Personal tools
 
Views

Talk:Debate: Creationism vs evolution in schools

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Click on the "+" tab above to add a comment, or just click "edit". Sign your comment by writing "~~~~" at the end. Join us on Facebook for broader community discussion.

Why creationism should be taught

Public schools should teach creationism as well as evolutionism because we can't change which one is right so it really doesn't matter what people think. If you look carefully, both sides have scientific evidence behind them.

Some supernatural force created the earth. People are just debating whether it was natural or supernatural. why shouldn't ppl kno both sides??? -- User:Something

Major edit

I would like to make a major edit to the point titled "Creationism should be taught in schools because it is science." It is an argument in favor of teaching creationism in schools, yet it makes several logical and technical errors and does not refer to the best evidences. Moreover, I'm not it's clear as to what kind of creationism we're talking about. Young earth? Old earth? intelligent design? This certainly should not be a discussion about intelligent design, as the arguments are far too centered around religion. Anyways, those are some thoughts. But I just wanted to let you know that the aforementioned section needs a major overhaul, and I intend to fix it if that's ok. I promise it will be good. QuadFather 20:23, 17 January 2008 (CST)

Go for it. I will let you know if you're doing anything wrong. Just try to put on the "hat" of someone that is trying to create an encyclopedia of arguments, documenting them as they are made in the public by the key thinkers involved. I am excited to see your work. -- Brooks Lindsay 20:46, 17 January 2008 (CST)

Terms of the debate

An important section that's missing from all of these debates is one that defines the important terminology being used. A subquestion section won't work for this. oi ... any solutions anyone? QuadFather 06:18, 21 January 2008 (CST)

Use the background section for this. -- Brooks Lindsay 12:35, 21 January 2008 (CST)

I personally do not think Creationism should be taught side by side with Evolution. I think there should be a class on Creationism, if you were interested in taking it. I do not think it is right for the school to not allow teachers to talk about Creationism. I am a Christian and believe in God. On the other hand I do not understand why other Christians won't even listen to the big bang theory or evolution. In the bible it says, God created the heavens and the earth. Little by little he created the earth in 6 days, on the seventh he rested. First of all we do not know how long God's days are and second of all the bible said he created, it did not say how. Last, but not least obviously evolution (survival of the fittest) is true. For example, Penguins..... they have wings, but do not fly. They used to fly, but where they are now they don't need to fly, now they need them as flippers.

Dudelol comment

No teaching evolution is not dangerous, and neither is creationism. The truth of the fact is that we are talking about high school students. who not only do not need there parents hammering the school about the curriculum, but also have the ability to make decisions for themselves. I believe that both creationism and evolution should be taught side by side in public schools, and the students should be able to decide for themselves which one ( or none) they want to believe. If you don't like it have your child go to a religiously based school. -- User:Dudelol

Teaching creationism is like teaching scientology

I really do not understand this debate. Besides the fact creationism is not science? If it were to be allowed it would open the door for all religions to force their belief.

Do you think scientologist would just sit back? So what about scientology? Should that be taught as well?

According to this story, 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living and continue to do this today.

In 2001 survey published by the City University of New York, 55,000 people in the United States would, if asked to identify their religion, have stated Scientology. What are the chances that The number's are actually higher then that?

Do you want that taught to you? or your children one day? If creationism is taught then so must all other religious beliefs. Which includes reincarnation, astrology etc....

Our laws are set up so that no one religion is favored over another.

This debate itself is not consistent....

The value of teaching or not teaching creationism in science class itself requires we establish a basis for determining that value.

The theist seeking to promote his theology and undermine competing epistemology will necessarily want to teach the non-science of creationism in science classes. He will also be thereby justified in using whatever sophistry and political power he can to accomplish this.

If on the other hand you both recognize science for what it is and value it then you cannot condone teaching non-science as science.

But how can you argue with: "We should teach creationism in science class because God has revealed to me that he commands us to."

Should you stop beating your wife?

There is a foundational premise which brings this controversy to the forefront and without which we would not need to debate this.

Should the State be in charge of our children's education?

Whether it is creationism vs. evolution of anthropogenic global warming vs uncontrollable external factors or socialism vs capitalism... The State is the last person we should want in charge of curriculum.

I say parents have the right to send their kids to schools which teach creationism as if it were science or for that matter flat-earth-ism. Likewise parents should have the right to send their kids to schools where science is science and religion is religion and never the twain shall meet. The issue of curriculum should be a local debate between parents and school boards or better yet a market debate as to whether a school wants to teach what parents will value their kids learning.

At the same time my tax dollars shouldn't be spent teaching what I think is nonsense any more than a creationist should pay for teaching evolution. The issue is not the subject but the lack of free choice built into the social welfare premise of public schools financed through taxes.

Whoever brought in the bit about how Gallileo should be burned at the stake seems to be an evolutionist trying to caricature the creationists by making them seem completely opposed to scientific method. No creationist in his right mind would ever say such a thing. Please use your side of the debate to explain your views instead of purposefully misrepresenting the opposition.

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.