[_ Old Earth _] Should creationism be in public schools?

[OzSpen]

What do you think of this latest move against creationism in the UK? 'Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools'.

Do you consider that this is a scientifically valid view, with evidence, that should be freely taught in the public school system?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

What do you think of this latest move against creationism in the UK? 'Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools'.

Do you consider that this is a scientifically valid view, with evidence, that should be freely taught in the public school system?

If you're asking about Young Earth Creationism in particular than no.

In the article it is defined as.

"any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution,"

This seems to point to YEC in particular, which does not believe in a biological history of life past 6,000 years ago. I personally believe in Theistic Evolution, which by some definitions a form of Creationism, but it would not line up to the restrictive definition they provided. As I believe natural biological processes can account for history, diversity and complexity of life on Earth. I think these natural biological processes are what God used, to put it simply.

Note: This is not an opportunity to debate evolution vs. YEC with me in detail and there are people better suited for that debate on the science forum.

I would agree with their decision though.

 

[Deborah13]

What do you think of this latest move against creationism in the UK? 'Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools'.

Do you consider that this is a scientifically valid view, with evidence, that should be freely taught in the public school system?

I don't think it should be taught in the public school system however if a student brings it up stating it as their view that is their right to do so even in the public school system.
I wouldn't want someone who doesn't even believe in God to be teaching my child creationism.

 

[clark thompson]

I believe in creation but the world will not embrace this so it will not be taught in public schools because of this.

 

[TOG]

If I remember correctly, one of the reasons evolutionists gave for teaching evolution in schools at the Scopes Monkey Trial was that neither creation nor evolution had been proven, and therefore it was not right to teach only one theory and exclude the other. They should both be taught until one is proven to be wrong. That still applies. Neither theory has been proven. If one is to be taught, they should both be taught. Personally, I would prefer that neither be taught, and that the question of origins, which is much more philosophical or religious than scientific, should be left to the parents to teach.

The TOG​

 

[Deborah13]

If I remember correctly, one of the reasons evolutionists gave for teaching evolution in schools at the Scopes Monkey Trial was that neither creation nor evolution had been proven, and therefore it was not right to teach only one theory and exclude the other. They should both be taught until one is proven to be wrong. That still applies. Neither theory has been proven. If one is to be taught, they should both be taught. Personally, I would prefer that neither be taught, and that the question of origins, which is much more philosophical or religious than scientific, should be left to the parents to teach.

The TOG​

Thanks TOG, I wondered about that too, both being theories, neither proven. I didn't know about the SMT.
I would also prefer neither be taught.

 

[OzSpen]

If you're asking about Young Earth Creationism in particular than no.

In the article it is defined as.

"any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution,"

This seems to point to YEC in particular, which does not believe in a biological history of life past 6,000 years ago. I personally believe in Theistic Evolution, which by some definitions a form of Creationism, but it would not line up to the restrictive definition they provided. As I believe natural biological processes can account for history, diversity and complexity of life on Earth. I think these natural biological processes are what God used, to put it simply.

Note: This is not an opportunity to debate evolution vs. YEC with me in detail and there are people better suited for that debate on the science forum.

I would agree with their decision though.

My question was: Do you consider that this [creationism] is a scientifically valid view, with evidence, that should be freely taught in the public school system?

There are scientifically qualified biologists, chemists, etc who consider there is valid evidence for creation. Why should that be excluded from a valid perspective on the evidence?

 

[ezrider]

First, I don't believe the debate between creation and evolution has any bearing what so ever on my salvation or in my Faith in Christ. And I do not hold that the two theories need to be mutually exclusive either. To accept the theory of evolution in its simplest of definitions does not require me to reject the idea that it might just be describing the process of God's creation. After all, if you were to consider that we are a new creation in Christ, then you are witness to your own evolution from a carnal being after the flesh to a spiritual being living after the Spirit, and as your new creature evolves, or is transformed by the Spirit of Christ, until you are created in the image of Christ.

A creationist might look a a Model T, and say Henry Ford was a genius, because out of his own thoughts he created a car, and it was good. On the second day, he said let them race! The creationist only needs to know that the car was created. The scientist on the other hand, wants to describe for you the evolutionary processes that transpired culminating in the creation of the car. He might begin this evolutionary journey with mans discovery of fire, his increased understanding of chemistry, physics and applied mechanics. To the evolution of harnessing the power unleashed through science, from wind and water mills, to the development of steam engines to engines powered by combustible gas. All interesting bits of the evolutionary process that culminated in the creation of the car.

So the question that I would ask. As a Christian, would you be opposed to a school that taught creationism, but did so by teaching a model of creationism that aligns itself with the scientific model both in time and scope? Or is the only idea of creationism you will accept is that of a young earth? Does your faith in God hang on this issue?

 

[Deborah13]

So the question that I would ask. As a Christian, would you be opposed to a school that taught creationism, but did so by teaching a model of creationism that aligns itself with the scientific model both in time and scope? Or is the only idea of creationism you will accept is that of a young earth? Does your faith in God hang on this issue?

I don't think this is about an adults faith, this is about children.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

My question was: Do you consider that this [creationism] is a scientifically valid view, with evidence, that should be freely taught in the public school system?

There are scientifically qualified biologists, chemists, etc who consider there is valid evidence for creation. Why should that be excluded from a valid perspective on the evidence?

The scientific method isn't, "it is a valid theory so long as someone well studied believes it." There are very few who embrace Young Earth Creationism, and even fewer with regards to those who make real contributions to science, even though unrelated to this issue.

So I stand by my previous answer, I do not believe it to be a scientifically valid view, that has no evidence from the methods used by scientists and therefore should not be taught in schools. Many here will disagree with me, but this is my honest position.

 

[jasonc]

The scientific method isn't, "it is a valid theory so long as someone well studied believes it." There are very few who embrace Young Earth Creationism, and even fewer with regards to those who make real contributions to science, even though unrelated to this issue.

So I stand by my previous answer, I do not believe it to be a scientifically valid view, that has no evidence from the methods used by scientists and therefore should not be taught in schools. Many here will disagree with me, but this is my honest position.

the mrI was invented by a yec scientist. if origins theories are needed to be able to understand what is in front of us NOW, then why in the next twenty years no mechanic will be able (even now at times) repair a model t? I know that I don't have the experience with the old carbs and magnetos of that day. and that car didn't have hydraulic brakes.

few? I guess it depends where you work and ask. I know some that have worked for the state as biologists that don't believe in evolution, and one whom inspects nuke plants that doesn't believe in old earth cosmology.

 

[ezrider]

I don't think this is about an adults faith, this is about children.

If this is about children, then why would we treat our children as if they must believe in God like he is Santa Claus living in the north pole? Eventually reality sets in and a child's belief in Santa Claus fades away.

 

[Deborah13]

If this is about children, then why would we treat our children as if they must believe in God like he is Santa Claus living in the north pole? Eventually reality sets in and a child's belief in Santa Claus fades away.

Who says everyone teaches their child about Santa Claus?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

the mrI was invented by a yec scientist. if origins theories are needed to be able to understand what is in front of us NOW, then why in the next twenty years no mechanic will be able (even now at times) repair a model t? I know that I don't have the experience with the old carbs and magnetos of that day. and that car didn't have hydraulic brakes.

few? I guess it depends where you work and ask. I know some that have worked for the state as biologists that don't believe in evolution, and one whom inspects nuke plants that doesn't believe in old earth cosmology.

I even mentioned that some of them have made contributions, but that these contributions are unrelated to this issue.

I also made my point, that a scientific view isn't valid based on the people who believe, it but the evidence that supports it.

 

[ezrider]

Who says everyone teaches their child about Santa Claus?

I didn't say everybody teaches their child about Santa Claus; I used it as an analogy of how people expect their children to believe in God. There is a big difference.

 

[jasonc]

I even mentioned that some of them have made contributions, but that these contributions are unrelated to this issue.

I also made my point, that a scientific view isn't valid based on the people who believe, it but the evidence that supports it.

I have an article to read in depth on peer review, evidence that shifts on origins debates constently make one wonder if the theory is valid. my town hold the oldest man in the continent, he was moved to Tallahassee and what is left of him that was recovered is there for study.

 

[Deborah13]

I didn't say everybody teaches their child about Santa Claus; I used it as an analogy of how people expect their children to believe in God. There is a big difference.

Sorry ez, I went back and read your post again. Sometimes I'm rather thick.

We teach our kids what we believe ourselves.

 

[Obadiah]

If I remember correctly, one of the reasons evolutionists gave for teaching evolution in schools at the Scopes Monkey Trial was that neither creation nor evolution had been proven, and therefore it was not right to teach only one theory and exclude the other. They should both be taught until one is proven to be wrong. That still applies. Neither theory has been proven. If one is to be taught, they should both be taught. Personally, I would prefer that neither be taught, and that the question of origins, which is much more philosophical or religious than scientific, should be left to the parents to teach.

The TOG​

Scopes was an American trial and set American case law which doesn't apply to the English education law. I get the point and agree with it. Just wondering does anyone know if there is a similar trial or some similar law in England where this is happening now? Seems if there is, that would prevent them from doing this.

 

[Butch5]

What do you think of this latest move against creationism in the UK? 'Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools'.

Do you consider that this is a scientifically valid view, with evidence, that should be freely taught in the public school system?

What do you think of this latest move against creationism in the UK? 'Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools'.

Do you consider that this is a scientifically valid view, with evidence, that should be freely taught in the public school system?

My concern would be who is teaching it. Do we want unbelievers teaching Creationism?

 

[WIP]

Thanks TOG, I wondered about that too, both being theories, neither proven. I didn't know about the SMT.
I would also prefer neither be taught.

With respect, I do not agree that the Biblical view (creationism) is a theory. I believe it is a fact but unable to be proven in human understanding.