[Kosh]

Originally posted by Liberator
No, Ace, I think that biology classes should have a section called "Theories on the Origin of Life on Earth"  that presents all credible theories on the subject, be it creation, evolution, intelligent design, ect.  I don't think that any of them should be presented as "The Explanation", it should be left to the students to decide which they will accept.

Creationism belongs in a religions class, not a science class. That is like trying to have a Home Ec. instructor teach woodworking.

Evolution theory(and it is a theory only) is being used by Atheists who want to push their agenda and indoctrinate students against their faith

Creation theory (and it is a theory only) is being used by right wing nutcases who want to push their agenda and indoctrinate students against their faith.

[Knight Templar]

That'd have potential, save that nobody would really care.

I'm actually not sure if that's a good or bad thing.

[Kosh]

Just keep apples with apples and oranges with oranges in this case and you will be much happier.

[Taristin]

Originally posted by Liberator
I would prefer that neither be taught except to mention in passing and for biology classes to worry less about origin and more about workings like they're supposed to.

Evolution theory(and it is a theory only) is being used by Atheists who want to push their agenda and indoctrinate students against their faith.

You cannot understand the future, if you do not understand the past.

Creationist propaganda should not be taught in school, as geological evidence of the Earth's actual age counters it. *cough* 6k yr old earth*cough-hack*

[Kamikaze]

Some clarification because some people don't understand what a theory is.

A theory is an explanation of why things are the way they are. An example of this is theory concerning the electromagnetic force. It explains why electric fields do what they do.

Meanwhile, the actual effects of electric fields are described by laws (Coulomb's law in this case: (k(Q_1)(Q_2)) / (r^2) ), which are rules to describe what things actually do. This is derived from empirical findings.

A theory, if accepted by scientists, is a fairly solid thing that isn't "theoretical" and in science limbo land like some people claim. Although some solid, long-lasting theories do eventually get replaced (Newton's theories by Einstein's for example).


Singling out evolution because it's a "theory" just shows that you don't understand science.

[Taristin]

Had a change of heart, eh?

I was wonderring who you were referring to, anyways.

[Bobboau]

yeah, what non-americans have shown there stupidity?
(I just love undoing someone's edit)

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Raa
Had a change of heart, eh?

I was wonderring who you were referring to, anyways.

Didn't want to contribute to the upcoming creation vs. evolution flame war any more than I have to.

[PeachE]

Originally posted by Liberator
Evolution theory(and it is a theory only) is being used by Atheists who want to push their agenda and indoctrinate students against their faith.

yes, it is just a theory. but so is ALL science taught in any school. just theories backed up by lots of data. but i'm sure you're not ready to cut the science programs just yet.

Creationism.. on the other hand.. isn't even theory. it's a theological hypothesis based on nothing more than faith. which is precisely why it should not be taught in schools, particularly not in science classes, not even in passing. because there is no scientific basis for it whatsoever.

and btw, the agenda isn't about pushing athiesm or getting students to give up their faith (believe it or not, most athiests really don't give a rats ass what you believe).  it's about putting an end to faith-based education and initiatives of any faith. there is a significant difference between a secular agenda and and what you call an athiest agenda.

[Ace]

Personally I do think creationism should be taught. In a religion class. A world religion class should cover all forms of creationism. One dealing with Jeudaism or Christianity should then just cover their form of creationism.

A science class however is no place for creationism, it is not a scientific theory. It'd be like discussing astrology in an astronomy class.

[Liberator]

Something you'll notice if you read the chapters of Genesis dealing with the Creation:  

Man was created after the "six days and on the seventh He rested" section, and unlike so many other things, such as the lineage from Adam to Noah, there isn't a length of time given, so the Earth is likely many millions of years old.  

There is no conflict as to the age of the Earth as far as I am concerned.

We really should start a new thread though if you want to discuss...discuss creation, evolution and the Bible.  This thread is about the horrid state of the American Educational system.

[Ace]

Which resulted in stating that political agendas are leading to the problems.

Which led to my stating one such agenda and your proving exactly why its an issue.

You won't let a science class discuss pure science. If that can't happen, let's imagine what happens to other subjects?

[Liberator]

Pure science is fine, I like pure science.  Pure Science doesn't really ever conflict with Faith.  Evolution steps above pure science as an issue however, because it conflicts directly with Faith.  Darwin never claimed that the Creation didn't happen, unlike the people that hijacked his theory, he only theorized that certain...certain disparate, but similar species appeared to have developed where there was once only one.  You cretins have perverted that so that now(according to you) every living creature from the soaring eagle to lowly earthworm sprang from a bloody aeomeba.

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Liberator
Pure science is fine, I like pure science.  Pure Science doesn't really ever conflict with Faith.  

Right...

Geology doesn't conflict with Faith. Paleantology doesn't conflict with Faith. Archaeology doesn't conflict with Faith.

...

[Kamikaze]

Pure science is fine, I like pure science. Pure Science doesn't really ever conflict with Faith. Evolution steps above pure science as an issue however, because it conflicts directly with Faith.

So a science isn't pure as soon as it conflicts with your particular faith eh?

[WMCoolmon]

I've become convinced that the American K-12 school system is meant to produce docile, efficient little workers. Day after day of grudge work, obedience to authority, typically involving tests which have little bearing on a student's academic performance.

I've been lucky, I suppose, in that a lot of the people in High School seem pretty smart people compared to the horror stories I hear on the internet. Or maybe that's just the crowd I've ended up with?

Anyway, re the science debate, evolution (to some degree) has been proven to exist. The 'theory of evolution' is an explanation, backed by scientific findings, that explains how life developed. Thus it is in scientific terms a theory, with the same validity of relativity or gravity. (If you don't believe me, go look up genetics, perform some experiments. At the very least it will help youintelligently debate the subject.)
However, I have no problem with Creationism being taught in schools as an  explanation for Where Life Came From - mostly as a compromise to people who can't stand evolution because it goes against the bible. If there are any other ideas floating around (intelligent design) they could be covered as well; it might increase curriculum time but it would let students examine the evidence for themselves.
Unfortunately, I suspect many parents would still be afraid of their children making their own decision on the subject.

Edit:

A science class however is no place for creationism, it is not a scientific theory. It'd be like discussing astrology in an astronomy class.

Why not? If you're studying constellations at all it doesn't seem unreasonable to toss that in. It could even help make them memorable.

[Ace]

Pure science doesn't conflict with faith because it has nothing to do with faith. Just observation and logical extrapolation.

Theories are based on logical extrapolation of how things behave with the evidence we have.

Evolution and relativity are theories.

Theories are taught in science classes.

Creationism, Triclavianism, etc. are all subjects of theology. Which should be taught in a religious studies class or even in sociology when dealing with religion as an element of societies.

Also, faith and doctrine are two different things.

Anyway, this is supposed to be about the education system. Not an example of on-line tutoring

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Liberator
Pure science is fine, I like pure science.  Pure Science doesn't really ever conflict with Faith.  Evolution steps above pure science as an issue however, because it conflicts directly with Faith.  Darwin never claimed that the Creation didn't happen, unlike the people that hijacked his theory, he only theorized that certain...certain disparate, but similar species appeared to have developed where there was once only one.  You cretins have perverted that so that now(according to you) every living creature from the soaring eagle to lowly earthworm sprang from a bloody aeomeba.

Actually, an amoeba is a relatively advanced single celled organism. The most common current contention, AFAIK, is that life began as self replicaing unenclosed RNA or possibly PNA (to eliminate the stability problems of having a moecular backbone of sugar groups).

Originally posted by Anaz

Science classes should teach things that have been if not proven, but supported by scientific methods. Evolution and perhaps ID.

Gotta dump ID as well I'm afraid. As much as I tend to dislike Occams Razor, the application here is pretty straightforward. ID contends that evolution occurs, but is being guided and triggered by an all seeing, all knowing, physics defying deity. But when we have acceptable theories of chemical initiation and natural selection to begin and guide life, there's no need to continue to complicate the issue with ID.

[phreak]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Why not? If you're studying constellations at all it doesn't seem unreasonable to toss that in. It could even help make them memorable.

actually my astronomy class did go over astrology somewhat.  basically the professor said "astrology is bull****".   he also showed a video of carl sagan saying "astrology is bull****".

on another note: astrology is bull****

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Ace
...Triclavianism...

But how many nails were used to crucify Christ hasn't got anything to do with science.

Ace, I don't really care if they teach evolution or not.  

My objection comes when students are ridiculed and marginalized as idiots by their instructors if they don't accept it as Truth.