Should BOTH Evolution AND Creation should be thought in public schools?

Ok well Gwen No this country was not founded as a Christian one, who ever told you that? Our founding fathers were diest. They believed in God but not established religion. If you are going to home school your children, I hope you are more educated in areas such as history. Additionally, teaching them an "idea" instead of true science is not a very good idea either. They should not grow up ignorant to certain things simply because their parents may or may not believe in them. The opinion formed in years to come should be theirs and theirs alone, not yours.

I believe that there is room for the various kinds of Creationism, intelligent design, and evolution to be taught in schools. However, they should not all be taught as science. They don't even address the same questions.

Evolution is an attempt at figuring out how the species currently living on this planet came to be here when they weren't always here, and not always in their current forms. It belongs in a science class.

Intelligent Design addresses the question of whether or not there is any sense to life and the universe. It belongs in a philosophy class, except to point out to students skittish about learning evolution that the evidence supporting evolution does not disprove the existence of a creator guiding the process.

Creationism addresses questions pertaining to the specific identity of the Intelligence responsible for designing the universe, what, if anything, this universe means to its creator, where our place is in it, and what it should all mean to us. The various creation stories from all religions belong in a comparative theology course, though philosophy courses covering teleological philosophy and applied ethics should also touch upon it.

the short answer to this is: yes they should both be taught. The question is how though: not as a contrast or conflict between an idea and "true science" but as something that exists and has merits in applicable situations. Little point in dedicating money for cancer research to in-depth religious studies instead of the genepool, just as there is little point in spending money on and expecting "the big idea" to be revealed by the genepool.

Let's not forget that science is also based on idea or belief systems (although we mask that craftily by the use of numbers, statistics, standard methods, "peer review" etc). Evolution and particular ecology are a case in point for me: it requires or has led to the trivializing of the whole of nature to two basic tenets predator/prey and genepool preservation ("the selfish gene") (of course I am exagerating but only a tiny little bit..).

The whole of nature? Well, we have declared ourselves exempt from this of course.. we alone can engage in deep thinking, truly altruistic behaviour, compassion, mindless destruction and enjoying sex for the hell of it, not just to preserve our personal genepool.. Something missing or wrong here, wouldnt't you say? But I can't wrench any of this into current scientific theories or frameworks... Does that mean that science is "wrong"? Of course not. At worst that it is incomplete and probably always be so but has good practical value. Just like religion. The trick is to know when to rely on what. Not which of the two to believe and just have an opinion......

Evolution should be taught in school. Creation or any other religious concepts should be taught at home and church.

The difference between evolution and creation is that we can provide evidence of evolution but not creation. And we need to make sure what we're talking about with evolutionary theory: that species adapt to changing environments. This is something observable, something provable. Creation says all things were called forth as they are today. Since we can prove that's not true, and we can prove that the universe is much, much older than any biblical scholar will state, we have to teach what we know. And what we know is evolution. By all means teach the Bible in a literature class for those who wish to take it. But evolution is science and it should be taught as science.

My answer is that they can both be taught, but in the proper context. Darwin's Theory is just that... a theory. If I remember correctly from Science class a theory is a "supported" hypothesis in that there is supporting evidence for the theory... and it is not disproven by observations... a theory is not a law as laws are irrefutable. Therefore Darwin's Theory is scientifically sound as a theory, but it should not be taught as Darwin's Law.

I am a Christian and I do believe that there is merit to the story in the Book of Genesis, but in my mind a religous book has little place in a Science class aside from an introduction to God's creation. Science is about man's attempt to understand HOW God has done what he has done. The story of the creation of the earth and all that it holds is a foundation and scientific study should be the structure that any class erects upon that foundation.

There is plenty of time in Church or Synagogue to learn the religious aspects of Genesis. Religion should not be taught in Government Schools... and the same goes for people who have made Mother Earth the object of their worship.

Yes and no is the short answer. More no than yes. Here's why:

I'm going to operate under the assumption that you reside in the USA. (If not...then I'm going to refer to a few things kind of specific to us bloody Yankees, but there's good reason why.) We have what is referred to as the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, which states that the government can neither pass laws restricting the free exercise of religion or promote any establishment thereof. Creationism is, after all, a belief that a deity created the world, and all things, species, etc.

Evolutionism, kind of a gross misnomer, is the idea that everything on the planet became it's current form over several billion years through a course of events, all of which are or were natural.

Here's the kicker - evolutionism has more scientific evidence on it's side than an invisible male (it might be added) anthropomorphic and invisible but all permeating being went "Poof! There it is!" Granted, does evolutionary science have a lot of holes in it, as well as scientific theory in general? Yes. But it's incontrovertible that scientific explanations have the weight of far more plausibility, and have taken thousands of years to develop to the state of the sciences today.

That being said, nothing is going to stop Creationists from believeing in Creationism. Since any arm of the State cannot interfere with one's religious beliefs, in that case those students that believe in creationism should be allowed the option of opting out or completing an alternate assignment(s) in any science courses that deal with subject matter pertaining to the Creationism/Evolution debate.

Since the government cannot side with religion, they therefore have a Constitutional mandate not to teach creationism since the Creationist view is solely from the realm of the Abrahmic religions, (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and therefore cannot be either rejected or promoted by any government body, such as public schools.

Until Creationism presents ample support for its claims, it should not be taught in classes. It needs to present serious study and critical examination through lab work and peer-reviewed essays on the matter before it should be given equal time with Evolution. If the supporters want it taken seriously in the classroom, it must first survive the scrutiny of the scientific community. Only when it has satisfied the conditions to fit the scientific term "Theory" should it be passed on to the students.

Theories are acceptable for teaching and it should be emphasized that's what they are - theories. We learned about Zeus, etc., and it's accepted. So, both views should be taught. I disagree evolution can be proven, that's why it's a theory. Darwin said that one must have "faith" to "believe" in evolution - doesn't sound like proof to me! And primates are still here! And what about the goo, molecules, or crystals that started the "Big Bang" (there are different opinions on the Big Bang "theory" now)... Still, it's as entertaining to me as Zeus and Apollo, or the Charmed series, or vampires. Atheists likely hold similar humor about religious or Creation views. And, the good thing about education, it provides an opportunity to learn other viewpoints - and we can agree, or agree to disagree. Life will still goes on.

There is no such thing as an Evolutionist or a creationist. These are dialectical extremes meant to antagonize each other argumentatively. A person that beieves in creation is fundamentally religious, if not... keep reading →

I agree with Moonchild60, as I too am fond of our rich history.

Paraphrasing P.Henry 3/23/1775 "I have but one lamp by which my feet are led, and that is the lamp of experience!" ~"I may not know what course another may take, but as for me & mine; Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!"

I submitted an article on this subject Evolution -VS- Creationism, and though I'm not conceeded enough to plug it, I will say; we need to observe the realization there's immeasureable lessons to be learned, if a touch of optomism is applied in both subjects.

Thus, I believe the answer is; absolutely, both should be taught equally.

On a personal note; I believe one cannot co-exist without the other, and for one group to stand divided, screaming at those on the far left; "You're so far left, you'll never be right!"

Only to have the far left returning fire; "Yeah, and you're just so right, you've got nothing left!"

Think about it.

We cannot obtain the totality of knowledge to conclude the wisdoms found in either, so we definitely shouldn't deprive creationism or evolution. To do so, is ignorant!

Therefore, I walk in silent observation between both the darkness & the light, and I've come to appreciate evolution by measure of respecting creation.