Creationism or Evoultion in the Public School systems
Should creatonism be taught in the public schooling systems along side the therory of evolution- as both are therories for the basis of orgin to be taught in science class.
Yes, creationism and evolution
Side Score: 21
|
 |
No, just evolution
Side Score: 53
|
|
|
|
|
Because the public education system is supposed to create well-rounded education, we must teach all theories behind how we came to be. By not teaching other aspects of the beginning of life, we are selling our students into a closed-minded view of the world. We must also consider that Evolution, like Creationism, is nothing more than a theory held up by scientists. They are both on equal footing in concern with the scientific community. Whether you agree with it or not, it still is a theory. By teaching evolution and creationism side by side (as well as intelligent design and all other life theories), we are allowing students to choose for themselves which they choose to believe, not what we decide to feed them. Side: Yes, creationism and evolution
we must teach all theories behind how we came to be. All of them? Really? Every single origin of life/humanity/the world concept proposed by every religion and civilization that we know of, up to and including the many that we know are patently wrong? That would be a very long chapter. By not teaching other aspects of the beginning of life, we are selling our students into a closed-minded view of the world. First off, evolution does not deal with the beginnings of life. Life has to exist in the first place in order for it to evolve. The word you are looking for is abiogenesis. Also, are you suggesting that we should teach all sides of every controversial issue? Should history classes teach both that the Holocaust did and did not happen? You have a rather unwieldy curriculum ahead of you. And as far as close-minded, preferring an explanation that is only supported by one old, fallible book and faith over an explanation that is supported by THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence from researchers working all over the world could be considered a PERFECT example of close-mindedness. We must also consider that Evolution, like Creationism, is nothing more than a theory held up by scientists. For starters, Creationism is NOT a scientific theory. Because the premise is unfalsifiable and supernatural, the conclusion is also unfalsifiable and unscientific, therefore can not be worked upon by the scientific method, therefore not a theory. Also, all attempts at empirical evidence have failed. This is a demonstration of the fact that Scientific Theories have specific parameters to fall into before they can earn the name. They must be falsifiable, they must be supported by hypotheses (in the case of evolution, there are dozens) that themselves have been shown to be valid. And because of their nature, they are CONSTANTLY under scrutiny because a theory is not meant to be proven but only has to be disproved once to be considered invalid. At over 150 years old, and being one of the most widely studied and controversial offerings science has ever made, evolution has proven its validity by never being successfully falsified. And new evidence supporting it comes in constantly. Finally, a scientific theory is, by definition, a description of a fact or scientific law. In other words, whatever the theory is talking about is already known to happen, the theory just strives to figure out how and why it happens. In the case of evolution, we already know as indisputable fact that allele frequencies vary among and between populations over time (and that is what evolution is). The theory basically just tries to determine what forces drive this fact and what the results could be. They are both on equal footing in concern with the scientific community. Over 95% of scientists support evolution and deny creationism. Among biologists, the people who use evolutionary principles in their day to day workings, this % is even higher. Yes, SOME biologists support creationism, there are always hold-outs in any scientific controversy. But to say that the two are on equal footing is absurd. Particularly since acceptance of Creationism involves rejection of the Scientific Method. By teaching evolution and creationism side by side (as well as intelligent design and all other life theories), we are allowing students to choose for themselves which they choose to believe... Do you honestly believe that allowing uneducated, hormonal, myopic children to choose their own curriculum is a good idea? Seriously? Should next allow med students to pick and choose what they study? Besides, regardless of what they are taught, students WILL make up their own minds about what they believe. This is evidenced by the vast numbers of creationists coming out of public schools. Side: No, Just Evolution
3
points
You made the fallacy of equivocation. A scientific theory is very different than the colloquial use of the word theory would imply it is. Creationism is already taught as it should be, in social study courses where the religion of the people being studied is presented as their beliefs, not as a viable scientific theory. Truth is, creationism is not scientific and does not reside on equal footing in the scientific community. It should be taught from an anthropological perspective in social study courses, as it currently is. The truth that creationism is not science is obvious once one knows the scientific method: Side: No, Just Evolution
Creationism, is nothing more than a theory held up by scientists. They are both on equal footing in concern with the scientific community. This couldn't be further from the truth. Creationism is considered to be a pseudoscience by the scientific community. SOURCE: http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/ Side: No, Just Evolution
1
point
Theist evolution and secular evolution should both be taught in schools. The reason for this is that the origins of man is still disputed by man. There are many theories about what started it all, but none that are without dispute. God, Big Bang, and whatever else one conjures up is not fact. All theories should be taught; Because wishing something to be, doesn't make it so. Side: Yes, creationism and evolution
I don't see any good reason that we should make any distinction between theistic or non-theistic evolution. The evidence for evolution is strong, that much is clear, whether evolution was guided by God or not is not something that science can determine and thus should be left out of science class altogether. What you are talking about is a fundamentally philosophical question. There are many theories about what started it all As to the origin of species there is precisely one theory and only one theory. Creationism is not a theory. All theories should be taught No you only wish those dictated by your religion to be taught. Other antiquated theories such as Luminiferous aether theory or Steady state theory are not being asked to be taught in public schools. Nor do you or other creationists have any intent of having them taught, you just want your beliefs to circumvent the scientific method by appealing to voters. This isn't an honest attempt to teach "all theories" only those which you believe. Let's not hide under the veil of "fairness" because that is not what this is about nor has it ever been. Side: No, Just Evolution
0
points
The evidence is only strong that over time things evolve, nothing else. If one wants to present a Godless version of these events, then a version of these events that include God should also be given. Who said creation is a theory? By definition it is? As with any guess to how things started. I stated all theories should be taught, it is you and only you that doesn't want any opposing ideas. Are you afraid of the truth? I'm not and I encourage people to think outside the box. To bad you have taped yourself inside one and cannot comprehend anything that doesn't agree with your beliefs. It appears that your religion isn't very strong; Why else would you fear others religion? Side: Yes, creationism and evolution
1
point
You know, America's founding fathers meant the public education system to teach creationism and not evolution. But someone HAD to break the rules during the 1920's and start the monkey trials. After that, evolution was banned until about decades later when evolution and creationism were required to be taught in public schools.... Side: Just Creationism
|
3
points
Creationism has no place in a science class, it is anti-scientific, it is not observable nor does it hold up to the scientific method. Anyone that tries to teach this as a science is corrupting minds and sending out the wrong message. That said I'd have no problem with any myths being taught in a religious studies module, but it should be taught as such. Side: Creationism is not science
Numbers are a tool to describe mathematics and the physical universe. Additionally, all phenomena are expressed in terms of variables, not "numbers," and thus, since our physical reality appears to follow these arbitrarily designed functions, we may conclude that these arbitrarily designed functions are true. Your point about numbers is invalid. Additionally, our "numbers" that you so blithely point out are simply our way of quantifying the observable universe. That is, we could have used some other form of quantifying, just a "number" (especially base 10 systems) are useful for us because they have a physical basis. Side: No, Just Evolution
3
points
"Numbers don't hold up to the scientific method. They cannot be measured or seen. Yet scientists are extremely reliant on these terms that have not been proven to be real. Does this mean that numbers should not be used in science classes?" Seriously man even you must know this is a pathetic attempt at justifying your ridiculous position, but then again thats exactly what happens when you try to justify ridiculous beliefs scientifically. Side: No, Just Evolution
2
points
"To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in." (Richard Feynman) Calculations work. Is there evidence for this? Yes. Can we predict an outcome based on a calculation? Yes. If you believe numbers to unscientific and their teaching to be corrupting minds, I'd turn off that computer and hide away naked, in the wilderness somewhere and try my best not to notice the passing of time, the length of my hair or try predict when food will become available. Side: No, Just Evolution
2
points
It appears that fairy tales are told all the time, just ask an atheist. What makes an atheist think they are superior to all others. In a land not so far away, there was a group of people that arrogantly claim to hold all the answers in the universe. They call themselves atheists. They run about bashing the gods others have while ironically claiming themselves to be one. (to be continued) Side: Yes, creationism and evolution
Haha. Wow. Tales. Tails. But if you want to go there... spelling techniques One does not review spelling techniques when differentiating homophones. This is simply memorization or reviewing spelling. reading stories before bed One does not read stories before bed. That makes as little sense as "fairy tails." The proper word in that context is bedtime. Side: No, Just Evolution
1
point
No, I am against creationism being taught in science. Seriously, science is supposed to be a logical subject. Let's not go back to those days where we burnt people because they are witches and believed the Earth was flat. We go to science to learn things that have been proven correct; we go to Religion to teach us morals, etc. Creationism was made to give us morals after all, the people who wrote the Bible didn't believe God created the day in six days and rested.... don't take the Bible literally, take it metaphorically. Side: No, Just Evolution
|
