There are 10 choices, 25 votes for ennoia's debate

If we teach Creationism as 'alternative' scientific theory, shouldn't we, logically, also teach...

Alchemy as 'alternative' Chemistry

Wiccan Healing as 'alternative' Medicine

Astrology as 'alternative' Physics...

And, more importantly, in our classes of religious studies, shouldn't we also teach the argument from science as 'alternative religious theory'?

Thus spoke Richard Dawkins.

Our educators and government ministers argue that teaching Creationism, and the argument from Genesis, as an alternative to the widely accepted view from science is culturally inclusive and open-minded.

This is all very well, but by this exact same logic shouldn't we also teach the above stated alternatives too?

And why, if we're including a religious theory in a science class are we not allowed to include a scientific theory in a religious studies class?

After all, it does seem fair...doesn't it?


  • Creationism is not a science

    It's hugely illogical to teach Creationism as science.

    By no means am I criticising Creationism, because Creationism is a perfectly viable system, only, it is not one that holds under the strict rules that science adheres to, like logic, reason and proof.

    Science and Creationism are two entirely different systems, so it's no wonder that when you subject Creationism to the laws of science, it looks worthless. Exactly the same thing happens when you subject science to Creationism.

    So science answers to logic and Creationism answers to faith. (Faith and logic are opposing systems, but because there is no external reasoning system that can unite faith and logic, it is not fair to say that either is the superior/correct system)

    So really, anyone who thinks Creationism should be incorporated as a scientific theory isn't really doing Creationism any favours - in the science lab, Creationism holds no weight, it just looks silly. (Just as science probably looks very silly if you start talking about science in terms of Genesis)

    I strongly believe that, whilst it is important to teach that there are many ways of explaining the world, we should do so in a way that does not discredit any of our ideas, and that means, teaching science in our science lessons, and religion in our religious studies lessons. Creationism is not falsifiable, and it only makes it look silly when you try and address it as a scientific theory.

    40%  Voted for by DryIce808, ennoia, kai-kat16, gobuggy99, cosmosis. (10 total)
    View 9 comments
  • :

  • You don't have to 'teach' it.

    I think that the concept of creationism--or rather the slightly more vague intellegent design--can be mentioned in science class.

    There is a difference in 'teaching' a subject and mentioning it. My science teacher taught us the theory of evolution and it made perfect sense to me, however she also mentioned that some people believe in the concept of 'intelligent design' meaning a greater being created everything. She didn't go into great detail, but she introduced the idea not as religion but as a sort of debated issue within the theory of evolution itself. She went further to explain that one could even believe in both creationism and evolution, which is what I personally believe in.

    12%  Voted for by tieed, gobuggy99, Weydon.
    View 2 comments
  • :

  • Faith and Schools

    Faith and the facets of our spirituality were never meant for schools. Schools teach facts, especially the science departments, they teach what can be measured and proved. Faith is not a part of this, to trust in creationsism you must have faith, and this sort of faith should be taught in a church, not schools. I'm not saying faith is wrong or even bad, I'm just saying it's place isn't in our public education system.

    12%  Voted for by DryIce808, tycho-D, nanoinfinity.
    View 1 comment
  • :

  • Evolution? Science?

    Hmm...lets see... Creation is definitely not science, as it has never been observed or experimented by anyone. But yet it explains or try to explain the origin of the universe, or should i say its one of the alternatives regarding this issue of origin, for non believers. The interesting part is that evolution, which is taught in science classes can neither be observed nor proven and in many ways contradicts many laws of sciences, but yet is seen as part science. Y so? From the theory of Big Bang, to the evolution of lifeform from a simple organism, there are a lot of doubts and contradictions. Neither is there any logic at all to say that we have any relation with a banana. But yet it is being taught as if it is a fact in schools. I believe every states have a law to say that teachers have to presents accurate "information" while teaching in school, but with that much of doubts and contradictions, can any one says that the infomations are accurate? If so, don't we need faith to also accept the theory of evolution, and if so, should it be considered as science since it involved faith like that which is needed in creationism? Is Evolution a science then?

    8%  Voted for by elijah1980, raseyusmy.
    View 5 comments
  • :

  • exact opposite true
    Faith comes before argument. If I start believing, for whatever reason, all my arguments will be subjective to my belief. If I choose to not believe in a creator, I will argue towards evolution. If there are holes in my argument, I will believe (in evolution) without further scientific proof. The same (or opposing same) holds for Creationism. If I choose to still believe in a creator, despite being convinced due to lack of knowledge by evolutionist arguments, then I will believe in something like for instance "Evolutionary Creationism". All of these variants are subjective to initial belief, and none of them are entirely provable. For this reason the initial statement made could become:

    If we teach Evolution as scientific theory, shouldn't we, logically, also teach...

    Creationism as alternative scientific theory?

    One thing I do know (as I'm biased by my belief in the creator God), is that looking at creation through a child's eyes, God seems a real prospect, even before being influenced by doctrine. Then being confronted by evolution, changes (sadly) this prospect, especially current subjectivity.

    8%  Voted for by raseyusmy, D.H.C.4Life.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • truth and symbolism

    Surely the framework upon which you base your learning functions to clear where your subjectivity obscures the dissemination of information. Whether it be pagan, astrological, religious, or alchemical there is always some truth contained in it even if it is totally subjective mere recognition of that leads on to it's extrapelation. I know that there are a lot of scientific theories that i consider with the same grain of salt that i would some of the most fanatical and way out cult-theories... also my critical senses are tuned to what "rings a bell"... like Archimedes in the bath, sometimes the inspiration must come from somewhere seemingly off of the matrix. Have you heard of biophysics??? My gist on this is that the higher the variety of approaches to a certain problem, the more chances there are of a quick and somewhat holistic solution. As to what "they should be teaching", open-mindedness and the ability to encompass all in your truth, empathy and the skill of communicating.

    Voted for by dewbee.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • creationism

    if people are going to start teaching creationism in schools they should teach every single creation myth from every single religion and culture and not just from genesis (like the japanese shinto creation myth or the hindu myth, etc) because if they do teach the myth only from genesis they would be favoring one religion and that would be against the constitution. i agree with ennoia that it is retarded to teach creationism in a science class. there is no science present in creationism whatsoever. teach it in a different class. for example in my social studies class part of the curriculum is to learn about world religions (ancient and modern)and we have to read the creation myth for them too.

    intelligent design differs from creationism only in that it believes in evolution, but that it couldn't happen just on its own and that a "higher power" had to help. this doesn't really favor any religion because the "higher power could be anything like the abrahamic god/hindu brahma/etc. it still shouldn't be taught in a science classroom because the concept of a "higher power" is not scientifically based. it is based on faith and faith and science are opposites. if they are gonna teach intelligent design, do it somewhere else, aka-social studies.

    Voted for by cosmosis.
    View 4 comments
  • :

  • Science is based on fact

    Science can test theorys of creation through trial and error but it can not test religon. Science is not relion, religon is not science. Church is for religous teaching, and school is for proven education. Religon cant be tested because its based on faith not facts thus not for schools

    Voted for by KarmaChild.
    View 1 comment
  • :

  • scientifically unprovable?

    The final form of all energy is heat, and so because more forms of energy exist than just heat, more energy is being created by an outside source.

    Evolution and Creationism are incompatible?

    Why couldn't God have created creatures capable of evolving?

    Voted for by Door on the Left.
    View 8 comments
  • :

  • I'm game
    The arguement makes sense,if you're going to teach one "alternative" why not teach the rest? I have to say I'm curious.
    Voted for by Paradoxx.
    Add a comment
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →