Creationism in Schools?
- Thread starter Jquestionmark
- Start date
- Tagged users None
unadulteratedawesome
Blue Mage
Did you give thought to the possibility that someone may study the theory of evolution themselves, with an unbiased approach (as much as it can be done), and reach a different conclusion than you did? Perhaps you came up with your conclusion because of poor discernment of research material, or a misunderstanding of basic scientific process or even the material itself, or simply being unintelligent. Or, and perish the thought - you may be more biased than you think and not realize it.I'm not citing or discussing, because my aim is not to prove to you anything.
It's only something one can find out if they actually want to find out.
All I will say is that if you wish to learn it, you have to study ToE for yourself, and God forbid, with an unbiased approach. Masquerading your assumption as truth bears no meaning to me.
If you really believe you're right, you'd only help people and educate others by posting a source. I mean, shit, what is your aim if you're not discussing or trying to prove anything? What's the point of discourse if that's your stance? Nothing is gained when people simply shout their opinions without substantiation. If I wanted that, I could find a crazy homeless person claiming the world is about to end or attend a Tea Party rally.
I don't think theology itself is threatening to science. It's only threatening when theologians begin making false claims within the realm of science and morons actually believe them. Creationism is a great example.
Makes sense. Science isn't there for meaning or value, that's religion's job. Which is why the two should not mingle - they are concerned with entirely distinct things.
Eh, not really. I mean, it'd definitely be a lot of work, but it's not a bad thing at all. If we made a discovery that undermined our basic understandings of the universe, it would be a good thing! We'd be closer to actual understanding and knowledge.
That's nice and all, but Creationism is not that. Hell, religion isn't even good for that. Scientists have already got it figured out, anyway. If things are proven wrong - they change! It doesn't really matter if you believe you have absolute knowledge or not about something if you're willing to change your beliefs in the face of evidence. And that's already part of basic scientific understanding.
Beneficial mutation: A mutation that augments an organism to be better suited to it's environment.
Adaptation: A mutation that augments an organism to be better suited to it's environment.
They are synonymous by definition, yet they are two completely different ideas.
Adaptation occurs over time, in which the DNA slowly switches. This form of mutation is hard-coded and is never harmful at the time of it's conception.
Beneficial mutation is the process in which a random mutation occurs, and it happens to be beneficial rather than benign or harmful.
It's very easy to get lost in the contexts, as these words are used loosely (although technically correct either way).
This doesn't get into the depths at all, but it's a must know before anything else can be discussed.
I'm pretty sure the mods are going to want this to be a separate thread, so if you would like to discuss, make one
Anyways, I feel that there should be a theological class, at the very least as an elective. The only beef I have with science class is that they need to highlight the theories as theory, scientific or not, because it often leads to false impressions.
Adaptation: A mutation that augments an organism to be better suited to it's environment.
They are synonymous by definition, yet they are two completely different ideas.
Adaptation occurs over time, in which the DNA slowly switches. This form of mutation is hard-coded and is never harmful at the time of it's conception.
Beneficial mutation is the process in which a random mutation occurs, and it happens to be beneficial rather than benign or harmful.
It's very easy to get lost in the contexts, as these words are used loosely (although technically correct either way).
This doesn't get into the depths at all, but it's a must know before anything else can be discussed.
I'm pretty sure the mods are going to want this to be a separate thread, so if you would like to discuss, make one
Anyways, I feel that there should be a theological class, at the very least as an elective. The only beef I have with science class is that they need to highlight the theories as theory, scientific or not, because it often leads to false impressions.
Last edited:
I think it should be made more clear that there's a difference between the evolution and the theory of evolution.
Evolution is pretty much a fact through the large amounts of evidence pointing towards it.
The theory of evolution describes this process of evolution allowing us to make future predictions, to the best of its abilities, and when we learn more about evolution we change the theory to improve the accuracy of its prediction.
Evolution is pretty much a fact through the large amounts of evidence pointing towards it.
The theory of evolution describes this process of evolution allowing us to make future predictions, to the best of its abilities, and when we learn more about evolution we change the theory to improve the accuracy of its prediction.
I don't exactly agree with the definitions you have given because an organism can adapt through means other than mutation, such as genetic recombination. In fact, the majority of variation and adaptation through natural selection in species occurs through genetic recombination.
Well, ja, they're not the same by definition either. Adaptation is not necessarily mutation specific, and if you think it is, you'd better provide the source for it, or your argument is unconvincing.
Adaptation occurs because of natural selection. Any organism that fails to adapt because the expression of its genes does not result in physical traits that allows the organism to survive get selected out of the gene pool. The gene pool just becomes more specific for organisms surviving in a particular environment. This doesn't have to be achieved through mutations, and it's the same reason why there is no such thing as a "best" evolution.
I agree it is, but it seems you have trouble even understanding it.
I'm pretty sure the mods are going to want this to be a separate thread, so if you would like to discuss, make one
Anyways, I feel that there should be a theological class, at the very least as an elective. The only beef I have with science class is that they need to highlight the theories as theory, scientific or not, because it often leads to false impressions.
And there are theology classes in universities, and religious studies. However, I find the latter is more useful because it exposes students to a wide variety of religions without forcing them to believe the beliefs they're studying. So yes for religious studies and no for theology, especially at such an early level where religious indoctrination is possible (and that wouldn't be the scope of public, secular schools because of separation of church and state).
And there's already more than enough false impressions of science in the first place. Not only are people not understanding that science is not a perfect field, but they don't even understand what ideas are acceptable under the premises of science, they don't understand how peer review works, and they don't understand why controlled conditions in experiments are necessary. Now I have no idea if this is a direct result of science not being taught properly in classes, lack of emphasis on good solid science the way it should be, or if it's simply because they forgot it because they didn't need it for their specific careers, but I don't think we need to emphasize the fact that we have a theory of evolution anymore than we need to teach kids what a scientific theory is.
unadulteratedawesome
Blue Mage
That may be so in some cases, but I think it really boils down to people not taking an effort to learn or just being plain stupid. I've had fantastic biology teachers and professors throughout my schooling that explained everything quite thoroughly. However, I also noticed that many of the students didn't really understand what was being taught and clung on to ridiculous, ill-informed layman opinions.
Hell, well into my biological anthropology course I heard one of the other students observe that "Wait, if we evolved from monkeys, why are they still around? And I know I don't look like a chimp." And then I heard others agree with him. The only thing I could conclude at this point was that they were quite stupid.
This is a good example of people coming out of science courses and not understanding anything that they were just taught. The first things taught in pretty much every science course until you get into upper levels is explaining the scientific method and terms like theory. And yet people still say "But it's just a theory" or think that everything in science is immutable or 'becomes' facts.
Adding a bunch of theologian horseshit masquerading as science is only going to confuse these morons further. Everything is equally 'valid' as a world view or belief, but not everything is equally valid when it comes to science and reason.
The definitions are correct literally, and some get lost in the contexts because of it. For example, if one were to find examples of 'beneficial mutation', one may falsely assume that it wasn't out of gradualism.
This is a huge problem for people who think that ToE is so solid because gradulism alone doesn't explain too much.
Recombination is a mutation, as mutation literally means a variance in the DNA structure. But you see how they are used differently? That was my original point. Diving too far into semantics will leave one to false impressions of ToE.
So if I were to dive into ToE and point out things that are wrong with it, people would have to be wary not to unintentionally straw man.
Then please explain to me what you find unconvincing about the gradual changes and shifts in organisms that eventually lead to speciation in evolution. Please be more specific.
No it isn't. Genetic recombination doesn't have to involve organisms changing their own DNA structure directly. Genetic recombination can involve organisms procreating and newer organisms inherit the genes from two (or more) separate organisms without changing their own DNA at all. In fact, no DNA structure of any organism is being changed; a new organism is being created based on preexisting genetic material from separate organisms.
I have no idea what you're trying to get at with your definition of adaptation or beneficial mutation because they in no way point out any flaw in evolution, or you haven't explained it properly, and I hope you're not trying to do it by trying to stick genetic recombination under the mutation term; that would be sophistry, and the use of the term mutation under scientific contexts clearly only refers to a direct change in an individual's DNA, and not the inheritance of a new organism's genes from its parents and having slightly different characteristics. Adaptation works because of natural selection. Any organism that cannot survive in any given environment is selected out because of its genes. If it can survive, then its genes get passed on, and its offspring survive. This doesn't have to be because of beneficial mutations; procreation creates enough genetic diversity that the whole of evolution need not rely on beneficial mutations entirely to explain why we have so much diversity and so many different species out there.
Even if organisms were affected by beneficial mutations, they wouldn't be able to help their own species survive unless they could keep their genes in the gene pool by reproducing themselves or procreating.
And I think that's something you should be worried about. You committing sophistry with terms is not me making a strawman; that's you misleading me into misinterpreting your argument because you couldn't or didn't want to use a consistent definition of a word that is clear under scientific contexts.
While recombination can be seen as a change and therefore called a mutation in the english language it doesn't carry the same definition within the field of genetics. Depending on the context words can have different meanings in varying degrees, in genetics I haven't seen the word used much for recombination of DNA, but instead for actual DNA mutations as, for example, caused by mutagens.
And that's exactly why I am not debating on this site anymore. I actually edited my first post which stated that I would never waste my time again, but decided I'd give it another whorl.
No, the only sophistry is you trying to condemn the discussion before it even starts with something as weak as saying I am not using a consistent definition. How about it was me explaining the basic ideas of how talking about ToE goes astray. It seemed only appropriate after the last time debating with certain others.
Your playing a game of semantics already. What a #$%$#@ joke.
Goodbye
And one more thing: recombination is a change in the normal DNA sequence in all literal technicality. You just made the ultimate straw man. Which is ironic because I was talking about how calling recombination a mutation can be a straw man in itself.
Way to go.
The natural formation in offspring of genetic combinations not present in parents, by the processes of crossing over or independent assortment.
Last edited:
Well I guess here I can only discuss my own experiences with creationism vs science in the classroom. In my country, the Catholic Church is recognised as having a special position in the state and with the government, as such pretty much all primary schools are Catholic. The predominant religion would also be Catholicism(Roman), though plenty of non-Catholics attend catholic schools.
Anyways in primary school we had religion class, which was effectively just learning about being a good catholic etc. bible stories and things like that. There were science lessons but we were too young to be learning about advanced physics etc.(at least imo, though I do think they could have begun to teach us about the Big Bang Theory). We even made our communion and confirmations with our school, though there was one atheistic kid that I remember and he was allowed work on his own material while we did religion etc.
Then in secondary school I once again had to do religion(compulsory in our school not in others) and science(once again compulsory in our school). However I feel here it was handled much more aptly. In religion we learned about all the 5 major world religions (Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism), as well as being taught to question our faith. Then in science we did biology, chemistry, and physics(later you could choose to study, none of them, one of them, or two of them), and here we were taught about The Big bang, evolution, etc.
Personally I think most schools should teach religion and science simultaneously, as it gives both argument fair dues. I know you might say what is the point of learning about religion for atheists etc., but personally I feel that knowledge of them is necessary to accept, reject, or even to argue about them(I say that as an atheist myself.
Anyways in primary school we had religion class, which was effectively just learning about being a good catholic etc. bible stories and things like that. There were science lessons but we were too young to be learning about advanced physics etc.(at least imo, though I do think they could have begun to teach us about the Big Bang Theory). We even made our communion and confirmations with our school, though there was one atheistic kid that I remember and he was allowed work on his own material while we did religion etc.
Then in secondary school I once again had to do religion(compulsory in our school not in others) and science(once again compulsory in our school). However I feel here it was handled much more aptly. In religion we learned about all the 5 major world religions (Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism), as well as being taught to question our faith. Then in science we did biology, chemistry, and physics(later you could choose to study, none of them, one of them, or two of them), and here we were taught about The Big bang, evolution, etc.
Personally I think most schools should teach religion and science simultaneously, as it gives both argument fair dues. I know you might say what is the point of learning about religion for atheists etc., but personally I feel that knowledge of them is necessary to accept, reject, or even to argue about them(I say that as an atheist myself.
And that's exactly why I am not debating on this site anymore. I actually edited my first post which stated that I would never waste my time again, but decided I'd give it another whorl.
No, the only sophistry is you trying to condemn the discussion before it even starts with something as weak as saying I am not using a consistent definition. How about it was me explaining the basic ideas of how talking about ToE goes astray. It seemed only appropriate after the last time debating with certain others.
Your playing a game of semantics already. What a #$%$#@ joke.
Goodbye
How is asking you to clarify your position that beneficial mutation discredits evolution killing the discussion? Refusing to explain your argument is killing the discussion. Pointing out that you made a fallacy is not, nor is pointing out that you're using an inconsistent definition, unless you want to concede that you have nothing else to add to your defense because that's just how weak it was to begin with. And complaining that it's my fault that you have no other rebuttal to make is not very responsible as a debater.
I have not once found a definition of recombination that matches what you are saying, and if you are ever going to try to convince anyone here that your definition is in accordance with the standard use of the term recombination as it is used in biology and evolution (as that is what we are talking about here), you'd better cite it. The only one who ever suggested that genetic recombination is a mutation was you, and you are wrong on the account that recombination (as used in the proper evolution context) does not involve any change in an individual's DNA sequence, and if anyone is making a strawman argument off of it, it's you.
Recombination, as the term implies, is not a change in any individual's DNA sequence, but the matching of and recombining of separate DNA sequences from different organisms in order to create an entirely new DNA sequence that will belong to a separate organism. That's not what I call a change; it's more like copy and splice.
You have demonstrated to me that you don't even understand what you're quoting. What this definition tells me is that the resulting combination of genes that the child eventually ends up with does not represent either parent. Now if you've forgotten what you learned in biology in grade 11 or 12, or you never took it, here's a crash course on how that works. Normally, most organisms like animals contain multiple sets of chromosomes. During reproduction, the cells that are involved in this process split so that there are several sets of fragments of chromosomes (how exactly this works varies from species to species). However, only some of these fragments are passed onto the children of the parents, so it would clearly be nearly impossible to have the exact same chromosomes of any one parent; the child's chromosomes contain a mixture of fragments from both parents. (In the case of most mammals, they have two sets of chromosomes, which split into two fragments, and only one of these from each parent is passed on to the child). So of course the child's genes don't look like the parent's.
And independent assortment refers to the fact that the genes you get from your parents affect what traits you'll have independently. The genes that determine a cat's fur color, for example, does not affect the genes that determine the length of its tail.
Either way, this definition in no way supports the notion that a recombination involves the change of an individual's DNA. It perfectly agrees with my original explanation of recombination, in that it is a mixing and matching process; not a mutation.
So now we got that out of the way lets go back to the topic at hand of creationism in the classroom. Now I have been taught religion in school but only because my basic school (dutch school system is probably a bit different from most countries) was christian however this consisted of one hour on Fridays and wasn't much more then the teacher reading the same few bible stories over and over again and I never felt like they were trying to convert me to Christianity (or maybe they were just really bad at it).
My continuing education was all secular and frankly not much time was spend on Christianity other then it showing up in history classes about the dark ages.
Anyways while searching for evidence for and against evolution (don't google the exact phrase that will lead to christian propaganda sites with arguments debunked years ago) I came across some interesting study about different religions and their acceptance of evolution within the USA. Apparently amongst Buddhists and Hindu's agree with the statement: "Evolution is the best explination for the origin of human life" with 81 and 80% respectively. Jews are surprising 3rd with 77%.
The larger USA religions seem to have significantly lower percentages with Catholics at 58% and mainline protestant at 51% and evangelicals at 38%.
The lowest are the Jehova's witnesses with 8%.
Which makes me wonder from which religion do the people who push for creationism in the science classroom come? My guess is evangelicals but since I'm not American I'd like to ask people who know more about this.
Source:
Pew research religious landscape study 2007
My continuing education was all secular and frankly not much time was spend on Christianity other then it showing up in history classes about the dark ages.
Anyways while searching for evidence for and against evolution (don't google the exact phrase that will lead to christian propaganda sites with arguments debunked years ago) I came across some interesting study about different religions and their acceptance of evolution within the USA. Apparently amongst Buddhists and Hindu's agree with the statement: "Evolution is the best explination for the origin of human life" with 81 and 80% respectively. Jews are surprising 3rd with 77%.
The larger USA religions seem to have significantly lower percentages with Catholics at 58% and mainline protestant at 51% and evangelicals at 38%.
The lowest are the Jehova's witnesses with 8%.
Which makes me wonder from which religion do the people who push for creationism in the science classroom come? My guess is evangelicals but since I'm not American I'd like to ask people who know more about this.
Source:
Pew research religious landscape study 2007
Well Drachnon I will explain it you the same way it was explained to me at the time, and as far as I am aware this information is still relevant/correct.
As you may or may not know, Catholics have predominantly embraced evolution, Pope John Paul II in fact announced that a belief in God and evolution is compatible. Maany of the best evolutionary scientists have believed in God.
In second-level religion we were taught that the stories of creation etc. in the bible were not meant to be taken literally, but interpreted as moral lessons to be learned. Fundamentalists however believe that every word of the bible is meant to be taken literally, and the Bible Belt region of America is heavily concentrated with fundamentalist churches.
In general it is the combined(though I don't think unified) campaigning of all these churches for creationism to be taught in schools.
As you may or may not know, Catholics have predominantly embraced evolution, Pope John Paul II in fact announced that a belief in God and evolution is compatible. Maany of the best evolutionary scientists have believed in God.
In second-level religion we were taught that the stories of creation etc. in the bible were not meant to be taken literally, but interpreted as moral lessons to be learned. Fundamentalists however believe that every word of the bible is meant to be taken literally, and the Bible Belt region of America is heavily concentrated with fundamentalist churches.
In general it is the combined(though I don't think unified) campaigning of all these churches for creationism to be taught in schools.
im fairly certain in britain religious and moral education (RME or just RE) is compulsory (i think for the first 4 years. i cant even remember 
), tho it doesnt just cover christianity and rightfully so. we need to have some details on these things so that we can decided for ourselves what we want to believe.
it certainly has no place in science classes. science is a system of proof and evidence, religion is a system of faith, and farfetched stories about a magical man in the sky and his son arent proof or evidence by any means.
), tho it doesnt just cover christianity and rightfully so. we need to have some details on these things so that we can decided for ourselves what we want to believe.it certainly has no place in science classes. science is a system of proof and evidence, religion is a system of faith, and farfetched stories about a magical man in the sky and his son arent proof or evidence by any means.
I absolutely concur that religion should be taught in public schools. I attended high school in three different states and none of them offered courses in theology. The closest relatable subject was world mythology, and this was offered under the description of ‘historical literature’.
I believe that it should be mandatory for students to be well learned in the subject of theology and religious history. Religion is what defines culture throughout the world. American culture was formed from the roots of a God-fearing faith. This is as much as most students are taught.
How are you to understand the state of the world without first understanding the people who live here?
I believe that it should be mandatory for students to be well learned in the subject of theology and religious history. Religion is what defines culture throughout the world. American culture was formed from the roots of a God-fearing faith. This is as much as most students are taught.
How are you to understand the state of the world without first understanding the people who live here?
There is a huge and significant difference between teaching about religions, and teaching the creation myth of one religion to the exclusion of all others, and passing it off as a pseudo-scientific explanation of the origins of life. Absolutely children should be taught about the religions of the world. Creationism, however, has no place in a science class whatsoever, which is the focus here.
ElvenAngel
I forget stuff because I had to make room in my he
Religion should be studied in schools--but carefully. Schools should NEVER preach. Learning about all other religions equally without the lesson taking on a needlessly spiritual nature is what I mean. I've had the misfortune of being in a public school that, for one year, had a priest teaching religious studies and his attitude about other religions and views on religion was terrible.
As for creationism taught in school...I don't know, my opinions on it may make people angry.
My opinion centers around the idea that Creationism is not a science. It is part of religious studies or anthropological courses and therefore should be taught within that curriculum, and like I said above, keeping it free of spiritual atmosphere in class. As in not preaching it.
I start taking issue with Creationism taught at schools, when pro-Creationism people start behaving like fanatics and staging ridiculous arguments for teaching Creationism as a science, within the context of Biology. My issue taking goes up a level when, at the same time, regard evolution/Darwinism as 'just a theory' and start acting patronizing, as if the believers of science and scientific theory are morons.
I'm not exaggerating; my own brother, who I know loves me a lot, made me cry when I was in high school when he dismissed my big Biology project on the evolution of the human species, telling me that evolution is a lie and we are all in fact little clay dummies.
Thankfully in Greece people have not gone to that point of teaching Creationism in Biology, but the notion that it actually happens elsewhere makes me rather sad. I've heard and read people try to treat Creationism like a science and they sound so pathetic and charlatan-ish that it makes me visibly cringe. The human species is only 2000 years old? The planet's only 5000 years old? Exactly who are they trying to kid?
I feel like they're liars when they talk of their theories that something massive and impressive like the Grand Canyon could've been carved outta granite by one body of water in under a century--or that evolution cannot be proven.
The funny part is that we've proven the baseline of Darwin's theory and we've improved upon it--and we're still working on it. There's substantial, real hard evidence to his ideas; something you can see and touch and study from all angles rather than just read out of a book--a book written by men. Books can lie. People can lie. Fossils can't lie. Genetic lineages can't lie.
Both books and fossils though, can be interpreted the wrong way. Fossils often are, but because scientists go back over them, they come up with new theories and new ideas and some of those turn out to be right. Books though, are usually wrongly too, but for some reason, people insist on believing that initial reading and refuse to accept that a book may have a different meaning.
I hold the Bible in respect, but I do not believe it is historically or scientifically accurate. It's a spiritual book, not a scientific dissertation or a historical document.
Creationism should be taught--but in the context of religious studies. It should never get within a 50-mile radius of Biology and sciences.
The fact that people will contest this in court, insulting scientists and non-believers and teaching kids wrong ideas about science makes me wish someone would hit them on the head with a reality/logic hammer and ask them what they're trying to achieve with this sort of behavior.
As for creationism taught in school...I don't know, my opinions on it may make people angry.
My opinion centers around the idea that Creationism is not a science. It is part of religious studies or anthropological courses and therefore should be taught within that curriculum, and like I said above, keeping it free of spiritual atmosphere in class. As in not preaching it.
I start taking issue with Creationism taught at schools, when pro-Creationism people start behaving like fanatics and staging ridiculous arguments for teaching Creationism as a science, within the context of Biology. My issue taking goes up a level when, at the same time, regard evolution/Darwinism as 'just a theory' and start acting patronizing, as if the believers of science and scientific theory are morons.
I'm not exaggerating; my own brother, who I know loves me a lot, made me cry when I was in high school when he dismissed my big Biology project on the evolution of the human species, telling me that evolution is a lie and we are all in fact little clay dummies.
Thankfully in Greece people have not gone to that point of teaching Creationism in Biology, but the notion that it actually happens elsewhere makes me rather sad. I've heard and read people try to treat Creationism like a science and they sound so pathetic and charlatan-ish that it makes me visibly cringe. The human species is only 2000 years old? The planet's only 5000 years old? Exactly who are they trying to kid?
I feel like they're liars when they talk of their theories that something massive and impressive like the Grand Canyon could've been carved outta granite by one body of water in under a century--or that evolution cannot be proven.
The funny part is that we've proven the baseline of Darwin's theory and we've improved upon it--and we're still working on it. There's substantial, real hard evidence to his ideas; something you can see and touch and study from all angles rather than just read out of a book--a book written by men. Books can lie. People can lie. Fossils can't lie. Genetic lineages can't lie.
Both books and fossils though, can be interpreted the wrong way. Fossils often are, but because scientists go back over them, they come up with new theories and new ideas and some of those turn out to be right. Books though, are usually wrongly too, but for some reason, people insist on believing that initial reading and refuse to accept that a book may have a different meaning.
I hold the Bible in respect, but I do not believe it is historically or scientifically accurate. It's a spiritual book, not a scientific dissertation or a historical document.
Creationism should be taught--but in the context of religious studies. It should never get within a 50-mile radius of Biology and sciences.
The fact that people will contest this in court, insulting scientists and non-believers and teaching kids wrong ideas about science makes me wish someone would hit them on the head with a reality/logic hammer and ask them what they're trying to achieve with this sort of behavior.
Personally, being Christian...when I went to High School I didn't exactly think it was fair that Darwinism was shoved at me in history class....and that we were tested on the information that we were given.
In my opinion it is a double-edged sword. Its okay for me to be taught something that I completely didn't believe but its not okay for my religion to be brought up at all.
However, I do understand that not everyone believes what I do...and I respect that. My point is that if we are all of different religions, why touch on that sensitive subject at all...which is what/who we are dervived from.
If we are of different religions I think the best way of going about studying it is to offer separate classes on the side in the colleges or high schools that way everyone can be as content as possible with what they choose/choose not to learn.
If you want all of your schooling to revolve around the relgion of your choice there are private schools for that...if you can afford them.
With the way schools are and the debate about even letting people PRAY while school is in session....I honestly doubt creationism would ever be taught in schools...at least the way I believe it to be.
In my opinion it is a double-edged sword. Its okay for me to be taught something that I completely didn't believe but its not okay for my religion to be brought up at all.
However, I do understand that not everyone believes what I do...and I respect that. My point is that if we are all of different religions, why touch on that sensitive subject at all...which is what/who we are dervived from.
If we are of different religions I think the best way of going about studying it is to offer separate classes on the side in the colleges or high schools that way everyone can be as content as possible with what they choose/choose not to learn.
If you want all of your schooling to revolve around the relgion of your choice there are private schools for that...if you can afford them.
With the way schools are and the debate about even letting people PRAY while school is in session....I honestly doubt creationism would ever be taught in schools...at least the way I believe it to be.
I know this isn't the topic at hand, but I just wanted to point out that there isn't actually a debate about this, except when it's manufactured by Bible-thumping Christian psuedo-martyrs who have an axe to grind. Any student, teacher, administrator, janitor, whatever can pray in a school at any time in any manner they please (assuming it doesn't infringe on the educational process of other students). It's actually illegal for a teacher or administrator to interfere with that in most cases. What isn't allowed, however, is compulsory prayer led by a teacher or administrator. Because that implies a state-sanctioned religion at the exclusion of all others.