NationStates Jolt Archive

There are a lot of people, some of whom use NS, who campaign for the inclusion of creationism as a possible theory in science curriculum. There exists one major problem with this, aside from the obvious: it is only intended for one part of the curriculum. No matter what all that a bill mandating creationism would do is make there be one day or so when students were told: "Oh yeah, and some people think we came about like this:" The problem is that in a biology class everything taught outside of this brief episode would assume that there is no alternative to evolution. The very science of biology itself is based on this fundamental premise, and whether or not you take time to tell people they can question evolution you can't say they can question every single thing discussed in the whole biology course. All of it is based on evolution, and thus teaching any biology whatsoever is teaching kids to believe in evolution, whatever you tell them earlier. Better to not confuse them, don't you think?

The problem is that in a biology class everything taught outside of this brief episode would assume that there is no alternative to evolution.

This is true. Much of biology assumes evolutionary theory.

The very science of biology itself is based on this fundamental premise, and whether or not you take time to tell people they can question evolution you can't say they can question every single thing discussed in the whole biology course.

This is untrue. To truly teach science, you must make it clear that everything is to be questioned.

This is untrue. To truly teach science, you must make it clear that everything is to be questioned.

True. Kinda picky, but true. Its harder to question in the middle of a class, though. I mean if you get stuff on a test wrong and then just say you disagree with it things could get sticky.

True. Kinda picky, but true. Its harder to question in the middle of a class, though. I mean if you get stuff on a test wrong and then just say you disagree with it things could get sticky.

The test is usually designed to ask you questions about a specific theory. Whether you disagree with that theory or not, you can correctly answer the question pertaining to it.

Granted, most biology students are not yet advanced enough to have any support to question a theory, but the idea should still be there.

The test is usually designed to ask you questions about a specific theory. Whether you disagree with that theory or not, you can correctly answer the question pertaining to it.

Granted, most biology students are not yet advanced enough to have any support to question a theory, but the idea should still be there.

C'est vrai....

BUMP!

Is anyone going to disagree?

C'est vrai....

BUMP!

Is anyone going to disagree?
Mmh... no.

I imagine the creationism class to go something like this:

"Ok, kids, today we are going to learn about creationism. This theory says that some supernatural being created the universe and its laws that gave rise to life on Earth. It has the following evidence supporting it... "

* shuffles some papers *

"Well, back to evolutionary theory... "

The test would be like: "Which one is not a possible creationist model:"
a) Zeus
b) Visnu
c) Cosmic Cow
d) God
e) primordial ooze

Mmh... no.

I imagine the creationism class to go something like this:

"Ok, kids, today we are going to learn about creationism. This theory says that some supernatural being created the universe and its laws that gave rise to life on Earth. It has the following evidence supporting it... "

* shuffles some papers *

"Well, back to evolutionary theory... "

The test would be like: "Which one is not a possible creationist model:"
a) Zeus
b) Visnu
c) Cosmic Cow
d) God
e) primordial ooze


Just to keep this bumped, and as a serious expression of amusement:

lol

:D I learned about Creationism in Religeous Studies. Why don't they teach it in some similar sort of lesson?

Mmh... no.

I imagine the creationism class to go something like this:

"Ok, kids, today we are going to learn about creationism. This theory says that some supernatural being created the universe and its laws that gave rise to life on Earth. It has the following evidence supporting it... "

* shuffles some papers *

"Well, back to evolutionary theory... "

The test would be like: "Which one is not a possible creationist model:"
a) Zeus
b) Visnu
c) Cosmic Cow
d) God
e) primordial ooze

Oh yeah, and just because not much is being said here, three of those are actually not creationist: Zeus never created jack shit; Brahma is the creator, not Vishnu; and primordial ooze is evolution, not creationism.

If it's a serious school that teaches creationism, they would teach Christian version, the Hindu version, the Isamic (though that might be near identical to the christian) version, the major Native American tribes version, the ancient Roman, Hellenistic, Norse, Egyptian...
Um... yea, and so on...

I wonder if the $cientologists would agree to let their "creation mythology" (ie, how we humans came to be here) to be taught in schools...

Oh yeah, and just because not much is being said here, three of those are actually not creationist: Zeus never created jack shit; Brahma is the creator, not Vishnu; and primordial ooze is evolution, not creationism.
Yes, you're right. Actually I think it was Zeus' dad who created the Universe, or was it his grand-dad's second cousin?

Isn't Brahma just the dreamer of Earth, while Visnu is the creator of the Universe or something like that? I should take a look at that again.

But, anyway, you get the gist.

I wonder if the $cientologists would agree to let their "creation mythology" (ie, how we humans came to be here) to be taught in schools...
After paying licensing rights, I guess.

Oh yeah, and just because not much is being said here, three of those are actually not creationist: Zeus never created jack shit; Brahma is the creator, not Vishnu; and primordial ooze is evolution, not creationism.

Not quite true: Zeus created humans (from rocks, IIRC) and the Myrmidons (from ants), but he didn't create the world as a whole- that just kind of emerged from the swirling chaos.

Or something to that effect. Greek myth isn't really into how the world came into being, it's more interested in how the gods messed around with the world once it was in place.

Isn't Brahma just the dreamer of Earth, while Visnu is the creator of the Universe or something like that? I should take a look at that again.


Nah, Vishnu preserves what was already created. Its Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer. Sort of like the three forces in Mage:the Ascenscion.

As for Zeus, depending on the version either his grandmother created the universe or she sprung out of some chaos-thingy. The greeks were more interested in the politics afterwards.

NO!
You've got it all wrong!

It's the three gods of Oden, Vile and Ve (sorry... that's the Swedish spelling of those three Norse Gods names... I don't know what their names are in English) that created the earth, it's waters and the sky from the body of the giant Ymer, and then... *grins*

((Yea, I got you Iztatepopotla... ))

NO!
You've got it all wrong!

It's the three gods of Oden, Vile and Ve (sorry... that's the Swedish spelling of those three Norse Gods names... I don't know what their names are in English) that created the earth, it's waters and the sky from the body of the giant Ymer, and then... *grins*

((Yea, I got you Iztatepopotla... ))

You're not starting from the beginning, but that's ok.

The english spellings (Odin, Vili, Ve) are pretty close, by the way.

I know, I know... I didn't want to start it all off with the great empty void and the ice and fire...
Sounds as if it doesn't include any pesky gods who goes around creating something, whether out of nothing, or out something "impossible" (like a mountains roots, a cats noice, the beardgrowth (not the beard itself, but this -growth-) of a woman, the breath of a fish or frog (don't recall which)...) or that the creation might be "impossible" too...

Oh and Vegas-Rex... I don't concider myself well versed in that mythology. I mean... I've got easy access to a lot of the text... but learning from books isn't my thing so I haven't studied it very much.

I know, I know... I didn't want to start it all off with the great empty void and the ice and fire...
Sounds as if it doesn't include any pesky gods who goes around creating something, whether out of nothing, or out something "impossible" (like a mountains roots, a cats noice, the beardgrowth (not the beard itself, but this -growth-) of a woman, the breath of a fish or frog (don't recall which)...) or that the creation might be "impossible" too...

Oh and Vegas-Rex... I don't concider myself well versed in that mythology. I mean... I've got easy access to a lot of the text... but learning from books isn't my thing so I haven't studied it very much.

Anyways, we're all way off topic.

True... I'm sorry.

So, let's get back on topic.

My view is that a school have three options when it comes to the question of creationism.
1: Teach -all- (major) versions of the tale of creation of Life, Universe and Everything (though the answer to the Question about it can be left for the students to discover themselves). That includes evolution along side the... say a minimum of 42 (I'm sure there's more versions)... largest religious/non-scientific/non-evolutionary stories of how things came to be.

2: Teach all relevant versions of how how we came to be. This option would be evolution, the big worldreligions, and possibly any of the local area (such as that of the Native Americans who live or used to live where the school is constructed, or that of the Vikings in Scandinavia, or Hellenistic in Greece).
This is (or at least was) the stance in Sweden when I grew up here. Though only evolution is taught in the Science class here in Sweden, and the other versions are taught in Religion-class.

3: Ban any- and every-thing to be taught about religion in school. This could be a precursor to ban any and all symbols that could possibly be seen as "religious"...