Should history teachers teach that the Holocaust happened and that it didn't
happen? If not, then why should science teachers teach that life evolved over billions of
years, and that it was created as it is now just six thousand years ago? Creationism should
not be taught in science class because it has no supporting evidence, it is not equal to
evolution, and religious myths can not be taught in public schools in an officially non
religious nation.
"...[I]ndividual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive
critiques of "intelligent design," demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its
formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific
facts."(AAAS). This statement says that creationism has no evidence for its claims, and
by saying that it is science is a disgrace to the scientific method. This statement was
released by the largest scientific organization in the world. Reasonably, for something to
be taught in science class it should have sufficient scientific evidence, and it should be
accepted by the greater scientific community. Evolution meets these criteria. It is an
evidentiary fact in science, just like all other facts of biology, physics, chemistry, etc. It
has overwhelming evidence for it, and it can not be reasonably disputed.
"...[W]e want to see students know that true science confirms the Creation account
in Genesis and that molecules-to-man evolution is a blind-faith belief that flies in the face
of much scientific evidence..."(Answers in Genesis). Ken Ham, the president of AiG-US,
says that evolution is "blind-faith," meaning it has no evidence, and that creationism is
proven by "true scienc...
... middle of paper ...
...ve what they want, teach themselves what they want, but they do not have
the right to teach the children of the public a totally false explanation on the origins and
continuation of life and the universe.
Works Cited
"AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory." AAAS. N.p., 2002. Web. 7 Nov 2010. .
Ham, Ken. "Creation in public schools?!." answers in genesis. N.p., 2002. Web. 7 Nov 2010.
Mills, Cynthia. The Theory of Evolution. John Wiley & Sons , 2004. 148. Print.
"Open Letter To Kansas School Board." Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Nov 2010. .
"theory." Random House Dictionary. Random House, Inc, 2010. Web.
.
The concept of creationism has a strong religious history and very deep religious overtones, and the constitutionality of teaching the subject in a public school immediately was questioned. Called to preside over the resulting legal case was U.S. District Judge William Overton. Thu...
I shall begin by telling you what I believe. I do not think that the fossil record is of any help to evolution. I trust that the fossil record is, in fact, the greatest evidence against the evolutionary train of view.
The question as to whether or not creationism should be taught in public schools is a very emotional and complex question. It can be looked at from several different angles, its validity being one of them. Despite the lack of evidence to support the fundamentalist idea of creationism, that in itself is not enough to warrant its exclusion from the curriculum of public schools in the United States. The question is far more involved and complex.
The twentieth century has witnessed the escalation of the creation - evolution debate through famous court cases and Supreme Court decisions on the teaching of evolution in public schools, culminating most recently in a Kansas Board of Education decision. As this highly controversial issue of the teaching of evolution in American classrooms rages on, it may be difficult for some individuals of Christian faith to form an alternative belief other than the extremes of creationism and evolutionism. Before discussing this issue any further, when I refer to strict beliefs in creationism or evolution as extreme views I am not necessarily implying that they are wrong, but are simply two views on completely opposite sides of the creation - evolution debate spectrum. For some creationists, accepting God as Creator as told in the Book of Genesis means the simultaneous rejection of evolutionary theory. For some evolution believers, accepting evolution ultimately results in the replacement of God as Creator with the process of evolution.
...ligion, but it would allow for greater open-mindedness – parents should be able to send their students to a school in which they know that no indoctrination is occurring. As for those who do not tolerate the teaching of evolution, despite the 150 years of growth for this theory, there is always the local place of worship, which will freely teach the word of God.
Even though, science it all about proven facts, people see past that and all they care about is what has not been proven. All society
Science is supposed, to tell the truth, but because humans are the ones performing the experiments sometimes there are flaws. For instance, Andre Wakefield in
...ical. Next the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education had a law that enforced public schools to give both creation-science and evolution equal treatment. It was said that “Creation-Science” is not actually a science, but strictly religious.
Many individuals do not have the critical judgment to distinguish science from pseudoscience. There are many differences between pseudoscience and science itself. One major difference is that science depends on research, whereas research in pseudoscience is an absence. Some individuals will fall for pseudoscience because this helps them cope to know and understand reality. To identify pseudoscience, there are 10 reliable claims that shout out pseudo. In the video “Unexplained Mysteries, Bizarre Beliefs”, pseudoscience is display within the video, and shows the 10 characteristics of pseudoscience.
In 1982, in McLean v Arkansas Board of Education, a federal district court ruled that "creation science" is religion, and in 1987, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that in Edwards v Aguillard, ruling that "creationism" could not be taught in the public schools. Speculate on the reasoning behind these
... is often what we are taught, even if there is evidence contradicting what we believe.
What does the average person think when they hear that an idea is supported by science? Often, it makes people assume that this idea must be objectively true, and will necessarily be more right than a theory that doesn’t have the backing of “science.” While in many cases, objective science really does produce better results than mere conjecture, there have also been influential movements in history that were justified by “science,” but which we see today as unjustifiable. These include biometrical methods like phrenology and craniology, the empirical definitions of racial difference in the 19th century, and the “scientifically” racist ideology of the Nazis, among many others.
exist and in fact that science does back it up to an extent. I am not trying to persuade you
...bservation-theory-hypothesis- hypothesis testing, is an important tool that gives us the potential to create a good background for discussions and the ability to predict, describe, or explain how the world works, which is one of the key goals of science (Klemke et al. 1988).If knowledge is obtained through the scientific method, it is more likely that it has scientific merit, because it had to go through different stages of testing for correctness.