Should Children Learn "both" Theories?

[FreedomOverdose 0]

Until recently, I was on the fence about whether creationism should be taught in schools. Then I began to read up on it.

 

Basically, Christians are asking that both creationism and evolution be taught side by side, so that the students can choose for themselves. It sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Maybe this comic will help you understand why I've come to decide that it's in no way reasonable.

 

 

 

 

The point is that creationism is not a scientific theory. It's a belief, and it happens to be a belief that I hold very strongly. But even I have come to admit that it isn't science, so why should it be taught in a science class?

 

I would love to hear your opinions on it. I am very open minded and want to know what others think and why.

 

 

PS: I am an atheist and believe in the theory of evolution, so please get the topic right

[shadowx 0]

Im not a god fearing sheep, and so i believe, primarily in the evolution theory, however i think some of it might not be totally right but the spine of it seems right.I dont think the creation theory should be taught in science. It should be taught in religious education. As the comic suggests teaching it in science tells the children this is how the universe started. Its proven, its a fact, if anyone says otherwise they are wrong. After all science class teaches FACTS. Now admittedly the evolution theory hasnt been technically proven except via DNA links but given that it could in theory be tested (leave a thousands birds on an island with all the food underground and no predators and they will soon develop into digging creatures with no ability to fly, by soon i mean a few thousand years ) and it has some proof via DNA it should be taught in science, but the kids should be told that it is a THEORY and has yet to be proven, however it is the most accepted and believed theory and is probably correct. (did you know that the magnetism theory taught in schools, that millions of tiny magnets inside the magnet line up north-south, is actually not proven, it is only a theory and science doesnt full understand how magnets work? )and the creation theory should ONLY be taught during RE classes when learning about christianty, and the muslim view should be taught when learning about Islam etc....

[truefusion 3]

Maybe this comic will help you understand why I've come to decide that it's in no way reasonable.

The comic did not help me understand why you came to the conclusion that it is not reasonable. However, let me show you what did help me understand:

PS: I am an atheist

The comic is at best mocking the suggestion to allow creationism to be taught along side the theory of evolution (as this topic suggests), though the comic in no way includes any reference to creationism, not even through implication, so the mocking is at a greater level.

 

The point is that creationism is not a scientific theory.

You have yet to prove that it is not a scientific theory but a belief.* However, your following statements contradict each other. Here, let's look at the parts that contradict each other:

The point is that creationism is not a scientific theory. It's a belief, and it happens to be a belief that I hold very strongly.

 

[...]

 

PS: I am an atheist and believe in the theory of evolution.

Was it intentional? For you are saying that you believe in creationism and that you hold dear to it, yet in the end you say you believe in the contrary.

 

[hr=noshade] [/hr]

* I can most likely argue similar: that it is a belief. But what would that prove? But anything that can be observed, tested and that fits a pattern is scientific theory, for the same things are said towards the theory of evolution.

[mm22 0]

Was it intentional? For you are saying that you believe in creationism and that you hold dear to it, yet in the end you say you believe in the contrary.

I've also noticed this contradiction...

I think the reason why "science" is taught in school instead of "religion" for most subjects (except of course religion itself) is that "science" has allowed mankind to advance to the present status very rapidly (few thousands years) in Earth's history... certainly what we call "religion" might have contributed to the process by posing new questions for science to deal with or why not criticizing and opposing who was trying to change the way things were looked upon.

The point is that creationism is not a scientific theory.

You have yet to prove that it is not a scientific theory but a belief.

A religion might well be a scientific theory which does a very big assumption to start with... but what we call "scientific theories" have plenty of assumptions within them too, though they also have many ways of substantiating themselves, beyond the assumptions are undeniable facts, we can easily say "this theory works!", not so easily said about a religion.

[bishoujo 0]

Creationism shouldn't be taught in a science class because it is not a science theory. That I agree, because children may get confused with both theories if they are being taught side by side. It is good for children to be exposed to creationism, but that should be done outside a science lesson. Even then, I don't think schools should be the ones conducting creationism classes. Different people subscribe to different religions and our ideas and principles of creationism can vary for different religions. Unless the school is able to conduct lessons that cover points of views of various religions without being biased, creationism is probably best learnt through a wide variety of external education resources.

[salamangkero 0]

I am a non-believer of creationism but, personally, I am against not teaching creationism altogether.

 

Of course, it shouldn't be taught in a science course, because it is not science at all. Science is all about systematic study of phenomenon observable or verifiable with observable evidences. Creationism is, well, rather unsystematic as it does not explain the existence of fossils beneath our feet nor does it explain why the galaxies are moving away from each other.

 

However, consider the scenario where children are not taught the arts at all. Actually, you don't have to imagine, just think that a lot of children today do not know Ali Baba (he who ruined the forty thieves) or Rumpelstiltskin (he who, today, dances, tomorrow bakes and tonight, the queen's child, takes) The only Alladin children knew was aided by a blue Disney genie (he had two genies, actually) the only Rapunzel today's little girls know was a doll from Mattel equipped with a magic paintbrush (no, silly, princesses do not defeat evil stepmothers by themselves) Heck, I don't think anyone born from this moment forward will know exactly how many dwarves Cinderella has (None )

 

As it is, interest in the classical arts (dance, opera, literature) is rapidly dwindling. I don't care whether people knows Jesus (or accepts him as their savior) but I do find it rather painful if people do not know of Noah, Solomon or Moses, in the same way people have to ask who David Copperfield, Prometheus or Odin was. The way I see it, a lot of people seem to think that Shiva is a female ice elemental, Thor is a Marvel superhero and that the Greek god of war is actually named Kratos.

 

I think that creationism, well, no, religion, is a rather important part of our culture. Sure, you may be worshiping different deities in different parts of the world but, hey, it is part of what shapes us. Especially for children, I don't think you can instill morality in them simply by prattling off a philosophical discourse outlining the disadvantages of killing humans. I mean, they're kids! Their minds do not work in the same way adults do. The best, or perhaps the most practical, way of imbuing them with civilized manners is through a story. Tell them how humans were exiled from paradise because some woman ate an apple and shared it with her spouse. Teach them how wisdom is really important by regaling them with stories of Solomon. As it is now, I wouldn't be surprised if children dealt with daily life by jolting the hell out of anyone who opposed them with their Pikachu.

 

Perhaps I digress by arguing with religion instead of creationism. Still, I stand by my point that we should teach creationism/religion. Teach it elsewhere, yea, just not in science classes

[shadowx 0]

just think that a lot of children today do not know Ali Baba

Hum... isnt he the guy that i order my kebabs from (no really, its called Ali Baba's, he also happens to sell fake watches in Gran Canaria...)
,
anyway. I DO think kids should be taught creationism. But only in RE and taught carefully eg: "Christians believe god created the earth etc..." Rather than "Now kids, we all know that god DID create the earth"

The kids need to understand that a group of people, the christians, believe this story, whereas the scientist have very good evidence for the evolution theory and muslims believe alah created it etc....

[jopak134 0]

they should add it to philosophy if a school have one. most public school in my country have the basic stuff like math, english , etc. but even if you don't have a religion subject, you couldn't be ignorant of these things if your in my country

[rayzoredge 2]

I think that both should be AVAILABLE to be taught, and the real question would really be when as opposed to if. Education is education... we all should be exposed to the possibilities and theories of how we've come to be, how things are, and whatnot. Let students choose for themselves what they believe, if they even believe either. Children may be confused by having two separate paths to understand, so I wouldn't recommend that younger students be exposed too early. It's something that shouldn't even be introduced until later during a student's school career.

 

At the same time, the whole thing isn't even a feasible argument due to the heavy bias that most parents will have on what they want their children to learn. Understandably, a God-fearing family may and most likely will want to impose the idea of God or the concept of deities into its progeny. Very few parents are open-minded enough to actually allow for their children to believe whatever they want.

 

There will always be arguments for and against this. We're all innately-biased... but it's natural and hard not to be because of the way that we've all been raised. I don't think there will be a common ground that everyone will accept, just because it's realistically impossible with how things are today.

[truefusion 3]

Creationism shouldn't be taught in a science class because it is not a science theory. That I agree, because children may get confused with both theories if they are being taught side by side. It is good for children to be exposed to creationism, but that should be done outside a science lesson. Even then, I don't think schools should be the ones conducting creationism classes. Different people subscribe to different religions and our ideas and principles of creationism can vary for different religions. Unless the school is able to conduct lessons that cover points of views of various religions without being biased, creationism is probably best learnt through a wide variety of external education resources.

If it's about biasism, then Creationism should be taught in science class, for by considering something else for it you are implying that the theory of evolution is greater than Creationism. And if the only reason you have for believing that Creationism isn't scientific theory is because children will get confused by the two theories placed in the same subject, that is to say that children aren't capable of deciding for themselves or making sense of the material. That is, you're underestimating the children. You'd be amazed just how smart kids can be even at early ages. And if it's about confusion, then don't teach either, for if both are going to be taught anyway in different subjects, what is the difference between them being taught in the same subject other than the biasism towards the theory of evolution?

 

Of course, it shouldn't be taught in a science course, because it is not science at all. Science is all about systematic study of phenomenon observable or verifiable with observable evidences. Creationism is, well, rather unsystematic as it does not explain the existence of fossils beneath our feet nor does it explain why the galaxies are moving away from each other.

This, to me, does not follow. For one, creationism is systematic as it is capable of explaining many things. If what makes something systematic is merely the ability to explain the existence of fossils beneath the earth and why galaxies are moving away from each other, then many things in science are unsystematic. Therefore, it is obvious that your reasoning for why Creationism is not systematic is invalid.

 

But consider this scenario for the motivation for Creationism: How did God do it? Or how did God design it?âÂÂthese very questions are enough to seek out and provide observable evidence that fits an overall pattern. A scientific theory is something that is testable. To say that Creationism is not testable in any way is to continue the ignorance that picking one greater than the other causes. But let's consider the galaxies moving away from each other, and how that can be tested: Job 9:8, Psalms 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, etc... says that God stretches out the heavens (one of the things you said Creationism does not explain). How is this testable? Simply by checking to see if the heavens do indeed stretch or move away from each other. There are also many other things which are testable concerning Creationism, like the universe having a beginning (Genesis 1:1), entropy (Psalm 102:25-27), water cycle (Job 36:27-28), etc... It's all there, and should be taught within a science class.

 

Due to this, it makes you think how did we today figure all these things out outside of the Bible? Was it via our technology? Have we been spoiled by technology that we've been using it as a crutch to the point where, though it helped us advance, it limits us to an apparent extent as well? As it is, Creationism shouldn't be considered "just another belief."

 

P.S. There may be cases where God has filled the gaps because of humans, but so has naturalism (a.k.a. naturalism of the gaps); naturalism isn't the only explanation for things.

 

I DO think kids should be taught creationism. But only in RE and taught carefully eg: "Christians believe god created the earth etc..." Rather than "Now kids, we all know that god DID create the earth"

 

The kids need to understand that a group of people, the christians, believe this story, whereas the scientist have very good evidence for the evolution theory and muslims believe alah created it etc...

Christians aren't the only ones that believe that God created the universe. That's to exclude the other Abrahamic religions. The word "Allah" is Arabic for the word "God"âÂÂeven Arabic Christians use the word "Allah." Regardless, the children also need to understand that many scientists are Christians themselves which do not adhere to the interpretations (since all evidence is interpreted) that promote the theory of evolution.

 

[pedro-kun 0]

I don't get it. Why do we have to have a God that built the world with so much precision? It could've built itself up following simple rules of physics.I believe in God, but not like typical Christians. I respect their belief, though. I think it is something personal and cannot be judged.To me, God is a great being of much power, who potentially spawned everything into existence, according to a set of rules. What's the problem if we discover those rules?Anyway, in light of recent scientific advances, one mustn't let creationism take over our science classes. It's just not right. Most creationists say the universe (and the Earth itself) is about 6000 years-old... Well, carbon dating and other tests show that such thing is not possible. If one can bend the rules to his liking, of course it can, and most creationists say that this is the case. You can't prove it, of course... as much as we can't prove that the Earth has more than 6000 years, except for those already mentioned tests. But science *TESTED* it, at least. Referring to some occasional Bible passages is not grounds for stating: "The Bible said it! It must be right!" or else many of the poets would already be considered visionaries or even gods themselves! The Bible is a book. It really is. Also, remember that the Vatican recognized the veracity of the Big-Bang :)So, back to the "veracity" of tests we mortals base our knowledge on...I've heard some people say that carbon-dating and other such technologies are not precise and the results are thus wrong. Well, these techniques all come from a few fundamental theories which have been able to, for example, give us PET scans, x-rays, and other such essential tools for the human well-being. All these tools work because those fundamental theories in which they rely upon are in fact correct. Going from that, carbon dating must be correct as well, and the Earth has more than 6000 years.Also, I wouldn't trust my brain to a simple prayer if I had a tumor in it, for example. It is not that I don't believe in God, it is just that I believe that if somehow we're here, we have to figure things out by ourselves, and be worthy of the life we have. Doctors save lives, you know? What other gift could be greater than that? And they do it *because* science has improved so much! because DNA links between us and primates was proved (less genetic diseases)! We can also predict natural disasters and many other things! I think that if there is a God out there, He'd be really proud of what we have become over time.So, before flaming me with Bible passages, please consider that religion is a personal choice, and it matters only to oneself.Science, however, affects us all. Perhaps God intended it this way? You'll never know, at least probably not in this life, I assure you.

[anwiii 17]

no. both should not be taught. if people want to be taught creationism or religious BELIEFS, then they can go to private schools for that. why there is such a thing as seperating church and state. or when one gets to college, they can make a choice to study both. nobody is limiting any child from learning both but the parent or child itself. not the schools.

[truefusion 3]

Why do we have to have a God that built the world with so much precision? It could've built itself up following simple rules of physics. [...] To me, God is a great being of much power, who potentially spawned everything into existence, according to a set of rules.

You have just answered your own question. In case you don't understand what i mean: God set the rules, so how can it be done without God through a set of rules? Rules are established, they have a beginning. You would have to prove that rules can exist in the same way God can: without a beginning. It is not hard for me to prove that rules are established.

 

Anyway, in light of recent scientific advances, one mustn't let creationism take over our science classes. It's just not right. Most creationists say the universe (and the Earth itself) is about 6000 years-old... Well, carbon dating and other tests show that such thing is not possible. If one can bend the rules to his liking, of course it can, and most creationists say that this is the case. You can't prove it, of course... as much as we can't prove that the Earth has more than 6000 years, except for those already mentioned tests. But science *TESTED* it, at least.

The Bible mentions the earth before the six days, so the earth was there before anything created in the six days. It is uncertain how long the earth was hanging there before God made everything else. But even if we were to assume that God started creating things almost immediately after creating the earth, what science says about the age of the earth does not contradict anything and becomes irrelevant. For God could have just made the earth appear old. Many argue that God therefore has deceived the people. But that is false, since God has informed humanity how long it took Him to cause certain things into existence. So it is not that He deceived people, but rather that people just don't want to believe. So the fault is on the people, not God.

 

[1]Referring to some occasional Bible passages is not grounds for stating: "The Bible said it! It must be right!" or [2]else many of the poets would already be considered visionaries or even gods themselves! [3]The Bible is a book. It really is. [4]Also, remember that the Vatican recognized the veracity of the Big-Bang

[1]How is it not grounds for stating that?

[2]What are prophets?

[3]Yes, it is a book. Who doubted?

[4]The Big Bang, if it really did occur, does not in any way contradict scripture. But the Vatican does not represent every Christian.

 

So, back to the "veracity" of tests we mortals base our knowledge on...

I've heard some people say that carbon-dating and other such technologies are not precise and the results are thus wrong. Well, these techniques all come from a few fundamental theories which have been able to, for example, give us PET scans, x-rays, and other such essential tools for the human well-being. All these tools work because those fundamental theories in which they rely upon are in fact correct. Going from that, carbon dating must be correct as well, and the Earth has more than 6000 years.

The age of the earth given through carbon dating is irrelevant if God created the earth ~6,000 years ago.

 

[1]Also, I wouldn't trust my brain to a simple prayer if I had a tumor in it, for example. [2][...] we have to figure things out by ourselves, and be worthy of the life we have. [3]Doctors save lives, you know? [...] [4]And they do it *because* science has improved so much! because DNA links between us and primates was proved (less genetic diseases)! [5][...] I think that if there is a God out there, He'd be really proud of what we have become over time.

[1]Though not limited to a brain, many people have trusted and prayed to God to remove their tumor, and the tumors were later gone.

[2]We already have the life we have, so why do we have to strive to be worthy of it? And, yeah, you have to figure things out by yourselves, for you choose to, even though it is so much easier to just ask God.

[3]They work in vain, for the person eventually dies anyway.

[4]Poor primates.

[5]What's there to be proud or pleased about sinners?

 

[1]So, before flaming me with Bible passages, please consider that religion is a personal choice, and it matters only to oneself. [2]Science, however, affects us all. Perhaps God intended it this way? You'll never know, at least probably not in this life, I assure you.

[1]No one can flame others with mere Biblical passages. But if religion is subjective, then why did you choose to post in this topic?

[2]Religion affects us all too. Perhaps God intended it this way? But you can't assure something when you say "probably."

 

[hr=noshade] [/hr]

no. both should not be taught. if people want to be taught creationism or religious BELIEFS, then they can go to private schools for that. why there is such a thing as seperating church and state. or when one gets to college, they can make a choice to study both. nobody is limiting any child from learning both but the parent or child itself. not the schools.

You can't say that both should not be taught then go on to say that people should be able to choose. For in order to be able to choose either or, both would have to be taught. Also, separation of church and state is irrelevant here. But the schools would be limiting the children if none teach either or. The children would have to look else where, if they even bear knowledge of it.

[pedro-kun 0]

You have just answered your own question. In case you don't understand what i mean: God set the rules, so how can it be done without God through a set of rules? Rules are established, they have a beginning. You would have to prove that rules can exist in the same way God can: without a beginning. It is not hard for me to prove that rules are established.

 

No, I didn't answer my own question, and you completely missed the point. If God created the rules, what makes you think He'd interfere with the world and us after said creation? Also, you can't prove that the basic physics rules which govern the universe had to be created by God. You can only believe it. You can however, prove that these rules existed ever since the dawn of Time, which has nothing to do with God.

 

The Bible mentions the earth before the six days, so the earth was there before anything created in the six days. It is uncertain how long the earth was hanging there before God made everything else. But even if we were to assume that God started creating things almost immediately after creating the earth, what science says about the age of the earth does not contradict anything and becomes irrelevant. For God could have just made the earth appear old. Many argue that God therefore has deceived the people. But that is false, since God has informed humanity how long it took Him to cause certain things into existence. So it is not that He deceived people, but rather that people just don't want to believe. So the fault is on the people, not God.

Well, you can't prove anything of what you just said You can only believe what you said, and I have no problem with that. However, certain things are impossible, like the earth being made in 6 days (even if it did exist before those 6 days). Also, the Bible implies that the Sun appeared after the Earth. Nah... it just doesn't fit.

 

[1]How is it not grounds for stating that?

[2]What are prophets?

[3]Yes, it is a book. Who doubted?

[4]The Big Bang, if it really did occur, does not in any way contradict scripture. But the Vatican does not represent every Christian.

1. It simply isn't. Just like you can't write a book on someone and have everyone believe that everything written on it is true.

2. Very imaginative people.

3. No one. But the point is, that the Bible isn't a Book. It is JUST a book filled with metaphors. That's the difference.

4. The Big Bang does contradict the scripture because if it happened, many other things happened (such as the Sun having nearly 5 billion years, and the Earth having much much more than 6000 years). And of course the Vatican doesn't represent every Christian... but neither does each individual Christian represent the other ones. As I said, it is a personal thing. You should respect if someone doesn't share the same view you have about the Beginning of Time

 

The age of the earth given through carbon dating is irrelevant if God created the earth ~6,000 years ago.

No, the belief of the Earth having 6000 years is what is irrelevant when we consider the solid proof we have that the Earth is much older than that.

 

[1]Though not limited to a brain, many people have trusted and prayed to God to remove their tumor, and the tumors were later gone.

[2]We already have the life we have, so why do we have to strive to be worthy of it? And, yeah, you have to figure things out by yourselves, for you choose to, even though it is so much easier to just ask God.

[3]They work in vain, for the person eventually dies anyway.

[4]Poor primates.

[5]What's there to be proud or pleased about sinners?

1. Yes, they have, and just so you know, tumors can regress and disappear naturally. This was "predicted" by our good friends, the scientists! On the other hand, many God fearing people die because of them, and believe me, they pray, believe, and love God. I guess somethings are just up to doctors. Perhaps this is how it should be? Who said that God had to interfere and save those people? Why shouldn't we be saving ourselves if we have the knowledge to do so?

2. Yes, it is also much more incorrect. Do you go to the doctor? Do you by any chance benefit of anything modern science created? You shouldn't. You should ask God. Maybe He'd give you a computer and leave every atheist scientist playing with rocks. Wait a minute... those scientists invented the computer!

3. Again, do you go to the doctor? Please don't! Also, everyone dies, not just those who believe in doctors.

4. Poor many people.

5. LOL. So, you call everyone who doesn't believe in God as you do a sinner. It is strange that someone who makes use of modern technology isn't a great sinner himself. Well, whatever... such labeling doesn't really have much effect. I also believe that there is Commandment that says "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor", but that's ok. I'm used to discuss this with many people. It's pointless though. They always say they are right just because they are... And everyone knows what happens when we discuss with denialists...

 

[1]No one can flame others with mere Biblical passages. But if religion is subjective, then why did you choose to post in this topic?

[2]Religion affects us all too. Perhaps God intended it this way? But you can't assure something when you say "probably."

1. Because as incredible as this may sound, many people don't realize that religion is subjective! Hence my posting.

2. No it doesn't LOL. As for the assuring part, I can really assure you. The word "probably" was referring to the after-life part. Put in other words: "You'll never know, at least probably not in this life, I assure you."

 

 

After replying, I just realized myself that I am confronting a personal belief with scientific proof, which is just plainly wrong. Please reply *only* if you aren't going to start offending people (by calling them sinners) or if you aren't gonna say things whose validity equal that of a: "It is because it just is and it was written in a metaphor.". Oh, and by the way, be sure to skip the doctor next time. If you do go to the doctor, at least don't tell him "You are not gonna save anyone, they will all die!!!" because doing such a thing is pure Evil. It shows no respect for him.

[FreedomOverdose 0]

You're right ppl. I totally messed it up and really loled when I read it!! What I meant is that I am AGAINST creationism. Anyway, since I paused writing and got to eat dinner, I made the topic a total mess. Forgive me . ps: i don't think it is right for me to edit my topic now