Find solution
Is creationism taught in schools?

Why cant creationism be taught in schools?

  • Since evolution, the big bang, intelligent design, and creationism are all theories. please do not just say that creationism is an idea i want real science to back up your answers. just because you think that the big bang theory and the theory of evolution are right doesn't mean you can throw creationism and intelligent design under the bus. i want real scientific answer. i am doing a paper and i need some real scientific answers to prove that creationism should or should not be taught in schools.

  • Answer:

    Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes (they would butcher it, and then there’s the argument about all the other creation stories being taught). What we want is for microbes-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts—in most states, they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light. And many of us want Intelligent Design to at least be mentioned (with teachers free to discuss it without fear of being sacked). Unlike alchemy, storks bringing babies, a flat earth, etc., a significant percentage of the (tax paying) population believes in ID (which is agnostic regarding the source of design and encompasses every "creation" story). See the New World Encyclopedia entry on Intelligent Design: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design According to a nationwide Zogby poll in 2009, 80 percent of likely voters "agree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory." Good science teaching should include controversies (if you don’t think there’s a controversy then you don’t keep up with science news). But, whenever you mention this kind of stuff, Darwinists jump from their trees and start behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas (e.g. Eugenie Scott and her ilk). Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects. At the moment, educators are in the interesting position of not teaching students, but instead conditioning them to recite the “correct” answers without a second thought to other possible explanations. Today’s science education does not sufficiently emphasize inquiry-based learning. Evolutionists typically claim that the evidence for modern Darwinism is “overwhelming.” But they ACT as if they know the evidence is so shaky that the slightest whiff of open discussion will topple the theory. And if high school students are capable of understanding the arguments and evidence for modern evolutionary theory, then they should be able to understand (and rationally discuss) scientific criticisms of modern evolutionary theory. Dr. Philip Skell (a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) said, “Intellectual freedom is fundamental to the scientific method. Learning to think creatively, logically and critically is the most important training that young scientists can receive. Encouraging students to carefully examine the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism, therefore, will help prepare students not only to understand current scientific arguments, but also to do good scientific research” (Open Letter to the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee).

Lorna J at Yahoo! Answers Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

Creationism is not based on scientific evidence whereas evolution is. A "theory" in science is based on a hypothesis and backed up by a very substantial amount of observation and tests. We can even SEE evolution happen by looking at bacteria, who reproduce very rapidly. (Just look at MDR TB and XDR TB) There is no scientific proof for creationism whatsoever. It should be taught as philosophy rather than as a equivalent to evolution.

Jessie

Because creationism is a religiously-based way of explaining the creation of the Earth. It is not compatible with modern scientific technologies like carbon dating which dates fossils billions of years older than the Bible dates them. In the United States it is unconstitutional for church and state to be mixed and this is exactly what would be happening if creationism was taught in a public school because it is so religiously-charged. In private school it is totally fine, however.

Rebecca

Lorna - how can one supply scientific 'proof' to what is a 'belief' ? That like saying that there is proof of a god because people believe it ! (People believed that the earth was flat until it was proved otherwise.) That is illogical. Evolution is NOT a theory, it has been scientifically proved and is still being so day by day. Science by it's nature, relies on facts - there can be no 'facts' to a belief.

Froggy

It probably depends on what you want to be taught in school. Do you want to teach scientific material, which can be proven or at least has very strong hints that it might be true, or do you want to teach belief systems? If the latter, where do you stop? There's absolutely no proof for creationism and ID, which is why I believe it shouldn't be taught. It probably depends on the subject though, if you teach it in Religion, why not. In science classes? No.

1. Creationism is tied to a religion, mainly Christianity and schools are not allowed to teach religion or practice it. 2. Evolution has more proof (while not enough to fully disprove Creationism) than Creationism. 3. There was a huge court case that basically ended this debate in 2005: United States District Court Judge John E. Jones III stated thus in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005: We have concluded that Intelligent Design is not science, and moreover that I.D. cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents.

Mello Master

What the heck is intelligent design? A theory that we were designed by aliens or something? Anyway a lot of people don't want kids to learn about the creation theory simply because it is religious. Not everyone believes in God or agree with everything the bible comes out with. Perhaps a lot of people see it as a silly fairy tale. The creation theory has no hard scientific evidence at all. Kids are taught things that are proven to be right, apart from that stupid thing about your tongues sense of taste thing (back of tongue is bitter, front is sweetness blah blah) it's not true....your tongue is not like that you taste tastes all over it. Coming back to the topic in question there is no evidence of creationism, however in secondary school (or middle school if your American) you are taught about different religions and the creation theory, well at least I was any way not all schools are the same. Schools don't really like bringing religion topics into schools for fear of religions parents going Absolutely mental 'how dare you teach my Jewish child this' 'My child is a muslim not a christian!' 'We're Hindu's' and so on. Not all religious people, but some, you do get people who think there religion is right and everyone else is wrong. So there you have it. My answer.

blackangelfalling

You say you want 'real science' and you are right: only 'real science' is good enough. By 'real science' I mean hard, concrete facts that can be shown to be true. Creationism has none. It relies PURELY on "the Bible says so, so it must be true". I'm not going to say "Creationism can't be true", because, just maybe, it COULD be true; but there is no 'real science' as yet to support that view. Until there IS, as thinking human beings, using the brains that God gave us, we HAVE to rely on observable facts like bones and fossils and carbon dating. Yes, carbon dating can produce errors; but it's a lot more reliable than quoting from the Bible.

bluebellbkk

Evolution and big bang cosmology absolutely are theories yes, but you must understand what the word "theory" means to a scientist. Theory has two uses the first is the common use where it means speculation or a guess. The second is the formal scientific use where theory means "explanation". Theories in science are the highest level of confidence an idea can attain they are logical explanatory frameworks that account for all of the available evidence. They take hundreds of thousands of facts, and laws and hypotheses and unify them into one overarching explanation that explains why these facts are what they are, and it also makes testable predictions that render it vulnerable to falsification. Einstein's general relativity (which explains gravity) is a theory. Atoms are a theory. Germs causing disease is a theory. So is evolution. Intelligent design creationism is not a theory. It is religiously motivated pseudo-science. There is nothing, not one thing, about intelligent design creationism (in fact I'll just call it creationism because that is what intelligent design is it's just rebranded creationism) that meets any of the criteria demanded of a scientific theory. Creationism does not account for all of the data creationists must cherry pick data that supports their conclusion, and simply ignore evidence that contradicts them. Creationism does make testable predictions (a requirement of a scientific theory) but it does not meet the criteria of a theory because creationism's predictions fall into two categories 1. predictions that are not testable and therefore are not really predictions at all, which means it is not science or 2. predictions that can be tested and already have been tested and proven wrong. If you want evidence for evolution I can show you plenty, and if you want more I can show you more, and then I can show you some more on top of that, and then some more on top of that, but there has never been a single publication in a peer reviewed journal that demonstrates intelligent design over evolutionary common ancestry. Not one, ever (unless you count the in-house publications that creationists do which obviously, I'm not considering to be legitimate). If that wasn't enough. Here is the thing that creationists simply do not get this is one of the (many) fundamental flaws about their arguments. Let's say the bacterial flagellum was designed, and you proved it was designed. So what? Evolution is still as true as it always was you have not put evolution in doubt one tiny bit. All you've done, is proven that here we have this interesting special case exception to common ancestry. Common ancestry has been experimentally verified over and over and over again and all of that evidence is not going to go away. At best, intelligent design would be "evolution plus". But it's not. Intelligent design has failed every scientific test it's been put through, so then the creationists went to court choosing to hide behind lawyers rather than present evidence and the judge lambasted them. So not only has intelligent design failed every test the evidence against it amounts to legal proof of it. I'm not throwing creationism under the bus because I personally think evolution is right. I'm throwing it under the bus because that's what is deserves. Evolution is a fact and I can prove it and I think I've clearly demonstrated here that creationism is pseudo-scientific nonsense that has no place in the classroom.

Michael

This Name Is A Lie

Load more

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.