# Should Creationism be taught in Schools? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 19, 2000, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866 "2000-06-19T16:24:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/41 "2000-06-21T03:10:01Z")
Noggins74 said: > [@](#): > > For those of you who say evolution is supported by the “scientific evidence”, I’d like to know what evidence you’re talking about. Evolution cannot be proven anymore than creationism can be proven. Evolution is just a THEORY. Oh, good. A new creationist to spout the rhetoric we haven’t heard for at least several hours. Noggins, if you want to come in here, you should be prepared with something better than that. Start with looking at the Mailbag, in which I’ve addressed creation/evolution at least 3 times in recent months. Look at some of the older threads where this has been discussed to death. I’m afraid the archives from the old version of the board still aren’t available, but there’s been plenty of discussion on this subject since then. But most importantly, if you’re going to come in here and claim that evolution isn’t supported by the facts, you’d better have some evidence to back up your claim. So far, you’re already in the hole because of your statement about evolution being “just a THEORY,” which shows you don’t know what “theory” means nor how science works. If you want to convince us otherwise, you’d better do so with evidence, not creationist slogans. * * * “The most amusing threads on this board involve David B kicking some obnoxious creation scientist ass.” – Greyson3 ---
**Author:** ![avalongod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/35a633/32.png) [@avalongod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/avalongod)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/42 "2000-06-21T03:15:42Z")
Noggins: I would agree that the TOE has some “holes” but such is the slow steady march of science. The basic tennets of TOE have been empirically demonstrated more than pretty much any theory anywhere in any science (if others can think of a better demonstrated theory (barring the Physical LAWS) I’d be happy to acknowledge it. As far as “not proven” few things in science are ever proven. This comes from the tennet of Falsifiability, wherein theories can never be proven correct, just not proven wrong. If you don’t like it, take it up with Karl Popper. ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/43 "2000-06-21T04:24:03Z")
I won’t get into the creationism/evolution debate but saying talkorigins’ website proves evolution as much as gravity is stretching it more than just a bit. And of course theres the fact that no one denys gravity and yet people deny evolution therefore gravity is more proven than evolution. Where I most noticed this is they claimed speciation on basically just the definition of 2 people. Now im not saying the definition isin’t valid; just that they are stretching. For example > [@](#): > > Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont Claiming Speciation for this in the context of evolution is bad for credibility. Also David B you should try to not get involved because your just lashing out at people. The most you will ever do is get someone angry at you since you seem to see some “creationist slogans” and you actually expect more than that and accept nothing less than perfection or evolution while insulting Noggins for literally no reason. Or in other words take it to the pit because it seems you can’t be nice or ignore them. Oh and for a small on topic part whoever was complaining about having a moment of silence is reading too much into things and complaining about a victory. It was a compromise and thats what America is about. ---
**Author:** ![avalongod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/35a633/32.png) [@avalongod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/avalongod)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/44 "2000-06-21T04:52:38Z")
DavidB: with all due respect (knowing you’re the moderator dude and all) I’d kinda hafta agree with Asmodeon. Ease up dude! It’s all good. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/45 "2000-06-21T08:49:09Z")
**Asmodean,** I hesitate to discuss this with you, as I get the impression English is not your primary language. If I miss your meaning on any issues, please reiterate and I will attempt a further understanding. > [@](#): > > And of course theres the fact that no one denys gravity and yet people deny evolution therefore gravity is more proven than evolution. Scientific theories are _ **not** _ established by their popularity with the general public. The fact that some refuse to accept the validity of evolution (likely due to a perceived reduced significance of mankind) in no way diminishes the status of the theory. Just because a great many people once believed the earth was flat did not make it a “more proven” theory either. > [@](#): > > Where I most noticed this is they claimed speciation on basically just the definition of 2 people. This is so totally wrong I am not sure where to begin. The definition of a species is naturally a fluid concept, for it is an artificial construct by man forced upon the continuum of nature. Regardless, it is _ **not** _ decided by 2 people. Where did you get this information? With respect to Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability, you stated: > [@](#): > > Claiming Speciation for this in the context of evolution is bad for credibility. Can you be more specific why you disagree with this? I fail to see where the problem arises. Furthermore, I suggest _you_ take any complaint about David B’s moderation to the pit. I see no insult of noggins74, David simply took him to task for mindlessly spouting creationist rhetoric. Perhaps if you view David as just another poster unless he specifically has his “moderator hat” on, you won’t be as inclined to see a problem where none exists. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/46 "2000-06-21T11:26:47Z")
Asmodean said: > [@](#): > > Also David B you should try to not get involved because your just lashing out at people. Pointing out that people should read up on the subject is “lashing out”? Asking for evidence is “lashing out”? Nope, sorry. The Straight Dope exists to fight ignorance, and creationism is the worst kind of ignorance. > [@](#): > > The most you will ever do is get someone angry at you since you seem to see some “creationist slogans” and you actually expect more than that and accept nothing less than perfection or evolution while insulting Noggins for literally no reason. Please quote the “insult” that I posted against Noggins or apologize for your error. I don’t expect perfection – but I do expect more than slogans. I do expect that somebody coming to a scientific discussion should understand science. > [@](#): > > Or in other words take it to the pit because it seems you can’t be nice or ignore them. I’d tell you what I think of this statement, but then I actually _would_ have to take it to the Pit… * * * “The most amusing threads on this board involve David B kicking some obnoxious creation scientist ass.” – Greyson3 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/47 "2000-06-21T13:16:19Z")
> [@](#): > > _Should Creationism be taught in Schools?_ [Opinion] I think that should be left to the owners of the schools to decide. So called “public schools”, of course, ought to be eliminated. [/Opinion] ---
**Author:** ![orestes543](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/b5e925/32.png) [@orestes543](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orestes543)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/48 "2000-06-21T13:57:19Z")
You know, reading through these posts about separation of church and state has reminded me of one of my all-time favorite quotes: “The last time we mixed religion and politics, people got burned at the stake.” Anyways, as to whether creationism should be taught in schools, I believe it that should be left for the churches and private schools. I mean, that’s why private schools were made, right? Public schools were supposed to be just strictly academics, and not religion. During my four years of high school(which just came to an end on June 3rd), I saw a lot of things happen at my high school. I was neither taught evolution or creationism, although my physics teacher for the past two years always set aside a little time for discussion of it at the end of the school year. Other than that, however, everything I learned about both of them I taught myself. In general, we really should leave religious things for the private schools. ---
**Author:** ![ASD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c68b51/32.png) [@ASD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASD)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/49 "2000-06-21T14:06:49Z")
Creationism should not be taught to the exclusion of evolution, nor should it be presented as science. I have always supported the way it was taught in my high school biology class. The teacher (and our textbook) went through a brief history of common theories that have been held about how life on Earth started/changed. We discussed spontaneous generation and how that was disproven; Lamarkian evolution and the flaws in it; and a couple of other theories I’ve forgotten now. Then we were taught Darwinian evolution (as a theory) and also taught about the modifications to the theory that have been made over time. We were taught the evidence that supports the theory but it was still presented as a theory. Creationism was presented something along the lines of “Many people of different religious beliefs think that life on Earth was created by a God or gods. Some people believe this and evolution and others think that evolution played no part in the establishment of life on earth”. It was a little more detailed than that–but those were the bare bones. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/50 "2000-06-21T14:11:04Z")
[QUOTE] \*\* **Libertarian** : > [@](#): > > [Opinion] > > I think that should be left to the owners of the schools to decide. So called “public schools”, of course, ought to be eliminated. > > [/Opinion] > \*\* Fair enough, of course, but what do _you_ think, **Libertarian**? When you send your child off to school school (whether in the real world or Libertaria doesn’t matter; FTR if the issue ever comes up (or came up) I honestly hope you can/could afford a private school in our current world so that you can stick with what you believe), what would be _your_ preference for what is taught at that school. And is your preference strong enough that it would be a material consideration in whether to send the child to a specific school, or would it be a trivial consideration to you relative to other issues involved with the choice? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/51 "2000-06-21T14:19:39Z")
**Manny** My own preference would be to home-school my child, where I would teach him by the Socratic method, meaning that he would eventually draw his own conclusions about both the Spirit and atoms. ---
**Author:** ![shagadelicmysteryman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ea924/32.png) [@shagadelicmysteryman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shagadelicmysteryman)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/52 "2000-06-21T14:58:44Z")
One question. When do you ever use evolution unless you’re in a science field or you’re some loner with no life that hangs around Great Debates at The Straight Dope? As for school prayer. At my school we’ve never had a prayer, and a few times we’ve had a moment of silence. It was once for the Columbine kids and another few times for some students that had died, and i saw that as fit. As for whoever said the Supreme Court doesn’t make the laws. You’re half right and half wrong. Congress makes the laws, you right on that count, but the Supreme Court has the final say so over the laws, say they wanted to declare them unconstitutional or what not. Also at my school there is this “Bible Group” that meets every now and then during lunch in one of the teachers rooms. I’ve never attended, but I think that’s a good idea except for the fact that they try to recruit everyone. It’s like those pesky people that stand outside of resturants and try to sell you vacation packages and won’t take no for an answer. Very annoying. ---
**Author:** ![Drew\_Blade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/958977/32.png) [@Drew\_Blade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drew_Blade)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/53 "2000-06-21T15:17:38Z")
Back to the OP (and to pick up where Homeslice left off in the second post): Creationism should be taught in public schools if and only if evolution is required to be taught in Sunday School. You know, with state-mandated attendance and grades given and all the stuff public schools require for classes they teach. This is my usual short answer for the evolution/creationism debate/argument. I find myself in a difficult position because we have chosen to send our son to a private religious school, and one of the stipulations is that we are not “allowed” to disagree with their teaching of creationism. We feel that the other benefits of this school outweigh this drawback, but I am sure this will come back to haunt me in a few years. Then I will have to do my best to straighten him out about this whole evolution/creationism debate… ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/54 "2000-06-21T15:49:15Z")
Why wait? ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/55 "2000-06-21T16:11:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > One question. When do you ever use evolution unless you’re in a science field or you’re some loner with no life that hangs around Great Debates at The Straight Dope? > \*\* Geezus, this is the dumbest question that I have ever seen. What do you do with quadratic equations in real life? Chemistry? PE? That is useful in an office job. For that matter what would creationism do for your daily life? The way that I see it is that schooling K-12, is as much about learning how to learn as is about memorization of facts and formulas. ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/56 "2000-06-21T17:49:09Z")
So, I do use evolution every day. I am getting a PhD in Genetics (as well as an MD). I work on Dictyostelium discoideum, a social amoeba, but we are currently looking at alcoholism. If you can constrain your hypothesis to a big enough degree, then you can do this with valid science. Anyway, I thought I should put a word in here because it is something I tend to deal with a lot. The problem with evolution, and the part that “creation scientists” will nail us on, is that we cannot observe so-called macroevolution, or the evolution of one different species from a precursor species. The evolution that we can observe is the change of a species due to a change in environment over several generations. We can also observe what we think and believe to be the footsteps of evolution in the fossil record and the genome. These all hold up, but cannot be used as proof, just as footsteps of a “dinosaur” and a “caveman” walking together in the mud cannot be used to prove dinosaurs and men co-existed. So, with this in hand, of course evolution should be taught in science class. It should be no more controversial than other theories with ample observational but little direct evidence, like economic theory. Science works around hypotheses which can be tested, and the experiments designed to test them. That’s what we should be teaching in science class – and contrasting this with a testable hypothesis that did not work out (like Lamarck’s theories). Evolution depends on direct observation of small phenomenon and extrapolation back to larger events over much larger time scales. The observational evidence is wonderful and adds support, but cannot serve to prove the theory. Example : We may not be able to see homonids evolving into Homo sapiens sapiens, but we can hypothesize that the shape of the Galapagos finch beak changes after several generations at a drier environment because those with the longer beaks can burrow deeper to find insects in dry wood and have a selective advantage. The problem with creation science and creationism in general is that no experiments (that I can think of off the top of my head at least) can be designed with a testable hypothesis that does not base in religious dogma. Most of creation science is spent trying to resolve their observed data (moon dust, dinosaur footprints, mutation rates, etc) with biblical theory. This, again, is not science (there is no testable question here). So, teach creationism. Even teach it in science class. It is a useful example of what science isn’t. Stick it on the end of the chapter after the Lamarckian view and abiogenesis. Ask the students to write an essay on any scientific theory, a given hypothesis, and one experiment to test it, so that you can hammer home the difference between what science is and what science isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/57 "2000-06-21T18:38:58Z")
**edwino,** I have a couple of minor points. > [@](#): > > The problem with evolution, and the part that “creation scientists” will nail us on, is that we cannot observe so-called macroevolution, or the evolution of one different species from a precursor species. Not true. There are numerous examples of observed speciation. You can read about some of them [here](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) and [here](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html). > [@](#): > > These all hold up, but cannot be used as proof, just as footsteps of a “dinosaur” and a “caveman” walking together in the mud cannot be used to prove dinosaurs and men co-existed. There are no footsteps in the mud of a dinosaur and a caveman walking together. If you are thinking of the [Paluxy](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html) site, this information was refuted long ago. On a side note, welcome to Great Debates! ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/58 "2000-06-21T20:30:05Z")
> [@](#): > > the Constitution does not provide for separation of church and state. That phrase isn’t even used in the Constitution. It was first used in a Supreme Court decision in the early 1960’s. The Constitution provides freedom _FOR_ religion, not _FROM_ religion. Wrong. “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of **separation between church and state**.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2000, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/59 "2000-06-21T21:43:47Z")
That post wasn’t as timely as it ought to have been… OK, I’ll weigh in on the creationism debate. Creationists are trying to take advantage of the fact that the majority of kids (especially _their_ kids) are being brought up in a religious environment and are familiar with the story of Adam and Eve. Evolution strikes at the very foundation of the belief system, but since their kids are already so inclined to believe the Bible, all they need to do is poke one little hole in evoltionary theory and they have their “out”. Hence the disclaimer Lousiana is trying to put into textbooks. It says here that it ain’t neccessarily so, so I’ll go on believing in A&E. Creationists don’t need to provide any evidence for their…well is sure as heck isn’t a _theory_…cuz it’s a default. P.S. Has anyone else notice the remarkable parallels between the debate over creationism and the OJ Simpson trial? ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866/60 "2000-06-22T04:14:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > **edwino,** I have a couple of minor points. > > Not true. There are numerous examples of observed speciation. You can read about some of them [here](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) and [here](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html). > \*\* I was a little unclear here. I know about specific examples of speciation – “creation scientists” don’t particularly care if the offspring of two sunfish from two lakes are nonviable, though (at least I don’t think). They want to see monkeys giving birth to men. Or dinosaurs evolving into birds. > [@](#): > > \*\*There are no footsteps in the mud of a dinosaur and a caveman walking together. If you are thinking of the [Paluxy](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html) site, this information was refuted long ago. > > On a side note, welcome to Great Debates! > \*\* Yeah I know, that’s why I put “cavemen” and “dinosaur” in quotes. It is just something that I have had held over my head before. Maybe it is because a) I was debating a less advanced creation scientist or b) I’m in Texas and the Glenrose site is in Texas or c) it is a useful well known paradigm. Either way, as I believe Steven Jay Gould once commented, this whole science v. religion thing is blown way out of proportion. Yeah, there have been historical squabbles, but I think this whole “creation science” is a new thing. Except of course for the embracing of Ptolemaic lore in the Middle Ages and the excommunication of Gallileo (which I think is misrepresented in the popular story), religion has never sought to establish itself as the superior to science in explaining the natural world. I am heartened, however, that many Christians (of which I am not) like the dean of Baylor University, have come out against creation science calling it “bad Scripture” and not even gracing it with the label “science.” IMHO (granted I am nearly nonpracticing Jewish) : 1. Yeah God gave us this book. Yeah we believe that version X (fill in bible/holy book of your choice) is superior to our neighbors’ version Y. Yeah we have a story about creation here, but it has passed through 1-10,000 years of the meddling hand of man. 2. The thing God gave us **all** is the same identical natural world. He also gave us curiosity. From the start of time, it has been human nature to try and explain the natural world. How can one level of looking out and explaining the natural world (like so many saints and prophets have done) be holy, whereas another level of doing so (science) be unholy? There is no cutoff in Holy Book of Your Choice… 3. Science must be holy. That’s My Humble Opinion (so I do science). Granted, this is ridiculous, but like the A-Team, it just might be crazy enough to work. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/22866.md?page=4)