Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

So we need to teach any and all religious revelations that folks bring forth, eh?How about those that are clearly wrong: the global flood about 4,350 years ago and young earth, for example? Those ideas have gone the way of Thor's hammer and the chariot of the sun in Egypt. If those religious ideas are taught along side the evidence that shows they are incorrect, I agree that it will broaden their horizons. But I don't suppose that's what you want, eh? You just want them all taught as if they were correct and verifiable.Better start coming up with some evidence then. That's the way it is done in science.

---

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

Based on what I have seen so far there seems to be a rather large divide in the creation/intelligent design camps. If it was to be taught in schools, even if it was in a theology class that also taught other creation theories, how would anyone agree in which version, of biblical creation, to teach. There is already a great divide in the different denominations of Christians. I am sure it would be the same with other religions creation theories as well. Who would decide on what version they will teach, which textbook too buy? If we let each school district decide then there might be a lot of things that differ from system to system.
How would this help our children? As I see it , Science and Creation should not be taught in the same classroom. I do feel that High school kids should be taught some basic classes on theology where different creation theory can be studied.

What you are describing is a comparative religion course. It would examine all pertinent views, and would not select any one view as the TRVTH.A class like this could not be properly taught by anyone pushing one flavor of religion over another. If they do that it is not teaching, it is preaching.Comparative religion courses are often taught as Anthropology (I took such a course many years ago). That is the proper place for such a course. Religious Studies courses will most likely be very biased in favor of one religion--they don't have the "view from a distance" perspective found in Anthropology.But if you let creationists preach a course, you violate the constitution and do a disservice to the students.That's what creationists want, of course.

---

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

right. they want their brand injected into schools, and nobody else's. because i think they inherently understand what many of their children end up learning in college:christian + comparative religion course = atheist.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo, even in a short post!

---

אָרַח

ah Yes ..comparative religion then. Forgive me as i am not a college educated person...LOL I feel like some type of course should be taught if nothing else than for maybe a little understanding and tolerance to others beliefs... Yes i guess it is a sticky subject for public schools. I guess our founding fathers had it right when they decided to separate church and state.

How long has the bible been around?
10,000 years?
Must be a different bible than the christian one.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Whoever said that science claimed to have all the answers. If it did then it wouldn't be science, it would be religious dogma.

---

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

Nonsense. Essentially nobody has said this.

Theodoric writes; Genesis the "J" source goes back to 10,000 BC.

Not likely at all. In fact the "J" sources seem to have a very definite slant towards Judah as opposed to Israel. That would place it as relatively recent, likely sometime after 1000BCE.

---

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

jar writes; This is way off thread but I will give my source for the answer and then quit. In the New American Bible, The Catholic Study Bible, 2nd edition it states that The Yahwist (J) source was written in Judah in the late 10th century BC while others say that may be additionsthat can be found in thje present "J" text that were added much later to an earlier version.I don't claim to be an expert so just telling you my source.

The tenth century BCE would be between 1000BCE to 901BCE.

---

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

jar writes; Your right, I got my O's messed up. I apologize.

No problem, been there and done that.

---

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

I would like to disagree somewhat. There is absolutely no room for creationism in science classes. Creationism is not "the other option" - it is superstition and thus has no intrinsic value. As to religious tolerance - Ive yet to understand why beliefs should have a special tolerance required. Political affiliations and hobbies dont have that requirement so why should faith?Comparative religious classes could have some value as to show how beliefs have evolved and where but they should be regarded as cultural phenomena, nothing more.