ANSWERS: 51
  • They should only be allowed to present all theories as just that - theories. They should not be allowed to teach any one thing as the total truth because we honestly don't know.
  • Only in a course on abnormal psychology. Teaching it or even mentioning it in a biology class is like giving holocaust denial a mention in the history class. Utterly inappropriate.
  • Sure. In a Bible School. Not in the public school system. I don't see any harm in mentioning the fact that some people believe in creationism by itself, but it ought to stop there and not be taught as part of the curriculum. Just opens up a can of worms regarding what form of creationism ought to be taught. Native American? Christian? Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Greek? Druid?
  • who else will?
  • IMO they should not. Creationism = religion, and should be taught as that in churches and temples..
  • They should be able to teach it, or at least make their students aware of its existence as a theory with some basic details, in the same way and at the same time as they inform them about the big bang theory and the theory of evolution. None of these theories are proven, and so all should receive *some* academic coverage, although some are more plausible than others. (I'm playing devil's advocate by the way, I am not a supporter of creationist theory. Also I should add in the interests of even-handedness to Windwalker that this question is very badly phrased and precludes those who do not support this theory from answering it properly, hence my need to play devil's advocate to give something resembling a reasonable answer. The word "why" should be removed and placed at the end as a secondary question to promote more genuine debate and exchange of views.)
  • The has only been a "serious" debate in recent years and people need to just drop it. We've gotten along fine not teaching creationism in public schools all this time....NOW it's some big issue? Creationism is for Sunday school and church. I've mentioned here before that I've been through many, many school districts and NONE, not even the two years I spent in Backwoods,Alabama was I taught Creationism or any form of religion in a public school. That was in the early eighties and it was not taught or offered as a subject in ANY class. They did have after-school bible study groups for kids that were into that, but I was certainly never pressured (or even asked) to join one. Even my Dad growing up in Texas in the 40s and 50s was not taught religion in public schools. They stuck to the true hard core sciences, which is what we need to do today. If you want your kid to learn Creationism, teach him yourself or pay to send him to a Christian school.
  • Schools should cover creation theories in like Sociology or Comparitive Religon or something and cover many examples like Christian and Native American and Hindu and other types of belief systems. It doesn't need to be taught side by side with big bang theory.
  • Privately funded religious schools and churches can teach creationism all they want. They can teach that the universe was created by a vampire bat at midnight on Friday the 13th for all I care. It should not be taught in the public, compulsary school system to a captive audience. Firstly, it isn't science. It isn't even a theory (a theory is the result of the scientific method, can be tested, etc). Creationism is the reverse. People decided it was true and went out in search of evidence (and haven't found much of anything). Creationism is religion, pure and simple. It requires us to postulate the existence of an unnatural, intelligent entity who's very existence has no evidence and cannot be tested. Science works from a perspective of Natural Causality. Secondly, this isn't about what people can or cannot teach their own children. No one is preventing parents from teaching their own children creationism - at home, at church, or at a public school. That is a smoke-screen. This is about what creationists/believers are allowed to teach OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN. They want the right to teach my children their theology, disguising it as science and their right to teach their children. Both are illogical. No. Absolutely not.
  • No... Not now... Not ever..wait if they can prove (read science)it they they can start to.. On the other hand...if we allow that maybe I could get them teaching about the existence of Smurfs as well... Oh Papa Smurf for this meal we are eternally thankful....
  • Schools need to teach acording to a curiculum (no idea how to spell that properly, sz) and creationism is not considered fact whereas the big bang theory is. As such, creationism should NOT be taught at schools as a compulsary thing, should the school wish to, they should ofc be able to provide the extra lessons to teach such a subject (for instance in religious schools).
  • No way! I think that would only bring living chaos.
  • Science is all about observation and relating it to life's experience! We all observe many things through a conditioned grid therefore there is diversity of interpretation of the facts. To be fair to the subject of the genesis of the world we must consider all theories in the light of scientific observation. Taking each one on it's merits, it's strengths and weaknesses. Considered fairly and academically with input from experts in their field. The problem is that there is polarization between the two sides of the argument; each claims their own viewpoint to be fact and the opposite to be fantasy. Therefore if one side of the argument is being misrepresented by poor teaching it is best left to the experts. This was tha case when Darwin was alive for the theory of evolution the result being poor or no teaching in the schhols. The opposite is the case today creation studies is a target of mockery and so is best taught by the people of faith. Conclusion, no debate on the subject is better than nonsense argument that goes nowhere.
  • No. Please see here you the correct version of events: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster RAmen.
  • of course not, Creationism has been disproved by science over and over again. that's it
  • No way! We need the seperation of church and state. If they taught creation at my children's school, I would home school them instead.
  • No, I don't want my kids learning about others beliefs. And evolution is science and I can't argue with science.
  • Only by sexy nuns in black stilettos !!
  • Yes it should, religious education is important, and many of you should be growing familiar with my opinions on religion. But it should not be presented as fact, only another point of view to be explored, discussed and understood. When you close your mind, and especially that of a child, to new ideas, you limit the potential for growth. The Gnostic Gospels, Islam, Hinduism and all forms of spiritual belief should be introduced to children at school, along with a higher emphasis on teaching children about morality and virtue.
  • No. Creationism is a fallacy indiscreetly packaged as a prerequisite belief for salvation. It is based on a literal interpretation of the modern English translation of the Bible and not on the original Hebrew texts which clearly demonstrate an indefinite and lengthy period of time between the initial universal creation event and the beginnings of God's dealings with man in his current state. The original Hewbrew actually supports modern scientific theories on the origin and nature of the universe. I would support it if it were based on scientific and historical fact, but it isn't. Teaching it in school would be tantamount to teaching that man hasn't yet undertaken space travel or set foot on the moon: relatively comparable anti-scientific conspiracy theories. Oh, and before anyone gets uppity, I'm a firm believer in God. I just happen to believe that He would prefer to be represented with fact and logic rather than with asinine forgone conclusions.
  • everything should be available in schools - especially sex education.
  • Not as science, because it isn't. It is religion. As such, sure - in comparative religion studies. And so as not to insult differing religion, many different creation stories can be taught, compared and discussed...
  • I think that it should be talked about and explained in a historical manner only, discussing the history of it being taught and mandated that it must be, I strongly believe in seperation of State & Church, so I think it should only presented in a historical manner, and how the U.S. and lawmakers forced and mandated this be taught, and the debate and facts be there, purely in a historical reference.
  • If they teach Christian creationism, why not teach other religious beliefs like reincarnation? I believe the literal interpretation of the bible is asinine, God didnt actually take 168 hours to create the universe, its a metaphor or symbolic for something. Its important to teach love, peace, and compassion, which are the messages of the bible, but just not a literal interpretation.
  • It was once, so yeah, though it does open the door for all manner of pagan religions.
  • I'd have no problem, as long as the context was "The theory of evolution is.... Others have a theory of Intelligent Design, which is...." If one of those theories is taught, the other should be also.
  • How long have we had a FSM category? LOL. I still believe in the separation of church and state, so I do not believe in teaching Creationism. I believe that students should be taught science. Evolution has scientific basis, creationism doesn't.
  • I don't care if it isn't in the science classroom. It isn't science and never has been. Teach it the same place you teach about other myths.
  • Not in a public school. If they wanna teach it in religious schools, then so be it. Tax dollars shouldn't be spent on it.
  • Presumably if it was taught in the same way as Greek Mythology, it wouldn't be so harmful. There is a good case for our children being aware of their history and heritage. If it's presented as fact though; there I have a problem ...
  • As long as they're going to teach Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, too, then I have no problem with it. I'm a Pastafarian from way back; a Fifth Degree Meatball, in fact. May you be touched by Its Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
  • The same about teaching Evolution in church
  • Prefer them to keep it in the church with all the other mumbo jumbo
  • I'm not sure how the US school system works with regards to religion. In England schools have ''RE'' (Religious Education) or ''RS'' (Religious Studies) lessons just as they have Maths, English, French, Biology, Physics etc. In RS, they teach you about the main religions. We learned about Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Islam, Buddhism and so on. As part of those lessons, we learned that SOME people believe the world was created by God in seven days. I think that's a good thing, children should be taught about different religions. However, there's a big leap from teaching in RS that some people believe Creationism to teaching that the world was most definitely created by God. It's a leap that shouldn't be made.
  • Christian speaking so whatever that's worth. Would take a grand upheaval of our education system. I'm against it.
  • I think both Creationism and Evolution should be taught, so that people can make up their own minds on what they want to believe.
  • Sunday School ~ yes. Public School ~ no.
  • Only private ones. It has absolutely no place in the science classrooms of ANY public school.
  • I do. I have RE classes, I have Biology classes. They're seperate, which they should be.
  • crationism is just one of thousands of RELIGIOUS theorys. And with separation of church and state, i don't think its right to teach religion in schools. Now as far as evolution goes, i think we should teach the process, because the process of evolution is a fact, but as a creation theory, we shouldn't teach it, cause theres not enough proof to say that we evolved from other species.
  • No, evolution is the truth. Remember, separation of church and state.
  • Any kind of intelligent design course should be left out of the schools. Religion should be left at home or at Sunday school.
  • Absolutely not! We give our children enough supernatural bologna. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, ghosts, angels et al. There is nothing scientific about creationism. It is not a theory. It is quackery.
  • For now, I'd rather they'd just work a little harder teaching reading, writing and arithmatic...to the 12th graders! I'd feel more comfortable covering the topic of creation at home, where I can trust that it will be given a fairer shot.
  • I think religion (taught as religion and not some pseudo-science with no actual curriculum) could be an option in schools, but there is no way I would support mandatory religion classes. There is no way to teach creationism without religious indoctrination.
  • I believe that religion SHOULD DEFINATELY be taught in school. However the children should be taught about all religions so the students are not ignorant of the world religions and the religion class should not pass judgement on the other religions saying which is right/ wrong etc. Evolutionism should and is taught in school as it happens with other animals even if all of ye dont believe its true.
  • No. The key word you are using here is "equally". One is science, and the other is not and never will be. Let me give some basic information on both: Scientific Classification of Each: Evolution to a certain degree is fact. This is because we can watch it happen (just like gravity). For example, the many new strains of influenza that develop in response to vaccines. It is a genetic mutation due to natural causality. Evolution has extensive evidence in its favor (and I'm including a video link to just one bit of it). The evidence is physical. The evidence is observable by anyone wishing to look. The fossil and DNA record is extensive. Evolutionary theory is predictive. It can predict what will be found in certain scenarios (see attached video link). Evolutionary theory has an internal logical consistency. Evolutionary theory can be tested systematically by anyone, which it has, and it has not yet been disproven. It is stated in such a way that it is disprovable. Creationism isn't even a scientific hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis must be stated in such a way that it is both TESTABLE and DISPROVABLE. Creationism isn't a theory, because a theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested (using both the same and different methodologies by various peer-reviewed groups) with the same results, and without being disproven (see above where scientific hypotheses must be disprovable). Tests are published with the methodology, controls, variables, etc and can be recreated by anyone. Creationism has no physical, observable evidence in its favor. The best that can be said is that it has ancient, anecdotal evidence by non-eyewitnesses, and has a long history of philosophical arguments in its favor (and against it, as well). Philosophy is not science. Creationism is not predictive. It cannot predict behavior, or what will be found if a certain aspect of current species genetics is studied. Finally, Creationism lacks internal logical consistency. Creationism raises more questions than it purports to answer. If the universe is so complex that it requires a designer, then any entity capable of designing it is also so complex as to require a designer. This same reasoning will go on for infinity, requiring an infinite number of designers. Likewise, if matter must have a beginning, and must have been created, anything capable of creating it must also have a beginning and must have been created. If we are going to say that a Creator (whatever you believe it to be) doesn't need a designer and always has been, you might as well eliminate one level and say the same about the universe. Certainly, that some people believe in Creationism, and WHAT their belief is, can be taught in a Social Sciences setting, but it should not be presented as science (fact or theory), nor should any truth value be taught about it.
  • YES; FOR THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONARY REASONS!! PROFESSORS: GIG’S & GENG’S WISDOM TIME AGAIN: EVOLUTION: Monkey-Ape Time Mrs Iva Tail To Tell (Dean of Makittup University) declared, "Our direct forefathers were gorillas. We straightened our backs and shortened our arms. The latter [or is that ladder?] meant we couldn't have such high shelves of course. But you can't have everything. Yes, we must have come from gorillas because they look more like us on the outside than anything else. That's obvious proof". "Yes", said Prof Gig (Professor in nuts bolts and screws of all kinds), "many years ago they used to talk about how intelligent dogs were, but now we say how intelligent gorillas are. Soon we will have research to prove that they are more intelligent than all other animals; if we can get someone to fund it". Mrs Soarit of Perth WA says, "I watched it on TV, how they put a monkey in a room with a box and put a banana on a string that he couldn't reach. The monkey worked out to move the box over and get onto it to get the banana. The only thing is I've seen a dog do the same thing years before". Dr Ivanew Mith (Vetinary Surgeon of Wefixit Clinic) said, "a gorillas stomach is very different from ours and many other parts. If we ate what a gorilla eats in a day (bamboo shoots) we would be dead. We are more like a horse in eating habits and can eat most things they do. Also we can eat most things birds eat. So horses or birds must be our closest relatives". Dr R E Movitt (Brain Surgeon of Qurem Hospital) said, "Talk is made of people having a so called "human" extra piece on our brains, that apes don't have, that makes us more intelligent. But there are many people who are born without this section as a deformity but it creates no thinking or action disability: The person is completely normal". Prof Gig stated in regard these things; "there are always facts we need to ignore in the pursuit of theoretical science and funding. In this case quite a lot of facts. But then we also get a lot of funding here, as it's a popular theory". Miss Itneedsta Makesens commented, "even if we found a group of monkeys that once wrote their history it still wouldn't prove that apes changed into man. All it would prove is that we found an intelligent group of apes. And anyone with any imagination could come up with another theory of our existence that would sound far more realistic than apes changing into people _ or at least equally as irrational". Why didn't I evolve into a human so that nothing would step on me? Evolution Dr F Roard (Phd., DOB, FBI, KGB, MIA, POT) said, "things all changed by deformities that survived and got passed on. So we believe that something as complex as an eye just happened by chance. Over MILLIONS of years, of course. It makes it sound more believable when we say that because no one can conceive millions of years. So each deformity that went into making an eye was passed on to the next generation. Now I know what you are thinking. You are wondering why we can't seem to find loads of animals, insects or people existing today with only partly formed eyes. Yes, it is true that there would need to be countless masses of them, for the working eye to exist on such a large scale. Particularly considering the seemingly endless intermediate steps and those who would have therefore failed to evolve the rest of the eye correctly by chance. We try to ignore these facts in the interest of 'truth'. And the theory is popular." Professor Messa of the Institute for Lost Scientists said, "We believe the other theory where evolution happened because things decided that they needed to change for their environment. Animals also did this. A lizard decided that it wasn't safe or getting enough food on the ground so it thought about the problem and decided that wings were the best solution to the problem and so he'd become a bird. It realised that this would take MILLIONS of years, of course. So as each of its children were born the lizard passed on his plan so that the children would carry on that approach to the problem. They, in turn, had to pass on this approach to their children to resolve the problem also. He had to make sure that they kept on with that plan or they would die out from the problem that they needed to change for. Fortunately he could foresee this problem becoming bad enough to need to make this change MILLIONS of YEARS before they actually would die out. Strangely enough lizards didn't die out anyway. So it was all in vain. But birds are glad that lizards did so; and now some birds feed on lizards, making it all the better that lizards didn't die out, but leaving lizards wondering about the wisdom of it." Miss White of Brisbane asked, "If we are evolving does that mean we may end up being little green men and going to other planets"? Professor I Dunno of the Institute for Unemployed Scientists said, "one day life just suddenly sprang up and there was an incredibly complex living cell". I asked how this could happen. He explained that it was sort of statistical/magical luck. "Then the cell got lonely and decided it wanted another one; so it worked out how to evolve so it would be capable of splitting (highly intelligent these cells); and did so. And then there were 2 of them", he said. "And before you know it they were just splitting everywhere and we had piles and piles of them: All over the place". I asked him how no life had ever existed throughout all eternity before that time? "Well this has probably happened elsewhere, I'd suppose", he said. "So this amazing magic of an appearing complex living cell just popping up from nowhere has happened other times you feel professor", I asked? "Well, over many MILLIONS of years, you see", he replied. Mr/Ms Los Tie-Dentitti says, "women have evolved into men's bodies". Mr I. L. Watchit asks, "I saw a documentary on TV about moths in a place in England. They explained how there used to be more light moths and few dark ones because the dark ones were seen on the light trees and eaten by birds. But now with so much smog the trees are dark and there are more dark moths, as the birds eat the light ones. But this only proves survival of the fittest. This doesn't prove the evolutionary theory because it was already known when the theory was invented. To prove the theory evidence would have to come forth to prove the theory itself, not the known facts it was based on."? Mr B Acake of Sydney asks, "as I have rheumatism in my back wouldn't it have been better to have stayed without one"? Of evolution Dr Pluggitt of Drippie University states, "yes, we now know that bugs turned into people". When I asked him how this could possibly be, he explained, "yes, well, it all happens over MILLIONS of years, you see. Anything can be believed if you talk about MILLIONS of years". PROFESSORS GENG AND GIG – AT IT AGAIN!! QUESTION: If we were to search for the Dead Center of EVOLUTION, would we find it at Darwin Cemetery, in Fred Flintstone’s Dinosaur Zoo or at a Barney’s Rubble’s Skeleton Bank??!! Ezekiel, Skeleton Bank Teller: ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones…’ ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones’ ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones’ ‘Oh hear the word of the Lord.’ Dating Methods Professor Lessor of Fundus Institute commented, "we use the finest dating methods. And we know that we are right that these bones are MILLIONS of years old. Carbon dating has been shown to be correct sometimes, to some degree, over periods of hundreds of years _ usually only being hundreds of years out. And we have other dating methods now that are almost as accurate; particularly when we recalibrate our machines when we know what date is required". Mr Form at Hard Drive said, "I was watching a program on TV the other day that carbon dated a skull found in Australia to be 2,500 years old. But the scientists didn't like that date so they went around trying all these other dating methods and finally found one that said it was about 60,000 to 70,000 years old and so they took those dates. When asked why they didn't use the carbon dating method that is so 'accurate' they said it was because the lime in the soil must have confused it". Dr G Etpade of Theoretic Institute stated, "we are at a new age now where we no longer have the problems of science in the past that almost always had theories that have been proven wrong in spite of them proving them right at the time. All our theories are correct because we have proven them right on TV. We also have a new advantage to use to convince people we're right called 'dating methods'. This is a cleaver idea where you use some instrument to obtain the date you want. We decide it's MILLIONS of years old then it becomes MILLIONS of years old". Elder Harris (The Church of Jesus Christ LDS missionary) questions, "I have heard that a rock formed by a volcano only a short time before was carbon dated to be MILLIONS of years old. Also that a rock only a few years old, brought back from the moon, was similarly dated. On both occasions the truth had been kept from those doing the dating. Why should anyone believe all this, unproven, MILLIONS of years stuff"? Dr Thinkitt of the Local Logicians Club said, "All accepted fact must be based on proven facts (premises). Therefore talk of MILLIONS of years is illogical as no one can PROVE what happened in a time of which we have no way to prove it absolutely correct. If someone makes a claim about ancient Egypt from known facts about Egypt it could be logical. But we have no written record of MILLIONS of years ago and we can't go back to prove or disprove the claim or the premises upon which it is based: Regardless of what instruments are used. No logician could accept someone saying they KNOW about MILLIONS of years ago as anything but the ravings of a fool". Miss Daytmee of Hobart says, "yes, well, my dating method is to play hard to get".

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy