'teach evolution instead of creationism'
[ support:54% : certainty:51 ] · [31 replies] ·
[0 comment]
-
support 100% · Creationism is not science...moderated to 100%; argued down by 0%
by seraphblade on 2005-09-29 20:35:21...and while that does not mean that it is wrong, it does mean that it is not a scientific theory, following the scientific method, and therefore does not belong in a science class, any more than a poetry reading does. The objective of a science class is to teach students how to utilize the scientific method to formulate and test theories utilizing the scientific method. Bringing in a religious view which does none of these things does not further that aim.
If one wants to teach comparative religion in the context of a social studies, sociology, or history class, it may be appropriate, as religion and religious beliefs do figure heavily into many historical and sociological phenomena. But it is not science. -
oppose -100% · Re: Creationism is not science...moderated to 0%; argued down by 100%
by anonymous on 2005-11-10 15:14:59The Scientific Method which all hold as the best way of determining facts, does not prove evolution, nor does it disprove it. The reasons for this it that the beginning of the world has not been observed, and it cannot be simulated in a laboratory. Both theories should be taught, as both, in one way or another, have legitimacy.
|
supporting arguments
0% ·
[make argument]
no supportive arguments over 0%
|
opposing arguments
0% ·
[make argument]
by BruceLHill on 2005-12-04 05:47:12
You're correct in that we that can't prove that God didn't create the world 5000 years ago complete with a full fossil record and genetic evidence of evolution, or that God may or may not have guided evolution so it wasn't just random chance. The point is that those questions are ones of faith.
Science classes should teach what the evidence shows, and leave the supernatural connection, if any, to religious instruction or comparative religion classes.
by anonymous on 2007-08-24 01:26:33
By that logic, you could also say we should scrap History lessons from the classrooms since it is not directly 'observable'.
It is not because I cannot observe quarks that it means it doesn't exist. The question is not wether it is observable, but wether it is verifiable and wether it is verified. (and falsifiable) And it is verified. (microevolution is observable, btw) I think teachers (not science class) should be able to choose wether they give creationism, but if they choose so, they have to bring it as it is (not a fact, not a scientific theory, based on faith) and be critical of it (as should they be critical over everything thought, btw)
by anonymous on 2007-08-24 01:26:38
By that logic, you could also say we should scrap History lessons from the classrooms since it is not directly 'observable'.
It is not because I cannot observe quarks that it means it doesn't exist. The question is not wether it is observable, but wether it is verifiable and wether it is verified. (and falsifiable) And it is verified. (microevolution is observable, btw) I think teachers (not science class) should be able to choose wether they give creationism, but if they choose so, they have to bring it as it is (not a fact, not a scientific theory, based on faith) and be critical of it (as should they be critical over everything thought, btw) |
Powered by Debatepoint.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.