Should it be taught in schools along with evolution, or should it be covered up in Intelligent Design theory, or should only evolution be taught - for public schools that is. (In the States)
Re: Creationism in Schools
Well, there are two kinds of students. Kids who care, and kids who don't care. I am more familiar with the ones who do care.
Re: Creationism in Schools
No it shouldn't be taught in schools as a science subject. Maybe in a religion class, but that's it.
Re: Creationism in Schools
Intelligent design is not a scientific principle. It is religoous gobbledegook, read scripture garbage, under the veil of psuedo-science. while the chinese and indians and japanese are splciing adn dicing genes, these fking religious *******s are setting American education system back 60 years. If one other person talks about God and his master plan, I swear to god I am going to tear them a new one. Ullu kay pathay!!!
Re: Creationism in Schools
The bush presidency and conservative right is pushing "intelligent design"...surprisinly I'm fine with that....it is what I believe too. Evolution, etc BUT that god guided it all.
Re: Creationism in Schools
^ how did he guide it amelie? There is no debate as to the scientific merits of evolution. Scripture are not evidence of god's hand. Maybe alien's got the ball rolling with carbon atoms in the hot seas..who knows..are aliens god?
Re: Creationism in Schools
It’s fine to BELIEVE it, but your beliefs should not be imposed in a SCIENCE class. Discussing it in a philosophy class is fine but it is NOT science.
Re: Creationism in Schools
actually its a very intelligent step. as for 1st amndement which seprates State with religion they can't support the "Intelligent design theory" so alternate is "creationism".
Re: Creationism in Schools
Capital, by not teaching it you are imposing your belief in Darwinism. I say teach it all with a refrence to god/higher being and let the kids with their parents decide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html?incamp=article_popular
NY times yesterday–Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Correction Appended
In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that “living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”
In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was “guided by a supreme being,” and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.
The poll was conducted July 7-17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of “American pragmatism.”
“It’s like they’re saying, ‘Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.’ It seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the scientists,” said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio.
Eugenie C. Scott, the director of the National Center for Science Education and a prominent defender of evolution, said the findings were not surprising because “Americans react very positively to the fairness or equal time kind of argument.”
“In fact, it’s the strongest thing that creationists have got going for them because their science is dismal,” Ms. Scott said. “But they do have American culture on their side.”
This year, the National Center for Science Education has tracked 70 new controversies over evolution in 26 states, some in school districts, others in the state legislatures.
President Bush joined the debate on Aug. 2, telling reporters that both evolution and the theory of intelligent design should be taught in schools “so people can understand what the debate is about.”
Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, took the same position a few weeks later.
Intelligent design, a descendant of creationism, is the belief that life is so intricate that only a supreme being could have designed it.
The poll showed 41 percent of respondents wanted parents to have the primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who said teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who said school boards should. Asked whether they believed creationism should be taught instead of evolution, 38 percent were in favor, and 49 percent were opposed.
More of those who believe in creationism said they were “very certain” of their views (63 percent), compared with those who believe in evolution (32 percent).
The poll also asked about religion and politics, government financing of religious charities, and gay men and lesbians in the military. Most of these questions were asked of a smaller pool of 1,000 respondents, and the margin of error was 2.5 percentage points, Pew researchers said.
The public’s impression of the Democratic Party has changed in the last year, the survey found. Only 29 percent of respondents said they viewed Democrats as being “friendly toward religion,” down from 40 percent in August of 2004. Meanwhile, 55 percent said the Republican Party was friendly toward religion.
Luis E. Lugo, the director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, said: “I think this is a continuation of the Republican Party’s very successful use of the values issue in the 2004 election, and the Democrats not being able up until now to answer that successfully. Some of the more visible leaders, such as Howard Dean and others, have reinforced that image of a secular party. Of course, if you look at the Democratic Party, there’s a large religious constituency there.”
Survey respondents agreed in nearly equal numbers that nonreligious liberals had “too much control” over the Democratic Party (44 percent), and that religious conservatives had too much control over the Republican Party (45 percent).
On religion-based charities, two-thirds of respondents favored allowing churches and houses of worship to apply for government financing to provide social services. But support for such financing declined from 75 percent in early 2001, when Mr. Bush rolled out his religion-based initiative.
On gay men and lesbians in the military, 58 percent of those polled said they should be allowed to serve openly, a modest increase from 1994, when 52 percent agreed. Strong opposition has fallen in that time, to 15 percent from 26 percent in 1994.
Correction:
An article yesterday about a poll on Americans’ views on the teaching of creationism misstated the margin of error of findings taken from a smaller sample of respondents who were asked about religion and politics, government financing of religious charities and gays in the military. It was 3.5 percentage points, not 2.5.
Re: Creationism in Schools
Darwinism is not a belief, it is a scientific theory, compiled and based on data. You know like the theory of gravity, theories of motion and so on. Where is the data and evidence on creationism? It is no more a BELIEF. When you say that Gabriel talked to Muhammad in the cave, that is a BELIEF. It is based upon faith, not evidence. It’s fine to teach it in a religion or philosophy class, but not a science class.
One must also wonder why this useless argument with religious nuts is taking place in America and not in European countries.
Re: Creationism in Schools
What do they teach in Pakistani public schools in regards to how man came to be? Just avoid it?
Re: Creationism in Schools
The only thing darwisim cannot explain is at the nuclear atomic level. Creationism cannot explain the same either, but religious dogma is impinging upon sound judgement. Intelligent design is not science, and Capitol is right, it should be an optional elective that kids of fundo sihthead parents could take. even idiots need reconfirming.
Re: Creationism in Schools
How is Darwinism theory related to Physics? 
Isn’t term “Darwinism” used to refer to theory of “evolution”?
Re: Creationism in Schools
Captain,
It's not related to physics. I was explaining that these are all scientific theories.
Re: Creationism in Schools
Firstly there are holes big enough that I can drive me Z71 through them in Darwin’s theory and to equate it to theory of gravity is just ludicrous. Amelie is reight you are imposing your belief in that theory and refusing to hear the other side.
Re: Creationism in Schools
But Kaleem, the other side has nothing to base itself upon that is required for a scientific theory. No data, no evidence. When the other side has those things, then it should be listened to. Until then, it’s just some right wing Christian nuts spewing crap.
Please elaborate on the “holes big enough that I can drive me Z71 through them in Darwin’s theory”
Re: Creationism in Schools
I agree that both of these are theories but one can be “proved” by experiments and other cannot so I suggest that don’t mix’em in future.
Re: Creationism in Schools
This is funny, a creationist talking about holes in theory of evolution. Tell me, what scientific proof you have that human beings are created by god. “we made him from dirt..” is not really scientific proof. Give me one proof of creationism’s validity and I will drive a 20 car locomotive right through God.
Captain, theory of evolution has een explained through experiments. Now what?
Re: Creationism in Schools
Actually the theory of evolution can be proved through experiments. That’s why no one has been able to disprove it.