Should creationism be taught alongside evolution in public schools?

Just a quick little input to the question. As for it being a dead horse, the image displayed for the sake of making some kind of point, is very disturbing and inappropriate to the question/answer. The question of teaching “Creationism�

In public schools in America has already been ruled as illegal. This is what created the change from the Creationism to an “Intelligent Design� Argument and pseudo-science.

Because the teaching of creationism was ruled illegal, the creationists intelligently designed the “Intelligent Design Theory� Argument. The so called “Evolution Theory�

Is in "General" a "Scientific" theory not of "Evolution", but the Darwinian theory of Evolution. And so, so, so, so, so, many seem ill-informed and assume that “evolution� Itself is a theory.

In some cases it is deliberate, to associate “Theory� In general and not a "scientific theory� This is especially done when pushing a non-scientific theory, such as “Intelligent Design�

Which is the non religious way of saying “Christian based Creationism�. Scientific theories are based upon scientific and or mathematical facts and speculations based on sound scientific principles. A scientific theory has as its basis a large degree of facts, not always are all the pieces in place to complete the fact as a whole and so scientific assumptions are made to bridge the gaps and because its not 100 % fact, it becomes a general scientific theory.

Evolution itself is not a theory, it is a scientific fact, (get over it! We evolve or we die as a species, simple as that). The theory of evolution is that based on the Darwinian Theory (based on scientific facts and a scientific approach) makes scientific assertions as to the missing facts of observed evolution as yet proven.

So when do not get confused when presented with “Intelligent design: as compared to Evolution as a theory what they are not saying is Darwin’s theory of Species Evolution. Or when they do say Darwinian Theory of Species Evolution, they associate it with Evolution. Now to the question of Intelligent De I also advocate no more beating of dead horses.

Just a quick little input to the question. As for it being a dead horse, the image displayed for the sake of making some kind of point, is very disturbing and inappropriate to the question/answer. The question of teaching “Creationism�

In public schools in America has already been ruled as illegal. This is what created the change from the Creationism to an “Intelligent Design� Argument and pseudo-science.

Because the teaching of creationism was ruled illegal, the creationists intelligently designed the “Intelligent Design Theory� Argument. The so called “Evolution Theory�

Is in "General" a "Scientific" theory not of "Evolution", but the Darwinian theory of Evolution. And so, so, so, so, so, many seem ill-informed and assume that “evolution� Itself is a theory.

In some cases it is deliberate, to associate “Theory� In general and not a "scientific theory� This is especially done when pushing a non-scientific theory, such as “Intelligent Design�

Which is the non religious way of saying “Christian based Creationism�. Scientific theories are based upon scientific and or mathematical facts and speculations based on sound scientific principles. A scientific theory has as its basis a large degree of facts, not always are all the pieces in place to complete the fact as a whole and so scientific assumptions are made to bridge the gaps and because its not 100 % fact, it becomes a general scientific theory.

Evolution itself is not a theory, it is a scientific fact, (get over it! We evolve or we die as a species, simple as that). The theory of evolution is that based on the Darwinian Theory (based on scientific facts and a scientific approach) makes scientific assertions as to the missing facts of observed evolution as yet proven.

So when do not get confused when presented with “Intelligent design: as compared to Evolution as a theory what they are not saying is Darwin’s theory of Species Evolution. Or when they do say Darwinian Theory of Species Evolution, they associate it with Evolution. Now to the question of Intelligent De.

Ugh again with the questions that do not have answers. Vote this unhelpful if you like but this question like many of the others recently in "featured questions" is seeming to push an agenda and not really asking for an answer. To me this is Mahalo Answers.

NOT "Mahalo What do You Thinks" We have that it is called ConundrumLand.

The problem with just teaching evolution is that it's taught as scientific fact when it is not. Like relativity, or quantum mechanics, evolution is a scientific theory that a majority of scientists have accepted as an explanation to a scientific problem (i.e. , the origin of species).

This, along with many other branches of science tend to have students rejecting anything that doesn't adhere to strict materialism. Even if the concept of a God is not introduced, they reject anything that doesn't have a material explanation. For example, psychic phenomenon doesn't intrinsically refer to God or even spirituality, but many materialistic scientists reject any data supporting it, simply because current materialistic models (theories) of physics, anatomy, and psychology do not support it because they can't.

The currently accepted scientific theories are inadequate to explain the universe and inadequate to explain things like psychics. Ironically, there are other scientific theories to explain psychics and they don't necessarily invoke the concept of a God. Carl Jung's theories would be helpful to assist, but they're not taught because someone thought Freud was more important.

Quantum physics and acupuncture could be invoked to help explain the physics and the anatomy. These theories and concepts are not taught mainstream because they do not adhere to Western Philosophy, even though they may be just as valid. Many people, including Albert Einstein, rejected quantum physics, because it was so bizarre to rational thought.

Not only that, but many phenomenon didn't require a medium and communication occured faster than the speed of light (quantum entanglement). Quantum theory shows that something exists outside of our material plane; or, that some non-matter or matter we cannot detect exists within it. Astronomy's discovery of WIMPS, dark matter and dark energy also support this same general idea.

The other point is this. You can't prove that any scientific theory is "the right one. " You can only prove that theories are wrong, that they only apply under certain circumstances, or that one is better than the other.

There is no scientfic way to test evolution versus creationism. Thus, in schools, all theories should be presented, not just ones that scientists with a materialist bias chose (based on their bias, not on facts). As a minimum, the following should be taught, along with traditional Darwinian evolution: -Arguments against Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution (there are many) -Creative Evolution (evolution with subtle bodies and consciousness) -Intelligent Design (not necessarily Biblical creation, but arguing in that a great consciousness put together bioligcal life forms) Remember, the probability for a random set of molecules to spontaneously form into the first DNA/RNA string is 1 divided by all of the atoms in the known universe (1/10^80).

That in itself warrants exploration and instruction beyond simplistic Darwinian explanations as to the origin of species.

The problem with creationism is that it's specific to certain religions but not all of them, and the problem with that, is if you teach one religion and exclude anyone else's then you are discriminating. Science is not a religion. Evolution is not "just a theory."

The Wall Street Journal would not run a full page story on human evolution yesterday (2-23-10) if it was worried about it's readership getting a sour taste in its collective mouths. If you take the time to study the evidence behind evolution it's pretty compelling. Unfortunately this takes several years of science classes at the college level.

Most of us don't have the time. So we just regurgitate whatever the latest agenda-minded author or blogmeister has to say, and it sounds pretty good. But, to write off evolution as "just a theory" is guerilla, attack-and-run tactics."Just a theory" besmirches the entire scientific method and scientific tradition.

It is a theory based on not just one man's (Darwin's) ponderings about island life, but researched and reinforced through the findings of the entire global community of scientists for over 100 years. Scientists, who actually do the experiments, study the actual fossil record, and most importantly publish the results in peer-reviewed science journals. Author's who write I-can-read "science" books are in it primarily for the profit, they know who their audience will be before they write it, and said audience is definitely not the scientific community.

Until God can start getting his papers published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal, I'm not listening. Oh, I forgot. God is peerless.

P.S. Though I agree with the Dead Horse sentiments, I still like these questions.

I would be all for the theory of creationism being taught, and actually it was in my school, in history when we covered religion. No matter what religion you belong to, all religion has played it's part in history. I see no harm in children learning about other religions, cultures and theories of thought.

Of course it does require treading lightly as a teacher. No one one religion should ever be presented as fact to a child. An understanding of other religions and religion in general does however expand a child's perspective, invoke thought and help them to understand why certain events happened in human history.

All of which are positive. However I would not support creationism being taught in science class along side of evolution. Why?

Creationism has absolutely nothing to do with science. It has no place in the class.

I believe that children should be taught both evolution and creation in school. I know that they are two very different ideas as to how the world came about, but I also believe that they should have the option to choose from which they believe. I don't agree with teaching it in first or second grade really as it would be too confusing.

However, by third grade I feel that most students could comprehend the differences and be able to make a judgement on what they thought was right. I also believe that a silent prayer time should be put back into the public schools for those who want to pray to whatever God they believe in and for the ones who don't it could be a moment to think of how they want their day to go.

Creationism should absolutely not be taught in schools - there are plenty of religious people (i.e. The entirety of the Catholic Church) who accept evolution, and things like "intelligent design" have been ruled by the courts to be nothing but propaganda. What kids deserve is the truth.

If people pushing Creationism are concerned about their morality, and worried about a worldview where people take "survival of the fittest" too literally, they need to demonstrate that there is a better way of living. It is true we are too materialistic. It is not true that the advance of the sciences is a cause of this.

Below I've linked to an interview regarding a case where a Bush appointee ruled Creationism - specifically, the intelligent design stuff - was utter hogwash.

I just want to say really quick that I am so confused as to why people are marking this as uninteresting! It is a very interesting topic and is always relevant. This is definitely a valid question, and even if some people don't want to put forth the energy of answering it, there's no reason to go ahead and vote it down.

Voting down questions should be reserved for pointless, offensive, or unclear questions. Even if you don't like seeing questions like this one posted on Mahalo, you have to admit it's thought-provoking and can be debated on both sides. Let people who want to answer, answer!

Stop criticising people for wanting to enrich Mahalo with more complex and arguable questions. Jeesh!

No creationism should not be taught in public schools it is strictly a religious belief. If you are going to teach creation then you are going to have to teach all the creation beliefs of all the current faiths and beliefs of the world. And although evolution may not be more than a theory it is the theory with the most hard evidence to support it.

And on that note children should be informed that it has not been totally proven as of yet.

Since this debate mainly focuses on science classes and not religion classes, neither one should be taught in a scientific educational setting. Darwin's theory of micro evolution (the same creatures changing slightly over time) is completely different than macro evolution (sea creatures evolving into land creatures and so on). Micro evolution is a proven scientific fact, while macro evolution is just another forever-controversial theory.

I'm just adding to the clutter on this page, I know... I asked a Biologist at my University about this one day. She said that she could go at the collegiate level NEVER mentioning Darwinian Theories, and the science wouldn't change at all. Like... totally remove it from her 100-level bio class, and remove the Darwinian lectures course (which is a 300-level elective) and still... wouldn't have any trouble teach genetics or any single other aspect of biology without trouble.

I mean... look at cauliflower, broccoli, mustard, and the rest that all come from an immediate heritage that can be replicated by breeding the tall ones with the tall ones and the white ones with the white ones and the short stubby green ones with the short stubby green ones. Seriously... it's a moot conversation inside of Biology, and is more of an esoteric discussion for society. The science is there on it's own, and doesn't need to be attached to a theory.

W00t on the dead horse. That's a great replacement of the copy/fax machine. I like that book.

I might go and read it even. I'm a nerd. Dig it?

God Luck!

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. Its a very good theory, but there is not enough evidence supporting the theory to make it a fact. One thing that Creationism has going for it is the recent discovery of leftover radiation from the big bang in space.

This evidence is enough to make the Big Bang Theory no longer a theory, it s now a fact. Now that we have proof that the big bang actually happened, creationists all over the world are celebrating. Why?

Because this proves that the universe was never static or eternal like the athiests wanted them to believe, it proves that everything in this enormous universe (space, time, matter etc) started out as an infinite singularity that would have stayed that way unless something external disrupted it, creating the huge explosion that we call the big bang. What is creationism, really? Its not believing that god walked around the place snapping his fingers and people were popping up all over the place, what it is, is the theory that the universe was created at some point, that it had a beginning.To not believe in creationism means that you would have to believe that the universe is static, that it was always here and that the big bang (-the moment of creation) never happened.

Now that there is evidence that the big bang really did happen, the argument for a static universe goes out the window. Now evolution is a great theory, it makes a lot of sense and tells us that we can adapt to our surroundings. Problem is, its not a fact.

Dinosaur bones don't prove that we evolved originally from a single-cell organism. It just proved that dinosaurs once roamed the earth. Scientists are trying very hard to prove that we evolved from apes, yet every time they think that they have found the missing link between apes and humans, they soon realize that its not the link that they are looking for.

I am not saying that the missing link doesn't exist, it might, but they havent found it yet. Evolution isnt a proven fact.So if evolution isnt a proven fact, its just a theory, then why is that taught in schools and creationism not, when evidence of the big bang shows that the universe had a moment of creation when this is a fact?

First, I would just like to say that I find this type of question thought provoking and very interesting. With so many people of different beliefs and cultures answering these questions there are times that a totally different way of looking at something appears, which inspires more thought and objectivity. Second, I certainly can't compare with the incredible knowledge that some people have regarding physics, biology, quantum theories, etc.So if my answer seems mundane, I apologize.

Third, without revealing my real age, let me suffice it to say that when I was in grade school, everyone in the neighborhood went to a Catholic grade school. There were 4 Catholic grade schools in an area that had 1 public school. I didn't know a single person that went to public school.

Then most of us went on to a Catholic high school. There was never a mention of evolution, that I recall, in all of those 12 mind-forming years. When I finally did hear about it, I thought it was insane to believe in it.

Evolving from a life form other than Adam and Eve was something I could not accept and didn't even want to entertain. Later in life, following a life-changing event, I went back to religion trying to find some answers. And although I found a lot of answers I was looking for, one thing nagged at me.

It wasn't evolution or how the planets were formed, it was dinosaurs. I couldn't figure out how they fit into the scheme of things. But there was proof that they existed.

Full skeletons of gigantic lizard creatures, giant birds, huge elephants were found everywhere. Finally someone explained to me that although the Bible says that God made the earth and man in 6 days, and rested on the 7th, we don't know how long one of God's days is. A sense of time was something given to man by God so that we could understand daily living.

Our mind's are not advanced enough to truly perceive eternity. So rather than believing that God made everything in terms of our days, we need to remember that time means nothing to God. One of s days could last a million years!

So keeping all of this in mind, I think that Creationism should be taught as a theological or social science subject, and the theory of evolution should be taught as a scientific theory. But I think both sides should be taught. People need to be given enough information to form an educated opinion.

When children are only taught one side of a question (as in my case), they believe that that information is true. With a subject like evolution vs creationism, both sides need to be presented since neither has been proven definitively.

Yes Creationism should be taught in schools. It's apart of our history, and that's where it belongs, in the history class.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.