Many Texas Schools Teach Creationism

According to the Reading and Writing and Religion II a report by the Texas Freedom Network, many Texas children are being taught creationism including the myth that the earth is only 6,000 years old. So what do you think of this development? What should we do about it? Should creationism be taught in schools?

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/01/how-texas-public-schools-still-teach-creationism

 

If this is true, then it's a problem. It's not just teaching the bible, it's also ignoring what you have to teach. That's dangerous and stupid. Why it's continued on and no one has been able to do anything about it is just amazing.

 

I assume this is just the late, great TX Lege & their Bored of Education puttin' their trotters firmly down on the side of blessed ignorance. Anyone with standing - a student or parent, or more likely a group of parents of affected children - can drag the Yahoos into court, where I would hope that the Bible-thumping would be permanently enjoined.

The whole notion of stealth Christian evangelization masquerading as "enrichment classes" needs to be examined, but I'm sure the Lege & Bored respectively have better things to do. There's the ritual spring Hooter's skimpy outfit inspections to be carried out, fr'instance.

'Course, the other way of understanding this issue is that it's the TX GOP's way of gerrymandering minds - someone befuddled by orbital mechanics is never going to question why a massively over-bloated Defense budget is of vital national security ('n' good jobs @ good wages! there in the Dallas-Ft. Worth 'burbs!), while children are coming down with whooping cough for lack of vaccinations or parental ignorance/willfulness, & having to drink unsafe water ...

 

I think it's fair that the possibility of creation/intelligent design be discussed in school. You wouldn't necessarily have to frame it in the perspective of Christianity either, there could be a brief examination of creation theories from many different traditions.

 

So long as it isn't in a science class, no problem.

 

Has science disproved the possibility of creationism/intelligent design?

 

Creationism/intelligent design isn't science. They cannot be falsified. It is in fact impossible for science to prove them wrong but that isn't the point. They don't have a testable theory or scientific evidence to back them up and thus are not science and do not belong in a science class.

 

That idea is very intuitive and seems to make a lot of sense at first analysis but there are problems. First off, the evidence for evolution is extremely strong and evolution pretty close to proven. For example we have strong evidence for human evolution from the fossil record. Second, most creationist arguments have already been refuted. For example, the argument that there are not intermediate fossils has already been refuted. Third, there is a scientific consensus among scientists that evolution is true, actually 98% of scientists. The vast majority of scientific papers written are in support of creationism.

The purpose of the scientific classroom is not to introduce students to ideas that have no scientific support such as creationism, flat earth theories, or aliens creating the pyramids. The purpose of a scientific classroom is to teach what we have confirmed with science, and evolution fits that description while creationism doesn't. However teachers can present the evolution-creation controvercy fairly in a non-science classroom course maybe along with other political, cultural, or religious debates.

 

well if they are gonna teach ID, I think the kids would like the spaghetti monster, would be a fun break for the children...

then again, maybe we should save the religious teachings for Sunday School...
.

 

How can a student independently verify big bang theory?

I think creationism/intelligent design would fit nicely into a discussion about the origins of the universe. It wouldn't have to be in depth, or from the perspective of one tradition or another.

 

As a Creationist, I'm going to have to vote no on this. I support telling kids that the Big Bang and Evolution are not proven theories, telling them that Creationism and Intelligent Design are possible, and I support teaching Evolution and the Big Bang as theories rather than proven fact, but teaching Creationism is something I am not comfortable with.

 

As stated in the post above, I think it'd fit just fine in a discussion about our origins. Don't worry, it wouldn't result in turning our students into a bunch of stark raving mad nutters.

 

I half-way agree with you on this. I am not comfortable with teaching creationism in schools either. Also evolution and the big bang are theories and are not proven.

However, I disagree with how you are interpreting science. Nothing in science is proven. All we can do is collect evidence. So we cannot 100% know that anything in science is true, because that would be a proof, but many things in science have a lot of evidence so we can 99.9% know that they are true. Evolution is an example of this because of the genetic, and fossil evidence we have.

A theory in science is an explanation of natural phenomena that has built up mountains of evidence and has made numerous predictions that have been confirmed. A theory has been tested many many times and has also been confirmed. Again, evolution fits this description.

So while evolution is not proven, it is nearly proven. The fact that it is a scientific theory only bolsters its legitimacy and does not weaken it.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think a discussion of our origins belongs in a science classroom. Science classroom are there to teach us what we know about nature such as physics, chemistry, geology, and biology. A discussion of our origins is more appropriate in a philosophy classroom.

 

That would do away with a fair amount of the lesson plan wouldn't it?

 

I meant to say that discussions of our origins that are not backed by science don't belong in the science classroom. So we can keep the parts about evolution and the big bang.

 

So we should teach that humans are the result of a masturbating God as in Egyptian mythology right?
Why would Creationism be any different?

- - - Updated - - -

yes
yes they have

 

It's only a theory. Not really so different from the theory of Evolution. What's wrong if they take 5 minutes to mention it?

 

To say that takes a whole different kind of ignorance.

 

It is not a theory it is not science. If we teach that we must treat other creation mythology equally because they all have the same argument.

- - - Updated - - -

No
1. The people who proposed ID said it is not science and science proves what they said about evolution is wrong.
2. The creation myth of Judaism (which was NEVER meant to be literal) is easy to disprove scientifically because it assumes the world is 5774 years old (as of Thursday).

So......... You are the one suffering from ignorance.

 

A scientific theory is an explanation of natural phenomena that has built up mountains of evidence and has made numerous predictions that have been confirmed. A theory has been tested many many times and has also been confirmed. Evolution fits this description.

Creationism on the other hand is what we call pseudoscience. It has been unconfirmed, and most of its arguments have been falsified. There is a very big difference. Science classrooms are only meant for the teaching of legitimate scientific principals not pseudoscience. This is why evolution is taught in schools not creationism.

 

Why do you say that?

 

(My bold)

Nah, public education should be about the basics - history, science, math, English. After that is the practical - home ec, typing, drafting. Somewhere far down the line - this being TX, it would be way after football, cheerleading, spirit squad, fundraising, the prom, homecoming - would be comparative religion & fairy tales. Or possibly mythology or philosophies of pre-history.

You can make an esthetic argument for the various creation myths, & that's what we're talking about here. How the TX Lege & Bored of Education - all unbeknowing, I'm sure, wink, wink, nudge, nudge - managed to give cover to blatantly partisan homiletics is beyond me.

Given that the wanna-be preachers simply can't help themselves - given any kind of opening, they want to issue a call to Jesus - this entire line of Hebrew & New Testament studies should not be allowed in public schools. Except under the headings above - theology has never been a topic @ public schools, TMK - @ least not since the Civil War or thereabouts.

The partisan nature of the studies highlighted in the report in the OP shows that Church & State are becoming needlessly entangled in TX - & there's no legitimate educational end that is being served. Parochial education belongs in the church or temple or what-have-you, not in public schools which have a lot of secular tasks to accomplish, & the less attention they pay to drivel - well-meant, I'm sure, but from the secular education POV, drivel nonetheless - the more attention & resources they'll be able to pay to their stated goals.

 

1. From Texas, did you expect anything different?

2. Will someone please look up and post the SCIENTIFIC definition of "theory?" I've posted it so many times I'm bored with explaining reality to people who refuse to accept it.

 

It is very different than the theory of evolution, first the ToE has actual evidence to support it, ID has no empirical evidence to support it. The ToE has multiple supporting lines of evidence which all point to the fact of evolution. ID and creationism are completely bogus and have absolutely no scientific evidence to support them.

 

Intelligent Design is science and should be taught in schools alongside whatever else. Creationism is different. However, the Bible itself was recommended for use in schools by the Founding Fathers. So glean from that what you will.