toldailytopic: Should creation be taught in public school?

[lucaspa]

Why not roll out phrenology too, while we're at it?

We could. I used geocentrism because this was actually done in my daughter's 8th grade "Earth History" class. The teacher had an assignment consisting of the observations of positions of some of the planets as seen from earth at different times of the year. The assignment was to plot those positions on orbits using geocentrism and heliocentrism. It quickly became clear that some of the positions would fit orbits from geocentrism, but other positions would be way off. OTOH, all the positions would plot to orbits derived from heliocentrism. It was a good way to show how theories are tested and either falsified (geocentrism) or supported (heliocentrism).

What I think should happen is Sunday school classes looking at intelligent design and showing all the contradictions it has with foundational Christian beliefs. IOW, showing how people can construct a theology that can be tested and shown to be false.

 

[Lighthouse]

Nothing should be taught in public school.

 

[The Barbarian]

All the major doctrines of creation should be taught in public schools, in a comparative religion class. Nothing unAmerican about that, unless they happen to endorse one of them as true.

 

[bybee]

the history of religion should be taught
and
an overview of different beliefs should be included

it has been said that history cannot be understood without some understanding of the different religions

My grandson attends a Catholic High School. They taught a rather comprehensive overview of all of the world's major religions and encouraged discussion on differences and similarities.

 

[Ktoyou]

I think we shoulde school be tax exenopt, if we send our children to privat

 

[The Barbarian]

I've had a lot of creationists tell me that since science can't tell everything, that means God exists.

Not true. He does exist, but that argument is a bad one.

 

[The Barbarian]

The big bang and evolution are godless just like gravity is, and electrodynamics, and atmospheric studies, and Doppler shift phenomena. Problem is, I don’t recall the religious fundamentalists agitating for Biblical studies to be taught alongside Newton’s ideas about gravity.

Inzel writes:

These are not theories, beanie brain.

They are indeed theories. Perhaps you might want to look up what a "theory" is in science. I'm a little surprised to see you calling names. I really think that's out of character for you.

Big difference between observable phenomena and a theory.

True. Observable phenomena, like natural selection and mutation, are things that verify theories.

Nobody ever observed an ape evolving into a man.

Nobody ever observed the first person to speak Spanish, either. I don't see the point.

That's just a theory.

As I suggested, you don't seem to know what "theory" means. It's a stronger proposition in science than laws. Do you know why?

Before you cry foul, you walked right into that one mixing theories with observable phenomena.

BTW, Newton referred to his work on gravitation as a theory. It was stronger than a law (Kepler's Laws already addressed planetary motion) because Newton's theory not only predicted the motion of planets, but showed, with evidence why they move that way. It's why gravitation is a theory and not a mere law. The difference is that the theory of gravitation can explain not just the motion of planets, but also an apple dropping from a tree.

I am of the opinion that they should yank evolution from the schools.

Doesn't matter. It's part of science, and if you ban it (as the Soviets did under Stalin) all it does is gut your biological sciences. The Russians are still trying to catch up.

It's idiot theory, turning out a bunch of nitwits thinking they are part ape. Kids are starting to act like apes.

If you're right, the families of scientists should behave worse than average. And the opposite is true.

There's certainly no ape in my family tree.

Technically, humans are apes. Sorry.