SHOULD WE TEACH CREATIONISM IN SCHOOL?

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 10 Sep 2004 14:36

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3635794.stm

-Serbia's education minister has ordered schools to stop teaching the theory of evolution for the current school year, a leading newspaper has reported.

-In future Charles Darwin's theory would only be taught alongside creationism.

Alongside? I've no trouble with creationism being taught as a religious subject, but not as biology, it's just bad science.

Thoughts anyone?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 10 Sep 2004 15:18

Evolution is not up for debate, it's known to occur. It's constantly occuring. It occurs at a measurable frequency, and at different frequencies along the genetic material. Evolution is the change in genetic material accumulated over time in the germline of an organism, passed on to it's offspring.

Creationism is a belief, not a science.

I feel bad for the teachers.

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 10 Sep 2004 15:30

Is there support for a similar situation in the us?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 10 Sep 2004 15:49

I know in some parts of the US, my friends are forced to teach creationism as an equally valid theory to evolution. My friend , JP, says it's not so bad, and does it like so.

"Class, there are two theories that are equally valid for the creation of man and life in general. First there is creationism.

Creationism requires complete belief that the old testament of the Bible is true, and requires one to discard a large amount of the scientific data collected in the last 200 years. Creationists believe that everything was created at once, and everything that exists fits on a boat built by one man. Furthermore, none of the animals on this boat died from stress or starvation during a 40 day storm that flooded the entire surface of the earth, and one pair of animals is critical mass to begin populating a planet in a world where the last two lions are looking at the last two gazelles for lunch. In addition, you must believe that all the plants not gathered and placed onto the boat are able to be submerged in water for 40 days, and not die. The final detail to the creationist theory is that all animals in the salt water oceans are either able to instantaneously adapt to the change in salt concentration or the rain wasn't enough to cover the earth. Since the Bible says the earth was covered, I think it is safe to assume that all animals in salt water conditions can adapt instantaeously to changes in salt water concentration with non detrimental effects on survival.

Now that I've covered creationism, please open your book to page XX and we can begin to discuss the theory of evolution which will take up the remainder of this six weeks. Oh, both theories are going to be tested, so I hope you caught all the data backing evolution" -- JP

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 10 Sep 2004 17:47

My Mum is a high school teacher and teaches creationism to her grade nines I think. She covers it under a mythology topic alongside creationism stories from all around the world - different cultures and different times.

I think this is a good way to have it taught - after all there is as much evidence of the other creationism theories as there is of the Christian one.

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 10 Sep 2004 19:44

I agree with all that has been said so far except:

Class, there are two theories that are equally valid for the creation of man and life in general

This is a nitpick I admit, but one I think is important. Your friend JP is really onto it, but evolution does not deal with the creation of life, that is the study of abiogenesis. It may seem bitchy and small but many creationalists misunderstand evolution to be an explanation to how life (and this quickly leads to existence itself) was created which leads to many a strawman.

If what was meant was 'two theories that are equally valid for explaining how life as we know it today was created' then that'd be cool, but I think it's important to be picky with semantics in such an easily distorted subject as this.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 13 Sep 2004 12:22

"creation of man and life in general" . . . could have left at 'creation of man', fine.

Now we don't have to worry about the creation of "life", and we are left with the two arguments

1)'Man' was created by god and has always been 'man'.

2) 'Man' evolved over time from other organisms.

I think the way he puts one argument on the table in 60 seconds, and devotes 6 weeks of time to the other theory leaves him with plenty of time to further explain what evolution means, and could be used to clear up any misunderstandings.

max · Post by **max** » 14 Sep 2004 00:16

On a similar note I was told that up until the 70's or 80's several states in the US (and no doubt other mostly-chistian countries world-wide) still taught in geology class, or its equivalent, that the age of the age of the earth was either, with equal probability:

- 4.5 billion years according to most modern scientists in that field
- 4000 years according to the genesis

yes that's right: it's EQUALY PROBABLE! there's a 50/50 chance that's its one or the other

that's roughly 4.5 billion years difference between the two estimate!!

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 14 Sep 2004 13:12

I was part of the generation taught the earth is equally likely to be 4500 or 450,000,000,000 years old.

millenniumtree · Post by **millenniumtree** » 15 Sep 2004 21:39

It's amazing how stupid people can be regarding this situation.

Just some old dude in a building with lots of stained glass told you so doesn't mean it's true folks...

Maybe I should start talking about how Zeus is guiding my every move. My new dinner prayer should be "I thank Athena for providing this rice to us for nutrition"

You'd think people would be over myths and legends by now, and start to see things in a more scientific light.

sandman420 · Post by **sandman420** » 21 Sep 2004 11:49

I think instead of teaching anything in school that our kids should be punched in the neck repeatedly by someone is telling them that "something created you like magic!" and "hes invisible!" sadly kids will buy anyhting. Especially when getting punched in the neck.

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 21 Sep 2004 12:35

millenniumtree wrote:You'd think people would be over myths and legends by now, and start to see things in a more scientific light.

That won't happen. People will always look towards religion for answers for things that they can't explain, especially when there is little hope for them otherwise. Also, relitively uneducated people will look to religion. Let's not forget those who've been brought up in it their entire life. There are several different reasons why people will continue to belive in religion... Also, I forgot the major one: Tradition. It's hard to break a tradition that's been going on for that long.

Another example, not to be stereotypical, is the Middle East. They center their entire lives around religion. Do I agree with it? Fuck no. Can I change it? HELL FUCKIN' NO! You can't change a people's mind in a day, night, month, year, or possibly even a decade.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 21 Sep 2004 18:46

I disagree. I think you can change people's minds - maybe not overnight but in a slow process. I think the way to do it is to make the other people want to be like you - to show them a good example and to make them really like you.

Obviously countries like Australia and the US are hated by many people (although for Australia - it's just in the local region) because they try to make people do what they want with force. As far as I know there is no way of controlling people’s thoughts - especially through force. When you hit somebody - in my experience - they tend to like you less - not more.

During the past Australia has had a great deal of support from our neighbours and has seen both an influx of immigrants from those countries and much stronger diplomatic links - these days what we hear is the constant condemnation from the nearby countries and other groups.