in science classes.

The only required classes in school should be math, post-classical European history including the secular study of Abrahamic religions, and civics. Why is teaching Darwinian evolution to every student a good thing?

Math classes are totally different then science classes in high school . In college I agree science should be an elective but not in high school.

Required classes to graduate should be

Math till Algebra 2 or 3 years of math (if you took Algebra 2 as a freshman or sophomore like I did )
Three years of science
One year of Goverment
One year of US history
One year of a world history class of student choice
3 years of writing classes
One year of personal finance
Two years of shop/engineering class

[I Won - Get Over It]

Teach Creationism? How it is even possible? Teach?

What's next? Teach Anti-vaccinationism?

[pbrower2a]

How about teaching both viewpoints? Or teaching evolution and at least mentioning the ideas of creationism?

We do not teach the Axis side of World War II. We do not teach the alternatives to the reality of the near-spherical earth not the center of the universe. We do not teach that astrology has value. We do not teach Afrocentrism. We do not teach sex education from the standpoint of sexual criminals. We do not teach about unicorns, leprechauns, griffons, and fire-breathing dragons as genuine living things.

Children need not be taught nonsense.

[Santander]

This may be true, but surely you acknowledge the utility of the axiom of existence?  I contend that the study of the natural world with the presupposition of us being able to make conclusions about the natural world based on observation and experimentation, through the reliability of our own sciences - is the key driver of the massive increase of our quality of life over the past 400 years.  So much economic growth is the result of technology, which has its roots in scientific innovations that came form the scientific method, and the worldview associated with it.  if you want to talk about forces that have "civilized" society and brought us forward as a people, surely science has to be at the top of the list?

In my opinion, courage and individualism are the things which have caused most of the improvements in quality of life over the past 400 years, including scientific discovery. It is no coincidence that the Miracle of Europe and the Protestant Reformation paved the way for this. There were many great pre-modern scientists in the Arab and Asian world before this, but humanity has never risen on such a steep upward trajectory as it has under Western leadership. I would argue that Western civilization's great scientific discoveries were not made because our society as a whole was obsessed about the natural world, but because we were obsessed about the human world, and perhaps even the spiritual world. It was this thirst and courageous spirit that led European nations to explore, colonize, and dominate the entire world, including making great discoveries in the natural sciences.

[Comrade Funk]

How about teaching both viewpoints? Or teaching evolution and atleast mentioning the ideas of creationism?

One is science, the other is faith.

How hard is it to understand? Do you support mentioning Scientology or even worse Islam as well?

[Illiniwek]

This is so sad. I genuinely thought this issue was over a decade ago. Promote it in your churches if you wish, but Creationism has no place in a science curriculum in public schools. End of discussion.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

This is nonsense.  Evolution is a demonstrable fact, supported by numerous fields of study from genetics to physiology to paleontology.  Speciation has been observed in the laboratory, and comparative analysis of endogenous retroviruses in our DNA strongly points to shared common ancestry of humans and other primates over the past few million years.  

The only honest argument for creationism is for one to reject all of this evidence a priori because one uses a Bayesian prior of 1 for a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation account, and as such no amount of evidence could possibly change their mind.  Needless to say, this mindset is not scientific and thus should not be in a science class.  The whole point of the scientific method is to formulate models that approximate reality, and these models are derived on the basis of experimentation and observation; if these observations or results contradict a model (and these aberrations can be replicated), that model must be modified to fit the new data.  Creationism is by definition unfalsifiable, makes no testable, specific predictive claims, and in the minds of those who hold to it, cannot be changed based on new evidence.   Reliance on revelation from religious texts automatically excludes such viewpoints from the domain of science, even if they are true (which in this case it obviously is not).

-I didn't realize you are an atheist, RFayette.

[RFayette]

This is nonsense.  Evolution is a demonstrable fact, supported by numerous fields of study from genetics to physiology to paleontology.  Speciation has been observed in the laboratory, and comparative analysis of endogenous retroviruses in our DNA strongly points to shared common ancestry of humans and other primates over the past few million years.  

The only honest argument for creationism is for one to reject all of this evidence a priori because one uses a Bayesian prior of 1 for a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation account, and as such no amount of evidence could possibly change their mind.  Needless to say, this mindset is not scientific and thus should not be in a science class.  The whole point of the scientific method is to formulate models that approximate reality, and these models are derived on the basis of experimentation and observation; if these observations or results contradict a model (and these aberrations can be replicated), that model must be modified to fit the new data.  Creationism is by definition unfalsifiable, makes no testable, specific predictive claims, and in the minds of those who hold to it, cannot be changed based on new evidence.   Reliance on revelation from religious texts automatically excludes such viewpoints from the domain of science, even if they are true (which in this case it obviously is not).

-I didn't realize you are an atheist, RFayette.

I am not an atheist (as should be obvious).  My point was that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that a literal interpretation of the Bible with respect to Genesis 1 is simply untenable.  Furthermore, I pointed out that religion and science are different domains and we shouldn't mix them, and I contend that using the Bible to uncover scientific truths in an attempt to override science is rather unwise - research, not revelation, should guide questions in the natural sciences concerning origins.  The reason for this is obvious - if we simply use the Bible without looking at external evidence from the natural world, we would end up believing the Earth is 6000 years old as Bishop Usher did.  However, observation has shown that there are innumerate pieces of evidence form different fields which contradict this finding.  Therefore, continuing to hold this belief not only is inaccurate from a scientific POV but also has theological implications - most notably, that God is  a trickster, who plants layers of dinosaur fossils well below any human fossils across the world, and yet somehow history began with the first humans.  Scripture teaches clearly that God is not the author of deception, so it's wrong to have such an interpretation that would imply as such.  

This isn't to say science has all the answers; by all means, I certainly don't hold to that.  Rather, it's important not to mix science and religion, or we'll run into problems.  Furthermore true statements which are unfalsifiable or cannot be tested scientifically should not, by definition, be in a science class. 

[Hammy]

I'm Catholic and feel that believe in evolution--that science explains the physical how, and that faith explains the reasoning for it, and even with that said, think it's absolutely disgusting that people feel matters of faith (which is what religions is) need to be shoved down people's throat as absolute fact.

[Classic Conservative]

This is nonsense.  Evolution is a demonstrable fact, supported by numerous fields of study from genetics to physiology to paleontology.  Speciation has been observed in the laboratory, and comparative analysis of endogenous retroviruses in our DNA strongly points to shared common ancestry of humans and other primates over the past few million years.  

The only honest argument for creationism is for one to reject all of this evidence a priori because one uses a Bayesian prior of 1 for a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation account, and as such no amount of evidence could possibly change their mind.  Needless to say, this mindset is not scientific and thus should not be in a science class.  The whole point of the scientific method is to formulate models that approximate reality, and these models are derived on the basis of experimentation and observation; if these observations or results contradict a model (and these aberrations can be replicated), that model must be modified to fit the new data.  Creationism is by definition unfalsifiable, makes no testable, specific predictive claims, and in the minds of those who hold to it, cannot be changed based on new evidence.   Reliance on revelation from religious texts automatically excludes such viewpoints from the domain of science, even if they are true (which in this case it obviously is not).

-I didn't realize you are an atheist, RFayette.

I am not an atheist (as should be obvious).  My point was that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that a literal interpretation of the Bible with respect to Genesis 1 is simply untenable.  Furthermore, I pointed out that religion and science are different domains and we shouldn't mix them, and I contend that using the Bible to uncover scientific truths in an attempt to override science is rather unwise - research, not revelation, should guide questions in the natural sciences concerning origins.  The reason for this is obvious - if we simply use the Bible without looking at external evidence from the natural world, we would end up believing the Earth is 6000 years old as Bishop Usher did.  However, observation has shown that there are innumerate pieces of evidence form different fields which contradict this finding.  Therefore, continuing to hold this belief not only is inaccurate from a scientific POV but also has theological implications - most notably, that God is  a trickster, who plants layers of dinosaur fossils well below any human fossils across the world, and yet somehow history began with the first humans.  Scripture teaches clearly that God is not the author of deception, so it's wrong to have such an interpretation that would imply as such.  

This isn't to say science has all the answers; by all means, I certainly don't hold to that.  Rather, it's important not to mix science and religion, or we'll run into problems.  Furthermore true statements which are unfalsifiable or cannot be tested scientifically should not, by definition, be in a science class. 

I remember the days when you were a young earth creationist, that feels like an eternity ago.

[Mopsus]

Moderate Hero position: The Bible should be taught in school, but if it's going to be taught literally, it would be better if it weren't taught at all.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Moderate Hero position: The Bible should be taught in school, but if it's going to be taught literally, it would be better if it weren't taught at all.

     I like this, actually. The Bible has influenced so much literature that familiarity with it is critical to gaining a serious grounding in the history of literature. The caveat is that this approach must consider the Bible as literature to be successful; teaching it as Truth will miss the point quite widely. Oh, and also interfere with the free exercise of religion.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Moderate Hero position: The Bible should be taught in school, but if it's going to be taught literally, it would be better if it weren't taught at all.

     I like this, actually. The Bible has influenced so much literature that familiarity with it is critial to gaining a serious grounding in the history of literature. The caveat is that this approach must consider the Bible as literature to be successful; teaching it as Truth will miss the point quite widely. Oh, and also interfere with the free exercise of religion.

-Seconded. Also, PiT is a great mod and overall individual.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I am a religious person and this is the stupidest thing to teach in science.

[Ebowed]

The Bible is generally covered in introductory World Literature classes.

It is important that students are scientifically literate.  But if religious special interests wish to interfere with the public system, perhaps they would be better off advocating things that will actually help people: things like how to budget, how to cook, how to interact with people who have different viewpoints, etc.

[Green Line]

It's a valid theory, supported by a pluarality of Americans.  Absolutely it needs to be taught.  It can't be proven or disproven... well it can, but not by a human!

[Virginiá]

It's a valid theory, supported by a pluarality of Americans.  Absolutely it needs to be taught.  It can't be proven or disproven... well it can, but not by a human!

Then God should come down here and teach us himself.

[Green Line]

It's a valid theory, supported by a pluarality of Americans.  Absolutely it needs to be taught.  It can't be proven or disproven... well it can, but not by a human!

Then God should come down here and teach us himself.

He tried.. People got mad.