Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

"Kids are cyring out to understand what scientists think is wrong with creation and vice versa.""I don't know what the schools are like in America, but in my experience of Scottish schools the majority of students know that the Bible stories are taken as a belief and NOT as an attempt to accurately describe real events." BrianBible stories are taken, at least from most Christians I know as not only a belief but as History. And, if Genises wasn't trying to accurately describe real events, please tell me what it was.
Thank You

Still. It is not a waste of time to show kids varying ideas (no matter what you believe). Kids need to know that the *TRUTH* that alot of them were raised with is not yet PROVEN wrong. Few things can be proven 100% impossible, Creation is NOT one of them. It is not a waste of time to spend a day or so on a subject stressing that is is a theory. It can't be taught in a religous class because that would be telling the kids this isn't a scientific option (ONLY a hypothosis). FreckledTit - tell me how it is nonsence to believe in a single being who has always existed, then it created earth - as opposed to the earth creating itself. No matter how scientific you try to be about matter creating itself you can't make it totally make sence. Everything comes from something. Unless your planning on giving kids a 100% complete view of creation using a view that leaves out room for God, I believe God's theory (truth) should also be included.[This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-18-2004]

Ok, it doesn't quite say that Earth created itself, but that's basically what it boils down to. And I will say it again, and again until you read it, the locally dominant religions who are pursuing having their views taught. I would not care a bit if my kids learned the Hindu views. Why should I? - Especially if they are just, as I said earlier, "taking a day or two on it." I do not agree the Earth is even a million years old, but I "would be so sanguine about it."
I believe classes, especially, in High school, should spend more time on teaching the origin of life. I don't really care which views they put in schools, as long as it includes the locally dominant religous ones. --> mabey a handfull of non-religous views, then a couple of religous views- Yes I am advocating another change in the science corriculum, to smooth things over, and make things fair. Also allow kids to make up their own minds instead of being taught all of their school lives that the only theories possible are ones that don't involve God. Like I said earlier, a few extra days. Even you agree it should be taught, you just think the kids would see "why the idea is nonsence." No on the contrary, If they provided all of the kids with all of the evidence for both sides I believe they would choose that things that have been made have a maker.
Chiroptera, off-subject - How long will it say I am a Junior-Member?

Notice I sayed IF we could show them all the evidence. I realize classes are already crammed with state and distric teaching requirements as well as activities. which is why I said we should spend a day or two teaching religous alternatives.O yeah, it dosn't matter to me which religous views we teach, as long as the world's major religions are taught. I don't even care if we get into any detain about any. We should just suggest the possiblity to students that a higher being could have done it.[This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-18-2004]

Ok, ONCE again ! I said we should mention them in science class because otherwise it would be like telling the kids "this is just a religous belief, if you want truth - listen in science class!"
We should not close young people's minds to supernatural possiblities.
We don't have to teach the bible- but we should att least mention the possibility of a Creator. please stop moving this debate in circles

They don't have to verify/falsify any theory, just teach the idea.
I do realize that is why they are taught there, but creation should still BE MENTIONED in science class!

Then all possibilities should be put in a Origin Theory Class, or something like that. Since, you say it is 'not science'.

I said a few religous theories for a SHORT amount of time - just mentioning them would eliminate the need for an aditional class.Also what I'm saing about the Origin Theory Class is all theories of where we came from could be in it - including evolution.
Yes I know evolution is a fact but humans coming from evolution IS NOT A FACT.[This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-18-2004]

Ok, possiblilities. It that a better word? A Origin Possibility Class? Is that better? I think it has found it's way there because evolutionists don't want other's to think Creation is even a POSSIBILITY of what really happened. By putting Creation in a religous class you are implying to the students that Creation is just a myth, a religous story. I think an additional class would also solve the time issue, so we could teach more...

This "religous agenda" would be telling the theory, so that means nothing. Why can't a belief believed for centuries by many cultures be half-taught in schools? It is more likely to be true than in other religions because other religions haven't made perfect predictions into the future.

What "guess" has been dead wrong?