Debate Should Creation be Taught in Schools?

Creation then. If you teach creation you teach that there is a creator. Sounds like religion to me.

 

it is very nicely dressed up as intellegent design....crazy!

 

Then you're off topic in your own thread.

You were talking about the assumptions we make in our beliefs and just generally spouting complex sentences. I replied that the details of the theories are irrelevant. Schools should teach all cultures and perspectives, many believe in creation and follow religions which teach it, we should be aware of and respect these beliefs. As they say, ignorance breeds prejudice. Whoever they is.

 

This topic has so many divisions and key points for me to answer that I don't know where to begin. How about the main question itself. Oh well, let's start:

Creation shouldn't be taught in schools, well in my beliefs. Science has proven that many religions have been wrong, and I don't even really believe in religions in the first place. In fact, in my opinion, the only logical religion is Buddhism. Creation was once before taught in schools, however it was just Christianity. I would love, in my opinion, just to piss the Christians off with this idea. Make children learn all about different religions, that way they can ask the Christians what's right and wrong about their religion.

I'm going to go off topic for a second, because the first creation taught at north American schools were Christianity. Do we actually believe that Jesus was the son of god? I really doubt it, in fact I more then doubt. I believe Jesus, the man himself, lived. The whole religion based on his belief is just a lie. Now let's talk about the book of their religion, we see many things similar between these religions. In fact, I see so many multiple things in these religions that I don't know what to believe anymore.

Did someone really make up a first religion, then someone made up a different one based off of this one? I don't know because I don't pay attention to the less popular religions. However, because I'm a Buddhist, I believe on the statements of these rules. Basically all these religions tell you to be a nice honest person, and if your not good then there will be consequences. This is where the schools lie in, most schools tell you about golden rules and ****. Be kind and what not, but we aren't going to follow these rules. Hell, why are we even teach these kids to be nice successful learners? Schools are so screwed up these days that you can see a fight right from the corner of your eye.

Scratch that, in Christianity there is something we people call hell? I think this is an exaggerastion. Basically because I stated I'm a Buddhist, is that this hell is actually consequences. Bad results for doing something evil and what not.

Now, let's go onto Science. This thing we call science is nothing more then opinions. I read this book before on Greek Mythology. I remember a quote saying something around these lines. "Greek Mythology appeared thousands of years before, what's going to happen to your science thousands of years after?" I for starters don't really believe in Greek Mythology. I just find this quote interesting and key pointing because it states that Science has so many ideas, that what will happen to these ideas in the next decade? Will we prove these all wrong? Will evolution not exist anymore? I dunno.

Now let's get onto the more real stuff in Science, I believe that science itself is real. Hell, we have the freaking rain cycle down because we just noticed this. Most of the visual things we can prove correctly, because we can see them. We aren't going to making a Time Machine next year just because we found out that 9 other dimensions exist. ((Or is it 6, I forget.)) Science is science. Believe what you want, don't let people fool your beliefs.

These are just my ideas on the whole topic. I know I went a little side-tracked but I believe these all. Thank you for reading this post. =)

 

Warning : MASSIVE WALL-O-TEXT. Proceed at your own risk.

Creationism is a theory based in religion. As I have stated in the “Religious Problems with Video Games” thread, I am an atheist. The post is the tremendous wall-o-text on page 6 if anyone cares to read it.

“Religion was created by the first ‘humans’ in order to explain what could not be understood. For example, there is fire, but nobody can justify what it is or why it exists or has been created. Therefore, an imaginary ‘higher power’ is thought up and the phenomenon is said to be his, her, its, or their doing. See, humankind doesn't like not knowing why or how something happens. It scares us. So, we fill in the blanks with our own reasoning. That would be religion.”

That is the opening paragraph of my argument from that thread. The basic concept is that religion attributes all unexplainable occurrences to imaginary “higher powers” because not knowing how or why something is or came to be scares humans. They need some kind of explanation just to settle that fear. Case and point: Crop circles were formerly unexplainable, and were attributed to aliens because it was unknown how or why the phenomenon occurred. Now that crop circles can be explained (people flatten the crops with boards in carefully-orchestrated night operations), the alien explanation is no longer needed. (I’m not saying there are no aliens, just not in this case.) Actually, this is a perfect example because the people who cling to the belief that aliens are the ones who made the crop circles represent those who cling to Christianity and the belief of Creationism despite the overwhelming amount of proof contrary to that theory.

First, I’ll touch on Creationism: This is a theory that God has purposefully designed and constructed the universe and its contents the way they are from the start. However, now that we have science to disprove the theory of Creationism (namely the proof of Evolution for living objects and science in general in terms of why specific things are and how they came to be), it is no longer needed. It still exists only because Christians hold onto it as part of their beliefs. As far as teaching is concerned, I believe that the only time Creationism should be brought up is during a class on world history and religions (hard to have the first without the second…), and it should be made clear that this is a theory that is based firmly in the Christian belief that everything was created by God. In science class, Evolution and the general fields of science should be taught because they are fact as opposed to theory. It has been proven multiple times over the course of recent history.

As for the second question, science is not a religion. Religions, as stated above, were made up to explain the unexplainable via a divine power and leave it at that. Science is based on fact and proving why such things happen, which is completely opposite of the purpose of religion. It goes in-depth and explains the reality of occurrences with physical proof. As such, it is not a religion.

 

"Know your enemy." - Sun Tzu.

 

Let's move forward

Which Religion? Which version of creation? If religion has any place in (public) schools it should be in a Theology course only. A course that discusses religious culture from across the world as a part of human culture. Creationism should never be mentioned in a science classroom. It would only confuse the growing brains of children that came to school to learn about the reality of the world they live in. If you hand them Evolution with countless examples of empirical evidence next to Creationism and absolutely no supporting data, and ask them to decide..........Why don't we let them decide that 5+5=11 in Math class? If the kid's parents are afraid of the number 10, let's not let the TRUTH get in the way.

 

ya it should be taught in school because if not the kids will grow up to be pussies believing in the stork and stupid **** thats fake like santaclause or the easter bunny

 

That same argument can be applied to literally anything. For example I could say that although gravity has always been acting upon us, that doesn't mean that any second it'll stop and we'll be able to fly (pardon the humor). Thinking this way is going through logical reasoning backwards. Yes your right, saying that it won't is, by definition, "faith". But living in constant doubt that anything can happen at any moment is simply ridiculous. Science is on a completely different level of "faith" than religion. The probability that light can spontaneously change speed is up there with the hurricane and Boeing 747.

 

I do not think that creation should be taught in school. There is no real proof whatsoever for any religion so far, and technically it is just a belief. It's not fact, so it cannot be taught in school. With evolution, we at least have real proof that it's happening. I believe that the origins of religion should be taught, but not the religion it's self. You can say "the greeks believed that so and so was lonely so they made humans" but beyond that is a little too in depth. With theories such as the big bang, you could explain how it is possible that it happened, because there's actually some fact behind it. I personally believe that God made the big bang, and then came evolution. I'll just keep pushing him back to the stuff that we can't prove until we can.

EDIT: Also, what many people forget is that if you want to be religious, you can go to a church. Others will say "what if they're parents don't take them". I say "Good! They will be able to make their own decision then".

 

The Gravitational (universal) constant is not the speed of light, they are distinct.

The speed of light in a vacuum is changing, albeit almost imperceptibly.

...

Probability proves nothing. Practically speaking however, you are correct if by 'spontaneously' you mean 'in a previously unexplained fashion'.

 

I do believe that creation should be taught in schools....but being a christian I would say that.

I think that the school should hold votes and if one person didn't want it to be a part of the curriculum it wouldn't.

This is an especially touchy subject in public schools because the school cannot force any religon onto anyone.

 

Vote on Math

Science is NOT a democracy. You can't just vote about what causes volcanos to erupt, or why the sky is blue, or what an atom is made of. These are answers that science has given us through 1000's of years of research. You can't vote whether or not a fact is a fact.

 

but you can vote wheather or not you want to be taught evolution or Gods creation if you didn't get the point that I was talking directly about that you didn't read the whole post. And actually yes what an atom is made of is voteable because they don't know because all the things your being taught are scientific theroies not scientific laws.

 

I think that the only place that belief should be taught is in History/Social Studies class. That makes more sense to me. I think that it would be too dangerous to teach creation in science classrooms because some people would obviously revolt. However, I believe teaches should be able to say that some people believe in creation as an alternative for evolution.

 

Once again, the misunderstanding between scientific and nonscientific theory shows its ugly head.

A scientific theory has evidence to support it, unlike a law.

Unlike Theories, laws have no supporting evidence, and are based entirely on the fact that there has never been a scenario that defies said law.

Theories and laws are completely different in nature, so it is not correct to say that theories are a less reliable that laws, as both are reliable for different reasons.

EDIT (Better than double posting)

Anything religious only belongs in a Social Study class for the purpose of explaining its causes and effects, not to explain in-depth its encompassed theory. Creation belongs in a class for Bible study.

 

I read it

I did read and understand your post. Whether you are voting to have creation taught in schools or voting to be excluded from creation education, I still say there is no place for voting in science. Even though we have yet to understand all of the minute parts that make up the tiniest parts of atoms, it is ridiculous to say that you can just have a vote to decide what the parts are. That is not how science works. Things are tested over and over and over again and then when a conclusion is reached by one scientist his findings have to be scrupulously analyzed by his piers before something is accepted as a fact. They don't just sit down at a table and say "Well 3 out of 5 of us think that the center of atoms contain Fruit Loops so let's put it in the text books." Thanks for the neg rep by the way.