Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HockeyPuck
Whoa, there buddy - I thought we want to teach our children science? As I mentioned above, there is as much science in evolutionary theory than creationism. Our teachers should help our children learn the scientific process - observing, reproducing the results, and making conclusions - not pushing one theory or the other (which they are doing in public schools).
|
Sorry, but creationism is just religious metaphysics with a new name. It's like trying to teach an old Dogma new tricks. When at it's best creationism is an attemp to build a bridge between the bible (or other holy book) and science by trying desperately to find holes in accepted fact about such things as the dating methods of rock and how we measure the shift in light to determine how far away a star is and how old the universe is. At it's worse creationist science is utter junk - an attempt to use *******ized pseudo-science in the public realm to sway the opinion of Joe Churchgoer against science.
If we feel that a creation myth is plausible enough to teach our children in public institutions then we must include all other allegedly plausible myths and other possibilities that may account for the creation of man and the universe, whether it be the belief of the ancient greek gods or the belief in superior alien civilizations. It's like teaching a child the process of lightning then having a day long class on the theory of 'god making lightning when he wants to punish someone'.
Creationists traditionally have not worried themselves enough to develop theories about geological, physical and biological processes that jive with the bible, the spend their time trying to refute evidence that supports theories that DO NOT jive with the bible. Until creationists can use established scientific methods, (such as observation and the reproduction of results), to come to their own conclusions it should not be taught in public institutions.