Creationism being taught in schools; overlooked

[AlphaConfiguration]

This point needs to be made because it is so often overlooked:

Before we start dealing with the bogus arguments that "creationism should be taught in schools," it's important to clarify this:



At least here in Massachusetts, the story of the christian creation is being taught in schools. The difference is that it is taught in context.

Christian creationism is taught, not in a science class, but is incorporated in the social studies curriculum of junior and senior high school for public schools.

As part of the unit of world religions (a part of the curriculum), it is taught juxtaposed with the stories of creation that come from Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, and even some archaic tribal religions and used (along with other traits of the religion) to explore its effect on the culture's development. It is also introduced to some literature classes in a similar way.
It's just not being taught as a science.

Occasionally, it's given time in the science classroom in Biology, but only to establish the progression of the theory of evolution and scientific history. For example, a teacher may start by explaining, "[brief description of creationism] was widely accepted at the time Darwin and so his ideas were initially met with discontent ... During that era, the idea of a ladder model for life has already been kicking around for some time, but it was susceptible to political corruption and didn't fit with the observable evidence...." Basic historical context of the theory of evolution, then it would be taught in greater detail. It's given the same light as "people used to think the earth was flat, but this was challenged in first century Alexandria when..."

So the next time some idiot says that creationism is being "repressed" in the educational system, just tell them, "It's not, it's just being taught in its context and not as a science because it ISN'T."

 

[GoodKat]

I'm moving to Massachusetts RIGHT NOW!

 

[DarwinsOtherTheory]

Yes religion should be taught in a philosophy or theology class, not in a science course.

Even if it's an aspect of religion that deals with scientific questions, it's still not science.

 

[AlphaConfiguration]

Even if it's an aspect of religion that deals with scientific questions, it's still not science.

I never said it was, I only said that it is being taught only enough to establish the history of the line of thought. We were never really tested on it anyway; it was only given as an aside to say, "This is how people thought during Darwin's time and this is what he was up against". They also would explain resistance from the church and the like.

 

[buzzausa]

Fairy tales have no place in a science class. None. Period.

What makes my blood boil is people who say that the bible is "the most advance scientific book that exists".

You've heard that one before right?

I am reeeeeally hoping to come across somebody who will say that to me so that I can go mercilessly medieval on their ass!!
:twisted:

 

[Aught3]

Sounds ok to me. It's what I've been advocating for a while.

 

[ThetaOmega]

I think that creation should be taught, here in the UK we can teach creationism, but in it's proper context in Religious Education, what i am against is presenting creationism as some kind of scientific challenge to evolution, because it simply isn't.

 

[theatheistguy]

I think that creation should be taught, here in the UK we can teach creationism, but in it's proper context in Religious Education, what i am against is presenting creationism as some kind of scientific challenge to evolution, because it simply isn't.

That's not really 'teaching creation' though, it's not even teaching the bible, if the creation story was ever talked about, it was considered just that, a story. RE was nothing more than glorified English Lit. Also, not sure if it was different in England, but here in Northern Ireland, it was never religious education (although the class was called that) it was Christian education.

 

[Shapeshifter]

By the way, I have had 6 years of religion class, 1h per week - as have all Swiss children from 6-12 years. And while I always found it superfluous, it seems like the way it is taught in our schools does not indoctrinate kids in the least, nor does it try to disprove / fight science in any way. It's just something kids have to listen to. Some bible stories, a few lectures about ethics, good and evil... No one I know has ever felt attached to religion because of that. Maybe it's even good having some education on the matter. I've got a taste of the church, and that's more then I needed. It's still family and friends who get you hooked up on fundamentalist religious belief. And by the way in those 6 years I've never heard a single time that anyone goes to hell for doing anything. Intimidation is the worst a religion can do to its people.
So,
Religion classes - even mandatory? I don't mind...
Creation "science" - It's indoctrination, and it should be forbidden.

 

[GoodKat]

Religion classes - even mandatory? I don't mind...

Screw that, such a practice infringes on the religious freedom of every citizen who disagrees with that particular religion by using their tax money to promote that religion.

 

[Shapeshifter]

Screw that, such a practice infringes on the religious freedom of every citizen who disagrees with that particular religion by using their tax money to promote that religion.

The classes only take place for people of that religion. I was registered catholic at the time, so I was sent to catholic religion class. By the way later, in gymnasium, one could voluntarily take religion classes, in which actually most of the big religions were discussed, including Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. That class was educational, the ones in elementary were some sort of "shaping good citizens" classes... But yeah, screw that indeed, we could go without it... In any case, my point was that religion classes aren't something bad in itself, as long as their not "poisonous".

 

[theatheistguy]

The classes only take place for people of that religion. I was registered catholic at the time, so I was sent to catholic religion class. By the way later, in gymnasium, one could voluntarily take religion classes, in which actually most of the big religions were discussed, including Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. That class was educational, the ones in elementary were some sort of "shaping good citizens" classes... But yeah, screw that indeed, we could go without it... In any case, my point was that religion classes aren't something bad in itself, as long as their not "poisonous".

Well to paraphrase Richard Dawkins, designating a child as any form of religion is effectively child abuse (growing up in Northern Ireland just confirms that for me). Also, why only teach 'Catholics' about Catholicism, why not teach everybody about everything, then maybe people will start to see how similar and irrational they all are.

 

[GoodKat]

The classes only take place for people of that religion. I was registered catholic at the time, so I was sent to catholic religion class. By the way later, in gymnasium, one could voluntarily take religion classes, in which actually most of the big religions were discussed, including Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. That class was educational, the ones in elementary were some sort of "shaping good citizens" classes... But yeah, screw that indeed, we could go without it... In any case, my point was that religion classes aren't something bad in itself, as long as their not "poisonous".

When you said "mandatory", I assumed you meant making everyone take the same class.

 

[AlphaConfiguration]

I don't object to "religion classes" just so long as they don't favor any one religion, especially at that age. I feel that it's necessary for children to grow up understanding how the world around them functions, so a class explaining world religions is something I have no problem with.

As for religious school, I can't agree with it at all. At that age, children have no say in the matter and it can easily be poisonous. Especially in public schools; tax money should not go to that. Even privately, I'm not sure. They have the right to do what they want, but it's kind of like hijacking their minds when they're learning to fly for themselves (and no, that's not meant to suggest terrorist attack stuff, it's just the best metaphor I can think of right now).

 

[Chirios]

The classes only take place for people of that religion. I was registered catholic at the time, so I was sent to catholic religion class. By the way later, in gymnasium, one could voluntarily take religion classes, in which actually most of the big religions were discussed, including Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. That class was educational, the ones in elementary were some sort of "shaping good citizens" classes... But yeah, screw that indeed, we could go without it... In any case, my point was that religion classes aren't something bad in itself, as long as their not "poisonous".
When you said "mandatory", I assumed you meant making everyone take the same class.

They do. In England, you have one term on say, the origins of christianity, another on islam, another on judaism, another on buddhism etc. Then as you get older you start examining the effects of religion on society.

 

[AlphaConfiguration]

They do. In England, you have one term on say, the origins of christianity, another on islam, another on judaism, another on buddhism etc. Then as you get older you start examining the effects of religion on society.

That's what they do in Massachusetts