Should public schools teach creationism in science classes?

Topic:
Education Debates

27 Contributors
in this discussion.

Yes
41% of users

  • Creationism is relevant to science, and I support it being taught in public schools.

    All scientific theories should be taught in public school classrooms. Learning should be an open-minded exchange of various ways to conclude a reason about a subject matter. After all, public schools are protected by rights and amendments which allow the freedom of speech. Creationism is a scientific theory that qualifies to be studied in public schools, because it actually explains the conception of everything, instead of dismissing accounts of existence which can be seen in other scientific theories. Creationism is not an introduction to religion. It is an argument that life and matter comes from something. Due to the complexity involved in such profound creation, it suggests that there has to be a powerful force behind it all. Whether one wants to see religion in it is for them to decide. Besides, giving students a different way to look at the existence of life and matter makes them more balanced individuals.

    Yes SteepSanto68

  • Either they should allow it, or admit that we do not really know for a fact where we started

    Based on hypothesis and guesses to support, evolution is taught to kids as fact. When you look at the 'fossil record' all that is proven is that something lived and died. There is a reason that evolution is still a theory, and not history, it's definetly not science to guess, imagine, and theorize, and the whole theory is based on these things.

    Yes Anonymous

  • I believe they should teach creationism in science class.

    Some would think that creationism is religious ,but its as scientific as evolutionism. In fact a little more. More religions accept evolution than creationism. The fact is both can never be proven. And if evolution were real, we would find a fossil halfway through evolving. (i.e. If a lizard evolved into a bird, there should be a fossil showing a lizard with wings.). But there is not one.

    Yes Anonymous

  • I believe that creationism should be taught in science classes, because both evolution and creationism are theories that should be explored further.

    Creationism should be taught in science classes, because it is one of a few theories as to how man was created. Since it is a popular theory in today's world and can't be disproved at this time, it should be explored and debated in classes.

    Yes BouncyWalter37

  • It takes create faith to believe in evolution

    The chances that spontaneously over billions of years that humans developed from amoeba and along with the right food, water, distance from sun, oxygen, and ability to procreate, are so incredible, that one would logically conclude that there is a creator.

    Yes Anonymous

  • Yes, because all theories on how we got here should be taught.

    When I was in school, because my teacher could not teach evolution or creationism, we watched Fantasia. It was a waste of a class, and we all went home with questions that were never answered, because the teacher wasn't allowed to answer them.

    Yes elinua

  • NOT A debate between Religion and Science!

    I apologize, but everyone who has responded to this question is ignorant of the true facts. The reality is that this is not a debate of who can pull out the most facts that support their view of the origin of the universe. It IS in fact, a debate of two seperate worldviews: one a biblical (creationism) worldview, and the other a secular (evolution) worldview. A worldview is like your own pair of glasses that you see and interpret your world through. When shown the fossil record the an evolutionist would explain it saying that the similarities between all of the fossils explain the theory of evolution, while a creationist would say that it is proof that we have a common creator. How about the dinosaurs? The fact is that they all died in a catastrophic occurance. Evolutionists say that there was a meteor that crashed to Earth and creationists say that it was the flood that Noah and his family survived along with two of every kind of animal (including dinosaurs which are accounted in the bible). I could list so many more examples, but the reality is that all this evidence that we have can be bent either way because of a inconsistent worldview. Now that the neutrality is out of the way... I believe that we do need to have creationism taught in public schools because our scientific evidence supports it. Yes I believe in creationism, however that is not why I want it put into public schools. The United States was founded on the right of free choice. I believe that both sides can be taught, but students need the ability to choose which side they want to be taught. That is the only way everyone on either side can be happy, but in order for this to happen we need to reintroduce creationism into public schools. I am 18 years old, and I believe I have posted the most mature response yet. I understand that this is an extremely heated subject but it can be debated without anger, as I have done. Thanks for reading.

    Yes Anonymous

  • Darwin discounted his own theory

    Those who believe in Darwinism, have a belief system that they simply do not call a belief system. Darwin discounted his own theory shortly before his death. So, if we don't want to use public money to teach a belief system then we should stop teaching evolution as well. But, that would put a lot of evloutionist teachers/preachers out of work. I think it would take greater faith to believe that everything in known space, creation of the planets, species, etc. all just came about by random order. The odds of all of this "just" happening by its own evolution or life on earth begining by some bacteria shomehow surrving after crash landing on earth takes greater faith than believing that a creator put it all together.

    Yes Anonymous

  • Raphael Turrigiano (To "Anonymous")

    I'm perfectly fine with teaching creationism in science class! That is, if they teach EVERY "theory" as to how the universe was created, from EVERY religion. Christianity is not the ONLY religion! Oh, and while we're at it, lets also teach that the holocaust never happened, that the earth is flat, and that we never walked on the moon! On a less sarcastic note, yes, religion should be represented in schools, but either as a social studies class, or as a separate, optional class called, "Religions of the world." Religion does not belong in a science class.

    Yes Anonymous

  • Yes expand students thinking for themselves.

    Yes because if students have to learn about evolution that is something people believe. So why not say creationism is another belief some people believe to be true? Why not be honest with the students and show them that their are other ways or beliefs as to how creation started. And let them decide on their own, instead of shoving down only one way evolution that hasn't really been proven.

    Yes Anonymous

  • No, public schools should not teach creationism in science classes.

    Creationism is a form of religion. Religion is not allowed within schools unless they're private. Plus, there is no proof that creationism ever existed. So, I don't think it's right to fill kids' heads with that kind of stuff. Science is proof. Creationism isn't.

    Yes LorenaH
Voice Your Opinion
No
59% of users

  • No, because creationism is not science.

    Creationism is not science. It is a religious belief. Religious beliefs are not science. If creationism is taught, it should be taught under religion, because it is a concept without the ability to be proved true or false, and has no scientific basis, unlike evolution. While evolution has scientific theories, experiments, and proofs, creationism is basically taken on faith.

    No TickoNest

  • This debate has originated due to religion.

    The only reason why this topic still exists is because evolution has challenged long-held religious beliefs. Evolution can be proven, and creationism can't. There is lots of proof of evolution, like skeleton structure, embryonic shapes, DNA, radio-carbon dating, etc. We can't progress as a society unless we separate religion from school. Religion should only be taught at home, and not at public schools, where everyone comes from a different background, religion, etc.

    No Anonymous

  • Which creationism would you choose, buddist, Hindi, Christian,

    Catch a grip! These are ancient cosmologies not science. The sun does not revolve around earth.

    No Anonymous

  • Belief in a literal Biblical interpretation prevents unbiased observation of nature

    Pure scientific observation should always be done with the expectation that sometimes the unexpected happens. The majority of people who believe in creationism, now often called intelligent design, 'observe' natural processes with the preconceived idea that everything in the Bible is literally true -- they are coming to the task of scientific data collection and observation believing that it will conform with their belief that God created the world in 6 days. This belief forces them to find alternative reasons for why the fossil records, genetic science, and biochemistry are all confirming Darwin's theory of natural selection.

    No Anonymous

  • Why should we teach creationism? Why not flying spaghettiism, or scientology's view of human creation? Who is to say Christianity's view is the valid and most appropriate?

    If parents want to teach their kids something that is unscientific and purely religious, they should put them in a religious or private school. Taxpayer dollars do not support religious teachings to the public, end of story.

    No Anonymous

  • No, because it could cause conflicts in schools and at home.

    In my house everyone is very religious, and I'm a strong believer of science. If they found out i toke a science course instead a religious course i'd be out-casted. Also if religion classes were allowed in school the school system must allow all religion in the school, and then some groups may support one group and create enemies with many more.

    No Anonymous

  • No, because creationism is a religious philosophy and not a scientific theory

    Religion is religion, and science is science. The fact that science causes conflict in some people's religiously-held notions of reality should give them pause for thought. Science is not an "alternate" explanation. It is the only explanation based on evidence. If non-evidence-based feelings and inclinations are to be included in school, then we should also teach witchcraft, astrology, alchemy, and telepathic healing as aspects of the correlating fields of climatology, astronomy, chemistry, and medicine.

    No NikiM5n

  • Public schools should not teach creationism in science class because it is not a scientific theory.

    Public schools are designed to educate students in the current state of knowledge of major fields of inquiry. Science has developed a deep understanding of the processes leading to the current life on earth, based on principles of evolution. While this theory contrasts with religious ideas of divinely-inspired creation, such ideas are outside the purview of scientific knowledge. Such theories are fine for teaching in churches or religious settings, but should remain outside the goals of public education.

    No MiIBoot

  • Whose creation story shall we teach?

    Every religion has a creation story. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are shared by about half of the world's population, giving them a common creation story. However, Hinduism has a different creation story. So do Buddhism, Shinto, Jainism and many animist religions. If creationism is taught in American classrooms, shall Native American stories be taught in addition to the Christian version? After all, their own creation stories have been admitted in court as the basis of being related to Native American remains thousands of years old for repatriation and reburial. If we teach creationism, whose creation story shall we teach?

    No Pir4And

  • I do not feel that creationism should be taught in science classes because while it is a potential explanation for speciation, it is in no sense actual science.

    By definition, science involves exploring questions where a hypothesis can actually be tested through experimentation or collecting evidence. Choosing either a biblical, magical, or supernatural explanation for a phenomenon that can't be proved or disproved by definition isn't science.

    No 54iy4nWiI

  • Schools should not teach creationism in science class as part of the curriculum because it is not science.

    The question is should religion be taught in science class. The answer is no. Religion is based on faith and not anything that can actually be proven. The definition of faith is belief without proof. Science is just the opposite. Science is the practice of proving theories etc. If religion were to be taught in school it should be in religious studies or another similar classroom setting.

    No StahCott

  • Public schools should not be teaching creationism in science classes, as this is not science, and there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.

    Creationism is not science, and has no scientific basis, so to teach it as a valid theory in science classes is irresponsible and breeds ignorance. This is also offensive to those who do not believe in any religion teaching creationism. It's fine to include it as part of religious studies, but this should also be balanced with theories from Hinduism, Paganism etc. Evolution is the preferred scientific theory and has such strong evidence and research to back it up. Suggesting that religious fairy tales should be taught as fact is something that would and should never happen in a developed, forward-thinking country.

    No R053Neddy

  • Public schools should not teach creationism in science class because we all have the right to freedom of religion.

    I do not think creationism should be taught in public schools because it is a religious belief. There should be no "opinions" taught in a public school that should go against any one individual's possible religion. Granted we, as a nation, were founded on Christian values but our forefathers found it fit to place the freedom of religion in our constitutional rights and there is no reason we should not abide by those rights.

    No w00tboycomic

  • Creationism should not be taught in science class because there is no empirical basis for this doctrine.

    Because there is no empirical basis or evidence for creationism it does not belong in a science curriculum. Teach it in a religion class, if anything, but keep it out of science class, where kids in this country are already falling behind the rest of the world. The whole issue is just politically and religiously divisive. No teacher should have to make this unpopular choice either, and face the wrath of the proponents of creationism.

    No Th4Fire

  • Christian creationism is just one religious idea among many; it is not science.

    Public schools should teach science, not religion. "Creationism" generally means the fundamentalist Christian beliefs about how the earth came to be. There are many other religions and cultures with different beliefs about the origins of the universe, so there is no reason that Christian creationism, which very few people believe as literally true, should be part of a public school science curriculum.

    No N Schroeder 60

  • No, I do not believe that creationism should be taught in science classes because there is no scientific evidence for it.

    I am actually very religious, but I do not see any reason why creationism should be taught in science class. I do believe that theology should be a mandatory class, where students learn about all the major religions and a few of the smaller ones, so that they can make their own choices. Creationism is not something that people want shoved down their throats, and they will never take it seriously being taught that way.

    No I33Horray
Voice Your Opinion

Related Debates

Debate Topics

 
 
Should public schools teach creationism in science classes?
Top of Page
© 2010 Juggle, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Encyclopedia & Reference Resource