Show of HandsShow of Hands

pof November 5th, 2017 12:59am

Should public schools require a Biblical Creationism class as a science requirement?

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

drself Gated Community
11/05/17 8:04 am

Why are liberals afraid of creation science. I believe it is because, if you start to sway toward this science, you will have to deal with a much bigger problem in your life.

11/05/17 11:21 am

Why do right wing nuts believe in fairies and angels and feel as though science is the antichrist? Do you use modern medicine or go to a witch doctor?

11/05/17 5:36 am

No way, but it could be studied in philosophy as a principal counterpoint to the Socratic paradox.

Kay41 the Midwest
11/04/17 9:28 pm

Definitely not.

bluerum29 optimistic idealist
11/04/17 8:03 pm

No, but a elective available of something similar woyld be fine

JennaB Mother
11/06/17 12:09 am

We should not be teaching falsehoods in schools.

TheMadScientist the mad laboratory
11/04/17 6:56 pm

I don't think people who believe in biblical creation would appreciate how biblical creation would be covered in a science classroom.

11/04/17 6:57 pm

Let's assume they bring in a religious authority to teach it.

TheMadScientist the mad laboratory
11/04/17 10:22 pm

Then it isn't science.

What if they had science teachers teach science in Spanish class? Then it wouldn't be Spanish class.

11/04/17 10:24 pm

They'd have religious preachers teaching Creationism in a Creationist Science class.

TheMadScientist the mad laboratory
11/05/17 2:16 am

You do know it's a party foul to bring the good stuff and not share, right?

How classroom standards work is in way that they support each other. There are some about content, skills, or other requirements. The other science standards would cover critical thinking skills, which would put classroom leaders in a position to be forced to deny creation science.

Further, if the state opened the door to including religious beliefs in a science classroom, there would be a real burden for the teacher to do so in a way that is compliant with the constitution. That means presenting other religious perspectives, including agnosticism of atheism - which are the major evidenced-based religions.

So, such a law would legally position even a Christian with conviction to teach agnosticism and/or atheism as the logically correct conclusion, based on evidence, alongside the various creation myths.

In short, the result would not be what the writers of such a law intended.

11/05/17 10:48 am

Can you not think abstractly?

TheMadScientist the mad laboratory
11/05/17 11:26 am

How do you think abstract reasoning helps this situation?

11/05/17 11:31 am

You are taking poll questions too literally. You do this on practically every poll I've seen you comment on.

TheMadScientist the mad laboratory
11/05/17 12:18 pm

I think I'm still having a hard time with your terms. Abstract thinking is generally contrasted with concrete thinking. Literal thinking is usually contrasted with metaphorical thinking.

11/05/17 12:21 pm

Abstract: existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

TheMadScientist the mad laboratory
11/05/17 12:55 pm

I don't see what abstraction I don't understand. I am a high school science teacher in a state that has debated this question several times. If anything, I'm using pragmatism to hide my idealism. Yes, I am an idealist. An idealist is a person who thinks that it's possible to have one, right answer for a given set of conditions. Is that the word you're looking for?

11/04/17 6:43 pm

No, creationism is religion, not science.

bower8899 ...
11/04/17 6:28 pm

Fuck no. That's anti-science. Go to a Christian school and you can learn it in a religion class

Dinosaur23 Tetris is So unrealistic
11/04/17 6:42 pm

Its not anti-science, but I agree it that it is a religious class.

bower8899 ...
11/04/17 6:46 pm

It goes against everything we can know from our studies.

Dinosaur23 Tetris is So unrealistic
11/05/17 6:32 am

Qualify that, if you would, please. I understand the Bible is not a textbook, but the generalization can not be left to stand as stated.