If we are to study evolution shouldn't we look at creationism to decide for ourselves in what we believe and can logically know the difference between the two so kids today have a understanding to both stand points. We study Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and evolution which can be a religion or a branch off of atheism which is technically a religion because you have faith that there is no God so therefore your faithful is saying it and faith has to do with religion. Whether you like it or not EVERYONE has faith.
There are plenty of holes in evolution. No-one understands how gene shifts can change populations of animals. No-one understands how the first life-forms came about, or why they are so complex. No-one understands why the Cambrian Explosion occurred. Creationism explains this much better than evolution. Creationism makes sense of that which evolution does not.
Kids learn literature. Not every story they read are literal facts, and not everything they read is entirely true.
Some people, like myself, actually believe in Creationism, and although it is not accepted by the general 'educated public' it is still a practice that some people believe in, and it shouldn't be disregarded just because scientists disagree.
I think it is helpful for children to learn a vast majority of different beliefs. Besides, evolution is a THEORY.
Evolution has not been proved so it is just a scientific theory. It is important to present all the rioters to kids and give them the chance to make their own decisions based on their own research and beliefs.
There is just as much evidence for creation than there is for evolution.
I really believe kids should be taught both things, evolution and creationism. We need to let them decide for themselves. If they are given an unbiased opinion, then they can choose which they prefer. Giving kids options will keep them from becoming little robots of the people who raised them.
Evolution is science and creationism isn't. It really just comes down to that. If someone wanted to study creationism in their spare time, or in some sort of theological class, than go for it. But it won't be taught as an equivalent to a proven scientific theory.
Evolution has nothing to do with atheism.
Atheism isn't a religion.
These are besides the point, however. Creationism can't be allowed to be taught as truth in public school. The government funds public school, and if the government allows one creation story to be taught, then they must include every creation story.
Since none of these can be proven or verified, they are not science, they won't be taught in science class.
I believe it would be unfair to teach children something which is essentially no more than story book material. What evolution theory teaches us is that, yes, we can make mistakes but we then learn to question why. 'Why did we make the mistake?' 'Where have we gone wrong?' 'Let's go back and revisit this.' It teaches children that it's OK to be wrong sometimes but don't give up. Schools have a duty to teach children cold, hard facts. What their parents decide to teach them at home is up to them.
Creationism has no scientific foundation whatsoever. Therefore, it has no business in a science curriculum at a public school. If it is taught/debated at all, it belongs in philosophy class.
An unfalsifiable assumption based on no positive evidence whatsoever is inherently unscientific. In science, we don't accept the alternative hypothesis (in this case, theism) until the evidence is strong enough to reject the null hypothesis (atheism). The burden of proof is typically less than 5% or 1% probability of the collected data/evidence happening by chance. A 6% probability is still a failure to reject the null hypothesis, and I think it is fair to say that Creationism doesn't come anywhere close to that. This is how science works. However, Creationism goes in reverse, confusing the burden of proof, and hence does not belong in the science classroom.
It's about time creationism dies, when A claim supported by no evidence fights a scientific fact such as gravity or evolution the result will always be one-sided.
"Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man ... Living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money." GEORGE CARLIN
It's as simple as that. If we taught creationism, we have to teach the origin myth to every other religion and culture as well. There are a LOT of origin myths out there, and frankly the schools have better things to do. And creation has no objective data to back it up, so yes, it is a creation myth.
Science is not democratic. Once a fact becomes a fact it is accepted as the best information known, if a fact is proven incorrect or is advanced by peer review, science moves with the next best known imformation. Therefore, you cant teach creationism with evolution because evolution is the best known and accepted process.
Also, how can you teach something that can be neither disproven or proven? In science that is illogical. And if you did teach creatiomism and it was proven false are religious people going to accept it? If not, it is not science.
To be considered "Science", there must be a Research Hypothesis (a claim), as well as a Null Hypothesis (the skeptical side or anti-claim). Until the Research Hypothesis is proven or significant evidence is shown, the scientist must support the Null Hypothesis.
Creationism is a research hypothesis. It is a claim to God creating the Earth. The Null Hypothesis of which would be that God did not create the Earth. Until there is significant supporting evidence that God did create the Earth the Null Hypothesis is not rejected.
(the bible is not sufficient evidence, since most of the information can be proven incorrect)
Evolution has passed this method of skepticism (and therefore can be considered Science), so to should Creationism if it wishes to be taught in a Science classroom.
Sorry it is not as well-made my first one got deleted before i could send it so now i have a short version to sum some of it up. Religion is best taught at home, not as science, and evolution is a fact, since we can easily predict what will happen using it and be right, it should be taught in schools since it is science, but just as a science teacher is not normally as well equipped to take on reading class, he/she is not as well equipped to take on religion in a belief situation. We do not and should not teach scriptures from any kind of bible, sow e should not teach creationism.
Obviously it shouldn't be taught next to evolution because the theory of evolution is scientific whereas creationism has nothing scientific about it. That being said, it definitely has a role in classes where students are taught about religion. In my school we briefly discussed the beliefs of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity in a World History course. It would also be appropriate to have creationism taught in a mythology course in order to compare it to other creation myths.
Creationism isn't the "other side" of Evolution. Creationism is a religious story... There are many religious stories that explain the origin of life on earth. None of them compare to the scientific method that Darwin used, and many have verified. Science is not a fictional story. It's based on hard evidence which stands up to rational inquiry. The place for Creationism is in the Church school- not the public school.