| Should Creationism be taught in school? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 11 2008, 04:47 PM (2,134 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Dec 11 2008, 04:47 PM Post #1 |
|
Deleted User
|
What do you guys think? |
|
|
| 房/-\沃 | Dec 11 2008, 11:23 PM Post #2 |
|
Loquacious to a Fault
|
when did you suddenly become obsessed with this topic |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 12 2008, 12:14 AM Post #3 |
|
Deleted User
|
It's just a question. |
|
|
| 房/-\沃 | Dec 12 2008, 01:26 AM Post #4 |
|
Loquacious to a Fault
|
Fine. Yeah, I guess there's not a whole lot of reason not to throw in Intelligent Design along with the Big Bang as creation theories. Even if it's wrong, it still needs to be taught. Lamarck's theory of evolution is wrong but that is still taught in classrooms, I believe.
Edited by 房/-\沃, Dec 12 2008, 01:27 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 12 2008, 01:27 AM Post #5 |
|
Deleted User
|
There shouldn't be any reason at all. |
|
|
| 房/-\沃 | Dec 12 2008, 01:31 AM Post #6 |
|
Loquacious to a Fault
|
Why censor knowledge? It's one thing to teach Creationism and identify it as incorrect, it's a different story to not teach it at all. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 12 2008, 01:32 AM Post #7 |
|
Deleted User
|
So something with no scientific evidence at all is considered knowledge? Hm, interesting. |
|
|
| 房/-\沃 | Dec 12 2008, 01:34 AM Post #8 |
|
Loquacious to a Fault
|
Uh, yes? Why do you think Lamarck's theory is still taught? |
![]() |
|
| 房/-\沃 | Dec 12 2008, 01:39 AM Post #9 |
|
Loquacious to a Fault
|
It's as important to know the alternatives and explanations as to why they are wrong as it is important to know what's considered right. While learning astronomy, I remember my teacher showing us previous theories like the sun revolving the earth, the earth casts a shadow on the moon, etc. When learning geometry, I remember my teacher challenging us to make a triangle with more than 180 degrees. While learning good writing, I remember my teacher showing us examples of bad writing and why it is bad just as he showed us good writing. Why should science be excluded? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 12 2008, 01:42 AM Post #10 |
|
Deleted User
|
Because it'd cause nothing but controversy |
|
|
| 房/-\沃 | Dec 12 2008, 01:53 AM Post #11 |
|
Loquacious to a Fault
|
It didn't at my school. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 12 2008, 01:59 AM Post #12 |
|
Deleted User
|
what |
|
|
| 房/-\沃 | Dec 12 2008, 02:03 AM Post #13 |
|
Loquacious to a Fault
|
When the creation of the universe was taught to me, there was no outrage or controversy, just discussion. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 12 2008, 02:07 AM Post #14 |
|
Deleted User
|
i dont really feel like arguing about it all that much, but it just shouldn't be taught in secular schools. Separation from church and state Creationism = church |
|
|
| 房/-\沃 | Dec 12 2008, 02:20 AM Post #15 |
|
Loquacious to a Fault
|
You like to throw that phrase around a lot, but I don't think you know what it actually means. Religion should not influence the law, nor should the law influence the practice of religion. You seem to think it means people should never talk about religion ever except in Church. The 1st amendment states, verbatim, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". "Separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution at all. Edited by 房/-\沃, Dec 12 2008, 02:22 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 12 2008, 02:29 AM Post #16 |
|
Deleted User
|
yeah i knowi just wanted to make you type |
|
|
| Deleted User | Dec 12 2008, 02:31 AM Post #17 |
|
Deleted User
|
no this is like asking 'should murder be legal' nobody seriously in the respective fields (law, educational science) contemplates these questions because they are ridiculous and make no sense p.s. lemarckism is a failed scientific hypothesis, and is relevant to evolution, which is why it's taught, and if it is taught in a positive light, the school is in the wrong as this is NOT what is in required curriculum and it should be changed. never use existing flaws as justification for more. |
|
|
| 房/-\沃 | Dec 12 2008, 02:38 AM Post #18 |
|
Loquacious to a Fault
|
The way I was taught evolution was not "This is wrong, this is right." We were introduced to Lamarck's and Darwin's theory at the same time and with no indication of what was correct, and the teacher guided us through an activity and discussion where we found out through ourselves exactly why Lamarck is wrong and why Darwin is right. The teacher never said "Well this is Darwin's theory, blah blah blah, and before that some dude named Lamarck thought up something else and he was wrong." That's poor teaching. With the method we actually did, we could actually understand and say "Oh, Lamarck was wrong because acquired traits do not change DNA blahblahblah." And I've seen discussions over murder in classes, PV. Such as when is it justified, should punishments vary on a case-by-case basis, etc. If you don't argue and discuss these things to get an alternate viewpoint, then thinking will never...get ready for this...evolve. Ba da dum psch! Edited by 房/-\沃, Dec 12 2008, 02:43 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 12 2008, 03:05 AM Post #19 |
|
Deleted User
|
1. you were taught wrong. you are taught what the current accepted scientific theories are, or nothing ever get's done. 2. law definition of murder ie when people get charged with 'murder' 3. im open to alternate viewpoints, unfortunately creationism isn't science and doesn't belong to be taught alongside both accepted and unaccepted or fringe theories and hypothesis' because it wasn't and isn't based the scientific method, critical thinking, and there is no reason it deserves discussion as to why it's untrue or true in a science class. ps found a great website www.createdebate.com unfortunately as it resides on the internet it's primarily liberals arguing about liberal shit so its no fun unless you argue as a conservative |
|
|
| 房/-\沃 | Dec 12 2008, 03:11 AM Post #20 |
|
Loquacious to a Fault
|
I was taught the accepted scientific theories, except I learned why they are accepted above other theories rather than just what the are and they're accepted. Yes, I've heard discussions about the legal definition of murder, what constitutes as murder, how it is legally distinct from other forms of killing, ect. Man, Lamarck's theory had no evidence and was based on no tests. Yet it is still taught. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Theological Debate and Discussion · Next Topic » |






