Agreed on this. I don't have a problem with Creationism being referenced in a religion classes, philosophy courses, as part of social sciences work, debate team, etc. I do have a problem with it being passed off as science, which it is most certainly not. And the Young Earth model that teaches the planet is 6000-10000 years old, evolutionary biology is a con, man walked with dinosaurs, there was a worldwide flood, and there was a literal original parents (2 humans) isn't just not science, it is stunningly silly too.
LMAO! Here's a puzzler; which is more idiotic, that or the whole CrocoDuck thing: [video=youtube;xOn7DInBWK4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOn7DInBWK4[/video]
Rainman: No one knows exactly how the universe came to be. And yet evolutionary ramblings favored as "fact, regardless of how many more billions of years needed for another "bang"; evolutionary beliefs taught as "fact" despite all the frauds and bald-faced lies; until now the religion of Evolution dominates public education. Wasn't the First Amendment enacted against teaching religions in public schools?
True. But the Earth being 6,000 years old isn't just not accurate, it is spectacular bullplop. Evolutionary biology is not a religion. It is a scientific fact. Be that as it may, the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion and prevents the establishment of a state religion. That has nothing to do with teaching science in public schools.
Let's be honest, teaching just one side of the story is a bit fascist, don't you think? If we're taught evolutionism, why not teach us creationism as well and let us decide? I think both of them should be equally promoted and studied. I do think that those who have a more pragmatical reckoning will be more leaned toward evolutionism than anything else, but that's just my two cents.
I don't see it as a single story with two sides. There is the science as scientific institutions understand it, which is evolution. That is what should be taught in a science class. Then there are the 5000 different creation myths that religions offers us, which should be studies in the social science or some other suitable class. Just as an atheist child can learn about religion, a fundamentalist child can learn about science. At the right time and place. They need to understand it for what it is, whether the believe it or not.
It was mandatory at the school I attended. Despite being a Christian school, we learned the fundamentals of both Islam and Judaism during our religious education lessons. We covered evolution too. I think that the OP is referring to the US school system, which is obviously Christian but I suppose whatever religion is in question, it still boils down to the science vs. myth debate.
Creationism has no place in any school of thought. It has no scientific backing other than faith. Furthermore, separation between church and state is very important for democracy to function properly.
I think Creationism belongs maybe in a history class or something. It is not science. It boggles the mind despite objective evidence to the contrary that those who wish to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible will defy science, logic and other items to get on board with creattionism as it is known. It is one of the things that you can use and study in a class but does not belong in a factual science based class.
