Creationism in schools, yes or no?

I don't think it would be an issue to discuss the Pilgrims and their motivations. But to teach the tenants of their faith would be a problem.

The escape from Religious persecution has molded the migration of mankind, so it must be discussed.

But the specifics should not be, in public K-12 schools.

 

Of course they should be disscussed, because they are a part of the history of our public culture.

 

Creationism isn't a religion, so it wouldn't fit in a comparative religion course. It is something some fundamentalist Christians thought up to try to include their religious beliefs in a secular school system. Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and other religions are one thing: creationsim is not part of Christianity, not part of the text or the tenets of the religion. Creationism is only something some nutcases in the States throught up for crazy reasons.

 

Creationism is certainly a creation myth, thus it fits into a comparative religion course.

Atheists have nothing to say about finally what goes in such a course.

 

That's not your call. You get to define what is part of science or not. The religious get to define what is or is not a religious belief, and educators get to decide what ideas to cover and compare in that course, including creation stories or myths. If those 'nutcases' can make a sale in Baptist circles, then they made a sale... You have enough on your plate protecting the concept of science from corrosion.

 

Sorry, but it isn't me defining what is science. It's already been defined, and it doesn't include something based in religiion such as creationism. It's that simple. And yes, it is nutty to try to combine religious myth with hard, empircal facts just to make people feel better and justify their 'faith.' Faith has nothing to do with science.

Obviously there are people who don't like fact, who don't like secularism, who don't like progress in science: that's up to you, but you cannot FORCE your faith on others. If you don't like your kids going to public school, homeschool them or send them to religious school. This is a SECULAR country. If you don't like that, go somewhere else.

 

Read the posts again. Here is what I responded to
" Creationism isn't a religion, so it wouldn't fit in a comparative religion course. It is something some fundamentalist Christians thought up to try to include their religious beliefs in a secular school system. Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and other religions are one thing: creationsim is not part of Christianity, not part of the text or the tenets of the religion. Creationism is only something some nutcases in the States throught up for crazy reasons. I don't want creationism in a science class. I am an agnostic atheist secular humanist type, who wants you and I to protect that science class from religious ideas, not the comparative religion class from religious ideas. Its designed for religious stories and beliefs. Your bias against religion or creationism does not permit you to pick and choose what is a proper religious belief for study in a course so designed, and what is not. That is the teachers job. If he wants to teach a section on various creation stories and beliefs and includes creationism, he does not need your permission. Got it?

 

The atheists have nothing to say about creationism as part of a creation myths series in a comparative religion class.

 

Creationism isn't 'designed' for anything. It is not part of any orthodox religion. It is some nonsense made up in the past very few decades by desperate and wishful thinking American fundamentalist Christians who won't accept science and who want to impose their myth based ideas on others. It is not part of any recognized religion. IT DOES NOT BELONG IN A COMPARATIVE RELIGION COURSE. I've taught humanities for 30 years. It could possibly be part of some informative class that outlines the elements of various new age silliness, but it is not part of the foundation of any formal religion and does not belong in a comparative religion course. For the past 12 years I taught, among other humantities courses, epistemology. Creationism was covered by my co-teachers, the science teachers, in order to outline what it entails and what its purpose is. I know very well that it doesn't belong in a comparative religion course. It is not religion; it is some kind of mutt between myth, imagination and desperation.

 

It doesn't belong in a comparative religion course: it IS NOT a creation myth. It is something completely different than a creation myth. If anything, it is a political ploy.

You all can scream and stomp and have hissy fits until you turn purple: I am here to tell you it does not belong in a comparative religion course.

 

Atheists can yell all they want about religion and angels and creationism and devils, and believers go, "eh", Thelma May. We don't care because atheists' opinions don't count.

 

I am not talking about any of that. You're just being ridiculous. And what makes you think I am an athiest? The point I am making is that creationism is just a nonsense. Not something to take seriously. Not part of any religion. It is not something to teach when comparing religions.

No intelligent, educated, modern person believes literally in the story of creation as told in their religion. They realize these stories are from primitive cultures and are full of allegory, as was the way social mores and faith were taught in primitive times, before we had and understood science as we do today. Intelligent, educated people can be religious, accept the story of creation as a 'faith,' and still understand and accept the science of the big bang and evolution.

 

None of them. If students want to know more, they can go ask a monk, a guru, a preacher, etc.

We're talking about creationism in general, not any particular version.

 

An agnostic (for lack of a better term) regularly attended our Bible Study in high school (mostly just to hang out, I think) and seemed convinced that 'God' is a technological being and capable of time travel (or at least time manipulation). Which does technically meet the criteria for omnipotence/omniscience.

 

Why are we only discussing Biblical creation? OP does not suggest that.

"Alright, bros what are your opinions on the teaching of creationism in Public Schools? Is it science? Or is it alternatively packaged religious dogma?"

Sounds to me like YOU are only discussing literal Biblical creationism because that one is easy to disregard.

 

ThelmaMay, you are talking about all of that, and your ideas are ridiculous and not to be taken seriously

Your opinions mean nothing at school board meetings to see what classes go on the schedules.

Comparative Religions do consider creation myths, including creationism.

Atheists can yell all they want about religion and angels and creationism and devils, and believers go, "eh", Thelma May. We don't care because atheists' opinions don't count.

 

Why isn't there a "Schools shouldn't teach about religions and gods in any non-comparative sense" option?

 

I believe most science classes in most schools are boring, and that most American high school graduates could not adequately explain the theory of evolution.

Having one session of a biology class devoted to watching a video of a debate between an intelligent "Intelligent Design" advocate, and an intelligent Darwinian, might help make science more interesting, help kids learn to think critically, and maybe even help in teaching evolution.

As a rule, people who believe strongly in something, but not on the basis of reason, are the most opposed to allowing alternative views a hearing. They know they can't really answer the arguments of the other side, and also fear that those with less 'faith' than they will be converted.

People who are confident in their views, seeing them rooted in reality and defendable by appeal to facts and reason, are not afraid to debate.

 

Whose rule is this? "As a rule, people who believe strongly in something, but not on the basis of reason, are the most opposed to allowing alternative views a hearing. They know they can't really answer the arguments of the other side, and also fear that those with less 'faith' than they will be converted." It may be your opinion, Doug1943, but I doubt it is a "rule."

 

Okay...lets just go with your version.

Should it be taught in Public Schools?

No...and "The Hobbit" should not be used as a history book.

 

Ah ... by 'as a rule' I mean 'generally' ... and yes, it's just my opinion. I don't have any systematic data on this, although I wouldn't be surprised if it existed. But it seems pretty reasonable to me, and certainly matches my experience. Do you not agree with this idea?

 

Creationism is a creation myth (not science), thus it belongs in a liberal arts/humanties comparative religions class.

 

I remember being taught to sing "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so" in Grade primary, or one......
that song really isn't promoting any specific denomination.

Even Atheist Howard Storm Ph. D. benefited from that song during the first and negative part of his
near death experience.

Paradise / heaven is full of people who think in a certain way.......
and apparently people who die and go on with a terrible approach to life.....
get to swarm in another part of the afterlife.

https://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/howard-storm.html#a02

If those horrible human looking people who Howard met were once human..... a good explanation is given by near death experiencer Christian Andreason how they ended up in that realm.


https://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/christian-andreason.html#a09

Howard Storm Interview - STUNNING AND LIFE CHANGING NDE 2001
Howard starts speaking after the two minute mark in the video:

 

The Pope said that those who went to Heaven were to contemplate the Divine, while those who did not would simply cease to exist.

 

I used to believe in something like Soul Sleep.......
but not any more.

https://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/george-ritchie.html#a05c