Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

Dr Adequate writes: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?

jar writes: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?

ringo writes: 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.

Taq writes: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?

Briterican writes: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.

NoNukes writes: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.

RB writes:Anyways its still the law that banns creationism and not a accusation that its not science or rather a equal standard of investigation.

Anyways its still the law that banns creationism and not a accusation that its not science or rather a equal standard of investigation.

Byers writes:Science class is never about process only but about conclusions.
Its really conclusion class on matters of natural history that claims to employ a higher standard of investigation and so a higher confidence in conclusions drawn.
Anyways its still the law that banns creationism and not a accusation that its not science or rather a equal standard of investigation.

Robert Byers writes: Your just plain wrong.
its banned because of the law. They say it. Posters here argue it.
First the law must be revoked before it can and you can claim creationism is banned because of its lack of substance.

jar writes:You are talking about the court decisions that affirm that Creationism is NOT science and that claiming Creationism or Intelligent Design are scientific is a lie and an attempt to introduce religion into science classes?

Robert Byers writes:Equally or not. Excluding Christian, for many, doctrines , by law, of origins in subjects insisting they are about faithful processes and conclusions upon truth in some origin issue MEANS the state has officially said some christian doctrines are false.

Phat writes:Would you say that the belief that GOD exists and created the universe more rational than Biblical Creationism?I think that I understand your point (as I understand it to be) that beliefs should never be a basis of law. Freedom of belief is the only exception, and would go for all beliefs.Would a belief that God created the universe Ex Nihilio drive people away from acceptance of said philosophy in the pool of reality?

Robert Byers writes:Science class is never about process only but about conclusions.

Science class is never about process only but about conclusions.