Foxnews reports:
"The ACLU said its lawsuit will be the first to challenge whether public schools should teach 'intelligent design,' which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power."


The theory of creation is being taught in public schools, so the ACLU is bringing a lawsuit...

Should it be allowed to be taught in public schools?

Do you think it makes a difference whether it's taught in a science class as opposed to a humanities based class?


-Smithers

the·o·ry
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Creationism has not been repeatedly tested and is not widely accepted among the scientific community. Thus, it is not even a theory and should not be taught in the science classroom.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
the·o·ry
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Creationism has not been repeatedly tested and is not widely accepted among the scientific community. Thus, it is not even a theory and should not be taught in the science classroom.


I meant theory by the definition of:

abstract thought; an act or instance of speculating

I suppose you could use the word guess, presumption, or belief if you don't like the word theory.

Originally posted by flyerES
I meant theory by the definition of:

abstract thought; an act or instance of speculating

I suppose you could use the word guess, presumption, or belief if you don't like the word theory.
Okay, good. That's fair. Still, because of the reasons I gave (and you gave), it should stay out of the science classroom.

Another sparkling example of the poor education you get in schools, dammit.

Borg's post on the definition of theory is the correct post. The other definition of theory is what people who have no scientific learning glom on to.

Sorry flyer, but there is NO proof on intellignet design or crationism or Adam and Eve. Nor is it the job of our schools or the scientific community to bend themselves into knots in order to satisfy religious doctrine of the Jesus Junkies.

Be'lal, I love you! Give me a hug!

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Another sparkling example of the poor education you get in schools, dammit.

Borg's post on the definition of theory is the correct post. The other definition of theory is what people who have no scientific learning glom on to.

Sorry flyer, but there is NO proof on intellignet design or crationism or Adam and Eve. Nor is it the job of our schools or the scientific community to bend themselves into knots in order to satisfy religious doctrine of the Jesus Junkies.

Actually I was just starting a post b/c I wanted to know what others thought on the issue. And obviously whatever school you've attended hasn't done you well in the area of performing simple research. Please make sure you're right before questioning my education next time. As stated in the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary my definition is also correct. Second definition below:

Main Entry: the•o•ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi-&r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION


If it's too hard for you to understand a single word having more than one definition then maybe you will understand what I'm saying when I speak of theory with one of these words: guess, presumption, belief, principle, idea, conjecture, or speculation.


-Smithers

Originally posted by flyerES

The theory of creation is being taught in public schools, so the ACLU is bringing a lawsuit...

Should it be allowed to be taught in public schools?

Do you think it makes a difference whether it's taught in a science class as opposed to a humanities based class?

So what you're asking boils down to --"" Do you think it makes a difference whether it ("it" being the theory of creation) is taught in a science class as opposed to a humanities based class?""

You have gone to some length to reiterate the point that you are here using the word *theory* in the context of *speculation*.

So;.........No.

A theory that is pure speculation about the world being "created" thru the workings of some supernatural agency should NOT enter into any scientific teaching.

OTOH, a theory, like the Theory of Evolution, that has been repeatedly tested and is widely accepted by the worldwide scientific community can be presented in the science classroom.

flyerES, thank you very much for the dictionary definition. Now ignore it. Scientific theories don't follow the dictionary definition. A scientific theory is what borg defined. You're giving us bullshit. A scientist would never follow that definition, it's not withstanding. Any theory other than a scientific theory is useless, pointless, and ignored. If your education was so great, you should know that. Creationism is not a theory. It is merely a guess from a book. It should never be taught in schools.

Florida has similar problems.

Currently there is an initiative being steamrolled in the state Legislature to open state funds for Religious schools. This is contrary to the Florida Constitution which states no public money will be used for religious programs. For example, a pre-k program bill passed in special session last week with provisions for religious discrimination. This is wrong.

Last month a court ruling invalidated the Florida Governor's school voucher program (scholarships) for the same reason.

I was using the word in a different context as to how you were interpreting it. I know its not used that way in a science class dumb-as$. If you would read the rest of the posts you see that I wasn't using it to describe a scientific theory. I was asking whether it would be taught in a science or humanities base class. This post is over b/c I have 16 year-olds questioning my education that can't even read!!!

So do you want our schools teaching "speculation"?

Let me point out that in science, speculation or guessing that hasn't yet been substantiated by proof or experimentation is called a hypothesis. If the hypothesis is then found to be supported by significant testing and experimentation, it becomes a theory. Which is why it irks me when someone trys to refute evolution by saying it's just a theory.

Creationism isn't a scientific theory and so there's no room for it in a science class. There is absolutely no need to teach children hypotheses.

any teaching of religous beleifs belongs in a history classroom, or when students are trying rto learn about each others heritage. it is to be presetned as a beleif, as part of someones culture, to be respected, surely, but NOT as fact. bottom line. religion has no place in a science classroom.

Originally posted by WhammyBar
any teaching of religous beleifs belongs in a history classroom, or when students are trying rto learn about each others heritage. it is to be presetned as a beleif, as part of someones culture, to be respected, surely, but NOT as fact. bottom line. religion has no place in a science classroom.

I agree 100%. If the class is about history or cultures, it's ok to learn that "many christians believe in creationism." But the words "God created day and night and he saw that it was good." shouldn't be in a science book. Just because a book says something doesn't make it a theory.

I wish that high schools would teach theology. So that students would get an understanding of all the great religions. But I doubt the Christian right would go for that. T

I was using the word in a different context as to how you were interpreting it. I know its not used that way in a science class dumb-as$. If you would read the rest of the posts you see that I wasn't using it to describe a scientific theory. I was asking whether it would be taught in a science or humanities base class. This post is over b/c I have 16 year-olds questioning my education that can't even read!!!
If you don't want to look like the dumbass you are, don't use the word theory. Your definition of theory doesn't exist in the real world.


Currently there is an initiative being steamrolled in the state Legislature to open state funds for Religious schools. This is contrary to the Florida Constitution which states no public money will be used for religious programs. For example, a pre-k program bill passed in special session last week with provisions for religious discrimination. This is wrong.
Our constitution is overloaded with shit now... for all we know the people will pass an amendment to change the usage of state money... or to give Jeb supreme rule over all. After a Constitutional amendment about bullet trains... I'm not sure what the Florida people aren't stupid enough to do..

Originally posted by Echo2
I wish that high schools would teach theology. So that students would get an understanding of all the great religions.

I wish that high schools would teach critical thinking.

So that America's youth would understand that belief in supernatural entities ---which is the foundational belief necessary to accept the major religions in vogue in America today-- has zero evidence to support it.

It doesnt really bother me if its taught in science class or not.....

the only thing that bothers me is that Darwinism...aka evolution...is taught as fact, while there are still holes throughout the whole theory. The main feeling i get from people is that evolution is fact, when its far from it. I hope science books in the future remember to include "This is just a theory, and cannot be proven."


I guess there is two ways to look at everything......

Neither creation theory nor evolution theory can be proven.....so they are both in the same boat

OR

evolution has more facts to back up its theory than creationism does....therefore it is the accepted alternative.

I guess my question is....is a loss a loss? or do you take into account how many points you lost by?

Originally posted by Decka
I guess there is two ways to look at everything......

Neither creation theory nor evolution theory can be proven.....so they are both in the same boat

OR

evolution has more facts to back up its theory than creationism does....therefore it is the accepted alternative.


You seem to consider "evolutionism" and "creationism" as two opposed but equivalent scientific theories.

Sorry, but creationism is not a scientific theory. It has been created by religious activists to oppose the evolution theory that made their simplistic view of the Bible obsolete. It is a religious position that has nothing to do with science - but that was very smartly turned into a mockery of science, with enough pseudo-scientific vocabulary and "facts" to make the non-specialist doubt.
Fortunately, apart from the USA or some muslim countries, nobody gives a shit about it.

Now, about evolution - it's not because it's called a theory that it cannot be proven. Theory in the scientific acceptance does not mean "unproven speculation" but rather " system".
To be considered valid, a scientific theory must pass various tests. It has to be supported by factsn and it also has to be refutable - which means a fact contradicting this theory is enough to show it is not valid. (Note that there is a big difference between a fact contradicting a theory and a hole in this theory - there will always be some)

So far, every single discovery in geology, genetics, paleontology and biology since Darwin has reinforced the evolution theory, which no scientist would now reconsider. Exactly like the gravity theory : what Newton found more than 2 centuries ago proved to be right.

What still is a debate issue in the scientific community is the exact evolution process, its rate and other points. But not evolution in itself. Period.

Originally posted by Decka

I guess there is two ways to look at everything......

Neither creation theory nor evolution theory can be proven.....so they are both in the same boat

OR

evolution has more facts to back up its theory than creationism does

You could say that.

Evolution ---with many, many decades of ongoing experimentation and testing--- has virtually millions of facts supporting it.

And Creationism has ......uhhh....lemme see here.....there's.......uhhhh.....counting, counting, counting...........eerrrrrmm......ahhhhhh....oh YES!.....here it is...........ZERO facts supporting it.

Originally posted by astrapol2

Sorry, but creationism is not a scientific theory. It has been created by religious activists to oppose the evolution theory that made their simplistic view of the Bible obsolete. It is a religious position that has nothing to do with science - but that was very smartly turned into a mockery of science, with enough pseudo-scientific vocabulary and "facts" to make the non-specialist doubt.


umm....creationism wasn't "created" to oppose the evolution theory.....creationism was around long before the evolution theory ever existed.

For all the "i must see to beleive folks"....i definitely understand if you dont like creationism. The whole adam/eve, garden of eden thing is impossible to "prove". But there is scientific evidence to back up some biblical stories. I know they found what is believed to be noah's arc frozen in some mountain....i read about that one awhile ago. Im on my way out, ill try to follow up with a link or what not.

Originally posted by Decka
The whole adam/eve, garden of eden thing is impossible to "prove". But there is scientific evidence to back up some biblical stories.

True.

It is also the case, however, that many of the Biblical tales are patent nonsense----such as donkeys speaking in human tongue, people living inside whales for three days, and a flood that covered every mountain on Earth yet somehow was later "drained away".

Now, given the fact that SOME Biblical tales are scientifically supported, yet SOME are obvious myth and fantasy, what does THAT say for the veracity of the entire tome as a whole??!?

It demonstrates that the "perfect" book of the Christian religionists is FAR from "perfect"......and thus by extension, that no "perfect" nor omniscient entity was its author.

Something like Survey Of World Religions can definitely be taught at public schools. Not creationism, it is the idea of a specific religion--you have Christian schools for that.

I could really care less if somebody teaches theology. I would just want students to know the concept of evolution so they can make their own decisions if it's right or wrong.(but if they did teach it it would be all religions)

i think it would be a really good idea for everyone in public schools to have atleast a cursory basic knowledge of the major qworld relgions. it would certainly create a more understanding climate in this country, and perhaps if we woul learn about other cultures we wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them and so willing to decimate them.

Originally posted by WhammyBar
i think it would be a really good idea for everyone in public schools to have atleast a cursory basic knowledge of the major qworld relgions. it would certainly create a more understanding climate in this country, and perhaps if we woul learn about other cultures we wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them and so willing to decimate them.

Yes

If you are going to go that route, i think you should at least be expected to understand the dominating religions in this region..thus teach...or should i say, "introduce" creationism in science class. Look at language...people only learn the dominating one, english. Its not saying Japanese and Russian are any worse, but its what is around us.

Originally posted by Decka
If you are going to go that route, i think you should at least be expected to understand the dominating religions in this region..thus teach...or should i say, "introduce" creationism in science class. Look at language...people only learn the dominating one, english. Its not saying Japanese and Russian are any worse, but its what is around us.

I understand what you're saying, but that subject may be too hot to touch(the whole dominating religion thing). That probably wouldn't fly with our government. And it's a little more serious than a language, but since the dominating religion around here is christianity, I'm all for it. If you mean for a class to learn about the religion, I think it's a great idea. It would be kind of weird to have theology teachers at a public school.

Originally posted by Decka
For all the "i must see to beleive folks"....i definitely understand if you dont like creationism. The whole adam/eve, garden of eden thing is impossible to "prove". But there is scientific evidence to back up some biblical stories

You just prove my point. Creationism has nothing to do with science but with trying to prove that the Bible is right.

When a biologist studies living beings and their evolution, he doesn't try to prove the Bible wrong. He just tries to explain natural phenomenons. And that leads to the evolution theory.

Now, all the "creationist" leiterature has nothing to do with that scientific purpose. Its main aim is to support the Bible.
In some cases it very clever and well done, and it effectively shows some parts of the Bible have historical coherence. But it is not a scientific work, even if it sometimes uses scientific language.

Now, to react to Whammybar's proposal : I agree that knowing and understanding all major raligions is important and that should be taught in school, in a respectful way.

But in science class, creationism should not be present, not more than the Scientolgy's fantasy about human being being the incarnation of alien spirits, or than Rael's hypothesis that mankind were created in laboratory by aliens.

Originally posted by astrapol2
You just prove my point. Creationism has nothing to do with science but with trying to prove that the Bible is right.

When a biologist studies living beings and their evolution, he doesn't try to prove the Bible wrong. He just tries to explain natural phenomenons. And that leads to the evolution theory.

Now, all the "creationist" leiterature has nothing to do with that scientific purpose. Its main aim is to support the Bible.
In some cases it very clever and well done, and it effectively shows some parts of the Bible have historical coherence. But it is not a scientific work, even if it sometimes uses scientific language.
Exactly right. What creation "science" does is take a conclusion and searches for evidence in favor of it. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. What you do in the scientific method is you make a hypothesis, you experiment, examine the data, and come to a conclusion based on ALL the data. Creation "science" is not science, period.

To put it simply: creationism shouldn't be taught in public schools. I remember hearing about it way back when, but it was covered as something the older religious community believed in because of the hackneyed explanation we all got from Sunday school when we were youngsters. The teachings weren't really meant to be taken all too seriously, and it wouldn't surprise me if it were covered the exact same way nowadays.

You know, it's kind of funny...overly religious entities have taken shit from the "intellectually superior" group of liberal elites for being sub-par, by almost every intrinsic measure, for their backwards beliefs, but yet, almost all of the religious prep schools are known for being of a much higher caliber than the standard institutions most of us learn at. Go figure...

Maybe it's just a matter of selection rather than quality of teaching. It's easy to get good results with kids from upper social groups than with kids from the ghetto (while the last are often as intellignet but lack time to learn and a supportive family)

I don't know if I buy that theory wholeheartedly. The argument of heredity vs. environment still leaves me pondering potential outcomes. I say it's akin to breeding racehorses: it's in the blood. The odds of an intelligent person marring another intelligent person are drastically higher than an intelligent person marring a troglodyte. The average person is a moron, and given that immutable certainty, the chances of an average male siring a smart child are inherently less than that of someone whose innately brighter doing the same thing. Typically, with intelligence, comes money (although, not all the time), and with that, the chances of that child's intelligence being higher are increased as well. This is just a logical assumption, but certainly not a blueprint for success, or a guarantee that those children will be smarter 100% of the time…

1) Creationism is a religious belief. It should not be taught in public schools......Don't parents teach their children about their specific religious beliefs anymore?

2) Evolution is taught as THEORY in public schools. It is NOT taught as fact. Check out your public schools curiculum before making such statenents.

Critical thinking skills and an overview of the worlds major religions and cultures would be nice to have students learn. However with the"no child left behind" rules, schools are forced to teach only what is in the tests set up by the federal governemnt so they can continue to get funding.