Schools should teach creationism?

[gwendes]

Not meaning to start a new 'Scientology'!

 

https://www.livejournals.org.uk/news/schools-should-teach-creationism-claims-expert,488,AR.html

 

This is so wrong.

[srochford]

It depends on how and where it is taught. There's no problem with teaching it in (say) reglious studies or philosohpy (or even English) - you are showing students that people have a wide range of beliefs and you're showing that you can respect a person even when you disagree with their beliefs.

 

I don't think it should be ignored in science but I think it should be on the lines of "some people believe that the world was created in 7 days (etc) but most scientists don't believe that and this is the evidence they use ..."

[gwendes]

 

I don't think it should be ignored in science but I think it should be on the lines of "some people believe that the world was created in 7 days (etc) but most scientists don't believe that and this is the evidence they use ..."

 

If you do that then surely you need to entertain all views. Science doesn't say this is reality but some people don't believe in the idea of reality. Science is the study of things that are known and proven by the best in the field in the best way they can.

 

Leave philosophy for the RS classroom - leave science to teach the truth (or abandon science)

 

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

[Guest Guest]

Why not just not teach RE at all? If you want ot be religious then goto church/etc, if you want to learn about things which may prove useful in later life thehn goto school.

[localzuk]

It should be restricted to RE lessons only. It is *not* a popular idea in scientific circles (it is not even a true 'theory' in the scientific meaning of the word), and as such should not be taught in school level science.

[gwendes]

Why not just not teach RE at all? If you want ot be religious then goto church/etc, if you want to learn about things which may prove useful in later life thehn goto school.

 

Because RS is not about converting people. It's simply learning about what other people think and do. That is important.

 

The science classroom is not a place to ask if there is a god. Infact, it isn't about discovering anything new or questionning ANY science - the school classroom is about learning facts (called theories in science) that have been established.

 

I think it's very important that school children understand that other people think different things and are given space to investigate this but any science teacher that wants to blur truth and fiction by supporting the idea that the world is less than 10,000 years old (undermining other subjects such as geography and history at the same time) needs to be moved into a different department (or institution)

[Guest Guest]

Maybe it was just the way RE was taught at my school but RE wasnt about learning that people think differantly. It was put accross as established facts; jesus DID do this, Mohammed DID do that... and if you didnt agree then you were wrong.

 

Either way i still disagree. You dont need to be taught the ins and outs about every differant religion just to be able to get along with them, and then who decides which religions are worthy of being taught and to what extent, does scientoloigy make the grade? Besides i didnt say it was about converting people, i was simply questioning its value in a supposedly modern, civilized and developed society. Science will always be useful but i cant remember the last time i was asked how many candles jews light at honica (sp)

 

"undermining other subjects such as geography and history at the same time"

 

RE already does undermine science, geograghy, history etc. (Or as i said maybe it was just my school)

Edited September 12, 2008 by Guest

[gwendes]

Maybe it was just the way RE was taught at my school but RE wasnt about learning that people think differantly. It was put accross as established facts; jesus DID do this, Mohammed DID do that... and if you didnt agree then you were wrong.

 

Unfortunately this was my experience too.

 

Either way i still disagree. You dont need to be taught the ins and outs about every differant religion just to be able to get along with them

 

I'm not talking about getting along with people - I find it interesting. No one really needs to know about quadratic equations or oxbow lakes but generally humans like to learn more about people and environment. I find religion fascinating but prefer that it stays out of science - we can't afford for that to be corrupted with opinion. Science isn't about what we would prefer to be true - you can't have an opinion on a fact.

 

RE already does undermine science, geograghy, history etc. (Or as i said maybe it was just my school)

 

Mine too. I think it's changed a little now ( I hope it has)

[localzuk]

RE was not taught like that when I was at school, even though the teacher was a devout Christian. It covered all the different major religions, explaining what they believe etc... Some of it *is* factual, as it is verifiable history but most of it is based purely on beliefs and this was imparted to us as well.

 

RE is a very important subject, otherwise people simply don't understand what people think and look at them as strange.

[CyberNerd]

Time I posted the CFSM openletter again:

 

Open Letter To Kansas School Board - Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

 

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

 

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

 

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

 

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

 

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

 

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

 

Sincerely Yours,

 

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

 

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

 

[witch]

Not meaning to start a new 'Scientology'!

 

.

 

Oh yes you are!!

[srochford]

The science classroom is not a place to ask if there is a god. Infact, it isn't about discovering anything new or questionning ANY science - the school classroom is about learning facts (called theories in science) that have been established.

 

They're not "called theories"; they generally *are* theories!

 

Some stuff in science can be proved - eg if you add an acid to an alkali then you do get a salt and some water. Other things can't be proved; we're just pretty sure that they're true but they're still theories!

 

I'd like to think that a good science classroom is about discovering new things as far as the pupils are concerned. Of course other people will know them already but I think good science teaching is about encouraging people to investigate, to ask questions and to learn.

[MkII]

Absolutely Steve. Isn't it always the danger that theories are taught as fact. Yes it may seem to be near as dammit right but it remains a theory.

 

Gwendes - I thought you'd taken up the cloth and disappeared up a mountain somewhere! Welcome back!

 

Subjects do naturally run into each other's territory, which is where the conflict arises. When thinking about science I naturally apply the knowledge to my religious experience - you have to!

 

Schools naturally over classify subjects and over-specialise as that's how academics delve deeper into their own field of expertise. Their ideas then are involuntarily biased. Difficult then to present a well rounded view.

[Pete10141748]

Science isn't about what we would prefer to be true - you can't have an opinion on a fact.

 

Exactly.

I've always considered them this way;

Science - the search for fact, truth

RE/RS - learning what people believe

 

You can't *believe* in a fact - it is either true, or not.

[CyberNerd]

Some stuff in science can be proved - eg if you add an acid to an alkali then you do get a salt and some water. Other things can't be proved; we're just pretty sure that they're true but they're still theories!

 

Absolutely Steve. Isn't it always the danger that theories are taught as fact. Yes it may seem to be near as dammit right but it remains a theory.

 

The major difference between scientific theory and god stories is that a scientific theory can be disproved. Scientific journals are full of different research groups disproving each others work.

The existence of god cannot be disproved, and by definition cannot be a scientific theory.

 

Science and religion can and do mix. plenty of scientists have religious faith, but religion should most certainly be kept out of science teaching !

[MkII]

i was simply questioning its value in a supposedly modern, civilized and developed society. Science will always be useful but i cant remember the last time i was asked how many candles jews light at honica (sp)

 

RE teaches thoughts on morals and their origins to give one example. You shouldn't limit yourself to such a narrow field of knowledge. Religion plays a big part in all our lives. To want to be ignorant of it can only lead to problems surely.

[MkII]

Science isn't about what we would prefer to be true - you can't have an opinion on a fact.

hmm. Things that are black and white are easily defined. Some of the bases of ideas are the solid facts we don't need to question. Most judgements though are just that, because they are deemed to be the most likely correct answer. Is an opinion on a fact a right to doubt it?

 

To me,

Science = discovery

Religion = a search for truth

[Friez]

Strongly disagreeing with teaching creationism unless it is made painfully apparent that this is what some people BELIEVE and not necessarily what ACTUALLY happened.

 

It certainly doesn't belong in a Science lesson.

[sam_butler]

Well, I blogged about this just today (Sam Butler Blog Archive Creationism or Evolution: Should science decide?) but to be honest it's not a simple matter. I think creationism is a bit unscientific to be propounded in school science lessons, but we certainly shouldn't be doing something in those lessons that would seem to invalidate those or any other beliefs. I found that sometimes a teacher can get carried away and start denouncing them. What do you think?

[MkII]

Exactly Sam. Very well put.

 

It gets tricky with some people's beliefs. All Christianity, as far as I know, bases some of it's ideas on physical fact. These facts have to be accepted, which then brings you into direct conflict with science.

 

As Dorkins said, Christians compromise their beliefs by not taking the bible literally. Of course this is nonsense but true at some level I think. You can't look at the Bible entirely symbolically. The interpretation won't hold water. Or does it?

[sam_butler]

I'm not sure. As I said in my blog post, the only place creationism really came up in my R.E. classes at school was in discussing the symbolic interpretation of Genesis and indeed the entire Bible. An Evangelical Christian is unlikely to agree with such an interpretation, but in my regard it seems to be a growing thing; some Christians I know do hold this belief that the bible is symbolic rather than to be literally heeded. Actually it's interesting to note the first post here because I'm a Scientologist

[somabc]

eh? atheism is not a religion.

 

atheism is the opposite of theism, ie

 

atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods.

 

If you know that a person is an atheist, then you know that he or she lacks belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less.

[somabc]

It gets tricky with some people's beliefs. All Christianity, as far as I know, bases some of it's ideas on physical fact. These facts have to be accepted, which then brings you into direct conflict with science.

 

As Dorkins said, Christians compromise their beliefs by not taking the bible literally. Of course this is nonsense but true at some level I think. You can't look at the Bible entirely symbolically. The interpretation won't hold water. Or does it?

 

What are these 'physical facts'?

 

Can I throw a cat among the pigeons by quoting a remarkably close to the truth entry on uncyclopedia?

 

Religion is a widespread mental illness, of which the defining feature is delusional belief in a powerful invisible being who is always watching you and will punish you if you don't follow their will (the paranoid delusions found in schizophrenia are often remarkably similar). The illness comes in various strains, of which the most severe is Islam, symptoms of which include virulent antisemitism and homophobia. Almost matching in severity is scientology, the system in which aliens blew up a volcano, creating life. People not afflicted by religion are called atheists, and they can be identified by their ability and willingness to use rational thought.

 

Edited September 15, 2008 by somabc

[sam_butler]

Har har. So anyway, was the atheist/theist comment in response to something?

[somabc]

Har har. So anyway, was the atheist/theist comment in response to something?

 

oh yes sorry, it was referring to your blog post where you say

 

Perhaps the most religious people I know are atheists

 

Another point is the big bang theory actually has observable evidence.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

 

I believe that atheism and religion can co-exist without causing each other harm. If anything religious followers should be confident that science will one day prove that their religion is right? On the contrary science has done nothing but disprove religion since day one. We now know the sun will still rise even if we do not make human sacrifices to the sun god. We know that the earth is not the centre of the universe. We know the earth is billions of years old. We know that animals and humans arose through evolution...

 

The problem for me arises when religion actively interferes with science, when it is taught in a science classroom, when children are taught religion from a young age at home instead of science and so forth.

Edited September 15, 2008 by somabc