Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

Scientists don't preach. You have a serious problem with projection.Science is tentative, as is taught from the very beginning of any science education. It would seem that your true problems lie in your own distortions of how science works instead of how science actually works.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

We are not talking about Life Class. We are talking about Science Class. What secular purpose is there for teaching creationism in SCIENCE CLASS? How does teaching creationism improve a child's SCIENCE EDUCATION?

If YEC were true it would have an intrinsic secular use as a scientific theory. Therefore, it would be allowed in science class per the Lemon Test. The Supreme Court would disagree, and they have the final word on the matter. Then go for it. Start a movement to remove the Establishment Clause from the Constitution. It is doable through the Ammendment process. Care to back this up?

taq; It has been a long time since I have been in the classroom, but I notice a distinct advocacy in some scientific popular writings, ie. Dawkins et. al. where to suggest anything but natural causation is greeted by vitriolic castigation. People , including students, read this and may assume there is no other answer to what is life than science's answer.
This in my judgement is one sided propaganda.

So far natural evolution is the ONLY possible explanation.

---

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

taq writes; But isn't Science about life? Science classes cannot just ignore the rest of the world especially when discusing such topics as evolution and the origin of life.Shouldn't students be taught that Science does not know or even havea clue as to the origin of life on this planet?That perhaps there are other theories out there as to the origin of life and even evolution, especially macroevolution?Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

jar writes; Thats not true. There are other very serious scientific theories being presented by Scientists such as Shapiro, and Wizany, that question natural Darwinan evolution as it is presented today.I hope in a few days to post an OP on this subject that deals with information in the cells and biocommunciation.
My point is that Science cannot close the book on anything at this point in time.

Nonsense. Shapiro is NOT promoting anything other than natural evolution. To claim he is is simply misrepresentation.There is no such thing as Intelligent Design theory or Creation Science.

---

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

Don't you realize that science teaches all of the theories for which there is evidence?Creationism is unsupported by evidence. Until it can come up with something better than "evolution is all wet" it doesn't deserve any place in science or in classrooms.And that evidence must meet the standards of science to be considered as science.

---

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

i disagree. if there actually was a problem with evolution, and something pointed it out, that would be very much a legitimate part of the scientific process.the problem is not that creationism doesn't come up with a better idea. it's that it's all lies, distortions, and misinformation.

---

אָרַח

I'm not sure why you disagree. If the pointing out did not include any reference to empirical evidence, then the pointing out should be ignored.

These are popular press books written for a general audience. They are NOT school text books. Again, we are talking about SCIENCE CLASS IN PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS!!! Are they reading these books because they have been assigned by the teacher IN SCIENCE CLASS? I guess you are unaware of all the popular press creationist books?

Do any of these theories lend scientific credence to creationism? If not, then it is not related to the topic.Einstein showed that natural Newtonian gravity was inaccurate but this did not lend credence to invisible gravity fairies. In fact, Einstein demonstrated that gravity was a natural phenomena that was imperfectly modeled by Newton's laws. That is strange since creationists want to close science textbooks altogether.

These are Christian doctrines for many and historically for more.
Your still trying to say the law is irrelevant.
Its the law that God/Genesis can not be taught as true or options where subjects about origins are taught.
The law is invoked here to fight creationism entering the schools by the legislature.Nothing to do with decisions about the accuracy of creationism(s). in fact the state couldn't legally make a decision about biblical accuracy.
by the law it invokes.Yet in fact in banning creationism and teaching evolution it twice does in fact break this law.
Somebody call a cop.

no. come on.
If one is teaching a subject on reality of origins there is nothing indirect goin on.
Its right to the point.
The state is teaching the bible is false by discussing origins with conclusions and then 1, banning the bible 2, teaching evolution etc which contradicts religion for many.
its impossible to get around the logic here.its impossible to say the founders put in the constitution, back in the day, anything to ban the truth of God/Genesis as they would of believed it.
just this century was it discovered in the constitution.anyways teaching the facts of origins only indirectly touches on religion. Just can't be helped.
Yet to say its untrue by state dictate is UnAmerican, illegal, and silly.