Evolutionism and or Creationism in public Schools

[glopez]

Do you believe one or either should be tought in puplic schools? And why? or why not?

[Aunt Nancy]

I'll ask you a question in return.

Should we teach that the Russian revolution took place in 1917 or 4 weeks ago?

[RuleBritannia]

4 weeks ago, obviously.

[Aunt Nancy]

4 weeks ago, obviously.

Well you're entitled to your opinion and I RESPECT THAT OPINION.

[oddman]

I oppose Gravitationism! Stop teaching this false religion in schools!

[BrettA]

Do you believe one or either should be tought in puplic schools? And why? or why not?

Are you trolling? If not, < evolution >... Google and read all about the Dover trial (Dover v. Kitzmller) for some of the "whys". ... Edit: And you might wanna see Christian cell biologist Ken Miller's superb talk at Case Western for some relevant highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

[oddman]

Do you believe one or either should be tought in puplic schools? And why? or why not?

OK, I'll give this a more serious shot:

First of all, the term "evolutionism" is as silly as "gravitationism". Evolutionary science is already taught (at least in Sweden) in biology classes as a standard, and I see no reason to change that. That species evolve is a fact, what might change is the understanding of the mechanisms behind the evolution. Just like gravity is a fact, but the understanding of the underlying mechanism has changed (like Newtonian gravity was replaced* by Einsteinian relativety).

Creationism (or I.D.) could possibly be part of religious studies, but not science since it isn't a scientific theory to begin with. Teaching creationism in a biology class would be equivalent to teaching alchemy in a chemistry class. Absurd!

*You can still use Newton's theories for everyday purposes, as long as the speed is relatively low compared to the speed of light.

[Skylarking]

... in the world is evolutionism?

Ism's are dangerous things to throw around, given their loaded nature.

[Skylarking]

Do you believe one or either should be tought in puplic schools? And why? or why not?

OK, I'll give this a more serious shot:

First of all, the term "evolutionism" is as silly as "gravitationism". Evolutionary science is already taught (at least in Sweden) in biology classes as a standard, and I see no reason to change that. That species evolve is a fact, what might change is the understanding of the mechanisms behind the evolution. Just like gravity is a fact, but the understanding of the underlying mechanism has changed (like Newtonian gravity was replaced* by Einsteinian relativety).

Creationism (or I.D.) could possibly be part of religious studies, but not science since it isn't a scientific theory to begin with. Teaching creationism in a biology class would be equivalent to teaching alchemy in a chemistry class. Absurd!

*You can still use Newton's theories for everyday purposes, as long as the speed is relatively low compared to the speed of light.

[CdesignProponentsist]

Do you believe one or either should be tought in puplic schools? And why? or why not?

Only the scientifically accepted theory should be taught in schools. Currently there is only one, evolution.

[stijndeloose]

4 weeks ago, obviously.

Well you're entitled to your opinion and I RESPECT THAT OPINION.

Shouldn't we teach the controversy?

[Witticism]

... in the world is evolutionism?

Ism's are dangerous things to throw around, given their loaded nature.

tach from the 1min 58sec mark - that about sums isms up!

[dinoboy]

[To OP] And just whose creationism should we teach?

Though there are efforts being made right on this forum to collate the list of possible candidates, how would one attempt to fit them all into a semester?



To start you off; Here's a fun site with but a handful...

[Witticism]

[To OP] And just whose creationism should we teach?

Though there are efforts being made right on this forum to collate the list of possible candidates, how would one attempt to fit them all into a semester?



To start you off; Here's a fun site with but a handful...

Thanks for the links dinoboy

[Aunt Nancy]

4 weeks ago, obviously.

Well you're entitled to your opinion and I RESPECT THAT OPINION.

Shouldn't we teach the controversy?

Anything else is fascism.

[stijndeloose]

4 weeks ago, obviously.

Well you're entitled to your opinion and I RESPECT THAT OPINION.

Shouldn't we teach the controversy?

Anything else is fascism.

It's not 'fascism'. It's 'fascist theory'. FFS!

[oddman]

It's not 'fascism'. It's 'fascist theory'. FFS!

...

[rikules]

the theories of evolution should be taught in science classes in public schools.

creationism can be part of any class on myths/religious myths.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Every student should get a basic education in science. And if it is going to be education, then de-bunked pseudo-science and all other sorts of woo like religion should be taught critically and unsympathetically. Eg If creationism is taught, then the teachers should lead the students in seeing why it is crap. This meaning showing then how creationists ignore proper scientific evidence, lie in courts of law, and commit every logical fallacy known to man.

I don't se why this should be a problem, because god botherers are always telling us how great their god is, how strong their faith is, and the self-evident efficacy of prayer. Very well, both their god hypothesis, and their faith should be able to stand a little criticism.