• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Should Creationism be taught in schools?

Your Funny Uncle

New Member
arg-fallbackName="Your Funny Uncle"/>
Nope. Sadly though it seems that this "debate" is creeping into British culture...

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools
 
arg-fallbackName="Unwardil"/>
Well, how do you mean.

If you mean creationism from a historical standpoint, as in 'This is the stupid shit we used to believe when we were still hucking our poo at each other and, you'll laugh at this part, SOME people still believe it today! What a lark!' Then I can't see the problem.

If they mean, as I suspect they do without actually looking at the article, as an alternative explanation for cosmology... Then no, it shouldn't be taught. Not in that context. But as a historical/cultural thing, yes, absolutely. It is quite necessary for the rounded education of an individual that they be aware that some people believe absurdities.
 
arg-fallbackName="tuxbox"/>
Should Creationism be taught in schools?

Depends on how it is taught. It most definitely should not be taught as a science.
 
arg-fallbackName="nasher168"/>
It should be brought up (and perhaps ripped apart?) as a false, opposing idea to evolution by natural selection. But not taught. That would piss me off immensely.
 
arg-fallbackName="Inferno"/>
I don't even know why it should be brought up. There are so many amazing theories in science that we don't get to hear in school, maybe we shouldn't talk about a few discredited ideas/hypotheses/theories and actually focus on real science.
I never heard about cold fusion and that stuff is a hundred times more interesting than creationism. Screw creationism, it's neither needed in a scientific way nor in a historical way.
 
arg-fallbackName="Your Funny Uncle"/>
Yeah I should've clarified that the implication here is as an alternative to evolution, not as part of a balanced Religious Education class or as a counterpoint to real science.
 
arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
I think it is fair enough to mention it in a religious education class, with no claims of truth, just as other creation stories should be. It should be presented as no more valid than aborigine, or Greek creation myths etc.

However, it most definitely should not be presented in a science class as scientifically valid or true.
 
arg-fallbackName="Inferno"/>
Laurens said:
However, it most definitely should not be presented in a science class as scientifically valid or true.

Do you think that it should be presented as a discredited "theory" or not be talked about at all?
 
arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
Inferno said:
Laurens said:
However, it most definitely should not be presented in a science class as scientifically valid or true.

Do you think that it should be presented as a discredited "theory" or not be talked about at all?

I don't think that it is worthy of being mentioned as a discredited theory cause it never was, and never will be one.

The extent to which I think it could be permissible to mention it would be something along the lines of:

"Some people believe that the world and all life on it was created a few thousand years ago by God, this is just a myth and has no basis in fact whatsoever and will not be discussed as being somehow on a par to the theory of evolution because it is not scientific and it certainly is not a theory. All the evidence actually suggests that life evolved over millions of years [commence lesson on evolution]"

But I think even that is giving it undue credence (you'd never get such a disclaimer about storks in a sex education class).
 
arg-fallbackName="Inferno"/>
Exactly. That's why I said "I don't even know why it should be brought up." and would suggest that it shouldn't even be brought up.
 
arg-fallbackName="theyounghistorian77"/>
Stick it in an RE class maybe, perhaps, but not in a science one.

Also, can you think how simply diluted and overall terrible the education systen would be if we had to teach the so-called "alternative" for everything which is conventional scientific wisdom, for example, teaching Astrology as a "serious" "alternative" to astronomy? *shudders*
 
arg-fallbackName="Frenger"/>
No. Just no. I can't see where it would fit.

The problem I see is it will be taught as an alternative theory. When I was studying science in secondary school evolution got very little mention, barely anything, definitely not enough to show that it is fact anyway, so if we start shovelling this horse s**t in then some children may take it as a possibility.

It's not even a fun myth like gods controlling the weather and re-incarnation, it's just dull.

I thought Britain was better than this.
 
arg-fallbackName=")O( Hytegia )O("/>
They teach my religious beliefs in school.
Wonderful class called "Mythology."

Guess where Creationism should fit? With the other Creation stories from around the world.
 
Back
Top