Creationism taught in Libertyville science class

[ytsejam]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...10308_1_creationism-science-teacher-evolution

Libertyville High School officials have confirmed that a teacher was referencing creationism in a science classroom, and said steps have been taken to ensure the religious views are eliminated from the curriculum.

I say win for science, rational thinking, and mostly the students.



Please discuss.

 

[the canadian dream]

I will admit I think both should be taught in schools. Why not see both sides of the debate and maybe teaching both sides would spark some discussion over possible flaws in both theories and spawn more critical thinking in our children? It doesn't always have to be teaching and discussing one over the other.



The problem thus lies in having the right teachers teach these subjects. It's usually not the subjects being taught that are the problem but more so those doing the teaching.



But that's just my simple minds opinion. As one who supports evolution over creationism I still think there is room to present both sides if done so in a respectable and open minded way. Make children think critically, they can handle it.



From the sounds of this small article the teacher seemed to be presenting creationism as fact? That's the other problem. Children need to be taught about what theories are and taught the difference btw fact and theory before even presenting heavy subjects like these. But I guess "theory" doesn't really even exist in creationism does it? As it is a science based term and idea.





"A teacher is teaching that creationism and intelligent design is more relevant than evolution," Sherman said. "You cannot compare and contrast creationism and evolution in a public classroom."



I would like Sherman to tell us why not? Isn't that something you would want to do in a classroom? Isn't one of the rolls of the classroom to generate discussion and to present counter arguments and to compare opinion and theory? I am not saying its the only roll or the most important roll of a classroom but it should certainly be there.



ANYWAYS...this is just going to turn into a religion bashing thread like they always do. I am not sure if I am one who enjoys bashing religion rather than trying to understand it the best I can then applying some sort of rational thought as to try and debunk it. I typically don't have rational thought or the energy though. And the term "religion" does not have an agreed upon definition which never helps. Funk and Wagner may say it has a definition but in the world of anthropology it does not and I tend to lean towards anthropological studies on religion. I don't think any other discipline digs deeper into religion than anthropology.

 

[Sir Mike of Burbs]

Here's your problem with teaching creationism in public schools. Every religion has their own story. So why pick one creationism theory over the other? High school kids are stupid for the most part. Give them something most are probably not interested in and you are screwed. I would be interested in it. But I'm sure 95% of other kids don't care.



So if you do introduce creationism then people will complain about how you are teaching it. Which story, Which god, blah blah blah.

 

[supraman]

I have a problem with creationism being taught but I do not have a problem with intelligent design being taught along side evolution.

 

[Ymono37]

I have a problem with creationism being taught but I do not have a problem with intelligent design being taught along side evolution.

I don't have a problem with both being taught in public schools... I have a problem with the "subjects" they are taught in.



You want to teach creationism? That is a SOCIAL STUDIES topic (and some could argue a Literature topic as well). While you're at it, how about Norse and Hellenic creation myths as well. Or those of the Native Americans and Africans?



Leave scietifically backed (or at the very least scientifically researched) topics to SCIENCE class.

 

[winos5]

I don't have a problem with both being taught in public schools... I have a problem with the "subjects" they are taught in.



You want to teach creationism? That is a SOCIAL STUDIES topic (and some could argue a Literature topic as well). While you're at it, how about Norse and Hellenic creation myths as well. Or those of the Native Americans and Africans?



Leave scietifically backed (or at the very least scientifically researched) topics to SCIENCE class.

Ding.



A religious philosphy course would be good as part of the educational curriculum, provided it explored multiple faiths outside of the big "3" and wasn't just an opportunity for religious prosetylizing. I doubt the public school system could pull it off, however. To much political BS within the system and to much pressure from the public.

 

[Tater]

ANYWAYS...this is just going to turn into a religion bashing thread like they always do. I am not sure if I am one who enjoys bashing religion rather than trying to understand it the best I can then applying some sort of rational thought as to try and debunk it. I typically don't have rational thought or the energy though. And the term "religion" does not have an agreed upon definition which never helps. Funk and Wagner may say it has a definition but in the world of anthropology it does not and I tend to lean towards anthropological studies on religion. I don't think any other discipline digs deeper into religion than anthropology.

Especially the bolded part.

 

[Ymono37]

Ding.



A religious philosphy course would be good as part of the educational curriculum, provided it explored multiple faiths outside of the big "3" and wasn't just an opportunity for religious prosetylizing. I doubt the public school system could pull it off, however. To much political BS within the system and to much pressure from the public.

I would totally support this. Especially for Eastern Civilization... looking back on my formative education, I don't think the schools I went to focused on "Asia" at all.

 

[MassHavoc]

Especially the bolded part.

Most of the time threads go down hill because people come into a civil thread and call it out.

 

[supraman]

Most of the time threads go down hill because people come into a civil thread and call it out.

I say me and Mass wield the Ban hammer with vengeance when someone devolves the thread.

 

[ginnie]

Why is Creationism the "other side"?

There are various scientific theories about that can be debated - The Big Bang Theory, String Theory etc. This can be taught in Science class.



Creationism is not a scientific theory. Don't teach it in Science class. Teach it in Theology class if you have one.

 

[roshinaya]

I have a problem with creationism being taught but I do not have a problem with intelligent design being taught along side evolution.

ID is just repackaged creationism in a try to legitimize it as "science". It's bunk.

 

[supraman]

ID is just repackaged creationism in a try to legitimize it as "science". It's bunk.

Not necessarily

 

[MassHavoc]

Finnally... this should be fun. OUT WITH IT, both of you.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

So what?

 

[TSD]

Not necessarily

Supraman, if the State willingly just let christian creationism in schools, nobody today would have ever heard of the term "Intelligent Design".



Intelligent Design is simply one step in the ladder of trying to get the book of genesis added to a science book.



If they want to teach it in a philosophy class i am perfectly fine with that. In the philosophy classes I took, we discussed many things that would fall into that category.





ID doesn't belong in a science class because there is nothing scientific about it.



"I think thats too complex to have occured naturally" is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested.

 

[ginnie]

Supraman, if the State willingly just let christian creationism in schools, nobody today would have ever heard of the term "Intelligent Design".

Agreed.

Intelligent Design is simply one step in the ladder of trying to get the book of genesis added to a science book.

Agreed.

If they want to teach it in a philosophy class i am perfectly fine with that. In the philosophy classes I took, we discussed many things that would fall into that category.

Agreed.



ID doesn't belong in a science class because there is nothing scientific about it.

Agreed.

"I think thats too complex to have occured naturally" is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested.

Agreed. The fact is, scientists don't say they know how the universe started. The most prevalent theory is the Big Bang Theory, but that doesn't explain how the matter got there to begin with. But they don't go the leap of faith further and attribute it to some divine presence. They will say, "We don't know".

 

[MassHavoc]

haha Ginnie, I don't know why but that made me laugh. breaking it down to agree all the time and then at the end putting agreed and responding... haha sorry I'm out of it today I guess. I keep waiting for you to disagree!

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

This thread was hot until Jako got involved.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Agreed.





Agreed.







Agreed.



Agreed. The fact is, scientists don't say they know how the universe started. The most prevalent theory is the Big Bang Theory, but that doesn't explain how the matter got there to begin with. But they don't go the leap of faith further and attribute it to some divine presence. They will say, "We don't know".

Exactly... who/what created matter?