Creationism in Schools?

[Rydrum2112]

Just read Dover vs Kittzmiller and you will see why creationism & ID don't belong in schools. Also the fact that Sum1 said "evolution is just a theory" clearly has no idea about science. A theory in science does not have the same meaning as theory in everyday language. Its a word game played by creationists.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

This is a very good thread. I am not an athiest I am however an augnostic.

I do believe that Creationism should be taught in our schools. There are other significant reasons to teaching this subject than just the information of religions and belief.

First of all in my country.....America.....Creationalism is one of the main building stones that powered our country from the very start. Hence the line "one nation under god." However I dont believe it should be taught in science class because its true that itself is not a theory, allthough debatebly faith in religion could be argued as a theory because technically most religions teach that faith is the the ladder for religion. you can not disprove something that's rules are interpreted to have required faith. I think that the theory of religion is the belief in faith. Anyway this thread is not about the definition of "theory".

The end result is that in america religion is a huge aspect and part of our country for a long time and the growth of our country has been affected and sometimes dependent on these religions, and we would be denying our children valuable information that doesnt only allow them to choose for themselves but also valueable information about the bases of our country. Its an undeniable history and important part of our country.

I believe that it is wrong to celebrate creationist holidays such as christmas and easter and not teach the background of these holidays in schools.

However I seriously dont think it should be done in a science classroom, perhaps american history or world history.

 

[Rydrum2112]

First of all in my country.....America.....Creationalism is one of the main building stones that powered our country from the very start.

No, it was not.

Hence the line "one nation under god."

You realize that was added in the 1950s...

 

[Sum1sgruj]

No, it was not.



You realize that was added in the 1950s...

You do realize the symbols on currency, the free masons, why the British wanted to get away from England, etc. right?

To think that religion isn't the building block of the U.S. and it's laws is quite a denial complex.

 

[Hera Ledro]

Just read Dover vs Kittzmiller and you will see why creationism & ID don't belong in schools. Also the fact that Sum1 said "evolution is just a theory" clearly has no idea about science. A theory in science does not have the same meaning as theory in everyday language. Its a word game played by creationists.

First of all in my country.....America.....Creationalism is one of the main building stones that powered our country from the very start.

No, it was not.

Hence the line "one nation under god."

You realize that was added in the 1950s...

Your posts lack any evidence or support. I am not a mod, and will not pseudo-mod, but I will caution you that you should back up your claims and make more substantial posts if you hope to engage in a proper debate. One-liners and simple claims will do your credibility no favours.

In fact that caution could go out to many of the debaters here, and I would refer us all to the Debate Fallacies Thread. Many arguments tend to be slipping into some of these fallacies, perhaps the most common being red herrings, non sequiturs, and argumenti ad hominem (is my plural form right here for argumentum?).

Now, as for my actual responses.

First of all in my country.....America.....Creationalism is one of the main building stones that powered our country from the very start. Hence the line "one nation under god." However I dont believe it should be taught in science class because its true that itself is not a theory, allthough debatebly faith in religion could be argued as a theory because technically most religions teach that faith is the the ladder for religion. you can not disprove something that's rules are interpreted to have required faith. I think that the theory of religion is the belief in faith. Anyway this thread is not about the definition of "theory".

I'll elaborate a bit more on what I think Rydrum was getting at in his reply. America itself was not based on creationism, rather it was based out of a faith which believed in creationism, but if you were to go out and survey 100,000 Americans, I would predict that more than half would at least consider evolution to be true, and some of them hold the belief (not necessarily in error) that evolution works with creationism. There are many different interpretations of creationism, and not all of them must be necessarily literal.

You raise an interesting point about religious theory, one that I hope I do justice in fleshing out. A question that arises for us all to consider is what makes religious theory any less plausible or credible than scientific theories? The difference between religious and scientific theories is that one is grounded in faith - which is rooted in the idea that select people have or can obtain a mystical connection with the divine - and therefore in what we may call the 'mystical' sense that most people are not born into; the other is based entirely in senses common to everybody. Something that is often overlooked is the fact that Christians, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and indeed members of every conceivable human religion are subject to the sensory perception that scientists have; another thing overlooked is that many scientists - including those who support evolution wholeheartedly - are in fact religious, and just as firmly planted in faith as they are in reason. Reason itself must be taken on faith, for it is true that our senses can lie and we can only trust them (ergo we have faith that our senses paint an accurate picture for us), so we have to be careful when discussing reason vs. faith, as both play a significant role in the subjective credibility and plausibility of evolution and creationism.

What I am getting at is this: religious theories which are theorized by religious people may very well be as veridical or as credible as theories proposed by scientists, and that one proposes to be based in an exclusive 'mystical' sense whereas the other engages the senses that are available to everybody. If we are to assume equal validity between creationism and evolution, then it is easy to see why evolution is 'winning out' as it were: evolution appeals to and includes a much broader audience, an audience that can connect with it as readily as the Pope can with the divine through his readings.

Does this make your point clearer?

The end result is that in america religion is a huge aspect and part of our country for a long time and the growth of our country has been affected and sometimes dependent on these religions, and we would be denying our children valuable information that doesnt only allow them to choose for themselves but also valueable information about the bases of our country. Its an undeniable history and important part of our country.

One might argue that America is much more grounded in science than it is in religion. Admittedly North America was 'founded' in religion, but it is far from the most mono-religious of countries. In fact, despite its melting pot ideals, America (and its mosaic counterpart Canada) is an extremely diverse and multicultural country. Attitudes towards these cultures are, perhaps, more apparently racist and xenophobic in America, but there is still the fact that it is a country that many people are willing to migrate to because it allows them to keep their culture to a reasonable extent (this is subjective; some may disagree with this statement, but that is for another debate; I know I disagree with this).

Yes, religion is an important part of our history, but that doesn't mean that we should be glorifying it in schools. Hitler is a part of Germany's history, and I can guarantee that much of its historical curriculum demonizes him. Just because it is historical doesn't mean it is good; it is a fact, but facts are amoral; they are neither good nor bad, they just are.

I believe that it is wrong to celebrate creationist holidays such as christmas and easter and not teach the background of these holidays in schools.

Depending on the holiday, it depends if you interpret it as a religious holiday or a commercial holiday; there is no such thing as a 'creationist' holiday as you say. I disagree that we should not celebrate commercial holidays - Easter and Christmas, as examples, are now far more well-known due to their personal icons (the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus respectively), and are more immersed in the capitalist commercial world than they are in the religious world. Christmas is now a time we spend with family and friends exchanging gifts; while the original message has not been lost, it has certainly taken a backseat to the commercial message (opinions on this are best taken to another debate) and to the social message: respectively, buy things and love your family. But there is no such thing as a creationist holiday as you put it; there are religious holidays, but that does not necessarily mean that they are creationist or celebrate creationism (there's no World Birthday, as an example).

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

You do realize the symbols on currency, the free masons, why the British wanted to get away from England, etc. right?

To think that religion isn't the building block of the U.S. and it's laws is quite a denial complex.

Creationism and religion in general are far cries from each other. And religion being a 'building block' of our laws is not necessarily a good thing.

so we have to be careful when discussing reason vs. faith, as both play a significant role in the subjective credibility and plausibility of evolution and creationism.

The difference between reality and faith is that reality doesn't disappear when you don't believe in it. There's no support for faith, you can't corroborate faith with evidence, and faith is entirely subjective. Faith exists independent of reality whereas reason and science are entirely dependent on it.

We do not need faith in our perceptions, otherwise repeatable experiments would not be so.

The more I think about Creationism, the more I dislike the notion of it being 'okay' to believe in it. Sure, it's your choice, but to do so is to completely ignore reality. God and religion in general don't normally fall into this as they rest upon unfalsifiable claims (and I've mentioned before that no matter how much we know, god can always exist in the margins), but Creationism is in direct opposition to actual evidence. It's like denying the moon landing or the Holocaust (I don't mean to go Godwin's Law on this, but it's the best example I have of people believing in something completely contrary to reality). You think whatever you like, but that doesn't make it any more correct. It's irresponsible and unethical to treat Creationism in schools as anything other than irrational belief. It should get a mention in religion or philosophy courses (maybe a history course) as it is relevant, but not be portrayed as sensible. Because it's not.

This wasn't targeted at you, it was just a thought I had that was relevant to the thread.

 

[Jquestionmark]

You do realize the symbols on currency, the free masons, why the British wanted to get away from England, etc. right?

These things are interesting points, but creationism certainly was not part of the founding of America. Creationism is relatively recent in its current iteration, and didn't even exist at the founding. That, and it's well known that the founding fathers were most likely deists (and even if not deists, certainly not fundamentalists).

To think that religion isn't the building block of the U.S. and it's laws is quite a denial complex.

As has already been said, it doesn't matter if America did contain religion as a building block: that's not necessarily a good thing (I'd say it's a bad thing, personally).

And, even if creationism was part of the founding of America, it doesn't mean that it's better to teach in schools than any other myth. Like I said, we could at least teach something cool, like the Norse creation myth.

The difference between reality and faith is that reality doesn't disappear when you don't believe in it. There's no support for faith, you can't corroborate faith with evidence, and faith is entirely subjective. Faith exists independent of reality whereas reason and science are entirely dependent on it.

Faith and evidence can agree, but unlike science, it is not required - faith and evidence can also completely disagree. Since the stories that faith support are created independent of reality, one way too look at any evidence found for them after the fact is with the simple rule of "correlation is not causation." This is to say: just because we find evidence for a story we made up out of the blue does not mean the story is correct. The order of operations is important here: religion starts with a story and then looks at the world, science looks at the world and then works to create a story that explains it.

We do not need faith in our perceptions, otherwise repeatable experiments would not be so.

If we cannot rely on our perceptions, then there's no point to doing anything ever, since we cannot prove anyone or anything (aside from our own consciousness) exists. I suppose that you could use faith to describe that reliance, but it seems like we'd need two different definitions to faith, since one is about contradicting or ignoring reliable information, and the other is about accepting it.

Actually, I've got a suggestion, why not let religions teach their bizarre myths in school, and legally mandate that all churches must provide equal time to evolution, science, and all myths? This seems like a fair solution.

 

[Hera Ledro]

The difference between reality and faith is that reality doesn't disappear when you don't believe in it. There's no support for faith, you can't corroborate faith with evidence, and faith is entirely subjective. Faith exists independent of reality whereas reason and science are entirely dependent on it.

This assumes that there is an objective reality, which is something it seems we'll have to agree to disagree on. For the purpose of this discussion, we cannot so arrogantly assume that there is an overlying reality that all people experience; the world is viewed through subjective eyes, and how you perceive the world (as evidenced through our differing opinions) is not necessarily how I see the world, nor necessarily how the majority of the world feels. We are all different; neither superior nor inferior nor equal, just different. And that, I feel, is the stumbling block that many people have when they are debating the education of evolution vs. creationism: they assume that because evidence satisfies their fallible senses that the theory is infallible. I believe in evolution over creationism, but I will be the first to tell you that it is an immediately unprovable scientific theory.

Your statement also implies that people who do not view the 'real' world are either at a disadvantage because they cannot support it with evidence. To an extent they do; they can support it with evidence that can only be seen through the eyes of their particular faith. This seems like a fallacy, but compare such an instance to showing a blind child a hollow red ball. The child can feel it - it is round, she says - and can hear the sound it makes when she taps it - I hear an echo, she says - but if you hold that ball away from her or if she refuses to engage it with her other senses then there is no way for her to interact with that ball. For all the child knows there is nothing there, and perhaps she is unable to use certain senses besides her blindness; perhaps the nerves in her hands are dead, or she is deaf and blind, or something else. It is not that the child cannot engage with it, it is that she is being prevented from engaging with it either because of our part or hers.

This example is, I suggest, analogous to our debate concerning God and creationism. For all we who are unable to 'experience' the divine as faithful Christians do know, there is a sense that allows us to communicate with God (or Allah or Shiva/Brahman/Vishnu and their counterparts or any infinite number of religious deities) that we do not have access to, either because it is being refused or because we simply do not wish to engage with it - the latter of which I believe most religious people would support and indeed remains the primary reason for attempted conversion.

Evolution vs. Creationism is often seen as a binary; they must exist as opposites but cannot exist in concert. I disagree strongly not on the grounds that they must necessarily be compatible - that is to say that I do not believe for a moment that these views must be such that they do not invalidate one another - but on the grounds that the two can exist as separate belief forms with equal veridicality, validity, and credibility. One appeals to the world that we presume all people can see - but which, as I have shown, cannot be so readily assumed to be the case - whereas the other may very well appeal to a world that all people could theoretically see but is somehow inaccessible due to human intervention.

This all is an attempt to support my stance in that all cultures can exist in peace - that, in context of this discussion, they can teach their 'theories' (or myths or what have you) alongside scientific knowledge - if they swallow their thrice-damned pride and arrogance. This applies not only to conventional religions but also to newer religious movements: to cults, sub-cultures, organizations, and to the archetypal atheist movement and any other cultural entity you may find. If there is one thing I have learned from my study (besides the fact that you, Angelus, were right and that math is awesome D: ) it is that the world's problems tend to root in anger and arrogance, which are usually spawned from being either proud or greedy. It is this that we must solve if we are to ever see a day where different religions can co-exist in harmony and without fear of others haranguing them into submission - that we can teach creationism and evolution and let the children and their families decide what they want to believe in.

 

[Emyunoxious]

This assumes that there is an objective reality, which is something it seems we'll have to agree to disagree on. For the purpose of this discussion, we cannot so arrogantly assume that there is an overlying reality that all people experience; the world is viewed through subjective eyes, and how you perceive the world (as evidenced through our differing opinions) is not necessarily how I see the world, nor necessarily how the majority of the world feels.

There's no objective reality?

Then why even post? You can't know that anyone else exists.

We are all different; neither superior nor inferior nor equal, just different.

No. In my worldview, I am much superior to you, and everyone else.

And that, I feel, is the stumbling block that many people have when they are debating the education of evolution vs. creationism: they assume that because evidence satisfies their fallible senses that the theory is infallible. I believe in evolution over creationism, but I will be the first to tell you that it is an immediately unprovable scientific theory.

Well, that's true.

Just like Gravity.

And Germ theory.

And the Big Bang Theory.

And Cell theory.

Plate tectonics.

Atomic theory.

Kinetic theory of gases.

Theory of relativity.

String theory.

You know, if you look at the word "theory" long enough, it doesn't even look like a word.

All theories are unprovable.

That's why they're theories, buddy.

Your statement also implies that people who do not view the 'real' world are either at a disadvantage because they cannot support it with evidence. [...] It is not that the child cannot engage with it, it is that she is being prevented from engaging with it either because of our part or hers.

I agree with the analogy that religious people are deaf, dumb, and blind to large portions of reality due to the self-imposed blinders provided by their faith, but I haven't read your post, so here I hope that's what you mean.

This example is, I suggest, analogous to our debate concerning God and creationism. For all we who are unable to 'experience' the divine as faithful Christians do know, there is a sense that allows us to communicate with God (or Allah or Shiva/Brahman/Vishnu and their counterparts or any infinite number of religious deities) that we do not have access to, either because it is being refused or because we simply do not wish to engage with it - the latter of which I believe most religious people would support and indeed remains the primary reason for attempted conversion.

Oh.

oh.

I really didn't want this to be where you were going with this.

So, you're saying that religious people have a ~*~MAGICAL SENSE~*~ that allows them to perceive a part of reality that other people are incapable of being aware of?

I know you're just sort of proposing this, but if you could explain how this works, I would much appreciate it. Is it like other senses? Because we can't just turn off our other senses, you know.

Are atheists born without this sense? Is atheism a disability? If so, I would like my special parking spot.

Evolution vs. Creationism is often seen as a binary; they must exist as opposites but cannot exist in concert. I disagree strongly not on the grounds that they must necessarily be compatible - that is to say that I do not believe for a moment that these views must be such that they do not invalidate one another - but on the grounds that the two can exist as separate belief forms with equal veridicality, validity, and credibility.

In order to make these two compatible, it requires a misunderstanding of both Genesis and the Theory of Evolution.

This all is an attempt to support my stance in that all cultures can exist in peace - that, in context of this discussion, they can teach their 'theories' (or myths or what have you) alongside scientific knowledge - if they swallow their thrice-damned pride and arrogance.

Thrice-damned? These are not the cities of Gorol, the first of the akuma, the first of the fallen exalts. These are human societies, and I, myself, can stand as a testament to the fact that humans will never get along. I am right. They are wrong, and I will fight any invaders who would attempt to change these values.

I will never exist in peace.

 

[Rydrum2112]

I don't think you provided evidence to support how this nation was founded on creationism.
For real history and what our founding fathers actually believed-
http://www.skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html

"This assumes that there is an objective reality, which is something it seems we'll have to agree to disagree on. For the purpose of this discussion, we cannot so arrogantly assume that there is an overlying reality that all people experience; the world is viewed through subjective eyes, and how you perceive the world (as evidenced through our differing opinions) is not necessarily how I see the world, nor necessarily how the majority of the world feels."
There is an objective reality.

What you are talking about is perception of an objective reality- that can be subjective. You little example makes no sense- just because the child can't see the ball doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Well I dont believe you can judge a skeptical website that was built during the area of the internet and compare it with a nation (my home) who was at one time over 95% christian belief. Sure it stands different now, religion isnt such a powerful thing in america and it is not such a large influence as it once was. Yet you would have to be crazy to deny that at one time it was not a prime value of the country. And I am not saying we should teach children to believe in these things, I am saying that they should be taught what our founding fathers believed. Any less is denying the right to our history.

 

[Jquestionmark]

This assumes that there is an objective reality, which is something it seems we'll have to agree to disagree on. For the purpose of this discussion, we cannot so arrogantly assume that there is an overlying reality that all people experience; the world is viewed through subjective eyes, and how you perceive the world (as evidenced through our differing opinions) is not necessarily how I see the world, nor necessarily how the majority of the world feels.

If we're going to say all of reality is subjective, since in my subjective reality all of you are projections of my desire to be entertained, I may as well stop posting. No one outside myself actually exists (and since reality is subjective, and not objective, that is true), so I don't have to feel bad if I steal, injure, or kill.

No, we don't all receive identical information about the world, but this isn't reliable evidence that reality is subjective. This is just evidence that we all have different sensory organs. It doesn't imply inherent subjectivity in the source, just in our perception of it.

We are all different; neither superior nor inferior nor equal, just different. And that, I feel, is the stumbling block that many people have when they are debating the education of evolution vs. creationism: they assume that because evidence satisfies their fallible senses that the theory is infallible. I believe in evolution over creationism, but I will be the first to tell you that it is an immediately unprovable scientific theory.

We're quite aware it's unprovable. There is no scientific theory that is unprovable. All of them in use (such as evolution) are just currently not disproven. Evolution is supported by evidence, though, which is not something we can say for creationism.

Your statement also implies that people who do not view the 'real' world are either at a disadvantage because they cannot support it with evidence. To an extent they do; they can support it with evidence that can only be seen through the eyes of their particular faith. This seems like a fallacy, but compare such an instance to showing a blind child a hollow red ball. The child can feel it - it is round, she says - and can hear the sound it makes when she taps it - I hear an echo, she says - but if you hold that ball away from her or if she refuses to engage it with her other senses then there is no way for her to interact with that ball. For all the child knows there is nothing there, and perhaps she is unable to use certain senses besides her blindness; perhaps the nerves in her hands are dead, or she is deaf and blind, or something else. It is not that the child cannot engage with it, it is that she is being prevented from engaging with it either because of our part or hers.

The problem is, the people with the senses that the child lack could simply be lying to the child. Maybe they don't really have the senses. Maybe there is no such thing as color. The example is interesting, and it is sad that the hypothetical child is unable to see, but if we're talking about her perspective, there's no guarantees that the information she's being given beyond her senses are accurate (especially if the majority of people are blind, which would be necessary to make the example relevant to having a "religious sense").

This example is, I suggest, analogous to our debate concerning God and creationism. For all we who are unable to 'experience' the divine as faithful Christians do know, there is a sense that allows us to communicate with God (or Allah or Shiva/Brahman/Vishnu and their counterparts or any infinite number of religious deities) that we do not have access to, either because it is being refused or because we simply do not wish to engage with it - the latter of which I believe most religious people would support and indeed remains the primary reason for attempted conversion.

This is interesting, but there was an experiment conducted in the 70s that points to religious experience being wholly unreliable. Basically, these "special" experiences are easy to create with powerful hallucinogenics (LSD/shrooms). Not to mention the majority of people with "religious experiences" could have simply been experiencing powerful emotional responses, or had hallucinations caused by deprivation of various sorts.

Evolution vs. Creationism is often seen as a binary; they must exist as opposites but cannot exist in concert. I disagree strongly not on the grounds that they must necessarily be compatible - that is to say that I do not believe for a moment that these views must be such that they do not invalidate one another - but on the grounds that the two can exist as separate belief forms with equal veridicality, validity, and credibility.

What validity or credibility does creationism have? Or, to be more specific, does it have any above any other creation story ever, flying spaghetti monster included.

One appeals to the world that we presume all people can see - but which, as I have shown, cannot be so readily assumed to be the case - whereas the other may very well appeal to a world that all people could theoretically see but is somehow inaccessible due to human intervention.

Or it appeals to a world that doesn't exist. Why should we think that there's anything beyond this world? With all the insanely conflicting ideas of theoretical worlds which don't seem to interact with this one in a reliable or repeatable way, why should we think that any of them do exist? And why any specific one?

This all is an attempt to support my stance in that all cultures can exist in peace - that, in context of this discussion, they can teach their 'theories' (or myths or what have you) alongside scientific knowledge - if they swallow their thrice-damned pride and arrogance. This applies not only to conventional religions but also to newer religious movements: to cults, sub-cultures, organizations, and to the archetypal atheist movement and any other cultural entity you may find. If there is one thing I have learned from my study (besides the fact that you, Angelus, were right and that math is awesome D: ) it is that the world's problems tend to root in anger and arrogance, which are usually spawned from being either proud or greedy. It is this that we must solve if we are to ever see a day where different religions can co-exist in harmony and without fear of others haranguing them into submission - that we can teach creationism and evolution and let the children and their families decide what they want to believe in.

I have a hard time imagining a day in any future where religion and science will be considered of equal value. So long as the evidence we have remains similar to what it is now, and creationism remains religion, and evolution remains science, teaching children creationism will ALWAYS be religious indoctrination. This is not something we should ever condone in schools (not to mention, it's wholly unfair to all other creation stories).

 

[Emyunoxious]

I am saying that they should be taught what our founding fathers believed. Any less is denying the right to our history.

Please tell me which of our founding fathers were Christian, and how that has anything to do with their policies.

Basically, what the fuck does it matter what they believed? It's what they did, the legislation they decided on, that matters.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I think America being a religious building stone for america may depend on where you are at. You can not argue that religion is dying in america, but at one time it was very alive. A prime example is the town I am from which only has 2,000 people yet contains 4 churches. Another example is that ''some'' of the oldest buildings in ameirca are churches. Another is that the King James bible is the second most sold book ever in america. Now I am sure that bible sales have not increased over the last few decades so one could only consider that those numbers were very sufficent at one time.

And I have the right to debate and place my ideas in any type of textile that I want too. This thread can be treated as a debate thread or an opinion thread and I gave my opinion and did not debate with anyone. I answered the question that this thread posed by saying that creationism should be taught in school in america and I think think that christianity holds a lot more culture and value for america than most other religions. You can not argue that if any religion has affected american culture the most than it would be catholisism or christianity, and since your teaching just the basics you wouldnt really need to go too much into depth between the two as they both have similiar values but just percieve them differently.

And I stated it should not be taught in science class....it is not a science. I dont care what town or city you are form in america...THEY HAVE CHURCHES....and its our responsibility to teach children why. point.

I answered the prime article of this thread with my opinion and I am allowed to justify it however I want.

And also when I say founding fathers I am not talking about any person in general....I am talking about the "general public". America at one time was populated by religious people. That was the majority. I garuntee everyone of us who has a line of american tree family members...has members in their family who were religious. That is part of our culture. Its like me wanting to go to germany to seek out my roots. I would want to know everything about my roots as an american as well. Its fair to teach about the attitude and culture that brought us to where we are today.

Free_Lancer2005 Please make sure to use the Edit Post feature in lieu of double posting. Thanks.

 

[der Astronom]

I think America being a religious building stone for america may depend on where you are at. You can not argue that religion is dying in america, but at one time it was very alive. A prime example is the town I am from which only has 2,000 people yet contains 4 churches. Another example is that ''some'' of the oldest buildings in ameirca are churches. Another is that the King James bible is the second most sold book ever in america. Now I am sure that bible sales have not increased over the last few decades so one could only consider that those numbers were very sufficent at one time.

So what? That's appeal to populace, and that says nothing about whether or not we should keep religion, or whether or not a religious idea should be taught in schools. I'm sure Twilight is a popular novel, but that doesn't mean it has to be taught in your English Literature class.

And I have the right to debate and place my ideas in any type of textile that I want too. This thread can be treated as a debate thread or an opinion thread and I gave my opinion and did not debate with anyone.

No one is preventing you from arguing badly, and by the same extension, no one is prevented from pointing out flaws in your argument if they spot them.

I answered the question that this thread posed by saying that creationism should be taught in school in america and I think think that christianity holds a lot more culture and value for america than most other religions.

Only if you're Christian. I don't think you can speak for anyone else who is not Christian. Christianity does not officially represent America. I don't think it's in the Constitution. It just happens to be the religion most people in America believe in.

You can not argue that if any religion has affected american culture the most than it would be catholisism or christianity, and since your teaching just the basics you wouldnt really need to go too much into depth between the two as they both have similiar values but just percieve them differently.

And I stated it should not be taught in science class....it is not a science. I dont care what town or city you are form in america...THEY HAVE CHURCHES....and its our responsibility to teach children why. point.

It's called separation of church and state, and it exists for a good reason. The personal beliefs of a person are not things that need to be taught to other people, and that's exactly why religion stays out of school unless it's under the context of history (and that's where you learn about the Crusades and the Inquisition; interesting stuff indeed). There's absolutely no reason why Christianity requires special pleading for this; it's just appeal to populace otherwise, and if you really cared about what Christianity says, you can look that up on your free time, as other posters have suggested.

I answered the prime article of this thread with my opinion and I am allowed to justify it however I want.

And we are all allowed to point out the flaws in your justification however we wish.

And also when I say founding fathers I am not talking about any person in general....I am talking about the "general public". America at one time was populated by religious people. That was the majority. I garuntee everyone of us who has a line of american tree family members...has members in their family who were religious. That is part of our culture. Its like me wanting to go to germany to seek out my roots. I would want to know everything about my roots as an american as well. Its fair to teach about the attitude and culture that brought us to where we are today.

That's what history class is for. Anything more than that and it becomes personal, and that's your own responsibility; not the school's.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

well I am not hear to debate other peoples opinions. everyone has the right to their own.

I stand that creationism should be taught in school, that it should be taught in another class besides science class, and that in my opinion christianity holds more influence on the american culture than other religions do, so I believe when teaching creationism they should teach it in a history class and put more emphasis on christianity than other religions for obvious reasons that it has affected american culture more than others.

And of course it would be appealing to the populas....the populas of america shapes the future of america, and religion has a bigger affect on those around us than "twightlight".

Thats my viewpoint and nobody else is going to change it.

 

[Emyunoxious]

well I am not hear to debate other peoples opinions. everyone has the right to their own.

Why are you on a forum about debating opinions?

I stand that creationism should be taught in school, that it should be taught in another class besides science class, and that in my opinion christianity holds more influence on the american culture than other religions do, so I believe when teaching creationism they should teach it in a history class and put more emphasis on christianity than other religions for obvious reasons that it has affected american culture more than others.

First amendment, dude. That's setting up an establishment that is giving preference to one religion over another.

That's illegal as fuck, buddy.

 

[der Astronom]

So you're saying you're not willing to consider other people's comments about your arguments or opinions?

I disagree that Christianity needs more emphasis in history; there are already more than enough ignorant Americans who don't know anything about the cultures outside of them, and it's a problem because they have closed their minds off to other cultures and other people's ways of thinking and living, and they probably don't care about these people; that's probably also why they're not even aware of what their own government is doing to other countries.

 

[CassinoChips]

First amendment, dude. That's setting up an establishment that is giving preference to one religion over another.

That's illegal as fuck, buddy.

No need for the language.

And that actually has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment simply prevents the Federal government from establishing a national religion. And since public schools are handled at the state level, and not the Federal level, the First Amendment really doesn't come into play. In fact, you could make the argument that it actually supports the reverse. The concept of free exercise would prevent the Federal government from stepping in and preventing a school from placing more emphasis on any one religion in the curriculum. But then they would hold no sway regardless, since it's a state level issue.

 

[der Astronom]

But then what about separation of church and state? It does exist, right?

So if schools are handled at the state level, and separation of church and state exists, then it shouldn't even be teaching religion at all.

They can probably teach that the people in the Medieval ages believed in Christianity, and that their governments were based off of it, but I doubt they'd be required to teach more than what is necessary in order to know what Christianity is (that there is a central belief in a god and a savior, Jesus).