Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I was talking with some older friends and the topic of creationism in american school systems came up. I haven't read too many articles regarding a large push of the right-wing christian conservatives to try to incorporate creationism in American schools, but I have heard that some people would want this. I'm not sure if anyone here wants to teach creationism in american (or European I guess) schools, but I wanted to hear some reasons why it would be a good idea (in their opinion).

I fear creationism is separate for different religions and sects, so trying to implent this in academics in America would create problems with which creationism should be taught. To do that we'd have to have a state religion which is quite a strike against the 1st amendment and anti-establishment clause.

[seireikhaan]

Well...

Depends, is this in terms of teaching it as a science, or in a world religions sort of class? If the latter, than sure. If the former, than NO. Creationism has no basis in science; it is, after all, religion. Do we teach kids both the heliocentric AND geocentric models of the Universe and let them "decide" which is correct? Of course not.

[CountArach]

Try to get around Seperation of Church and State. I dare you...

[Navaros]

darwinism, which is currently being taught in schools, is even more of a religion than Creationism is. darwinism is based on unproven, faith-based assumptions/speculations/imaginings.

If religion has no place in there, then neither does darwinism which is currently in there, therefore it must be removed.

If darwinism stays in there, then Creationism must be in there too.

[Whacker]

darwinism, which is currently being taught in schools, is even more of a religion than Creationism is. darwinism is based on unproven, faith-based assumptions/speculations/imaginings.

If religion has no place in there, then neither does darwinism which is currently in there, therefore it must be removed.

If darwinism stays in there, then Creationism must be in there too.

Dearest sir, you seem to be confused. Science is != dogma, hence evolution is != religion. Evolution and Darwinism have already been proven in several instances, this one has been provided for your enjoyment and perusal as it is the only one I remember off the top of my head.

[Navaros]

They have never been proven.

Drosophila - fruit fly mutants that died out due to mutations damaging them. This proves evolution doesn't happen and darwinism is wrong. Ian T. Taylor has an amazingly poignant quote about this matter in his book, "In the Minds of Men":

Experimentation with fruit flies began in the 1920s with
Thomas Hunt Morgan and today is still a minor "industry"
among researchers. The stubborn fruit fly has endured
every genetic indignity possible, but so far not one has
ever produced anything except another fruit fly.

[Mooks]

darwinism, which is currently being taught in schools, is even more of a religion than Creationism is. darwinism is based on unproven, faith-based assumptions/speculations/imaginings.

If religion has no place in there, then neither does darwinism which is currently in there, therefore it must be removed.

If darwinism stays in there, then Creationism must be in there too.

I want to throw "The Selfish Gene" By Richard Dawkins at you.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Try to get around Seperation of Church and State. I dare you...

Perhaps you could point out where that is in the constitution, hmm? The state should not interfere with religion, but religious people should have an equal opportunity to influence the state.

Anyways, creationism shouldn't be in schools except religious theory class or whatever. Same goes for 'intelligent design'. But they shouldn't be taught as science or in science classes.

However, this should not preclude schools from teaching that darwinian evolution isn't a perfect theory, and going over some of the scientific gaps or contradictions in the theory.

Dearest sir, you seem to be confused. Science is != dogma

Ideally, yes, but you need to take a look at the global warming thread...
Anyways, that's why I added that last paragraph above - we can't teach dogmatic acceptation of darwinian evolution.

CR

[Lord Winter]

Perhaps you could point out where that is in the constitution, hmm? The state should not interfere with religion, but religious people should have an equal opportunity to influence the state.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", they need to be nuetral. You have the right to practice your religon to your hearts content, but state sponsered insitutions shouldn't be used as a veicahal . Thats not to say they can't be taught in a religon class. It just can't be taught as science, something which is based on quantifiable proving of hypotheises.

[Samurai Waki]

Hence the creation of the 9th Circuit Court; religious matters and schools tend to butt heads severely when something gets involved in 9th Circuit, especially because it's entire foundation is to uphold the Separation of Church and State.

[Pannonian]

Perhaps you could point out where that is in the constitution, hmm? The state should not interfere with religion, but religious people should have an equal opportunity to influence the state.

Anyways, creationism shouldn't be in schools except religious theory class or whatever. Same goes for 'intelligent design'. But they shouldn't be taught as science or in science classes.

However, this should not preclude schools from teaching that darwinian evolution isn't a perfect theory, and going over some of the scientific gaps or contradictions in the theory.

Ideally, yes, but you need to take a look at the global warming thread...
Anyways, that's why I added that last paragraph above - we can't teach dogmatic acceptation of darwinian evolution.

CR

The various flavours of selection in evolution are probably too subtle for high schoolers to understand. Better to teach them the basics, which is the Darwinian explanation of evolution, then those who want to specialise can learn about its inadequacies in college or university. Darwinian theory gets one through life quite adequately, without the need to go into detailed genetics, sexual selection, and other explorations of his ideas. Similarly, Newtonian physics is inadequate once one gets past a certain point, but his basic theories will get one through everyday life, and those who want to specialise can learn about Einsteinian physics and others at higher levels.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The various flavours of selection in evolution are probably too subtle for high schoolers to understand. Better to teach them the basics, which is the Darwinian explanation of evolution, then those who want to specialise can learn about its inadequacies in college or university. Darwinian theory gets one through life quite adequately, without the need to go into detailed genetics, sexual selection, and other explorations of his ideas. Similarly, Newtonian physics is inadequate once one gets past a certain point, but his basic theories will get one through everyday life, and those who want to specialise can learn about Einsteinian physics and others at higher levels.

I don't buy into this form of educational practice for contentious subjects, some admission of holes is necessary at least. If you use this approach with religion you invariably get an atheistic backlash from the student. I submit that papering over the cracks in Darwinism is behind the rise in Creationism.

[Kralizec]

Try to get around Seperation of Church and State. I dare you...

Most western states separate church and state (except the UK, Denmark and a couple of others) wich doesn't entail more than a strict seperation between institutions as such. Many European countries have christian-democratic parties. From a strictly "democratic" point of view I don't see why opinions inspired by religious conviction should be considered inadmissible beforehand. But then again I never claimed that democracies always make for rational decisions.

Only a handful of states seperate religion as such from the state or even all public life- besides France and Turkey I can't think of any.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Well...

Depends, is this in terms of teaching it as a science, or in a world religions sort of class? If the latter, than sure. If the former, than NO. Creationism has no basis in science; it is, after all, religion. Do we teach kids both the heliocentric AND geocentric models of the Universe and let them "decide" which is correct? Of course not.

Then will we have to have a religion class for every religion's beliefs? If that's the case, then tax payer dollars are spent on religion in schools and churches/mosques etc. shouldn't get tax breaks?

Just thinking, really. Trying to foster debate :)

[seireikhaan]

Then will we have to have a religion class for every religion's beliefs? If that's the case, then tax payer dollars are spent on religion in schools and churches/mosques etc. shouldn't get tax breaks?

Just thinking, really. Trying to foster debate :)

I meant more in terms of a singular, general "World Religions" class. I know there's one at most high schools in my area, and there's one at UNI as well. Not really complicated.

[Kralizec]

@Navaros: just curious, how come you don't post for weeks or even months in a row yet show up almost immediately whenever evolution-creationism is debated?