Back to question Answer 7 of 14See all answers

Discuss Jim's answer to: A republican appointed judge ruled that it is ...

A republican appointed judge ruled that it is unconstitutional to discuss intelligent design in a public school science class. Would liberal judges be more likely to uphold our religious free speech ...

Jim Answered:

Young earth creationism certainly has no scientific validity but still, there is no reason to prohibit its discussion in a science class. Seems to me that you would want to discuss it rather than ignore it. Fact is, science, evolution and the biblical creation account are not really in conflict and students should be aware of it.

Posted 1 year ago
Helpful (1)

Comments (15)

Helpful? (1)

Add your own answer

Liked this answer? Tell your friends about it

Facebook Windows Live Yahoo Twitter Digg Google del.icio.us Reddit

Link

Embed

Copy and paste the text above to share this Q&A

15 Comments About This Answer

Add your comment

J H

Once all the creation myths are discussed there would be no time left for real science.

andrewcranky

JH. Exactly, and with schools already far to over burdened and under funded as they are, Creationist want to compound the problem by teaching proven pseudo science in science classes.
Just so they can indoctrinate children into their cult.

And Jim. If we have to teach the Christen Creation myth, does that mean that we have to teach the creation myths of other prominent religions? Like for example Islam?

Jim

Islam has the same creation account, Andy. And I'm not saying that schools HAVE to teach it. I'm saying teachers and students should be free to discuss it without government prohibition.

andrewcranky

As Public schools teachers are employees of the state and local government, what you are suggesting is that teachers should not be able to govern their own classes. ( I know that's not really what you were saying. I'm saying it could possibly go that way )
And again it's a waist of class time and tax payer money to be discussing non science in a science class.

Jim

The origins of life on earth IS applicable to science.

andrewcranky

Creationism has nothing to do with science. It's mytholigy.

Jim

Life WAS created on earth at some point Andy. Creationism is not a myth. It happened. We just don't know how exactly. Or why, only on earth.

andrewcranky

1 ) just because like came into being doesn't mean that it was "created" by an intelligence.
2 ) why is irrelevant. Not everything has to have a purpose other then to be. Physics doesn't have a game plane. It just reacts.
3 ) How do you know "only Earth"?

Jim

The unanswered questions are why we continue to speculate and do science. We don't need Judicial prohibitions in our educational institutions interfering with those speculations.

And though the "why" may be irrelevent to you. It's not to most.

andrewcranky

I'm not saying that "why" in the greater philosophical aspect is not important.
I'm saying it's not not scientifically relevant. and does not belong in a science class. It belongs in a philosophy class.