Why should creation be taught in public education science classes?

[Josh7289]

I'm doing a research paper right now, and I need at least three reasons why creation must be taught in public eductation science classes, and I also need a reason for each why each of these reasons is not valid. I hope that makes sense. You see, for my paper, I need at least three reasons why evolution must be taught (since taht's what I'm arguing for), and at least three why creation must be taught, but I also have to disprove each of the creation reasons.

Again, I hope someone can help me.

Thanks.

 

[Udel]

Because it is not science, it shouldn't be. It could be taught, however, in a theology class.

 

[bdude]

Seriously, use your noggin and make some original work.

 

[Rainsford]

Well, I don't want to write your paper for you, and I suggest you really think about it yourself before writing anything at all, but here are a few suggestions taken from the main arguments I hear from the creationist folks.

1. Evolution is just a theory, so alternative theories should be taught alongside it.
Evolution is a valid scientific theory. Creationism is not a valid scientific theory. In fact, no alternative explanation rises to the level of scientific theory. This does not mean evolution is right, or that no alternative and valid theory exists, it just means that evolution is the best scientific theory we have to teach right now. The standards for this aren't arbitrary, they are based on several requirements that evolution meets, and creationism does not.

2. Not teaching creationism is anti-religion
Science class is not the place for religious beliefs. Most schools have comparitive religion courses of some kind. If not, that could be introduced. But science class is not the place to push religious views, especially one particular religious creation myth.

3. Intelligent design is different from creationism, it's a valid scientific theory backed up by scientific reasoning
Calling something by a different name does not make it something different. While it is true that ID has somewhat more reasoning behind it than creationism, it's still too much hand waving to be science. The concept of "some sort of intelligent beign designed life" is not supported by any evidence, other than rather specious reasoning that anything else doesn't make sense. However, the only theory that is attacked is evolution, and even if the attacks are scientificly valid, evolution being wrong would not make ID right. In science, you can't prove something merely by disproving something else, unless you manage to also prove that the two are mutally exclusive and one of them must be true. In other words, you can't put forward two competing theories, attack one, and claim the other must be true.

 

[Josh7289]

Well, I already had what I thought were going to be my main points in my paper (I'm writing the outline now), but I was having difficulty finding what some common/strong creation arguments are. Thanks for the help so far, and anyone else willing to offer some more arguments is more than welcome. Thank you very much.

 

[Ronstang]

Boy is this a dumb assignment. How are you supposed to come up with reaons Creation should be taugh in school just to debunk them.....because there is NO good reason is should be taught in a science class since it isn't even a theory but a belief. It has no science to back it up in the first place.

 

[sandorski]

Rainsford posted the best(best that can be) arguements. Though, I kinda like the reasoning that goes:"Jesus will smite thee if you don't!"

 

[Zebo]

1. It's not science
2. It's not science
3. It's not science

There you should get an A.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Zebo
1. It's not science
2. It's not science
3. It's not science

There you should get an A.

Also, it's NOT science. :thumbsup:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
Boy is this a dumb assignment. How are you supposed to come up with reaons Creation should be taugh in school just to debunk them.....because there is NO good reason is should be taught in a science class since it isn't even a theory but a belief. It has no science to back it up in the first place.

If it's part of an English/Debate class, seems like a timely issue and makes sense as to why it is structured the way it is.

 

[Theb]

Evolution is 'just' a theory, but intelligent design isn't even a scientific hypothesis.

However, I fully support teaching children about the FSM in science class

 

[Sadaiy]

Creation should be taught because students should hear different perspectives and different ideas so they know that those ideas are out there.

 

[glenn1]

Here's a serious answer for you: because 99% of the people out there (and probably close to 100% of science teachers) are either ignorant of, or deliberately obfuscate the difference between the Theory of Evolution and abiogenesis. Teach Theory of Creation as factual (since it is) and leave abiogenesis and all other widely-known theories about the origin of life as an open-ended and unanswereable ontological questions.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Here's a serious answer for you: because 99% of the people out there (and probably close to 100% of science teachers) are either ignorant of, or deliberately obfuscate the difference between the Theory of Evolution and abiogenesis. Teach Theory of Evolution as factual (since it is) and leave abiogenesis and all other widely-known theories about the origin of life as an open-ended and unanswereable ontological questions.

Shall I assume you mean evolution there? If so, I agree with you. While the theory of evolution is well supported, the concept of how the FIRST life began is more hazy, and really isn't suited to the science classroom, except in the terms glenn1 suggested.

 

[johnnobts]

good old ontological argument for the existence of God

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Sadaiy
Creation should be taught because students should hear different perspectives and different ideas so they know that those ideas are out there.

Students should hear different SCIENTIFIC ideas, at least in the science classroom. Intelligent design is not science, and while it IS a different perspective, it is better suited to classes where it meets the minimum academic requirements...philosophy or religion class, perhaps.

 

[dmcowen674]

Science should not be taught in school period, it corrupts young minds.

 

[Theb]

I think astronomy classes should include the theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth. It's important to expose children to wide variety of perspectives regardless of how outdated and obviously flawed they are. WE MUST TEACH THE ARGUMENT.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Science should not be taught in school period, it corrupts young minds.

Science teaches critical thinking and reasoning skills that I would argue are the most fundamental abilities required of a member of a free society. I could certainly see why some people would be opposed to it...

 

[trenchfoot]

the only little detail i object to about the theory of evolution is when this theory is considered fact simply for the lack of any other timely explanation.

just what is the difference between a theory and a belief if neither is "proven" to be "factual"?

it's the same line of reasoning that led the brightest minds of the time to agree to the fact that the earth was flat.

theories formulated in the field of science are being disproved on a daily basis by members of their own discipline. it's part of a process they all use. i see no reason why the theory of evolution should be held to higher esteem.

*edit* - to clarify

 

[LtPage1]

There are no reasons. Faith is not science, by definition (that is in no way an editorial, but a simple statement of dictionary fact). Therefore, it should not be taught in "science" classes. Also, there's that little document known as the Constitution: Teaching any religion as fact, or even as an "alternative" to science is establishing a state religion, which is prohibited.

I don't care what you or the politicians say: Evolution is, in everything but its politically-necessary name, fact. There is no controversy.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
the only little detail i object to about the theory of evolution is when this theory is considered fact simply for the lack of any other timely explanation.

just what is the difference between a theory and a belief if neither is "proven" to be "factual"?

it's the same line of reasoning that led the brightest minds of the time to agree to the fact that the earth was flat.

theories formulated in the field of science are being disproved on a daily basis by members of their own discipline. it's part of a process they all use. i see no reason why the theory of evolution should be held to higher esteem.

*edit* - to clarify

The fact is that Evolution is the only Theory that has any Scientific basis and Evidence. It may not be word for word correct, but it is light years more factual than any other explanation to date.

 

[trenchfoot]

The fact is that Evolution is the only Theory that has any Scientific basis and Evidence. It may not be word for word correct, but it is light years more factual than any other explanation to date.

other than your use of the phrase "more factual", i tend to agree.

however, this idea does not mean that the theory of evolution should be written in stone and alternative thinking be discouraged. science progressed precisely because conventional scientific and theological misconceptions and restrictions were discarded in the pursuit of higher knowledge.

the idea that science is a higher school of thought that should replace the primitive need for the all-powerful deity(ies) is also a factor that needs to be wieghed when comparing the two institutions.

evolution may sound logical within the parameters of current thought. however, all it would take to disprove this theory is one single discovery or creation, not unlike what many scientists, including darwin, have done in the past.

*edit* - rephrase

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: tweaker2

The fact is that Evolution is the only Theory that has any Scientific basis and Evidence. It may not be word for word correct, but it is light years more factual than any other explanation to date.

other than your use of the phrase "more factual", i tend to agree.

however, this idea does not mean that the theory of evolution should be written in stone and alternative thinking be discouraged. science progressed precisely because conventional scientific and theological misconceptions and restrictions were discarded in the pursuit of higher knowledge.

the idea that science is a higher school of thought that should replace the primitive need for the all-powerful deity(ies) is also a factor that needs to be wieghed when comparing the two institutions.

evolution may sound logical within the parameters of current thought. however, all it would take to disprove this theory is one single discovery or creation, not unlike what many scientists, including darwin, have done in the past.

*edit* - rephrase

I assume were talking about high school were students are lied to all the time about science so the difference between fact and theory should just be left to college classes and mentioned in the unit on the scientific method. Otherwise ignore the differnce because it doesn't matter.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: tweaker2

The fact is that Evolution is the only Theory that has any Scientific basis and Evidence. It may not be word for word correct, but it is light years more factual than any other explanation to date.

other than your use of the phrase "more factual", i tend to agree.

however, this idea does not mean that the theory of evolution should be written in stone and alternative thinking be discouraged. science progressed precisely because conventional scientific and theological misconceptions and restrictions were discarded in the pursuit of higher knowledge.

the idea that science is a higher school of thought that should replace the primitive need for the all-powerful deity(ies) is also a factor that needs to be wieghed when comparing the two institutions.

evolution may sound logical within the parameters of current thought. however, all it would take to disprove this theory is one single discovery or creation, not unlike what many scientists, including darwin, have done in the past.

*edit* - rephrase

It isn't written in stone, it is ever changing according to the evidence. What is written in stone is Creationism/ID.

Science is higher thought by design and default, because it doesn't hold onto things that are clearly wrong or not supported by the evidence at hand. Sure, ok, Evolution could come totally crashing down with the find of some earth shattering evidence, but science wouldn't care, it would simply accept it and move on into he new understanding. The same can not be said of it's opposite Creation/ID "science".

That is why Science is superior and that is why Evolution is Science. It is also why Creation/ID "science" is neither Science nor is it superior.