Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Creationism should not be taught because it is not science

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

Creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design', is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes.
The Assembly calls on education authorities in member States to promote scientific knowledge and the teaching of evolution and to oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline."
No. Educators may not teach, either as scientific fact or even as an alternative or competing theory, the theory that humankind was created by a divine being. In science classes, educators must present only scientific explanations for life on earth and scientific critiques of evolution. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional to require educators who teach evolution also to teach creationism.1
Furthermore, schools may not refuse to teach evolution in an effort to avoid offending religious individuals.
In addition, disclaimers regarding the theory of evolution as the only explanation for the development of humankind have been found to be unconstitutional. In one case, a court struck down a school board rule requiring teachers to read a disclaimer that said that the teaching of evolution is 'not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other concept.'"

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge Jones ruled that "... we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.