Show of HandsShow of Hands

smarttexan July 29th, 2015 12:05pm

I attended a private, religious, college prep middle and high school. They taught evolution in science class and creation in religion. In Texas, present day, they teach, in science class, that both evolution and creation are viable explanations.

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Korosensei Maine
08/01/15 9:15 am

If you want to teach creation become a Sunday school teacher science should be taught in science classrooms and not have to bow to religious BS

bk2024 colorado
08/01/15 6:48 pm

Nice respectful argument there

Korosensei Maine
08/01/15 6:51 pm

Respect is for people not idiotic disproven ideas

commonsense America isnt racist
07/29/15 2:37 pm

That's crazy. One is based on theories, calculated repetitious experimentation, & facts. The other one is based off a 2000 year old edited/censured book.

Ridiculous. We are shooting our kids in the foot with this childish stuff.

Reply
smithy0013
07/29/15 11:16 am

People complain about the US falling behind on academics. But we still put up with this shit. We're never going to get ahead if we keep telling kids that it's good science to believe a book just because an adult told you it was a good book to believe

Reply
FATSHADOW Cyborg Gorilla
07/29/15 10:33 am

My Catholic School made it clear that not everything in the Bible was to be taken literal and it was about the message.

It only taught evolution.

Genesis was simply treated like a story.

Reply
Laserbeam Crazy bird lady
07/29/15 9:11 am

Fairy tales have no place in a science class. I feel awful for those Texas students who are being cheated out of a quality education.

Reply
dfish at home
07/31/15 5:59 pm

Lol because the rest of the countries public schools are a beacon of quality education

Laserbeam Crazy bird lady
07/31/15 6:07 pm

We can thank Bush Jr for that, but that's really getting off the topic of the poll.

nnifer Alpha Quadrant
07/29/15 8:56 am

Colonel, we don't proselytize, it's not part of what we do. We don't have a identity crisis, we just don't care what other people believe. It's not our business. Christians should consider doing the same. That would be great

nnifer Alpha Quadrant
07/29/15 8:58 am

Oops, wrong place

cathyro Long Beach,Ca
07/29/15 2:19 pm

I do that all the time...😕

suppressedID keep Summer safe
07/29/15 6:17 am

Texas is just becoming one big cult. Get out while you can.

Reply
EnderWiggin So disillusioned...
07/29/15 7:33 am

Just let us keep Austin!

EnderWiggin So disillusioned...
07/29/15 5:55 am

Does anyone notice that the Jewish faith never pushes the idea of creationism? Why not? It's in THEIR book? Why are the fundamentalist(ish) xtians the only ones?

Reply
Mattwall1
07/29/15 6:28 am

I can't speak for the Orthodox, but Reform and Conservative Jews (not to mention the irreligious ones), are more likely to view evolution as correct in the first place. Although there obviously are exceptions, there's generally a feeling both in

Mattwall1
07/29/15 6:30 am

Support of scientific thought and a revulsion of mixing religion into government-which would include public schools and creationism. Obviously, exceptions exist, but when the goal of a science class is to teach science, why would anyone that's

Mattwall1
07/29/15 6:30 am

Thinking rationally want to reach non science as science?

Mattwall1
07/29/15 7:14 am

Colonel-I'd have to disagree with that. It's the secular and Reform Jews that are losing, but even historically within the U.S., Ender's statement remains accurate

smarttexan More Moderate Than U
07/29/15 8:57 am

Because Jews know that genesis is written in a text style that makes it a story, not fact. It was just a way to try to understand something they could not understand 6000 years ago.

Squidboy Snarkapottamus
07/29/15 5:32 am

I have no beef with teaching creationism if it's taught alongside evolution. Both are theories. One is from millions of hours of research, observation & revision. The other translated from dark age manuscripts written from centuries of 'oral

Reply
Squidboy Snarkapottamus
07/29/15 5:33 am

History.' Believe what you want, teach both.

smarttexan More Moderate Than U
07/29/15 5:44 am

The scientific method used evidence. There is no evidence that meets the requirements of science to make creationism any more than a belief. It is not a theory.

Mattwall1
07/29/15 6:26 am

While evolution and creationism from a scientific perspective, are not equivalent, which form of creationism exactly? Biblical? Norse? Greco-Roman? Traditional Chumash? Traditional Cherokee? Ancient Egyptian?

Squidboy Snarkapottamus
07/29/15 7:44 am

Both excellent points. My only stipulation would be that is we insist on teaching creationism...then it should be taught alongside evolution and considered at best a theory. it's not fact.

Mattwall1
07/29/15 9:02 am

The problem is theory in scientific terms and theory in lay terms are different things. Calling creationism a scientific theory is inaccurate. Calling it a theory in lay terms is more accurate (though probably giving it too much credit). And teaching

Mattwall1
07/29/15 9:03 am

Something that isn't science as science in a public school science class is inefficient and disingenuous

firefly5 the verse
07/29/15 5:45 am

It really isn't. Not in a science class. Science is concerned with observable, quantifiable, disprovable matters. Creation, while arguably observable (though the argument is a bad one), is certainly not quantifiable or disprovable.

smarttexan More Moderate Than U
07/29/15 5:46 am

It's sad that you say that. Any institution focused on education would separate belief and science. They are different. My religious school wanted me to gain the best education do they separated teaching appropriately.

smarttexan More Moderate Than U
07/29/15 5:46 am

My Message was to Ozzie

firefly5 the verse
07/29/15 5:47 am

I'm not saying that it can't be taught, but creation and any faith-based theory is inherently not scientific. That's why it's called faith.

firefly5 the verse
07/29/15 5:50 am

And perhaps the other questions are these:

1. Do you want creation brought up as a sidenote/asterisk? Because in a course based on a scientific method, there's little to present, thus the direct side-by-side will cheapen the argument.

firefly5 the verse
07/29/15 5:52 am

2. With what class time is available, what do you suggest be cut out of the science curriculum to make room for creation to be presented in any real way?

My point is that it's a great philosophical discussion, and I'm not trying to discredit it in

firefly5 the verse
07/29/15 5:55 am

any way. But it's not science. If you want it to be presented in any meaningful way without minimizing its own importance, then a science choose is not the proper setting.

smarttexan More Moderate Than U
07/29/15 5:56 am

Agreed. Science should be taught in science. Religion should be taught in places of worship or religion classes. Belief should not be taught as science or theory as in scientific theory or method.

ozzy
07/29/15 6:21 am

Science tells us that when we cannot extrapolate the facts we must ask questions to determine the answer, no matter how unlikely.
Whether evolution is agreed upon or not, something "created" to begin things. Looking into that IS science

ozzy
07/29/15 6:22 am

Well. Evolution does not answer all of the questions for me

ozzy
07/29/15 6:23 am

Going by you guys, science would stagnate. If we can't prove or measure, then it must be faith. That is pathetic logic

firefly5 the verse
07/29/15 6:25 am

But this would be presented as an asterisk, then. Also, evolution doesn't seek to explain a beginning (of the world), but rather a progression.

ozzy
07/29/15 6:26 am

Then why can't anyone discuss origins/creation without being dismissed as religious nonsense?

firefly5 the verse
07/29/15 6:27 am

Not prove. We can't prove. We can disprove. We can support. And I'm not arguing about the merits of creation or evolution. I'm simply stating that it's not based in science.

firefly5 the verse
07/29/15 6:30 am

There are many things science doesn't explain. Don't mistake "not science" for "not important/valid/worthy/serious." This is not a hierarchy, where science> religion> whatever. Grammar isn't science, either.

firefly5 the verse
07/29/15 6:31 am

And anytime you want to have that discussion, I'm in.