Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools

[Whacker]

However, there needs to be a lot more respect shown to Christians in schools

No, not at all.

I will say this under the pretext of you being an American citizen, even though I know you are not. I absolutely respect your right to believe as you wish (provided you do not infringe on other's rights in exercising your belief structure), that to me is a fundamental freedom that we enjoy and I would die fighting for it if need be. However, I absolutely do NOT 1. respect your religion or belief or 2. am even required to recognize your beliefs as an individual, nor am I required by law to do either 1 or 2, and that's absolutely the way it should be.

Religion is and should be a private matter for individuals, that said bringing it to the marketplace of ideas is a great and normal thing to do. The problem is when overzealous types try to force it into situations where it has zero bearing or place being. School is about education; math, grammar spelling and language ( ), physics, biology, etc. Dogma and belief are not fact and absolutely should not and will not be taught in schools, nor even recognized. That's something for folks to teach their children in the privacy of their own homes or religious gathering places, which ARE the proper venues.

[Tribesman]

Ian T. Taylor

Ian bloody T. Taylor what a joke
Why not make it a better joke and use Adnan Oktar instead
Cretinistsabsolutely clueless .
Then again it does disprove the theory of evolution , if it is selection of the fittest then cretinists would be extinct because they are too dumb to survive .

[Rhyfelwyr]

I will say this under the pretext of you being an American citizen, even though I know you are not. I absolutely respect your right to believe as you wish (provided you do not infringe on other's rights in exercising your belief structure), that to me is a fundamental freedom that we enjoy and I would die fighting for it if need be. However, I absolutely do NOT 1. respect your religion or belief or 2. am even required to recognize your beliefs as an individual, nor am I required by law to do either 1 or 2, and that's absolutely the way it should be.

But I had to acknowledge Darwinist views when I was at school, otherwise I would have failed my exams. You can't tolerate everyone's views, because in reality only one theory can be taught in a class, and everyone must at least appear to believe it in order to pass the subject.

[Pannonian]

But I had to acknowledge Darwinist views when I was at school, otherwise I would have failed my exams. You can't tolerate everyone's views, because in reality only one theory can be taught in a class, and everyone must at least appear to believe it in order to pass the subject.

I'm sure the examining boards would have accepted a suitably sourced and explained answer of another flavour if Darwinian evolutionary theory wasn't to your taste. You'd need to demonstrate a clear understanding of what you're talking about though, and not just positing unsupported ideas.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Frankly, if we would find a 6000 year old ark on top of a mountain, I'd be willing to listen. But so far, lots of hoaxes, and zero science.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Scientific theories are fine for science classes, I was commenting on the idea of being forced to accept other people's ideas. My point is that writing scientific theories in a science exam is fine, however it's no different from being taught about religions in their own classes, and yet there's always a panic that somehow Christians are trying to brainwash people and force their ideas upon everyone. It's very much the otherway around nowadays. No doubt militant atheists are happy about that, but there seems to be a double standard for Christians from everyone else.

[Pannonian]

Scientific theories are fine for science classes, I was commenting on the idea of being forced to accept other people's ideas. My point is that writing scientific theories in a science exam is fine, however it's no different from being taught about religions in their own classes, and yet there's always a panic that somehow Christians are trying to brainwash people and force their ideas upon everyone. It's very much the otherway around nowadays. No doubt militant atheists are happy about that, but there seems to be a double standard for Christians from everyone else.

I'm not aware of militant atheists protesting against the teaching of creationism in religion classes. If their creationist theory also has the same scientific basis, using the scientific method, as evolution theories, then I'm sure the exam boards would be happy to consider them as well. After all, Darwin formed his theory from observation of evidence, collating evidence, and forming a conclusion from the evidence, testing his conclusion against all available evidence, ie. using the scientific method. If you wish to propose a creation theory that competes with Darwinism in science classes, then test your theory using the scientific method, and see how well it compares.

[Navaros]

I'm not aware of militant atheists protesting against the teaching of creationism in religion classes. If their creationist theory also has the same scientific basis, using the scientific method, as evolution theories, then I'm sure the exam boards would be happy to consider them as well. After all, Darwin formed his theory from observation of evidence, collating evidence, and forming a conclusion from the evidence, testing his conclusion against all available evidence, ie. using the scientific method. If you wish to propose a creation theory that competes with Darwinism in science classes, then test your theory using the scientific method, and see how well it compares.

darwin certainly did not form his conclusions based on evidence, nor observation, nor testing, nor the scientific method. At least not his outlandish claims like all life 'evolved from a common ancestor. No example of this has ever been observed, or tested, or repeated.

All that darwin truly observed was variation within a kind. His belief that all life came from a common single-celled ancestor was, and remains to this day, 100% pure unsubstantiated imagination. Common ancestry has no scientific basis, therefore it should not be taught in science class.

A lot of posters in this thread are of the opinion that darwinism is acceptable to teach in science class because it is science - but that's a false premise. It's imagination, not science. It's outlandish claims are no more scientific, and have no more evidence for them, than any claims of Creationism.