Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

The law is the law.
Sensible or denying the truth its still the law.
No one could teach YEC though it was proven true as long as the present law is in place.
Yec is banned today by this law despite being the truth.My greater point is that there is no such law in the constitution dealing with school subjects.
There is no actual connection between church/state relations and everything the state pays for.
It was not the founders intention. Absurd.The people simply should have the power to vote up or down these matters.
Creationism is historic, popular, and intellectually solid.
no problem to returning it to the classroom.

Nope. its not taught based on the use of law.
Nothing to do with whether its true.
In fact saying its not true, these Christian doctrines, is illegal as some posters here have said.

Well, no. If it was true, then there would be a valid secular purpose in teaching it, and there would be no problem with doing so. The Supreme Court thinks you're wrong. And it wasn't the founders that wrote the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the legal foundation of the Incorporation Doctrine. "Intellectually solid"?Oh my dear chap.And there are a number of problems with returning it to the classroom, one being that you'd have to require every competent science teacher in the system to recite words which they knew to be untrue.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I insist. Teaching Christian doctrines are wrong is illegal if the very law invoked to ban creationism is about neutrality and non interference.
Its logic.
Louisiana ain't right about everything.
Creationism is only indirectly dealing with religion. in fact it deals with ideas about origins.
Banning it is saying its false.
Saying its false is illegal.
Here we go again.

Which is why it's OK to implicitly teach that it's wrong.If someone founded a religion that had amongst its tenets that two twos are five, it might be illegal to denounce that religion by name,, just as it would be wrong to denounce the various Christian sects that promote creationism. But it would still be OK to teach that two twos are four.

It certainly isn't. You can say anything you like about things being false, and you will never ever be doing something illegal. Maybe something ignorant and idiotic, but certainly not illegal.

Bullshit. If there was evidence supporting a young earth it could be taught; however young earth has been totally falsified and so teaching it is teaching a falsehood. Creationism is NOT intellectually solid or supported by any evidence. If it was it could be taught.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

We were talking about neutrality. You claimed that the state is not being neutral if it teaches that Genesis is false. I said that it is being neutral if it treats all falsehoods the same. It isn't illegal to teach that Genesis is false - i.e. that it doesn't match observed reality. It isn't illegal to teach that Genesis is true either (although it could be seen as fraud). It's illegal to teach only Genesis above other religious writings.

---

You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy

YEC has been disproved. It is simply superstition, and science has shown that it is incorrect as well.By claiming it to be "proven true" and "the truth" you are preaching, and preaching a falsehood.And you want that falsehood taught as science? What a joke!(See tagline, below.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Of course you are free to insist all you want. That is your right.We are talking though about science classes.For example, if you could provide overwhelming evidence that the earth was young you could teach that in a science class ... until someone points to a single fact that totally refutes young earth.You could NOT teach "special Creation" though unless and until you can present the method and model that some creator used. If you can present the method and model and it could be supported scientifically (no insert miracle here) then that could be taught in a science class.Now in a mythology class or religious education class or history class or social studies class you could mention that some Christians hold certain beliefs that have been totally refuted by the facts of the universe we live in.BUT ... you need to stop claiming that what you present are Christian doctrines. That is simply false. They are doctrines held by some sub-groups and cults within Christianity, but not by Christianity as a whole.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Except that there is no evidence of this creation, which is why it can't be taught in a science class.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Bolder-dash has been spamming threads and ignoring moderation for a while now, so I'm going to give the website a break for 4 weeks.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I think you're wrong. As I understand the interpretation that the courts put on the First Amendment, it is illegal (in public schools, which is what we're talking about) to teach that Genesis is true; and it is also illegal to teach explicitly that it is false. However, one can teach the facts that falsify it.(I am not a lawyer, but I play one in elaborate swindles that defraud the gullible.)

Well lets teach some other forms of creationism in ones religion the universe began when a giant bird was sitting on an egg so it would hatch and when it did it produced our universe. Hey that sounds like the big bang it must be true put it in the classrooms just dont mention what gods where also spawned from the egg and it should pass, lets make students make the decide whats right the bird and egg creation, the creo creation, or Science. No watch me its false false false false false a lie a ferry tale totaly false. See nothing to it now you try. Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Yes, I may have oversimplified the legal niceties of exactly who can say what and where and at what time. I meant to emphasize that what's actually forbidden is singling out Genesis or any specific interpretation of Genesis.

---

You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy