NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok I am going to keep this simple to start with

Firstly from my point of view teaching creationism in science class is just wrong (note that religion is not science … you can not start with a conclusion that must not be proven false)

But lets assume it starts

Now in the USA the biggest proponents of creationism in the classroom is Christianity

Now I don’t know how creationism became synonymous with genesis


But what if it was taught … what do you think the Christian church would feel about a true creation class … one that went beyond Christianity

In fact if you have to cover all the material the actual bible creation story would probably be pushed back to only about a weeks coverage

Essentially what I am asking is what do you think the church would think about it actually being put in perspective and actually teaching people about other creation stories besides their belief … would they be so hot to support it if they knew it would be covered so little

I think no

Everyone wants their beliefs exclusively to be taught. (including me, including the pilots, including you)

I said elsewhere that it'd be worth including creationism and other pseudoscientific or obsolete theories in a science class if they were taught in their historical context. That would teach kids about the nature and history of science.

But yeah, it'd be interesting to teach a whole class just on the creation stories of various cultures. This site -- school.discovery.com/lessonplans/ pdf/bookofgenesis/bookofgenesis.pdf has an interesting lesson plan, and I've heard of a book that... ah, here it is: "In the Beginning: Creation Stories from Around the World."

Um how do you seperate the christianity from creationism? You would still be saying god created everything but you just wouldn't call him a chrisitian god? Would it be in the social studies department or the science department?

Um how do you seperate the christianity from creationism? You would still be saying god created everything but you just wouldn't call him a chrisitian god? Would it be in the social studies department or the science department?
now I dont agree with the science thing ... I could see it as a social studies but even so lets assume that there is such a class or will be ...

how would christians feel if they wernt sure that their beleifs would take dominance

I would be all for teaching it in an optional Religion class...

By the way, check my new sig, I'm still laughing :D

Um how do you seperate the christianity from creationism? You would still be saying god created everything but you just wouldn't call him a chrisitian god? Would it be in the social studies department or the science department?

I think you missed the point.

If you teach the Christian creation story, then you must teach EVERY creation story. Christianity could only get a week's worth of focus because there are so many different creation stories from other religions. This would all be too impractical anyway.

I think you missed the point.

If you teach the Christian creation story, then you must teach EVERY creation story. Christianity could only get a week's worth of focus because there are so many different creation stories from other religions. This would all be too impractical anyway.

We'll I don't think anybody would have a problem with that as long as you made sure it was clearly explained to everybody that it was an anthropology or a theology course not a biology course. It might cause some trouble in highschool but I'm sure it would make a perfectly acceptable college course. You could learn how the great warrior marduk severed the serpent tiamat and created the heavens and earth from the two halves of his body and stuff like that. It would be a pretty fun class. Maybe a waste of time but fun.

1) Many history classes already include a general run down of various religions. I recall being proud of knowing about Quetzcoatl in 6th grade before the teacher had started the lesson. Its just that they don't -dwell- on the stuff, since you can't actually DO anything with it.

2) Any religion-oriented class prior to college would have people claiming that certain religious faiths shouldn't be addressed (Satanism, Paganism, and Wicca would get seriously hacked on), teachers would breeze through things they didn't believe (or rant about them), parents would have their children made exempt from a class that taught other religious information, and uncountable numbers of religions would be skipped based on a thousand biases and ignorances. Especially if you ONLY had creationism as the classes's point: Some religions add to the provable world rather than deny it.

3) I honestly don't know if I'd trust most Americans today with it. I was physically attacked in HIGH SCHOOL for simply pointing out that some who believe in Adam and Eve believe that there was also a Lilith who came before Eve. And I was twice the kid's size, and heading towards my 'intimidating' phase.

Honestly, let's try to agree on sex ed before we deal with this junk. :fluffle:

It might cause some trouble in highschool but I'm sure it would make a perfectly acceptable college course.

Say, that's a good idea for a random elective selection... I'll be starting college next year.

I should also add I don't know how christians would react too such a class. They are such a hyper sensitive bunch these days, complaining about everything from Telletubies to Saving private ryan. If you taught kids that other religions besides Christianity were equally valid I'm sure Jerry Falwell or some other Schmuck might start a crusade against it. Especially if you portrayed Islam a little tooo favorably!

1) Many history classes already include a general run down of various religions. I recall being proud of knowing about Quetzcoatl in 6th grade before the teacher had started the lesson. Its just that they don't -dwell- on the stuff, since you can't actually DO anything with it.

2) Any religion-oriented class prior to college would have people claiming that certain religious faiths shouldn't be addressed (Satanism, Paganism, and Wicca would get seriously hacked on), teachers would breeze through things they didn't believe (or rant about them), parents would have their children made exempt from a class that taught other religious information, and uncountable numbers of religions would be skipped based on a thousand biases and ignorances. Especially if you ONLY had creationism as the classes's point: Some religions add to the provable world rather than deny it.

3) I honestly don't know if I'd trust most Americans today with it. I was physically attacked in HIGH SCHOOL for simply pointing out that some who believe in Adam and Eve believe that there was also a Lilith who came before Eve. And I was twice the kid's size, and heading towards my 'intimidating' phase.

Honestly, let's try to agree on sex ed before we deal with this junk. :fluffle:

Wow... very nicely put. I rarely agree so much. This always re-encourages me that at least some other people out there are reasoning the issues out. :)

I'm surprised the hardcore religeous people (or wackos, or whatever ya'll call yourselves) haven't tried to get "evolutionism" recognized as a religeon. Then it couldn't be taught in schools!

Then you could throw your ever-so-righteous finger in a liberal's face and yell HAHAHAHA! GOOCHED!

or whatever that is in Latin, whatever floats yer ark.

I'm sure several have entertained the thought. Of course, I like to have enough faith in them that they'd realize how idiotic that'd be. The only way to get evolution recognized as a religion would be to do away with all of science, which kind of defeats the purpose of getting up to your electronic alarm clock early in the morning, taking the train into Washington DC, riding in a cab and paying the cabbie according to his electronic meter, and making a speech in front of a bunch of rich old men over a microphone.

Comparitive Theology taught at the High School level?

Wow, I know I would've signed on for it had it been offered at my High School...with my Unitarian RE, I'd've aced the subject.

But you can't teach comparitive theology in biology or physics classes - besides, that's the domain of the Socratic Method, and of Mathematics. Let the sciences remain in the hands of science.

Christian-based Creationism is just one more set of religious mythology for students to learn about, analyze, and compare with other faith-based Creationist models, with no lesser or greater weighting involved for evaluations. To teach otherwise is to risk offense. If this remains unsatisfactory to the sudents or their parents, perhaps they should seek supplemental RE from their own religious organization, rather than seek to insinuate their particular needs on the student body-at-large.

Just sayin'...

i say trash all religions!


GO COMMUNISM!

lol, jking...


dont kill me religion nuts

Hell I went to a Catholic high school and we had a class like that sort of, it wasn't focused on creation stories but more on some of the major religions (and philosophies) around the world. It was pretty interresting ecspessialy when we started debating morals and politics.

Comparitive Theology taught at the High School level?

Wow, I know I would've signed on for it had it been offered at my High School...with my Unitarian RE, I'd've aced the subject.

But you can't teach comparitive theology in biology or physics classes - besides, that's the domain of the Socratic Method, and of Mathematics. Let the sciences remain in the hands of science.

Christian-based Creationism is just one more set of religious mythology for students to learn about, analyze, and compare with other faith-based Creationist models, with no lesser or greater weighting involved for evaluations. To teach otherwise is to risk offense. If this remains unsatisfactory to the sudents or their parents, perhaps they should seek supplemental RE from their own religious organization, rather than seek to insinuate their particular needs on the student body-at-large.

Just sayin'...
Oh I agree

But at least from my perspective they are pushing so hard not for a fair class but rather another venue to tell the Adam and Eve story … not to actually teach kids about religion or specifically creation and what millions and billions of other people do/have believed

Meh, Both the Big Bang and Creatonism has giant, gapeing holes in them. I, am Christan, but i do belive in the Big Bang, but, cocidering there was NOTHING there to exsplode, some Higher Power( God ) had too put it there. Its that simple. Now shut up, Merry Christmas!

Ok I am going to keep this simple to start with

Firstly from my point of view teaching creationism in science class is just wrong (note that religion is not science … you can not start with a conclusion that must not be proven false)

But lets assume it starts

Now in the USA the biggest proponents of creationism in the classroom is Christianity

Now I don’t know how creationism became synonymous with genesis


But what if it was taught … what do you think the Christian church would feel about a true creation class … one that went beyond Christianity

In fact if you have to cover all the material the actual bible creation story would probably be pushed back to only about a weeks coverage

Essentially what I am asking is what do you think the church would think about it actually being put in perspective and actually teaching people about other creation stories besides their belief … would they be so hot to support it if they knew it would be covered so little

I think no

Those stories ARE taught - in world history, mythology, and literature classes.

We don't need Bible study (anybody's bible) in public schools, anymore than churches, synagogues, temples, or mosques need biology classes during worship.

In the UK, religious studies class are multi faith and comparative. You learn about all major world faiths core beliefs and customs.

The Empire of Presidency already does this with great success.

According to the theory of creation, there is no such thing as dinosaurs, and the earth was created a mere 3-4,000 years ago.

Science has proven that the universe is more than 15 Billion years old.

I'm surprised the hardcore religeous people (or wackos, or whatever ya'll call yourselves) haven't tried to get "evolutionism" recognized as a religeon. Then it couldn't be taught in schools!

Then you could throw your ever-so-righteous finger in a liberal's face and yell HAHAHAHA! GOOCHED!

or whatever that is in Latin, whatever floats yer ark.
Don't give them any ideas.

According to the theory of creation, there is no such thing as dinosaurs, and the earth was created a mere 3-4,000 years ago.

Science has proven that the universe is more than 15 Billion years old.
Actually about 6000 years ago. You get that number by adding up the age when each person in the OT died starting with Adam and counting up until an event associated with a known date.

Um how do you seperate the christianity from creationism? You would still be saying god created everything but you just wouldn't call him a chrisitian god? Would it be in the social studies department or the science department?

All cultures, all religeons have creation myths. Shintao teaches that the seas were created from the tears of the Moon after the Sun ate her children. The salt in her tears formed the land.

The Babylonians had a different creation myth, as did the Egyptians, as do, probably the Buddhists and the Russians, and the Swedish and the Native Americans.

"Creationism" isn't all about the Judeo-christian concept of how the world was created, wlthough thats all they want taught. Every culture has their own stories. Who's to say which is taught in school? How would the Christians feel if instead of their chilcren being taught that the world magically appeared over the course of seven days due to the word of their god, that their children learned that the seas were the tears of the Moon, or the Iroquois myth of how the Great Spirit was making man by baking clay in an oven. Those that were underdone became white man, those that were burnt became people of color, and those that were perfectly cooked to a red-gold were the Iroquois.

I think it would be fascinating to have all the myths taught as a part of education. I don't think the science classroom is the right place. I believe it is more of a Social Studies/Multicultural Studies curriculum.

I'm surprised the hardcore religeous people (or wackos, or whatever ya'll call yourselves) haven't tried to get "evolutionism" recognized as a religeon. Then it couldn't be taught in schools!

Then you could throw your ever-so-righteous finger in a liberal's face and yell HAHAHAHA! GOOCHED!

or whatever that is in Latin, whatever floats yer ark.

Don't give them any ideas.

Last I checked, they weren't really open to any.

According to the theory of creation, there is no such thing as dinosaurs, and the earth was created a mere 3-4,000 years ago.

Actually, I believe their stance is ~6000 years old, and they believe that the dinosaurs existed *with* humans and were on the ark. They generally believe that there are still dinasaurs today - they're just hiding.

Science has proven that the universe is more than 15 Billion years old.

Never, ever, say "proven" when you talk about science. Science cannot prove anything. The correct way to say this would be:

Science has provided evidence that the universe is most likely more than 15 billion years old. The currently available evidence leads to that conclusion.

According to the theory of creation, there is no such thing as dinosaurs, and the earth was created a mere 3-4,000 years ago.

It all depends on which "theory" of creation. If you toss out reason and critical thought as your guideline, then anything goes. There's the ID version, the mainstream Protestant version, the LDS version, the revised LDS version,...

In science when two people disagree, they argue it out and determine which theory is the most reasonable and teach that. In faith, since they cannot argue since they have no standard of evidence, all ideas are equally plausible. So if we're going to teach 'alternative theories,' this class would take FOREVER, even if you only spent 10 minutes on each one.

In most of Europe there is really no debate on this (I don't know of any cases of it), religon gets suborned to science, as it should be.

-

Science should not be clouded by religon, religon belongs in sociological studies along side politics and psychology (the real basis of religon :rolleyes:)