Should creationism be taught in schools?

[Parts]

Creationism in schools?   Sure fairy tales can be taught in literature class  :lol:

['andersom']

Creationism never was big in the Netherlands, but now there is this man with a vision who built Noah's boat. And who even sent door to door flyers all through the country to tell people about creationism. He's also advertising at schools for outings for kids. Unbelievable, but true.

Here's a link to his website. He has/had plans to be in London during the olympics of 2012 with a 1:1 size replica.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

As long as it's classified as "Religious/Mythology literature" and not stated as undeniable fact, I have no problem with it being taught.

It should be treated the same as other mythologies, something of cultural curiosity instead of obsessive belief.

[The_Chosen_One]

Maybe the only creationism that should be taught is 'how to build a chair and table' in woodworking class.

[Adam]

As long as it's classified as "Religious/Mythology literature" and not stated as undeniable fact, I have no problem with it being taught.

It should be treated the same as other mythologies, something of cultural curiosity instead of obsessive belief.

[Scrapheap]

As long as it's classified as "Religious/Mythology literature" and not stated as undeniable fact, I have no problem with it being taught.

It should be treated the same as other mythologies, something of cultural curiosity instead of obsessive belief.

That won't satisfy the Creatards (or IDiots for Intelligent Design). They want their bullshit taught in science classrooms. Just look at the Dover Trial to see what they're really after.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

As long as it's classified as "Religious/Mythology literature" and not stated as undeniable fact, I have no problem with it being taught.

It should be treated the same as other mythologies, something of cultural curiosity instead of obsessive belief.

That won't satisfy the Creatards (or IDiots for Intelligent Design). They want their bullshit taught in science classrooms. Just look at the Dover Trial to see what they're really after.

Which is ironic of them, because creationism doesn't even abide by the scientific method. On that big-ass technicality, creationism cannot be considered scientific. However should they subject creationism to the scientific method and generate falsifiable conditions; they'll quickly see how it falls apart as a hypothesis and turns into a faith-based pseudoscience. So their arguments for it being apart of science is ludicrous.

So yeah, either they make it abide by the scientific method, or accept that it must be classified as mythological literature.

[Scrapheap]

As long as it's classified as "Religious/Mythology literature" and not stated as undeniable fact, I have no problem with it being taught.

It should be treated the same as other mythologies, something of cultural curiosity instead of obsessive belief.

That won't satisfy the Creatards (or IDiots for Intelligent Design). They want their bullshit taught in science classrooms. Just look at the Dover Trial to see what they're really after.

Which is ironic of them, because creationism doesn't even abide by the scientific method. On that big-ass technicality, creationism cannot be considered scientific. However should they subject creationism to the scientific method and generate falsifiable conditions; they'll quickly see how it falls apart as a hypothesis and turns into a faith-based pseudoscience. So their arguments for it being apart of science is ludicrous.

So yeah, either they make it abide by the scientific method, or accept that it must be classified as mythological literature.

Yeah, that's pretty much what happened to them at the Dover Trial. Michael Behe tried to argue the concept of Irreducible Complexity, but he got blown out of the water by Kenneth Miller who showed how each part of a cell could have evolved on its own.

['andersom']

Creationism is silly, both from a scientific point of view, and from the point of view of serious bible scholars.

Treat creationism in school, sure. Learn pupils to think. Learn pupils also to treat Evolution theory as Evolution theory, and not as the belief that in the end humans are the outcome of the chain of evolution, and therefore the goal of evolution.

Taking creation poetry from religious scriptures, and turn it into science is silly.
Taking evolution theory from science, and turn it into the belief that the whole evolution happened with the purpose to end at humans is just as silly.

[The_Chosen_One]

Maybe we are still evolving, but it will take another million or so years to get to the next step. Provided we don't fuck ourselves seriously beforehand.

['andersom']

Maybe we are still evolving, but it will take another million or so years to get to the next step. Provided we don't fuck ourselves seriously beforehand.

That's something different than saying evolution had the purpose to be at this step.

We evolved into where we are, because of circumstances. There was no higher goal to get us here than that. Using evolution theory as the belief that humans are the crown of creation is just bogus. And, that argumentation does come up way too much.
Evolution theory is what it is. A scientific theory, that is valid as long as it works. (Don't think it will be replaced by another, but, in theory it is possible that that could happen one day, paradigm shift) It is a scientific theory, not a belief. Lots of people do treat it as a belief. Think they are better than the Neanderthals. We're not better. We're more fit for this time. But, in their time, they fitted a lot better than we would, if someone would transport us back in time.