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

Jump to Last Post 1-15 of 15 discussions (15 posts)
  1. Csanad profile image70
    Csanadposted 14 years ago

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

    I think yes. Evolutionists state that Creationists brainwash children by not allowing other things to be studied by children. However Evolutionists fall into the same trap; they only allow Evolution and nothing else. I think that all theories should be thought and then let the child decided which one is more logical and symphatetic for him/her.
    What is your opinion about the issue?

  2. profile image51
    Ajarn Adamposted 14 years ago

    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.

  3. Moonchild60 profile image75
    Moonchild60posted 14 years ago

    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.

  4. WayOutWisdoms profile image60
    WayOutWisdomsposted 14 years ago

    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.

  5. paul_gibsons profile image60
    paul_gibsonsposted 14 years ago

    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......

  6. Valerie F profile image61
    Valerie Fposted 14 years ago

    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.

  7. profile image59
    Samthraxposted 14 years ago

    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.

  8. rmcrayne profile image90
    rmcrayneposted 14 years ago

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

  9. profile image58
    Native Sonposted 14 years ago

    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.

  10. Dark knight rides profile image58
    Dark knight ridesposted 14 years ago

    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.

  11. profile image0
    Deborah Sextonposted 14 years ago

    No. I believe in Creationism but am afraid they would teach it wrong or against my belief. It's better to not  be taught at all then to be taught something  that's not  true.
    I also believe evolution and creationism walk hand  in hand.
    God made all things

  12. Evan G Rogers profile image61
    Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

    I would like to point out that there are four things about this question that don't make any sense, and that there is a completely easy, rational, and non-offensive solution to this entire issue that can be found by simply returning to our constitution.

    First and foremost, federally funded public schooling shouldn't even exist. This is the true answer to your question - Congress does not have the authority to be funding such an operation. If you disagree with me, read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and then read the Tenth Amendment; you will see that I am right.

    Education is at worst a state's issue, and at best a private issue - i.e. private contracts with private schools. This way, if people are TRULY disgusted by the knowledge of Evolution, they can vote what education their children get with their dollars.

    Second - Evolution has been observed, it has been used, it has been applied to other fields of study, and it has stood the tests of every scientific discovery since Darwin. It is on a firmer basis than the theory of atoms, the theory of relativity, and many other theories.

    Third - Creationism isn't even a theory. The scientific method is based on observable studies, controlled tests, and peer review. Creationism fails all of these: it has never been seen, it has never been tested (because it can't be), and all claims by creationism are easily torn apart with proper knowledge of science.

    The Theory of Evolution (don't be fooled by the term 'theory' - a theory is a fantastically proved thing. Atoms are a theory, electrons are a theory, the information used to operate a car is sipmly theory - thermodynamics-, gravity is a theory, the atomic bomb was developed by a theory... i could easily go on) HAS been tested, numerous times, it HAS been observed, numerous times (google 'observed instances of speciation'), and it has easily survived peer review.

    Fourth - evolution and creationism occupy completely different fields. Evolution just says that life springs forth life. Creationism demands that life sprang forth from a God; one discusses how species come about, the other discusses how life originally is created. Evolution and Creationism aren't even really comparable. Creationism is more closely compared to Abiogenesis - the genesis of life from inate matter.

    In conclusion, this question that gets asked day in and day out by just about every single person in the USA is a VERY misleading question that needs to be dealt with.

  13. XxMr.TripsxX profile image68
    XxMr.TripsxXposted 13 years ago

    My answer is no! Only real science with empirical evidence should be taught in classrooms. Both evolution and creation have holes, the difference between the two is that evolutionary biologists are still trying to fill the holes while creation simply says "God did it"! Honestly i think that anyone who believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old is just plain ignorant. You can believe in God but don't ignore the ever growing evidence of evolution

  14. profile image52
    nutritionexpertposted 12 years ago

    I believe evolution really has no place being a center priority in any public school study and neither does creationism, but if you are going to teach anything it should be factual and not lies.  If you teach something that is a "belief," it should be presented as a belief and something to consider.  In that light, creationism and evolution if defined properly, should both be taught because they are just beliefs.  In doing that, you need to present the evidence for both.

    Clearly defining evolution usually is where the rubber meets the road and most evolutionists do not even understand what they believe, only that life on earth could not be explained any other way.  I find it comical that most evolutionists base their supposed beliefs on scientific facts, yet the so called facts are nothing more than assumptions and NOT GOOD SCIENCE at all.

    Here are the categories of evolution:

    1  Cosmic evolution is the origin of time, space, and matter, i.e. the big bang       
    2  Chemical evolution is the origin of higher elements from hydrogen           
    3  Stellar and Planetary evolution origin of stars and planets.                 
    4  Organic evolution is the origin of life                   
    5  Macro evolution is the changing from one kind into another               
    6  Micro Evolution are the variations within kinds. 

    It is really not arguable that #6 is true.  So if you define evolution to include that one, then I know of no one that is right in the head would disagree with that.  It can be scientifically proven, observed, and is still happening today so we don't even have to look backward to show it happens.  So if you define evolution as #6, then yes, it is true in the majority of people on earth.  I choose to call it variation within the species rather than evolution due to the erroneous belief that "Survival of the fittest" is a reasonable assumption.  I cannot for the life of me see how anyone would say the Chihuahua would evolve due to being the fittest somehow.  Put that dog in the wild and see how long it would last.  LOL.  There are so many examples of that kind of thing that it really strains the brain to believe it.

  15. cascoly profile image60
    cascolyposted 11 years ago

    you say: Evolutionists state that Creationists brainwash children by not allowing other things to be studied by children.

    i've never heard that in years of these discussions - who said such a thing?  btw there's no such thing as 'evolutionists', since evolution is the foundation of modern biology, so basically all scientists are 'evolutionists'  --  it's like saying anyone who believes in democracy is a democrat!

    as far as letting kids decide for themselves, science is not a popularity contest - you don't get to vote on facts like gravity & evolution; 
    for more: … -Evolution


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)