Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

The law doesn't say Genesis is illegal. Its the constitution here being used on a line of reasoning since WW11.
If one bans genesis on a subject where the object is truthful discovery of conclusions then one is saying GEnesis is untruthful.I ask all posters here WHERE is my reasoning failing???

Genesis is just inappropriate for the setting. It is myth, not science.

---

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

teaching genesis in a science class or any form of creationism is equivalent of teaching the made up language from lords of the rings in your english class.

Implicitly, perhaps. Well, for one thing, you overlook the legal concept of secular legislative purpose. There is a good reason for at least implicitly teaching that creationism is rubbish, namely that it is. Similarly there would be a good reason for teaching that it was true if it was true, namely that it was true.Again, I invite you to imagine a sect that taught that two twos are five. Would that sect, by its existence, make it unconstitutional to teach the multiplication table?

Shall I leave you to argue this out amongst yourself?Let me know when the two of you, or rather one of you, has reached a conclusion.

They are not Christian doctrines for MOST of the established Christian churches.No one has to teach that Creationism is wrong, all of the facts and evidence shows that Biblical Creationism is simply Dogma and false doctrine, lies perpetrated by the Christian Cult of ignorance.Creationism is banned from science classes because it is false, not because it is religion.Your problem is that when the facts are taught and the evidence examined the kids realize that what they had been taught based on the Bible is false. If the folk that taught them were so wrong about the stuff that is easy to check like evolution and age of the earth and that there was no Biblical flood, why would they believe any of the other stuff they were taught?Edited by jar, : fix subtitle and add last paragraph

---

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

Again, the law excludes all religious viewpoints equally. If scientists discover that Genesis - or any other book - is untruthful, the law doesn't ban those discoveries from the classroom.

---

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

No, they aren't. The Bible is never mentioned in science class. No one is banning the Bible. Children are still free to attend any church they want and read any book that they want.The only ban here is on the actions of the government, not the citizen. The founders clearly stated that state and religion are to be separate. Teaching that circulating thunderstorms produce lightning touches on belief that Zeus makes lightning. Should we ban this from science class as well?

The law does state that it is illegal for a public school teacher to push Genesis as an accurate scientific explanation as part of a public school science class. No such ban is in place for private schools. You have already stated that you do not want children taught facts that contradict your religious belief. I hardly think that "truthful discovery" is what you are after.

It is clear from your comments that you would support the introduction of creationist teachings into public schools. Would it be correct, however, to say that you would only support the Christian origin myth? Why not the Hindu, or Roman origin myths? Is the Christian origin myth supported by a greater body of evidence than the others?I'm concerned that you seem unable to grasp the difference between evidentially-based material and faith-based material. I think it is safe to assume that you would not want your children being taught the Hindu origin myth as though it was on all-fours with the Christian origin myth. Please correct me if I am wrong.What I'd like to understand better is this: If you seriously believe that this specific origin myth (Genesis) deserves equal time in the classroom with evidentially-based material, surely you must accept that, in the spirit of fairness, the many other faith-based origin myths (which many millions of people presently adhere to) should also be included?If you work through this chain of logic, surely you can see why the Christian origin myth does NOT belong in the science classroom. Put simply, if it deserves time there, then so do multitudes of other unsupported assertions, leading to a colossal waste of time that would be better spent on the examination of tangible, evidentially supported material.

I think we all agree that this type of advocacy does not belong in a K-12 public school science class. And it is not presented there. If you don't believe that one sided propaganda should exist, that's probably a topic for another thread.

Your reasoning is off in a number of places. Here's my take on one of them.Your premise about what the object is is not correct.Science is about uncovering knowledge through application of the scientific method. It is not about uncovering truth using Ouija Boards, prayer and fasting, reading the Bible, or mystical divination even if those particular things happen to work.Even without the first amendment, reading Genesis or the Prose Edda would not be proper lines of inquiry about anything in a K-12 science class.

Hi Briterican, Why not teach all the real American religious narratives on creation/s etc?Native American Spirituality

quote:

---

Many followers of Native American spirituality, do not regard their spiritual beliefs and practices as a "religion" in the way in which many Christians do. Their beliefs and practices form a integral and seamless part of their very being.

​

Topics covered in this section:

• Native American: Quotations, Introduction and origins
• Development of Aboriginal culture. Adsorption of Native beliefs; Tribal recognition;
• Beliefs of Native American tribes, from the Arctic to the southwest
• Books and web sites dealing with Native American spirituality and culture

---

Doesn't sound to me like it would be a bad class to teach, talking about spirituality as a common theme in religion would be an interesting concept, and it shouldn't raise any concerns by people comfortable in their various faiths.Native American Religion in Early America, Divining America, TeacherServe®, National Humanities Center

quote:

---

Native American Religion in Early America

​

Teaching about Native American religion is a challenging task to tackle with students at any level, if only because the Indian systems of belief and ritual were as legion as the tribes inhabiting North America. So let’s begin by trimming down that bewildering variety to manageable proportions with three glittering generalizations (which might, with luck, prove more useful than misleading).

​

1. First, at the time of European contact, all but the simplest indigenous cultures in North America had developed coherent religious systems that included cosmologiescreation myths, transmitted orally from one generation to the next, which purported to explain how those societies had come into being.
2. Second, most native peoples worshiped an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator or Master Spirit (a being that assumed a variety of forms and both genders). They also venerated or placated a host of lesser supernatural entities, including an evil god who dealt out disaster, suffering, and death.
3. Third and finally, the members of most tribes believed in the immortality of the human soul and an afterlife, the main feature of which was the abundance of every good thing that made earthly life secure and pleasant.

---

Sounds sort of similar to the Hindu faith, where there is a wild pantheon of spirits, but they are also all different aspects of the one universal god.I think the word "soul" is misleading here and implies a similarity to Christianity (or Hinduism, where the Christian concept came from) that is not necessarily valid: spirit would be better -- immortality of the human spirit and an afterlife -- and that would be more consistent with the first article.I think it would be an interesting class, but it would have to be a humanities, comparative religion, class, not a science class.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

From Alexander Pope's, Essay on Man (1733—1734)

Lo, the poor Indian! whose untutor'd mind
Sees God in clouds, or hears him in the wind;
His soul proud Science never taught to stray
Far as the solar walk or milky way;
Yet simple nature to his hope has giv'n,
Behind the cloud-topt hill, an humbler Heav'n,
Some safer world in depth of woods embraced,
Some happier island in the wat'ry waste,
Where slaves once more their native land behold,
No fiends torment, no Christians thirst for gold.
To be, contents his natural desire;
He asks no Angel's wing, no Seraph's fire;
But thinks, admitted to that equal sky,
His faithful dog shall bear him company.

Hi RAZD A VERY important distinction that Robert Byers does not seem to make. His arguments (if you can call them that) seem to indicate that he believes the law is prohibiting teachers from teaching the "truth" about our biological origins. Unfortunately I think he misses the point that his "truth" is neither established by evidence, nor shared by the rest of us.As for the class you propose, I'd love to attend! "Social studies" is what we called it when I was in school. No idea what it would be called today (humanities I guess), just hopefully NOT "science".PS I would have added interest in the native American myths as my mother's great great great great great grandmother (give or take a great) was a Choctaw squaw. Of course - I'd still consider them colourful tales of fancy and not literal truths Edited by Briterican, : Said Havoc rather than Robert Byers, apologies Havoc. Edited.