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

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

Assuming you're not trolling here, when did God come down and teach creationism?

[Blue3]

The Priest who taught Theology at my Catholic High School would often shut up students who didn't believe in the science behind evolution just because of a belief in creationism.

It was echoed by the school at large.

The Catholic Church has long said there's nothing inherently contradicting with its teachings and the scientific theory of evolution.

[emailking]

The Catholic Church has long said there's nothing inherently contradicting with its teachings and the scientific theory of evolution.

That may be true. But at the same time, they do strongly imply that evolution is god guided (or at least god assisted), whereas the scientific theory doesn't need that.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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?

Why only European history?

[SWE]

Two years of shop/engineering class

Why? Forcing everyone to spend half of their time in high school on something only a fraction of them will find remotely useful sounds like hell.

[Xing]

I'm only in favor of creationism being taught the Family Guy way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmD9ZWDUsNY

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Two years of shop/engineering class

Why? Forcing everyone to spend half of their time in high school on something only a fraction of them will find remotely useful sounds like hell.

Some could choose classes on sartorial elegance instead.

[emailking]

To all of you evolution supporters, do you really want this taught in our public schools? Seriously?

Am I supposed to give a critical analysis of a parody?

Obviously not, but it's not what happened either.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Which one: YEC, OEC, or Progressive?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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!

Should be easy for the Trumpublican zombies to teach then. (Lacking both empathy and self-awareness, they're not human, you see.)

[pbrower2a]

Two years of shop/engineering class

Why? Forcing everyone to spend half of their time in high school on something only a fraction of them will find remotely useful sounds like hell.

Some could choose classes on sartorial elegance instead.

Heck, participation in music seems to correlate more strongly to educational success than anything direct. I did not need any course to teach me how to use a PC for web surfing; I simply played with the computer.

Drafting could be very useful.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I would support teaching a reasonable array of religious viewpoints alongside evolution, but the scientific age of the earth must be declared to be (roughly) correct, and YEC denounced as Stupidity.

[DavidB.]

Of course this needs to be allowed.

[pbrower2a]

A science teacher who teaches creationism is teaching something other than science. Such a teacher might as well be teaching astrology.

[Goldwater]

Of course this needs to be allowed.

Er, what? Why?

[pbrower2a]

Of course this needs to be allowed.

Er, what? Why?

I doubt that he saw this:

A science teacher who teaches creationism is teaching something other than science. Such a teacher might as well be teaching astrology.

[Blue3]

Again...




You can teach creationism... in a social studies lesson on Christianity, as well as social studies lessons on Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Confucianism, and Sikhism.

Or maybe as a political issue in a civics/current events class.

Or reading Genesis in English class... along with the Qur'an, Greek Mythology, Norse Mythology, and other creation stories.



Science is: the process of verifying knowledge, and the sum total of verifiable knowledge that was generated by that process.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^ One could argue that Molecules-to-man evolution is not science then, as no one can reproduce it. Do you really want to use that definition?

[Associate Justice PiT]

^ One could argue that Molecules-to-man evolution is not science then, as no one can reproduce it. Do you really want to use that definition?

     It can be verified without being reproduced. The theory of evolution has a vast body of evidence that supports its veracity, even though the evolutionary chain from the first eukaryote to animals today cannot actually be reproduced.

[emailking]

^ One could argue that Molecules-to-man evolution is not science then, as no one can reproduce it. Do you really want to use that definition?

Evolution doesn't claim we went from molecules to men. It claims we went from bacteria to men. Most people who believe in evolution would probably also agree that a natural process is responsible for the origin of life, but it's a separate topic. Evolution itself has a mountain of evidence to support it, whereas the science on the origin of life is mostly conjecture at the moment.

[Torie]

Sure in a religion class, not a science class. Stuff that is not subject to the scientific method should not be in a science class.

[Person Man]

This is definitely a social studies or English thing. The modern world of science, democracy, and commerce originated in a mixture of Helletic and Christian thought.

Origin stories as science isn't good science, policy, or even theology. What good is faith if you are trying objectively prove the existence of God?

[RFayette]

^ One could argue that Molecules-to-man evolution is not science then, as no one can reproduce it. Do you really want to use that definition?

     It can be verified without being reproduced. The theory of evolution has a vast body of evidence that supports its veracity, even though the evolutionary chain from the first eukaryote to animals today cannot actually be reproduced.

Indeed.  Our shared genetic code itself is evidence for "molecules-to-man evolution."  Science is about analyzing data, processes, etc. and constructing models which provide insight into the natural world.  Traditional experiments are one way to achieve this, as seen in chemistry, experimental physics, etc.  And such experiments indeed play a role in biology; however, much of evolutionary biology is about reconstructing the past based on direct observation of anatomy, fossils, genetics, etc.  Of course, results from experiments in other domains - such as radioactive dating - can help construct these models (with estimates of age, possible habitat, etc.).  This is not to say that models constructed aren't subject to falsification, either - the discovery of endogenous retroviruses helped corroborate the evolutionary trees based on morphological and fossil data.  This cross-confirmation from different fields of study is the effective confirmation of evolution.

As an aside, macroevolution vs. microevolution is a silly debate and rather arbitrary.  The level of genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees is greater than that between certain pairs of species of beetles, yet many creationists would concede the latter as an example of "microevolution."  There is no reason why the mechanisms which drive microevolution cannot, over a long period of time, drive changes over a greater taxonomic level. 

[kyc0705]

Of course creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools, but it belongs specifically in studies of religion and belief systems. To be frank, it shouldn't be taught in science classes because it's not science.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This is definitely a social studies or English thing. The modern world of science, democracy, and commerce originated in a mixture of Helletic and Christian thought.

Origin stories as science isn't good science, policy, or even theology. What good is faith if you are trying objectively prove the existence of God?

Well, the whole "creationism should be taught in science" thing is because genesis, if taken literally, disproves bacteria to mammal evolution, as there is no coherent way to get the cycle to happen in six 24-hour days. The NOMA principle that science and the bible can coexist peacefully with no conflicts is not at all true if you take genesis literally. That is why "biblical creationists" want YEC/Gap Theory taught in Science - because they believe it takes the place of evolutionary theory - or at least the associated theory of Common Ancestry. To settle for teaching it in Religion/English would be to (implicitly) admit that YEC/Gap Theory is unproven in their view, and to give unmerited (in their view) validity to evolution by not forcing it to "do battle" with creationist theories in the science classroom.

(I am playing Devil's Advocate here. I think most of you are aware of my progressive creationist/theistic evolutionist stance, and I stand by my first post on this topic as to my own views on this subject.)