Should Creationism be taught alongside Evolution?

hey_you · Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:38 pm

I'm not sure if this forum is the right place to post these questions, but I thought it might interest some of you.

Last week, a group of students in my class had to do a presentation on why creationism should be taught in public schools. At the end, people went out of control. My teacher finally stepped in and said something along the lines of "I think these institutions (creationists/evolutionists) will continue to clash because each side refuses to include the other. Maybe we could set up two separate paradigms that explain what both of them argue and what they use to support their argument."

What do you think of this idea? Should teachers take the time in 10th grade biology classes to analyze Genesis? Do you think it would be effective?

President Camacho · Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:02 am

Are you kidding me? Creationism being taught in school? This should be allowed in private schools but not in state run schools. There WILL be a separation between science/education/learning/the search for truth and irrational beliefs. How do you expect to be taken seriously, been asked your opinion regarding serious affairs, and be respected when you believe in fairy tales written thousands of years ago. Gimme a break...

Why not teach the kids that the earth was created by a turtle that came out of the sun and laid eggs, which are our planets, and one day those eggs will hatch and return to the sun? Why not? What if THIS is what the authors of the Bible wrote... I imagine this would be what they'd want taught? Noooooooooo. No. No. No. No. No. Stop trying to dumb down and subvert education.

DWill · Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:29 am

The question is easy. There's nothing to be taught with creationism; there is no body of fact to support it, so on that basis alone it fails as a subject for a science class. All you could do is say, "Some people believe it was God," and then repeat that statement every time you brought in a fact dealing with evolution, which would be constantly. So you'd have this absurd litany going on and teachers and I hope students would go nuts.

hey_you · Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:46 am


	DWill wrote: "Some people believe it was God," and then repeat that statement every time you brought in a fact dealing with evolution, which would be constantly.

I think it's more complicated than that. What about the notion of everyone derived from Adam and Eve. In a typical biology class, students would be taught that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Of course, there is overwhelming evidence to prove the latter. But there are religious students in public schools who actually believe the former. So how does a science teacher get through to those students? Should they just say "what you have been taught is completely irrational, here are the facts."

Personally, I disagree with my professor. However, today's approach at teaching science and ignoring religion is obviously a problem. Why? Americans graduate from high school and still think evolution is stupid. I come from a very conservative town. I've seen this happen many times.

DWill · Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:46 am


	Quote: I think it's more complicated than that. What about the notion of everyone derived from Adam and Eve. In a typical biology class, students would be taught that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Of course, there is overwhelming evidence to prove the latter. But there are religious students in public schools who actually believe the former. So how does a science teacher get through to those students? Should they just say "what you have been taught is completely irrational, here are the facts." Personally, I disagree with my professor. However, today's approach at teaching science and ignoring religion is obviously a problem. Why? Americans graduate from high school and still think evolution is stupid. I come from a very conservative town. I've seen this happen many times.

You're right, I do see this as a simple matter, but I think that's needed to avoid giving in to cultural needs in the science curriculum. That should not be happening, the religious beliefs of any group influencing how science is taught. What I hear you saying is that in order for evolution to be taught without a big battle over it, it's necessary to throw a bone to the dissenters. Maybe that does need to be done in some areas of the country. You might have students who will bring the thing up themselves if the teacher doesn't mention it. So the teacher acknowledges that some people believe the Bible rather than science. He or she then says that this is a course in science, which deals with factual theories, and moves on. That should end the discussion. If it needs to continue, it should be elsewhere. School boards can allow students to skip biology altogether if they truly think evolution is false or "only a theory." That would be amazingly foolish, but it's the only really logical response as well.

geo · Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:55 am


	hey_you wrote: I'm not sure if this forum is the right place to post these questions, but I thought it might interest some of you. Last week, a group of students in my class had to do a presentation on why creationism should be taught in public schools. At the end, people went out of control. My teacher finally stepped in and said something along the lines of "I think these institutions (creationists/evolutionists) will continue to clash because each side refuses to include the other. Maybe we could set up two separate paradigms that explain what both of them argue and what they use to support their argument." What do you think of this idea? Should teachers take the time in 10th grade biology classes to analyze Genesis? Do you think it would be effective?

Creationism should not be analyzed in a biology class for the same reason why 2+2=5 would not be analyzed in a math class or that the Holocaust never happened would not be analyzed in a history class or that 911 was an inside job would not be analyzed in a political science class.

The teacher should make a clear distinction between what is science and what is religious faith. The "debate" between evolution and Creationism is not really a debate at all and shouldn't be treated as such. Many rational, scientific people believe in God and science has to do with the physical world. Those who choose a literal interpretation of the Bible over science are in essence rejecting science and they should not be appeased by pretending to give their ideas equal weight, especially in a science classroom.

It might be interesting to mention Stephen Jay Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

johnson1010 · Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:06 am

Hello, and welcome to the boards.

I've had a lot to say about creationism vs. evolution on this site.
You may be interested in a video series on the subject linked on the first page of this thread

yes-evolution-t8939.html?hilit=yes.%20evolution.

In addition to some discussion on evolution in the pages that follow.

Creationism is not science in any stretch of the imagination. It always gets chased back to god did it and that is no explanation of anything. It isn't testable, it doesn't make predictions, it doesn't allow us to understand anything any better and it in fact rejects discoveries because those discoveries in all cases disprove the lies they choose to endorse.
There are no facts that support it, there are no laws which those non-existant facts can point to, and it certainly never approaches anything like a theory.

It is an assertion without evidence and in conflict with all evidence to the contrary (which amounts to every scientific advance you can think of). It's an emotional assertion derived from what a person would LIKE to believe rather than what is supported.


	Quote: "Should math be taught in schools?" Math should at least be MENTIONED in school. But i don't think they should push it on anybody. Really, they should present the two ideas to the kids and let them decide which they want to believe. Arithmatic, algebra, trig vs. just making it up as you go along and throwing a dart at a big dart-board full of numbers. "Show them the two sides and let them decide for themselves" underlines the misunderstanding people have about evolution. They think that evolution is a world view. That it is a replacement for religion. If you hear opponents of evolution speak out, you could very often replace the word "evolution" with islam, or shinto, or mormanism and the argument wouldn't have to change... Because they think it's a religion. They think it is an opinion about spiritual matters. That it isn't based on anything more concrete than an old fairy tale. But the undenyable fact of genetics is not reliant on anybody's belief in genes. Indeed. For billions of years there were no minds on this planet even capable of BEING aware of the presence of genes. Descent with modification, the spread of alleles, reproductive isolation, mutation, and natural selection do not need our belief to function. Evolution is not Tinkerbell. These processes are fact. "The theory of evolution" is JUST our description of the empirically observable FACT of evolution. And just as our description of the sun may vary from the literal truth: "It's a big nuclear explosion in the sky". That doesn't encompass all that the sun is, or it's relationship to all the other matter in the universe, but it does get close to the truth. With further explanation we come closer to understanding the thing for what it is. And so it is with evolution. The process of reproduction with variance may not be completely described by the theory of evolution, but every day we slice away the negative space edging closer and closer to the truth of it. So no. You don't let kids decide whether evolution is true. You don't let kids decide whether gravity holds us to the planet, or if it is invisible webbing from martian spiders. They don't get to vote on whether 2 + 2 can equal 65. They don't get to decide the value of PI. They don't get to decide where the U.K. is. They don't get to decide whether arsenic can slake your thirst, or cause death. They don't get to decide whether being hit by a bullet is healthy. Facts live independant of our opinions about them.

hey_you · Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:21 pm


	DWill wrote: What I hear you saying is that in order for evolution to be taught without a big battle over it, it's necessary to throw a bone to the dissenters.

I wouldn't necessarily advise teachers to "throw a bone to the dissenters." I just think there can be a balance between two opposing things. On the other hand, I agree with you and Geo. It is quite inappropriate to include religious ideology in a science classroom.


	DWill wrote: Maybe that does need to be done in some areas of the country. You might have students who will bring the thing up themselves if the teacher doesn't mention it. So the teacher acknowledges that some people believe the Bible rather than science. He or she then says that this is a course in science, which deals with factual theories, and moves on. That should end the discussion. If it needs to continue, it should be elsewhere. School boards can allow students to skip biology altogether if they truly think evolution is false or "only a theory." That would be amazingly foolish, but it's the only really logical response as well.

Well said.

hey_you · Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:42 pm


	geo wrote: The "debate" between evolution and Creationism is not really a debate at all and shouldn't be treated as such.

But people do treat it as a debate, whether you think they should or not. Creationism is no counterpart to evolution. Very true. That doesn't change the reality of this situation. Many people out there think creationism is the alternative and argue in favor of it all the time. I don't think it's wise to say what things should or shouldn't be. We must confront issues for what they are and go from there.

geo · Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:36 pm

hey_you wrote:


	geo wrote: The "debate" between evolution and Creationism is not really a debate at all and shouldn't be treated as such.

But people do treat it as a debate, whether you think they should or not. Creationism is no counterpart to evolution. Very true. That doesn't change the reality of this situation. Many people out there think creationism is the alternative and argue in favor of it all the time. I don't think it's wise to say what things should or shouldn't be. We must confront issues for what they are and go from there.

True, but, the idea that Creationism is an alternative explanation to the theory of evolution is based on a lack of understanding of science. Science is always based on evidence. By saying, look here, let's pretend that Creationism is a plausible alternative, but we won't hold it to the same standards as science is inherently dishonest.

Creationism starts with the idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, a faith-based position. Thus, your starting premise is already beyond rational debate. No further discussion is possible. What would be the point?

Again, science has to do with the physical world and religion has to do with the metaphysical. The two areas don't overlap which is the point of Gould's non-overlapping magisteria. Either Creationism or evolution is a false dichotomy precisely because one is science and one is faith. Never the twain shall they meet.

So back to your point. If people do consider Creationism versus evolution a legitimate debate, the only thing one can do is to explain to them what science is all about and that the Bible was written in pre-scientific times when very little was known about the physical universe. If they choose to reject science in favor of a literal interpretation of the Bible--which is a fringe position, by the way--there's really not any common ground.

tat tvam asi · Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:30 pm


	hey_you wrote: I'm not sure if this forum is the right place to post these questions, but I thought it might interest some of you. Last week, a group of students in my class had to do a presentation on why creationism should be taught in public schools. At the end, people went out of control. My teacher finally stepped in and said something along the lines of "I think these institutions (creationists/evolutionists) will continue to clash because each side refuses to include the other. Maybe we could set up two separate paradigms that explain what both of them argue and what they use to support their argument." What do you think of this idea? Should teachers take the time in 10th grade biology classes to analyze Genesis? Do you think it would be effective?

Analyze Genesis? Well, here's an example of where that leads: young-earth-theory-put-to-rest-t8061.html

And from there, it lead to here: post68870.html#p68870

:lol:

Robert Tulip · Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:00 am

Hey you!

That is a catchy name. Welcome.

The scientific question of creationism is one of psychology and sociology, not biology. The question is why people insist on believing things that are obviously false. It is very strange. 40% of Americans believe in it.

How I see it is that creationism is a secondary issue against the primary debate between reason and faith. People within the camp of reason cannot comprehend a faith based world view. But for people of faith, their attitudes start with loyalty to community, in which the Bible is seen as the basis of morality. Leaving aside YECist absurdity, the Bible identifies Adam with the fall from grace, and Jesus with redemption. Paul says that Jesus restored the relationship with God that was destroyed by Adam's sin.

What this all means is that if people accept the central Christian idea "Jesus saves", they are committed to belief in Adam as the first man. Without YEC, by this ignorant popular view, there is no heaven, no salvation. no hope and no community.

The idea that Jesus fixed the problem brought by Adam and Eve is at the center of Christian morality. Basic preaching about the blood of the lamb, that the cross was the ransom paid to Satan to save our souls, is invalidated without YEC. Jesus is the citadel, and YEC is just the outer rampart.

Trying to convince YECists through evidence and reason is like banging your head against a brick wall. They see that science is just about facts and has no ethical values except useless knowledge about the value of evidence and observation. That tells you nothing about how to behave in community. While evolutionists insist that their facts constitute a demolition of religion, the faithful will continue to stick tenaciously to their idiocy.

It is more important to get a conversation going about the psychology and sociology of belief. Science does not have a moral narrative that provides organizing rituals for local community. Saying 'just get a PhD' does not really cut it for the pews. Contempt for Christian morality, grounded in amazement at the absurdity of Christian belief, leads to an equal contempt on the part of believers for the eggheads who suggest science is sufficient.

hey_you · Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:37 pm


	Robert Tulip wrote: The scientific question of creationism is one of psychology and sociology, not biology. The question is why people insist on believing things that are obviously false. It is very strange. 40% of Americans believe in it.

My answer is childhood indoctrination. Have you ever heard of the saying that we are all born atheists? I would suggest this essay "Why I Am Not A Christian" by Bertrand Russell. He makes such a persuasive argument about the folly of Christian beliefs. Moreover, he explains why people are religious in the first place and how it continues on generation after generation.

"40% of Americans believe in it," I've heard of this statistic before. It is mind-boggling, but I think you've made a great point here...


	Robert Tulip wrote: Without YEC, by this ignorant popular view, there is no heaven, no salvation. no hope and no community.

Science says the Universe is indifferent to our lives. There is no hope for an afterlife or redemption from a higher power. The hardest thing to accept is that we are alone. What Christian wants to embrace this when it lacks any comfort or security? In a way, I don't blame them for their staunch hold on faith.

justin grimbol · Fri Nov 25, 2011 6:44 pm

i think it would be fine to teach creationism in school, but ONLY IF taught alongside evolution and the history of ALL other major world religions. that being said, i think that evolution can be tought independently. evolution is a scientific and religious topic, while creationism is only a religious topic.

Interbane · Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:21 pm


	Quote: i think it would be fine to teach creationism in school, but ONLY IF taught alongside evolution and the history of ALL other major world religions. that being said, i think that evolution can be tought independently.

You misunderstand the nature of science, I think. Science is not within a category called Religion. The only reason to mention creationism in a classroom, as hey_you points out, is to dampen the knee-jerk reactions that you're likely to find from youth that are already indoctrinated.


	Quote: evolution is a scientific and religious topic, while creationism is only a religious topic.

Only in the sense that a "topic" is in reference to conversation or journalism, but then you find creationism is often a hot topic in scientific circles. Evolution is not a religious field of study, if that's what you meant.

Forum rules

Should Creationism be taught alongside Evolution? Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!