NationStates Jolt Archive

Though not in a science class.

Religion has played a consistently important role in History, and it would be asinine to not teach student's World Religions in History Class.

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hindiusm, Greek Mythology, and all religions have had a huge impact on history, whether you believe them to be true, or not.

And Creationism is a belief that some Religious folk hold. (Not so many do today. I'm a Christian and I think literal Creationism is bunk.), and MANY did in the past. Creationism, as well as all other religions, must be taught in History Class.

I have no belief in any religion but I do agree that it should be tought, just NOT in science though. That would be innapropriate.

If you don't like spaghetti and meatballs you need to get the hell out!

AMEN TO THAT!

I guess it could be mentioned in History, along with witch-hunting, abortion-doctor-hunting, Pat Robertson, Crusades...

Suggested title: What Goes Wrong When You Insert A World-Denying Neo-Platonian Semite Religion As A Measure Of True & False - A Historical Overview

Except the same hardcore Christians pushing to have Creationism taught in schools would have an aneurysm if Islam or Greek Mythology were taught as equally relevant as anything Christian.

Creationism is not a religion. It is a part of the faith of Christianity. I am a Christian and I know that Creation is true. Science and History have never proven anything in the Bible to be wrong.

Um. Yes, yes they have.

While religion is important to history, religious doctrine and dogma are not - and when people talk about "teaching religion" they are usually talking about teaching doctrine or dogma. For that, you need a full class devoted to just one specific religion (which is a bad idea in High school).

Creationism is not a religion. It is a part of the faith of Christianity. I am a Christian and I know that Creation is true. Science and History have never proven anything in the Bible to be wrong.
It's a good thing you're just saying that to provoke violent unrest...

But seriously, "science" has proven plenty of things from the Bible didn't happen in that way. It's just that certain people refuse to accept it.
With that logic, science has never proven that the earth isn't flat either.
Examples: Age of the Earth, Great Flood

Should I beat you with a stick now or later buddy? I got to a bloody CATHOLIC school and EVERY religion teacher I have had has bullshitted creationism. My recent teacher, totally denies it any scientific or historical truth. Let's look at the very defintion of a myth as some may put it. Myth: a religious revelation meant to convey spiritual or religious truth. Myths do not convey historical or scientific truths.

Straight from my textbook. Oh and, about science and history never proving anything in the bible wrong, how about the fact that the world is a little bit older than a few ten thousand years. ;)

Creationism is not a religion. It is a part of the faith of Christianity. I am a Christian and I know that Creation is true. Science and History have never proven anything in the Bible to be wrong.

I'm curious. Do you follow the Old Testament, New Testament, or both?

It's called World Religions. To a lesser extent, World History. The former is not mandatory and shouldn't be. However, it should always be an option.

It's called World Religions. To a lesser extent, World History. The former is not mandatory and shouldn't be. However, it should always be an option.

Who would write the curriculum?
In norway, where i live, the subject "Religion & Ethics" is mandatory for the last year of hs. It is very much based on christian/humanist values, and the self-righteous foreword of the textbook would give anyone but a christian/humanist/jew an allergic reaction. A similar subject, "Christianity, Religion and Ethical Knowledge" is taught in middle school. Yep, both Christianity AND religion. The UN actually decided it was a violation of certain rights.
I'll get to the point:
If some rightwing zealot is given the job of making a curriculum you will get more information on world religions reading the jehova's witnesses' Watchtower Magazine (not much) than taking the subject.

I guess it could be mentioned in History, along with witch-hunting, abortion-doctor-hunting, Pat Robertson, Crusades...

That would certainly add some humor to the classroom. :D

Creationism is not a religion. It is a part of the faith of Christianity. I am a Christian and I know that Creation is true. Science and History have never proven anything in the Bible to be wrong.

You just opened pandora's box...

It's called World Religions. To a lesser extent, World History. The former is not mandatory and shouldn't be. However, it should always be an option.

I know where I go World Religions is mandatory. Personally I think that makes sense: it does give vital insight into who thinks what, and considering how little americans know about world religions (even their own (for example, people answering on a poll that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc)) its knowledge they need.

I agree that that's where ID/Creationism should be taught, though just as a peace offering ID could be taught in Philosophy classes as well. Not as science, though.

Who would write the curriculum?
In norway, where i live, the subject "Religion & Ethics" is mandatory for the last year of hs. It is very much based on christian/humanist values, and the self-righteous foreword of the textbook would give anyone but a christian/humanist/jew an allergic reaction. A similar subject, "Christianity, Religion and Ethical Knowledge" is taught in middle school. Yep, both Christianity AND religion. The UN actually decided it was a violation of certain rights.
I'll get to the point:
If some rightwing zealot is given the job of making a curriculum you will get more information on world religions reading the jehova's witnesses' Watchtower Magazine (not much) than taking the subject.

No wonder all those black metal guys want to burn down churches.

Who would write the curriculum?
In norway, where i live, the subject "Religion & Ethics" is mandatory for the last year of hs. It is very much based on christian/humanist values, and the self-righteous foreword of the textbook would give anyone but a christian/humanist/jew an allergic reaction. A similar subject, "Christianity, Religion and Ethical Knowledge" is taught in middle school. Yep, both Christianity AND religion. The UN actually decided it was a violation of certain rights.
I'll get to the point:
If some rightwing zealot is given the job of making a curriculum you will get more information on world religions reading the jehova's witnesses' Watchtower Magazine (not much) than taking the subject.

That's why you give the job of creating a curriculum to one who is able to understand different perspectives and argue for and against all sides. A neutral point of view while explaining the reasoning behind the various beliefs. Not anyone can do it, and you can't be sure you've found the right person for the job.

Your point really applies to any subject, chemistry for instance. There are several major subdisciplines that the professor may enjoy and want to focus on, but it's his/her duty to cover all of the material no matter how boring it is or what they believe is most important. The teacher may prefer biochemistry, but it's their job to explain analytical, inorganic, organic, physical, and theoretical chemistry too. They should focus on the facts and make sure opinions are kept separate so the two aren't confused.

Creationism is not a religion. It is a part of the faith of Christianity. I am a Christian and I know that Creation is true. Science and History have never proven anything in the Bible to be wrong.

If you knew anything, you'd know that it's logically impossible to disprove something.

yes we have to teach our kids to understand all religions but remian non- religious its taints them! those age old practices are out dated! if any thing we need a new religion and hey maybe we could teach them NOT to involve Religion with there every day lives and make it a personal thing you know i belive the only protesters would be the televangilists that take your money it'd be the modern day equivilent of the catholic churches decline of power. tis why i take the CLASS of World religions.


Sincerely,
That Non Beliver

If you knew anything, you'd know that it's logically impossible to disprove something.

It's logically impossible to prove something. It's relatively simple to disprove it, unless it changes or tries to be unempiricisable (note: is that even a word?).

That's why you give the job of creating a curriculum to one who is able to understand different perspectives and argue for and against all sides. A neutral point of view while explaining the reasoning behind the various beliefs. Not anyone can do it, and you can't be sure you've found the right person for the job.

Your point really applies to any subject, chemistry for instance. There are several major subdisciplines that the professor may enjoy and want to focus on, but it's his/her duty to cover all of the material no matter how boring it is or what they believe is most important. The teacher may prefer biochemistry, but it's their job to explain analytical, inorganic, organic, physical, and theoretical chemistry too. They should focus on the facts and make sure opinions are kept separate so the two aren't confused.

Most comparative religions classes aren't taught from a truly neutral point of view, they're taught from a universalist view, i.e.: every religion is their own unique way to get to the truth. Science classes, especially social sciences, often work the same way. Is that bad? Not necessarily.

I'm a firm believer of everyone making there own decision on what to believe. Therefore all aspects should be taught in some form or another of the subject of our beginings. It would be foolish in my mind to believe that there is only one method that is an absolute. Creationism and evolution should be taught together.
I also find it odd that creationism automatically means that it is religious. How do we know if we werent created by another race of beings as an experiment or perhaps some type of cellestial program of creating intelligent life? The fact is we dont have a 100% fool proof method on determining our way of coming into this world.
I say teach the two most widespread theories. Therefore the vast majority can be happy.

Most comparative religions classes aren't taught from a truly neutral point of view, they're taught from a universalist view, i.e.: every religion is their own unique way to get to the truth. Science classes, especially social sciences, often work the same way. Is that bad? Not necessarily.

I never said they were. ;)

I'm curious. Do you follow the Old Testament, New Testament, or both?

I believe the Bible is open to interpretation. I'm not a literalist.

Should I beat you with a stick now or later buddy? I got to a bloody CATHOLIC school and EVERY religion teacher I have had has bullshitted creationism. My recent teacher, totally denies it any scientific or historical truth. Let's look at the very defintion of a myth as some may put it. Myth: a religious revelation meant to convey spiritual or religious truth. Myths do not convey historical or scientific truths.

Straight from my textbook. Oh and, about science and history never proving anything in the bible wrong, how about the fact that the world is a little bit older than a few ten thousand years. ;)

There is a ton of historical and scientific evidence for truth in the bible, if you would like examples i can provide them. A few examples are off the top of my head: The high preist Chaiphis(sp?) was a living person, archaeologists have found his ossuary, the apostle james was living and also jesus, archaeologists have found the james ossuary which states James, son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus, Which is rare because ussually they didn't have any writting or if they did they just said son of (insert name here).

NOT in science though. That would be innapropriate.

How about in mythology class? I have some friends that learned about it there.

Though not in a science class.

Religion has played a consistently important role in History, and it would be asinine to not teach student's World Religions in History Class.

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hindiusm, Greek Mythology, and all religions have had a huge impact on history, whether you believe them to be true, or not.

And Creationism is a belief that some Religious folk hold. (Not so many do today. I'm a Christian and I think literal Creationism is bunk.), and MANY did in the past. Creationism, as well as all other religions, must be taught in History Class.

World religions are already taught in world history

There is a ton of historical and scientific evidence for truth in the bible, if you would like examples i can provide them. A few examples are off the top of my head: The high preist Chaiphis(sp?) was a living person, archaeologists have found his ossuary, the apostle james was living and also jesus, archaeologists have found the james ossuary which states James, son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus, Which is rare because ussually they didn't have any writting or if they did they just said son of (insert name here).

sorry, the ossuary is a fake, see:

CNN report (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/18/jesus.box/)

60 Minutes story (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/17/60minutes/main661815.shtml)

See Also: http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/jo.htm and http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20030616/jesusfake.html

The debate here is spirited, and I'm enjoying it. But, isn't it funny that "Schmooville" hasn't come back at any of you yet?

If it looks and smells like a troll, well then it must be a...

Well, since we're on this topic...I hope somebody here can help out a confused kid.
Would we have to teach literal creationism (six days to make everything, the world is 6000 years old) or would it be more vague, like intelligent design, and then incorporating a bunch of creationism stories from other religions?
Thing is, if we start teaching that the world is 6000 years old, while along side it we teach radioisotope decay, there'd be some confusion? Why do I ask?
Well, I just found it really hard to understand some takes on creationism seriously because certain isotopes of uranium have 4.5 billion year half lives. This is undeniably true because these things can be verified again and again in nuclear labratories. So that goes back to the original question, how are we going to manage teaching any form of creationism without incorporating it along with other religious stories? I remember doing this in English class in the mythology unit, but that's as far as I think we could go.

There is no problem teaching creationism in school;

Just keep it as a strictly elective decision on the part of individual students, and away from science classes.

For the record, I went to a Catholic school. They were considering starting up an optional creationism oriented class...but only three people out of almost two hundred in my year level expressed interest.

Could somebody please help me with my radioisotope question? How can anybody believe the earth is not billions of years old if there are isotopes to prove it?

Could somebody please help me with my radioisotope question? How can anybody believe the earth is not billions of years old if there are isotopes to prove it?

Because they don't understand the science involved in detecting the half-life of a particular radioisotope.

Could somebody please help me with my radioisotope question? How can anybody believe the earth is not billions of years old if there are isotopes to prove it?

Simple. Once they realise that it contradicts their opinion, they get over the pain of cognitive dissonance by either denying it (generally with questions like "but how do they KNOW this? I bet they got it all wrong"), or by making up increasingly elaborate crappy theories to try and make the information fit their idea ("Maybe the rate at which isotopes decay has changed over time, and it just _seems_ like the levels would imply a world that's a few billion years old because scientists don't realise that the rate isn't constant"). Or if they're really lazy and/or dumb, they'll just say "God made it that way", possibly adding that he did it to fool us and test our faith.

They keep trying to pull the same trick when it comes to astronomy too. The fact that we can see any stars or other bodies that are more than about ten thousand light years away sort of implies that they have to be far older than the Young Earth Creationists think the entire universe is. So they go through the same tricks of
- Denial. How can we accurately measure the distance to objects so far away? Even the closest stars are meant to be hundred of trillions of kilometres away after all.
- made-up theories. Hey maybe the speed of light used to be much much faster, which means that light from distant objects could've travelled immense distances in the first few thousand years of the world's history to be able to reach us today.
- deus ex machina. God clearly made all the stars and galaxies and then put the light in so that it would just _seem_ like we're observing what happened to them millions or even billions of years ago. Because he's awesome like that.

Could somebody please help me with my radioisotope question? How can anybody believe the earth is not billions of years old if there are isotopes to prove it?Because if you look at the accumulation rates of metals in ocean water, the world can't be much more than a hundred years old, since the ocean's aren't filled with aluminum ;)

Shiiiit man, then my great granny wasn't born on earth! Out of this world!..

>_>

I never really learned about any religion in high school. We studied European feudal society in SOSE(studies of society and environment) and Christianity was briefly covered in that. Though we mostly learned about how Christianity worked with the government and how it affected society rather than any in depth study of the religion.
Did the same with the Roman Empire to a lesser extent.

Then again I never took any history electives after year 9, when SOSE stopped being compulsory.

Can't say that I think religions need to be covered more than that in history. That is, studying world religions is fine but, how the religion affected society and government should be more important that in depth study of their myths. Like creationism.

Then, I went to a public school, so the curriculum didn't have a religious slant.

I also find it odd that creationism automatically means that it is religious. How do we know if we werent created by another race of beings as an experiment or perhaps some type of cellestial program of creating intelligent life?
With the introduction of "a superiour race" as our creators the problem is just postponed, nothing else. How did that "superiour race" came into existence? Did they evolve or were they made by another "super superiour race"? And where did that come from? You can make a game of russian dolls out of this, but it always boils down to "Evolution vs God". Unless you accept the possibility of a pantheon, but still: infinite, omnipotent beings who always existed and were themselves not made by anyone.
As long as worshipable beings enter the scene, which they automatically do with creationism as shown above, this will be a religious issue. Which is why e.g. ID isnt such a clever disguise. :D

Shiiiit man, then my great granny wasn't born on earth! Out of this world!..

>_>Yeah, the arguement used by Young Earth creationists that the oceans would have filled up with certain metals ignore the stats that don't fit their time frame (like Aluminum) and base their conclusion on the others... :D

Though not in a science class.

Religion has played a consistently important role in History, and it would be asinine to not teach student's World Religions in History Class.

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hindiusm, Greek Mythology, and all religions have had a huge impact on history, whether you believe them to be true, or not.

And Creationism is a belief that some Religious folk hold. (Not so many do today. I'm a Christian and I think literal Creationism is bunk.), and MANY did in the past. Creationism, as well as all other religions, must be taught in History Class.
It's nice to think that a comparative religion lesson could be squeezed in to a normal world history or social studies class. It's probably not as practical, as nice, though. I'm only addressing the local school system, but it's trying enough to get students to learn science, math, grammar, and some world and US history. It's hard enough to find teachers that aren't afraid of math, grammar, and science, too. Piling on another requirement in an elective sort of subject is just too much to ask. Make it a high school elective or forget about it all together. Adding religion to a normal class would just take away from the core classes that must be mastered.

Being very frank here:

Anyone that believes in Creationism is an ignorant bastard!

Its possibly the most insane bit of right wing christian shite I've ever heard of. Darwin is right the facts are there whereas Creationism has none its all speculative!

(also im not ignorant because I understand both sides of the arguement and believe in the one based on fact! :D )

Though not in a science class.

Religion has played a consistently important role in History, and it would be asinine to not teach student's World Religions in History Class.

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hindiusm, Greek Mythology, and all religions have had a huge impact on history, whether you believe them to be true, or not.

And Creationism is a belief that some Religious folk hold. (Not so many do today. I'm a Christian and I think literal Creationism is bunk.), and MANY did in the past. Creationism, as well as all other religions, must be taught in History Class.

Absolutly not. That is what churches and parents are for.

Because if you look at the accumulation rates of metals in ocean water, the world can't be much more than a hundred years old, since the ocean's aren't filled with aluminum ;)

LMFAO

Science class is for teaching science, not voodoo. If you want your child to learn religion and not figure out they're being lied to, home school them. Public education is to be free of religion due to the first amendment. Agree or disagree that's what the words on the paper mean. No establishment of religion, and teaching young impressionable minds that the world was created by some unseen benevolent diety is most assuredly creationism.

Intelligent Design isn't even a theory, it has no basis in science, it's just dressed up creationism. http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

The reason Christianity is taught the most is because if influenced world history the most.

As for the age of the earth, how do scientists calculate it?

The reason Christianity is taught the most is because if influenced world history the most.

As for the age of the earth, how do scientists calculate it?

radiometric dating. Using Pb 206-207 or a few other methods. Not Carbon dating if you're wondering.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Radiometric dating means that you are dating something by using a half life, correct?

Radiometric dating means that you are dating something by using a half life, correct?

.....yes, so?

How is the half-life of an element, say, carbon, proven beyond the shadow of a doubt?

How is the half-life of an element, say, carbon, proven beyond the shadow of a doubt?

The half-life of Carbon-14 has been calculated using linear mathematics, and is proven by compaing its isotopic stability against other decaying radioactive isotopes, and producing the average half-life of Carbon-14.

That is how it was proven. Unfortunately for people who don't beleive in the scientific approach to the creation of the Earth, the maths they used has been treble-checked several times. Mathematicians tend to get things right, because the maths they used was linear, therefore it produces a set outcome.

waitaminnit... I think we've just logically proved that creation must be real.

Consider: How could anyone dumb enough to believe in creationism and associated biblical doctrine as literal truth have possibly evolved?

Seems to me, anything that stupid, yet still basically functional as a human being would have to be purpose made.

Insult much, Tyrell?

waitaminnit... I think we've just logically proved that creation must be real.

Consider: How could anyone dumb enough to believe in creationism and associated biblical doctrine as literal truth have possibly evolved?

Seems to me, anything that stupid, yet still basically functional as a human being would have to be purpose made.

Chance is a very strange and often uncomfortable phenonemon - and the universe follows its own set of rules quite beyond what we beleive!

People like to tell me that God is everything - but God is not. Humanity created God to fill in for our own inability to... I'll set up a thread on that one!

Insult much, Tyrell?


Only when it's so richly deserved. Then I feel bad about it later.

I don't think there's really any good excuse for allowing people to damage children, though, regardless of what they "believe"... And filling thier little heads with harmful propaganda that's obviously not true is certainly damaging.

If someone's religion teaches that they should shag ten year-olds as sex-ed, we don't look kindly on that... Why should we on this?

How is the half-life of an element, say, carbon, proven beyond the shadow of a doubt?

Not that Carbon has anything to do with dating the earth.

Anyway, Tyrell explained some ways of working it out but it has also been worked out from first principles from quatum mechanics.

So, how are you going to ignore this and continue to support creationism this time?

I would support the teaching of world religions in history class. Frankly a lot of history just doesn't make sense without religous context. But one has to be very careful about this, perhaps giving the teachers very rigid guidlines as to how to teach it is our only option. As you can see by this thread already that many would try to distort this to their own advantage. The Christians would try to put a more favorable spin on Christianity, while those opposed to religion would tend to focus on all the bad things people have done in the name of religion. It doesn't matter who writes the course book because the teacher will put his/her own spin on it.

By the way, I never was taught religion in any of my history classes and was never offered a world religions class. I don't think I was ever taught important historical events that had religous context, such as the crusades.

Sadly, you are all victims of this terribly secular and ignorant world in which we live. Bash me all you want I've suffered it for years; but I will always believe in God, Christianity, and Creationism. I believe the the earth is 6 thousand years old and no science, which was created by man can convince me otherwise.
I do however commend all of you on having the balls to be so virulently anti your creator.

Amen, and good day to you.

Though not in a science class.

Religion has played a consistently important role in History, and it would be asinine to not teach student's World Religions in History Class.

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hindiusm, Greek Mythology, and all religions have had a huge impact on history, whether you believe them to be true, or not.

And Creationism is a belief that some Religious folk hold. (Not so many do today. I'm a Christian and I think literal Creationism is bunk.), and MANY did in the past. Creationism, as well as all other religions, must be taught in History Class.

I have never argued against Creationism, as well as the ideas of all those religions being taught in the Social Studies environment. Just don't bring it in the science classroom.

Sadly, you are all victims of this terribly secular and ignorant world in which we live. Bash me all you want I've suffered it for years; but I will always believe in God, Christianity, and Creationism. I believe the the earth is 6 thousand years old and no science, which was created by man can convince me otherwise.
I do however commend all of you on having the balls to be so virulently anti your creator.

Amen, and good day to you.

God was created by man too. It must be nice to live in such a beautiful glass house there.

Though not in a science class.

Religion has played a consistently important role in History, and it would be asinine to not teach student's World Religions in History Class.

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hindiusm, Greek Mythology, and all religions have had a huge impact on history, whether you believe them to be true, or not.

And Creationism is a belief that some Religious folk hold. (Not so many do today. I'm a Christian and I think literal Creationism is bunk.), and MANY did in the past. Creationism, as well as all other religions, must be taught in History Class.

There is such a thing as religious education classess in high schools where I come from, taught as a weak social science (unlike history which is a serious social science), and ridiculed as an easy academic choice (like agriculture and management) ideal for those without the intelectual capacity to study a serious science. Ideally pure sciences should have an overwhelming majority of the teaching time and religion should be kept to the fringe. Ironically, I studied roman mythology as eleitists subject along side latin, because it was supposed to compliment the latin.

Realistically, the arguements for and against ID are too one dimensional. There is no reason to beleive that our presant existance is bereft of either devine origin or enviromental accomodation.

Though not in a science class.

Religion has played a consistently important role in History, and it would be asinine to not teach student's World Religions in History Class.

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hindiusm, Greek Mythology, and all religions have had a huge impact on history, whether you believe them to be true, or not.

And Creationism is a belief that some Religious folk hold. (Not so many do today. I'm a Christian and I think literal Creationism is bunk.), and MANY did in the past. Creationism, as well as all other religions, must be taught in History Class.

Better that you have a seperate class altogether; but then again, such would not be able to fairly encompass all views on issues (state colleges in my state do have a Religious STudies class under the syetem of Liberal arts, where differing religious viewpoints are presented)...

Creationism.... which one?
Literal Creationism (Young-Earth Creationism).
Day-Age Creationism (Old-Earth Creationism).
Progressive Creationism.
Intelligent Design.
Evolutionary Creationism.
Theistic Evolution.

And that's just amongst Christian and Deistic beliefs....

Better that you have a seperate class altogether; but then again, such would not be able to fairly encompass all views on issues (state colleges in my state do have a Religious STudies class under the syetem of Liberal arts, where differing religious viewpoints are presented)...

Creationism.... which one?
Literal Creationism (Young-Earth Creationism).
Day-Age Creationism (Old-Earth Creationism).
Progressive Creationism.
Intelligent Design.
Evolutionary Creationism.
Theistic Evolution.

And that's just amongst Christian and Deistic beliefs....
Yeah my college does as well as liberal arts classes

I have not had the time to take it … but I know a few people that have

It's being challenged in court: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=446716

Creationism should be tought in schools, in the R.E. classroom, along with what Ramadan is, why Hindus celebrate divali and that kind of thing.

It has no place in the science room, which is a place for fact.

Just to give you an idea of how this is dealt with in other parts of the world.

Here in Denmark, Religion is a subject both in primary and high school (but only the academic high school. The Danish high school level of education is split up in three parts. Academic, Commercial and Technical.)

In primary school the focus is on christianity at the lower levels, but must include other religions in the older classes.

If you don't want your child to be a part of this education, your child can be excused, all you have to do is to give the school notification that your child will no longer be following the religions class. The school then has to make sure that the parent understands that it is against regulations for teachers to preach, they are only allwed to pass unbiased knowledge. If the parent still does not want the child to participate, the child is allowed to skip the class.

In high school, the teachings must round differnet world religions and also touch on ethics.

There are no tests or grades in the subject in primary school. There are tests and grades in high school.

Creationism is not a religion. It is a part of the faith of Christianity. I am a Christian and I know that Creation is true. Science and History have never proven anything in the Bible to be wrong.

Creationism is not science. We cannot be totally certain of anything science says (I think Hume pretty much proved that) and as such it's conclusions are always tentative. But would you be willing to revise creationism in light of new evidence? I think not.
Similarly creationism is not history. We do not have any direct evidence that it happened, only second hand accounts.
Creationism *is* (badly interpreted) religion. It is part of faith, exactly. Evidence can neither support nor deny it, hence it is outside the scientific sphere. We can never "prove" it is right or wrong, it is simply up to what you "believe" or "feel".
Creationism *is* a highly informative myth, not something to be taken literally. Any biblical scholar will tell you that genesis was the last book of the OT to be written and is largely based on babylonian creation myths and cycles (why do you think seven is so important? It represents cycles, eons). It is a highly symbolic allegory about man's place in the world and man's relation to god, not a literal historical account (on which level it is a very boring and uninformative story riddled with ignorant mistakes). Of the world, it says "and God saw that it was good". It tells us (on a superficial level) that the living world, and the love of god are the same thing (think dharma here). Of man it says "and god gave man dominion over the earth". That tells us of our duty to care for the world, we are caretakers, not here to exploit it (Bush take note). Of morality, it says "now you are become as gods, knowing good and evil". That asserts man's free-will, which comes with intelligence, self awareness of the ability to choose (see Kierkegaard - Fear and Trembling) and hence the ability to sin and the need for salvation / redemption.

Creationism has no place history or science. Save it for moral / philosophical education.

sorry, the ossuary is a fake, see:

CNN report (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/18/jesus.box/)

60 Minutes story (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/17/60minutes/main661815.shtml)

See Also: http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/jo.htm and http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20030616/jesusfake.html

Sorry, but i'm not going by those articles. It's not that i don't doubt their credibility, I jut think that it's because of the mention of the IAA. When the IAA set up the commision to look into it, they baised it and didn't listen to those who though that the ossuary was true and real, even though they provided proof for it!, Even two of the geologists, which one of the articles mentions, believe's that it is real, but the IAA will not allow them to speak or open it up to outside examination by other archaeologists.

Sorry, but i'm not going by those articles. It's not that i don't doubt their credibility, I jut think that it's because of the mention of the IAA. When the IAA set up the commision to look into it, they baised it and didn't listen to those who though that the ossuary was true and real, even though they provided proof for it!, Even two of the geologists, which one of the articles mentions, believe's that it is real, but the IAA will not allow them to speak or open it up to outside examination by other archaeologists.
Is this the ossuary that said James, brother of Jesus?

With a patina less than 100 years old around the writing?

i dont find creationism to be so socially or historically significant that it MUST be taught in public schools. not in these days where art and music have been eliminated due to tight budgets.

Consider: How could anyone dumb enough to believe in creationism and associated biblical doctrine as literal truth have possibly evolved?It's a strong meme.

And like flightlessness for birds that don't need flight, it's useful where science is primative and 'surity' is beneficial over wasted wondeirng about "why are we here" without the means to deal with the advanced hyptheses (right or wrong) that might come up as wildcards, but less so when the social environment changes, e.g. efficient ground-predators start colonising the island or scientific method and higher understanding of the physical universe is more prevalent.

It's a strong meme.

And like flightlessness for birds that don't need flight, it's useful where science is primative and 'surity' is beneficial over wasted wondeirng about "why are we here" without the means to deal with the advanced hyptheses (right or wrong) that might come up as wildcards, but less so when the social environment changes, e.g. efficient ground-predators start colonising the island or scientific method and higher understanding of the physical universe is more prevalent.

All this ID hoo-hah makes me feel nostalgic for the good old days when they used to say "God put dinosaur bones there to test your faith"

In my high school we are taught about world religions in world history. All of them. We discuss these religions' beliefs analytically, without criticizing them, to avoid offending anyone, and we avoid any sort of bias.

Religions are an important part of history, and should be taught about in history class, as long as students aren't being indoctrinated.. Definately not in science, though.

Being very frank here:

Anyone that believes in Creationism is an ignorant bastard!

Its possibly the most insane bit of right wing christian shite I've ever heard of. Darwin is right the facts are there whereas Creationism has none its all speculative!

(also im not ignorant because I understand both sides of the arguement and believe in the one based on fact! :D )

So Judaism=right wing christian shite?

Because creation is what happens in the first book of the Bible, in the OT, which is basically a history of the Jews.

And if believing that God made the heavens and the earth makes me an ignorant bastard, you can call me names all day. And I will go back to reading that book on white-hole cosmology and general relativity, cause God said to "get knowledge" and "get wisdom", over and over again, throughout the Bible.

And knowledge and wisdom cannot hurt my faith. Just wish my head wasn't crammed so full of science. Need room for "Serenity." :D

Though not in a science class.

Religion has played a consistently important role in History, and it would be asinine to not teach student's World Religions in History Class.

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hindiusm, Greek Mythology, and all religions have had a huge impact on history, whether you believe them to be true, or not.

And Creationism is a belief that some Religious folk hold. (Not so many do today. I'm a Christian and I think literal Creationism is bunk.), and MANY did in the past. Creationism, as well as all other religions, must be taught in History Class.
I agree, if for no other reason than that "forewarned is forearmed." :)

You guys are missing the point I believe. First of all, world religion is taught in public High School History as religion is and has always been one of the greatest players in affecting all modern civilization. Second of all, as for science class, Creationism should not be taught in science classes because it is a specific religious concept, not a scientific one at all. Now a theory such as Intelligent Design has much more of a place in a science class, being that evolutionism and Intelligent design walk hand-in-hand in many situations. The main thing that needs to be taught is the undeniable truth that science can only explain so much and as soon as you solve one scientific problem, 10 more are staring you in the face. We've done some amazing things with science to be sure, but the theory of evolution cannot stand on its own, Darwin himself believed that his theory proved the existence of god. For example, the fact that we have come from a single celled organism to what we are today contrasts with everything we've ever learned about entropy. Also, many other questions such as, if matter can neither be created or destroyed, why and how is it here? There is not a scientist in the world that can take me to before the Big Bang or to the farthest reaches of space. People say that experiments that support the Big Bang disprove the existence of god, to which I respond “everything in your experiments are representative of actual things and events correct? They of course respond in the affirmative so I then am forced to ask… “then who is the scientist?” Many of these experiments prove to me what I have known in my heart for years. As an example, Particle Physicists are now saying that matter is nothing but trapped energy (strangely coincidental that almost all early religions describe god as pure energy). These same Physicists are now finding that all matter is interconnected by this energy. These as well as many of the other questions that gnaw at us and gnaw at me as a man of science do nothing but support the theory of intelligent design and have forced me to see what I now know to be true. I do not understand why some people fail to realize that science and religion are merely two different roads to the same destination.

Personally instead of incorporaing it into World History, there is too much info in the class already, for it to give all of its subject mater a just treatment this would only make that worse. Much beter would be a seperate class on the history of religon, starting with animism, moving on into the development of the diferent polytheistic relgons, and culminating in the coverage of the variouse religons in the world today.

I think one thing that we need to remember is that darwin himself in the last three years of his life denounced his own theory. Also, he stated that his thought were just thast, thoughts and that he had never found any physical proof of what he believed. He also didnt beleive that anyone would be able to do so.

Another point is that a lot of people see Christianiyt as a mythe, yet a lot of what science teaches today isnt corect, seeing as tomorrow they will change their minds about something they said yesterday.

Scientist: ah yes we have found this bone and its millions of years old.
Next day same scientist: Ah the bone we found yesterday was an old dogs bone and was only a few hundred years old, however, with all the bones out there there must be one that is the right one for us which will prove our theory.

Remember, evolution and the like is just a theory and is not actually fact.
If you dont beleive me, go as the head of the london museum who will tell you that its all myth.

I think one thing that we need to remember is that darwin himself in the last three years of his life denounced his own theory. Also, he stated that his thought were just thast, thoughts and that he had never found any physical proof of what he believed. He also didnt beleive that anyone would be able to do so.

Another point is that a lot of people see Christianiyt as a mythe, yet a lot of what science teaches today isnt corect, seeing as tomorrow they will change their minds about something they said yesterday.

Scientist: ah yes we have found this bone and its millions of years old.
Next day same scientist: Ah the bone we found yesterday was an old dogs bone and was only a few hundred years old, however, with all the bones out there there must be one that is the right one for us which will prove our theory.

Remember, evolution and the like is just a theory and is not actually fact.
If you dont beleive me, go as the head of the london museum who will tell you that its all myth.

Whats that boy? Is something wrong? Is Timmy trapt in a well? Did circus folk kidnap Timmy again?

Though not in a science class.

Religion has played a consistently important role in History, and it would be asinine to not teach student's World Religions in History Class.

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hindiusm, Greek Mythology, and all religions have had a huge impact on history, whether you believe them to be true, or not.

And Creationism is a belief that some Religious folk hold. (Not so many do today. I'm a Christian and I think literal Creationism is bunk.), and MANY did in the past. Creationism, as well as all other religions, must be taught in History Class.
In New York State, world religions are part of the cirriculum for the Global History course every high schooler is required to take.

If you are going to pass that, I also want, Flying Spahgetti Monsterism, and the teachings of the Reformed Church of Alfredo taught in schools... I also demand that the Book of Blastoff, by NS's own, Mindset, be taught in our nations schools!

I might also add in seriousity, that some schools around the country do have a religion class, my own for example, teaches all religions, including, might I add, FSMism, when it is referenced. YES, I AM SERIOUS!

Creationism is not a religion. It is a part of the faith of Christianity. I am a Christian and I know that Creation is true. Science and History have never proven anything in the Bible to be wrong.

A lot of things have been proven wrong by science. And regardless of that, it's really irrelevant, because scientists don't try to prove the Bible wrong, that's not their job!

If you knew anything, you'd know that it's logically impossible to disprove something.
Wanna bet?

I can disprove that there is a largest prime number. Hell, Euclid did it over 2,000 years ago!

I think one thing that we need to remember is that darwin himself in the last three years of his life denounced his own theory.
No, he didn't. Even a creationist website disagrees with you:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

[snip drivel of the person who doesn't know that religion is dogma, and science is not]


Remember, evolution and the like is just a theory
And gravity is a theory too.


If you dont beleive me, go as the head of the london museum who will tell you that its all myth.
You mean Colin Patterson, the one who is always quote-mined and misquoted by cretinists?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

What's next--going to offer up Kent "The Fraud" Hovind? Carl "They Really Are Dinosaur Tracks" Baugh? Duane "Bullfrog" Gish?

Both Creationism and evolution must be taught. Students should be exposed to as many views as possible, so they may formulate their own opinions.

Both Creationism and evolution must be taught. Students should be exposed to as many views as possible, so they may formulate their own opinions.
Then students must also be taught flat-earth-ism, phrenology, astrology, that the holocaust never happened, etc.

Then students must also be taught flat-earth-ism, phrenology, astrology, that the holocaust never happened, etc.

There's no reason they should be taught one and not the other. Especially since Darwinism is unproven.

Both Creationism and evolution must be taught. Students should be exposed to as many views as possible, so they may formulate their own opinions.
When have we ever been allowed to have our own opinions in school?

There's no reason they should be taught one and not the other. Especially since Darwinism is unproven.
The Bible is unproven.

Religion is based on faith... not facts

There's no reason they should be taught one and not the other. Especially since Darwinism is unproven.
Then they should also be taught flat-earth-ism, phrenology, astrology, that the holocaust never happened, etc.

Please address that. And please do learn that evolution is a fact.

I think one thing that we need to remember is that darwin himself in the last three years of his life denounced his own theory. No, he really didn't. THis is one of those Christians myths that have been propogating ever since his death; there is absolutely nothing to back it up.

Another point is that a lot of people see Christianiyt as a mythe, yet a lot of what science teaches today isnt corect, seeing as tomorrow they will change their minds about something they said yesterday. NO, tomorrow they will find more data and shift the theories according to new information to get a more complete and accurate picture. Something Christianity doesn't know anything about doing.

Remember, evolution and the like is just a theory and is not actually fact.
If you dont beleive me, go as the head of the london museum who will tell you that its all myth. If he does, he is full of shit. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, which is vastly vastly different from a theory. It is a hypothesis that has been tested and proven true time and time again, fitting the data and giving a more accurate picture than anything else as to how species come about. It is about as much a fact as science can permit.