Okay I know the creationism vs evolution topic has been done a couple of times here, but barring personal beliefs about validity is it fair to handicap students with a theory that is at best laughed at in higher education?
http//www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/06/evolution.schools.ap/index.html
Maybe they should offer two courses. One for people going on to university, and one for people who are more scientifically conservative.
Barring Bob Jones University or the like, I'd say this is a fine way to retard a students prospects in the life sciences at the Uni level.
. . . is it fair to handicap students with a theory that is at best laughed at in higher education?
Of course not, only muddled headed wombats would suggest teaching creationism as anything other than religious history.
If they want to include such rubbish into the curricula let them home-school their children. If they want to screw up their kids with a bunch of religious beliefs masquerading as science, its their choice, just don't inflict it on the rest of us.
Good for the Grantsburg school officials! D
But then I would say that, cuz I'm a muddle headed wombat who homeschools her kids! wink 8)
I agree creationism etc. should be taught, but not in science. It is not science.
It's fine with me if you argue/believe that someone/thing created science, made fossils to test man's faith, whatever..... and it's fine with me if you teach the children that some people believe that, just as it's fine with me if you teach them that some people worship several gods and some don't believe in a god at all, but creationism does not relate to the definition of science as a branch of knowledge involving systematic observation and experimentation. Science concerns things observable/deducible by all, regardless of religious beliefs.
If you can twist the definition of science such that you believe creationism does fit in there or if you wish to ignore chunks of science that do not fit in with what you believe, then public school is not for you and your children. And that's fine too. But don't expect your kids to find it easy when/if they re-enter society. Which is also fine with me -all the more space for mine ;)
One last thing: if you think creationism should be taught as science, think on this.... There are many people in society who believe that some people are superior to others because of the colour of their skin, their religion or their sex. But these views are not taught as science in schools. Would you want them to be?
Just what America needs! D
Can't they just go to church/Sunday school and get that as an alternative?
Unless the plan is to drive parents to homeschool their kids in "factual" science?
Don't dismiss creationism out of hand as there is still healthy debate.
I suggest reading "Case For a Creator" by Strobel. Excellent book. Suggests that scientific evidence points towards a creator....pretty compelling.
Don't dismiss creationism out of hand as there is still healthy debate.
I suggest reading "Case For a Creator" by Strobel. Excellent book. Suggests that scientific evidence points towards a creator....pretty compelling.
Arguments for the existence of a creator are only really compelling if you believe in a creator. It's a faith issue not a logic or science issue. If you really believe in the big guy upstairs, nothing I say or do will sway you. Conversely no amount of teleological arguing will really convince me it's all part of The Plan. Arguments proving or disproving the divine are inherently flawed.
Don't dismiss creationism out of hand as there is still healthy debate.
I suggest reading "Case For a Creator" by Strobel. Excellent book. Suggests that scientific evidence points towards a creator....pretty compelling.
"Suggests" being the operative word here. Remind me again who's making the suggestions?
I used to be a science teacher and had no problems incorporating the Genesis account of creation into that lesson (I think it was a single lesson in the GCSE Earth Science topic). No nasty complaints from parents and my job was secure...
In the Science syllabus, there are several "controversial topics" that you cover. The whole point of teaching science to many children is to present them with information from a variety of sources and let them draw their own conclusions (this is an important life skill and helps them make informed choices later on). You do not simply give them "facts" and tell them that there is nothing for them to think about because it's all been decided for them. I think they would feel very undervalued if you do not all them to evaluate data and share their own considered opinions.
What I used to do was give the children a description of the evolution theory and a description of what happened on each of the 6 days in Genesis for them to match up - with lots of literal cutting out from worksheets and pasting into their exercise books. Simple.
That's a good angle ameriscot, although I wouldn't have thought that the two theories are that close, that you could mangle them together to "match".
Six days might not be literal but in that case, why not state exactly how long it took to create? Is it because this would then suggest that God works in both mysterious and painfully slow ways, therefore lessening its power and reducing the amount of "fear" that it instills?
You might as well suggest Martians or people from Atlantis helped build Stonehenge, along with the theories about the Phoenicians or maybe the ancient Britons just figured it all out on their own. Is that any more ridiculous??
Six days might not be literal but in that case, why not state exactly how long it took to create? Is it because this would then suggest that God works in both mysterious and painfully slow ways, therefore lessening its power and reducing the amount of "fear" that it instills?
The Bible is not meant to be a literal book or a science text book (it doesn't tell us everything we want to know about life, but it tells us everything we need to know). How long it took for each stage isn't what is important in the Biblical account -what is important is that God created the world for his pleasure. What it tells us, in addition, is the order of the events, which pretty much matches up with the scientific model.
As a Christian, I don't have any trouble believing both the creation story and the evolution model. It doesn't have to be an either/or. :D
The Bible is not meant to be a literal book or a science text book (it doesn't tell us everything we want to know about life, but it tells us everything we need to know). How long it took for each stage isn't what is important in the Biblical account -what is important is that God created the world for his pleasure. What it tells us, in addition, is the order of the events, which pretty much matches up with the scientific model.
Apart from the sun and moon being created out of order its in pretty good agreement.
I don't have any trouble with the creation story as an allegory, its the people who believe it to literally be true who are bonkers IMHO.
Of course, my preferred version of the creation story would be "In the beginning God caused the Big Bang to occur, and then left things to run their course." :wink:
One of the paintball forums I frequent shares space with the CPPA ( Christian Paintball Players Association). The discussion of
Creationism vs Evolution in the Off Topic forum obviusly had a certain bias.
There are several different degrees of creationism, some interpreting the Bible very literally.
On the subject of the 6 days of creation RamboPreacher (main admin of the site and scholar of ancient Hebrew) is quite specific.
I will mention that as to the days of creation: (the original Hebrew) is very clear that a day is a day, the word used is yom. a 24 hour period. Some may translate the yom as a different period of time and in fact they are absolutely correct - the thing they do not seem to mention is that it absolutely MUST be used in context to know that it is not a regular "day" (24 hour period).
THe highly inflected language of ancient Hebrew for a yom is always (usually) means a 24 hour period, unless the context says otherwise. The interesting thing in these first passages from Moses is that there need not have been context mentioned, because as mentioned a yom is a day always, only and if there is context to say otherwise - so to give further context that it is talking about a 24 hour period is really doubleing the effort to make sure that the text written is talking about a 24 hour day period, and not to be confused with something other as in an analagy or specified time period.