Do you believe Creationism should be taught in public schools

[Enduro]

Yes, for Religious/Philosophical Classes, not in Science which would be insane. They should also say, that it is an opinion, point of view that is is not proven by science.

No theory for how we came to be has been, and never will, be proven by science. Therefor is also an opinion.

[Enduro]

Is there any scientific evidence that there is a creator?

The world is to complicated to be by accident. That's proof in one sentence.

[Enduro]

No. Creationism is not fact, nor is it another "side of the argument". If there was a religion that was spewing that "2 + 2 = 5" and that both should be taught, wouldn't that be counterproductive? People have a right to teach and learn what they want in their own homes, not mine. If you have a moral objection to being taught, or having your child taught evolution, find a private school. Public schools are to inform, not to indoctrinate personal views.

Except Macroevolution is also a personal view.

[Enduro]

No, but this whole issue is making a mountain out of a molehill. I get the impression on both sides that it's more about signalling that you are not one of those people than the education of one's children.

Frankly, I'm far more concerned about the way math and reading are taught in my local public school system than how evolution is addressed in science class.

Shouldn't high school students learn basic biology?  Evolution is one of the central theories in biology, if not the central theory.

Evolution is one of the central lies in biology.

[Enduro]

Religious views of faith should not be taught in public schools, no*. Its pretty clear cut, anybody that doesn't understand this is pretty simple minded.

*unless its a class on the Bible, and its about the content in the Bible.

The definition of faith is: "being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you cannot see." You can't see Evolution, scientists hope for it to be true. Therefor it's a "religion of faith" and, according to you, shouldn't be taught in public schools.

[DavidB.]

It should be entirely up to schools what they teach children (within the boundaries of the law regarding free speech). Implement a voucher system and let parents decide what their children learn. So should creationism be taught in public schools? Not necessarily. Should public schools be allowed to teach creationism? Yes.

[NeverAgain]

No. Creationism is not fact, nor is it another "side of the argument". If there was a religion that was spewing that "2 + 2 = 5" and that both should be taught, wouldn't that be counterproductive? People have a right to teach and learn what they want in their own homes, not mine. If you have a moral objection to being taught, or having your child taught evolution, find a private school. Public schools are to inform, not to indoctrinate personal views.

Except Macroevolution is also a personal view.

It's a personal view like 2 + 2 is 4. It's fact.

[DC Al Fine]

No, but this whole issue is making a mountain out of a molehill. I get the impression on both sides that it's more about signalling that you are not one of those people than the education of one's children.

Frankly, I'm far more concerned about the way math and reading are taught in my local public school system than how evolution is addressed in science class.

Shouldn't high school students learn basic biology?  Evolution is one of the central theories in biology, if not the central theory.

Yes that's exactly what I said in my first post.

My point is that the debate holds an undue place of importance in popular educational debate. Perhaps I have been hanging out in the wrong corners of the internet, but it seems that evolution v creationism in schools screeds vastly outnumber their pro v anti phonics counterparts, and that is concerning to me.

[DC Al Fine]

It should be entirely up to schools what they teach children (within the boundaries of the law regarding free speech). Implement a voucher system and let parents decide what their children learn. So should creationism be taught in public schools? Not necessarily. Should public schools be allowed to teach creationism? Yes.

I know the Dutch educational context is quite different from the American one, and I'm concerned that I might be misunderstanding your point.

When you say "should public schools be allowed to teach creationism? Yes." do you mean state run schools should be allowed to teach it, or do you only mean schools that receive state funding should be allowed?

[Goldwater]

Yes, it needs to be part of the social studies curriculum.  A significant portion of this country believes in creationism so it needs to be covered from that POV.  However, it has absolutely no place in a science class except maybe as an example of what is not science.  Basically, the non-theistic attempts at creationism all boil down to, I can't imagine how evolution might have produced a particular characteristic, therefore it must be impossible for it have done so.

Yeah, far too often I've heard people say that evolution is wrong becasue monkeys still exist. It's like somehow people have gotten the idea that evolution claims that humans literally came from modern monkeys, which is some pretty ridiculous misinformation.

[bedstuy]

No, but this whole issue is making a mountain out of a molehill. I get the impression on both sides that it's more about signalling that you are not one of those people than the education of one's children.

Frankly, I'm far more concerned about the way math and reading are taught in my local public school system than how evolution is addressed in science class.

Shouldn't high school students learn basic biology?  Evolution is one of the central theories in biology, if not the central theory.

Yes that's exactly what I said in my first post.

My point is that the debate holds an undue place of importance in popular educational debate. Perhaps I have been hanging out in the wrong corners of the internet, but it seems that evolution v creationism in schools screeds vastly outnumber their pro v anti phonics counterparts, and that is concerning to me.

So, if you find the debate annoying, shouldn't it be incumbent on the people who are wrong to shut up, not the people who are right?

[DavidB.]

I know the Dutch educational context is quite different from the American one, and I'm concerned that I might be misunderstanding your point.

When you say "should public schools be allowed to teach creationism? Yes." do you mean state run schools should be allowed to teach it, or do you only mean schools that receive state funding should be allowed?

The first option: state-run schools should be allowed (but obviously not obliged) to teach creationism if they wish to do so. Essentially, I think the Dutch system (which functions mainly like a voucher system would work) is pretty ideal, except for the fact that I find the rules to which schools need to comply already a bit too strict (e.g. when it comes to teaching creationism). I'm also for allowing schools that do not receive any public funding, but ideally public schools should be good enough to render unpopular the private options (as is the case in the Netherlands).

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

No. We should not give legitimacy to something that has no basis and undermines scientific thought.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd favor some weird, Joseph Campbel-esque amalgam of history, anthropology, philosophy, and literature where students are coerced into contemplating how experience might have shaped these views (Christian creationism being one), how these views in turn shaped and reflected society, what they mean metaphorically, if there is any "truth" (in the Big sense) in them, and how they compare to others, etc.

[Enduro]

No. Creationism is not fact, nor is it another "side of the argument". If there was a religion that was spewing that "2 + 2 = 5" and that both should be taught, wouldn't that be counterproductive? People have a right to teach and learn what they want in their own homes, not mine. If you have a moral objection to being taught, or having your child taught evolution, find a private school. Public schools are to inform, not to indoctrinate personal views.

Except Macroevolution is also a personal view.

It's a personal view like 2 + 2 is 4. It's fact.

Alright prove it's a fact. Where you there? Did you see the beginning of time?

[SWE]

Yes, beacuse students should always learn both sides of the argument and come to their first win conclusion.

Also teach alchemy in Chemistry class.

[TJ in Oregon]

I'd favor some weird, Joseph Campbel-esque amalgam of history, anthropology, philosophy, and literature where students are coerced into contemplating how experience might have shaped these views (Christian creationism being one), how these views in turn shaped and reflected society, what they mean metaphorically, if there is any "truth" (in the Big sense) in them, and how they compare to others, etc.

A course in natural philosophy would be wonderful, though I don't see public schools going that route any time soon. Catholic schools really ought to though, if for no other reason than to decompartmentalize these types of thought. Albeit, it obviously would be from a different perspective than Campbell.

[RI]

No. Creationism is not fact, nor is it another "side of the argument". If there was a religion that was spewing that "2 + 2 = 5" and that both should be taught, wouldn't that be counterproductive? People have a right to teach and learn what they want in their own homes, not mine. If you have a moral objection to being taught, or having your child taught evolution, find a private school. Public schools are to inform, not to indoctrinate personal views.

Except Macroevolution is also a personal view.

It's a personal view like 2 + 2 is 4. It's fact.

Terrence Howard might take issue with that.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The answer is of course not (with the caveats mentioned above), and all people who say it should should probably not be permitted to reproduce. However, few things annoy me more than the people who completely misunderstand what the schools should be for. Not sure "science" is taught in high schools and I'm concerned more about the simple repetition of basic facts being designated as learning.

What impact does it make if we don't teach evolution? From my perspective, it just upsets me that conservatism gets demoted to anti-intellectualism by extension and that it completely turns sensible people away from all religion because of the literalist kooks. Of course I would want it taught as fact just to slightly reduce the number of nuts embarrassing the entire right, but I'm not sure there are many other positive effects that come from teaching it. For that vast majority, it's just a day in high school that they will never consider again.

[NeverAgain]

No. Creationism is not fact, nor is it another "side of the argument". If there was a religion that was spewing that "2 + 2 = 5" and that both should be taught, wouldn't that be counterproductive? People have a right to teach and learn what they want in their own homes, not mine. If you have a moral objection to being taught, or having your child taught evolution, find a private school. Public schools are to inform, not to indoctrinate personal views.

Except Macroevolution is also a personal view.

It's a personal view like 2 + 2 is 4. It's fact.

Alright prove it's a fact. Where you there? Did you see the beginning of time?

I wasn't there, but neither was a floating sky god. If you would like proof of evolution, look up a book. Check out some biology textbooks or read the Smithsonian's Natural History page. Personally, I care very little of what people believe about Evolution, just as long as it doesn't affect education or my personal well being.

[Mercenary]

Given that creationism is a belief and it requires faith it shouldnt be taught as a valid scientific view. It is fine to be taught as a religious view in some kind of religion or philosophy class but it has no place in a science class sny more than reincarnation does.

[bedstuy]

If you learn biology as a list of discrete concepts, you're getting a bad education.  You should be understanding biology as a series of systems that work together.  You have to learn evolution to understand biological systems.  I don't know how many days you need to spend learning it, but it's a central theory.  If you don't understand evolution, you can't truly understand anything in biology. 

It is true that biology does work as systems working together, but a lot of it does boil down to understanding and memorizing different processes, such as all the intermediates in cellular respiration or photosynthesis, or the different organelles in a cell, etc. You can have broad knowledge of how body systems work, how cells function, etc. without knowing evolution, so I think your definition of what "understanding anything in biology" means is pretty darn arbitrary.   

No, you can't.  Evolution is such a basic element in biology that you can't understand anything without it.  You can memorize what is in a cell or what a nucleus, but you will never understand the "why" of anything.  If you don't understand the "why," you really have a superficial understanding of the subject.  Without understanding systems and theories and how things tie together, it's just a series of facts.

Anyways, if we're concerned about the "dumbing down" of curriculum or increasing educational rigor and quality, then evolution gets way too much attention.  We should spend more time talking about how many books should be read per year and the type/length of papers that should be required, phonics vs. non-phonics (as DC Al pointed out), teaching computer science and programming, and increasing algebraic proficiency.  These kinds of things would have a far greater impact on educational quality than any instructional decision about teaching evolution.   

Well, that's not biology.  Let's teach biology and also other subjects, it's not that difficult. 

[bedstuy]

By the way, someone who goes to my church is a structural biologist about to finish his phD at Stanford and is an ardent young-Earth creationist.  I'd think he's be surprised to hear from an attorney that he doesn't understand biology.   You can learn how systems work together in the present without even broaching questions of the past, so I think your putting the theory of evolution on a pedestal says more about your ideological commitment to naturalism and desire to imbue it in others than anything else.

To say you can't understand biology without evolution is like saying you can't understand mechanics without special relativity (to explain why gravity acts how it does).  Evolution is an explanatory mechanism, yes, but so much can be studied within biology without ever having to reference evolution.

If someone is a young-earth creationist, doesn't that strike you as crazy?

Listen bud, whenever you look at anything in biology, you have to see it as a product of evolution.     If you don't see that, you miss that huge explanatory variable in everything.  And, not just in science, evolution explains the world you live in and who human beings are.  Evolution is one of those incredibly powerful concepts that ties together everything you see in the world and explains it. 

Why would you just choose not to learn one of the central themes in biology that pervades the entire subject and is a fact of life, which biology is the study of?

You're making a weird argument.  It makes me think you don't believe in evolution or something.  Is that true?

[bedstuy]

By the way, someone who goes to my church is a structural biologist about to finish his phD at Stanford and is an ardent young-Earth creationist.  I'd think he's be surprised to hear from an attorney that he doesn't understand biology.   You can learn how systems work together in the present without even broaching questions of the past, so I think your putting the theory of evolution on a pedestal says more about your ideological commitment to naturalism and desire to imbue it in others than anything else.

To say you can't understand biology without evolution is like saying you can't understand mechanics without special relativity (to explain why gravity acts how it does).  Evolution is an explanatory mechanism, yes, but so much can be studied within biology without ever having to reference evolution.

If someone is a young-earth creationist, doesn't that strike you as crazy?

Listen bud, whenever you look at anything in biology, you have to see it as a product of evolution.     If you don't see that, you miss that huge explanatory variable in everything.  And, not just in science, evolution explains the world you live in and who human beings are.  Evolution is one of those incredibly powerful concepts that ties together everything you see in the world and explains it. 

Why would you just choose not to learn one of the central themes in biology that pervades the entire subject and is a fact of life, which biology is the study of?

You're making a weird argument.  It makes me think you don't believe in evolution or something.  Is that true?

I definitely believed in evolution prior to going to college (and my posting history can attest to this ); however, I am definitely leaning more on the creation side since I began attending college.  The Bible study at the church I attend is focusing on the book of Genesis, and both pastors/elders there are strong proponents of a young Earth literal-creation view of Genesis, and their arguments are rather persuasive from a scriptural point of view. Nonetheless, I am not 100% sold on the young-Earth creation paradigm at this point (and still am open to theistic evolution as a possibility) despite heading in that direction, though I definitely believe in a literal Adam and Eve.  My posts were largely saying that from a secular POV, there's no reason to focus on teaching evolution other than meaningless posturing or as an attempt to promote secular ideas.  There are many better things to focus on.

That explains a lot, and you're accusing me of having an agenda!  Oh boy, that's rich.
Your whole point here is that we should ignore or "spin" the science to fit your worldview.  You don't want evolution to be the central theory of biology because you don't like the conclusion.  However, in science you have to go by the evidence.

If you look at the evidence, evolution is proven, 100%, rock-solid.  If you don't agree, you're delusional, uneducated or stupid.  Now, you're totally allowed to pretend or try to delude yourself into thinking evolution is a tiny addendum to biology or even that it's made up.  But, that's not science.  That's your choice to try to get your mind to believe something despite all the evidence.  That has no bearing on what science classes should be.

[bedstuy]

First, I'm not trying to "spin" the science at all - I have said before that I do not believe creationism shouldn't be taught in biology class because it is a worldview (from a Biblical lens) rather than based on the scientific method.  And I'm OK with evolution being taught; I believe evolution is the best naturalistic explanation of the origin of species; nonetheless, the theory necessarily discounts any supernatural events from occurring with respect to creation and thus pursues truth only from a naturalistic P.O.V.    My argument was that even from a secular POV, plenty of biology can be done without it, and it's hardly necessary to put an undue focus on the topic.  I believe that groups like the "Center for Science Education" push evolution education heavily as a backdoor into promoting secularism rather than promoting science education, given the many other science topics they could focus on instead. 

What do you mean "undue focus" on it?  You have to learn about evolution as a part of biology.  Anything you learn without that core theory is going to be incomplete and won't make sense.  Evolution is a theory that unites and explains the facts you learn.  I guess your plan would be that students do rote memorization of biology facts.  That's a bad way to learn anything.  You forget facts unless you put them in a context and explain the larger systems. 

At the end of the day, evolution is one of the main system in life.  It's been a core piece of biology since the 19th century and it has already been conclusively established.  You may dislike the implications for religion, but that's not the problem of science.  Religion has to be interpreted in light of science, not the other way around.