Creationism Left Out of Science Education for Valid Reasons

Reader Comments
Back to article

I think your points are very biased. You make many good ones but you don't think from both sides. You see that's the difference between creationist and evolutionist, if you really think about it. Creationist are open to viewing both sides but why aren't Evolutionist? Creationism should be taught alongside evolution because it's the other half of the evolutionist theory... because that's what they BOTH are theories, neither have been 100% proven accurate. Yes things evolve but there is so much more to both sides but you're to busy only standing up for one side. Try reading the bible sometime. Then come back and talk about creationism being completely false and stupid.

Shely Wright of NV 5:04AM December 06, 2011

I agree that religion shouldn't be taught in public schools. I mean who knows where our public schools will go if that were to happen. I mean common with a dropout rate of close to 50%, seniors in high school who are unable to read, write, or do the arithematic, and increased teen pregnancies, obviously teaching intelligent design would just be a joke. Oh yeah lets not forget the overpaid and underworked teachers who rather than heart the little blokes feelings would rather pass him onto the next grade than have to deal with him for another year.
Let's get real for a moment, I am not advocating religion being taught in public schools, but something drastic needs to be done in our public schools to correct the situation. We can't even compete with other countries, because we have dumbed down our own education system without the inclusion of religion or god in the mix. Everyone wants to shun religion but what else is being tried to raise the bar for our children who are being turned out into adulthood, well stupid!

Joseph Heun of NY 7:06PM March 19, 2009

ID is just old material and science from the dark ages. It is religion based and not part of the US. We don't have religion in schools and don't incorporate it in our laws. Let's keep it that way.
I have lived my whole life reading the bible and educated in public schools. I'd not want any religious leader to determine what I was taught.

reza santorini of IL 8:11PM March 17, 2009

In telligent Design is based on the writings of people from the dark ages. Darwin wasn't perfect but certainly a step up from that belief systems.
Teaching ID doesn't teach truth or science it teaches religion. Teaching evolution includes that which has been discovered since the dark ages.

melodylane of IL 8:07PM March 17, 2009

It's the "Theory" of evoltion. Not a fact. I was tuaght this in a government run (public) school,but the teachers didn't shove it down my throat as a fact. I don't think it is very healthy for a "modern" society to twist things around for some bias agenda. Now,the Darwin Theory is presented to children as if it were a scientific "Fact". Even if the government never allows prayer back in public school, they should at least have a factual curriculum. One that teaches correctly,then let the students decide their own world view. It's just a theory,not a fact.

John Chew of VA 5:10PM March 16, 2009

Creation, Design, and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. They can all be part of a Plan...
Earth shattering ,uh? Science supporting the Magic of Creation by Happenstance and pre-existing matter, energy, physical laws and time itself is, well.... a religion. And, recognizing "Design" and a "Creator" as a "first cause" is, well... obvious.
It is also obvious that evolution would be necessary in any plan involving a dynamic universe.
By the way, it may be useful to remember that many scientists - after they tire of chasing their tails - do, in fact, accept the conclusion of an universe from design instead of happenstance acting on self creating or eternal matter and energy.
Now children, play nice...

R.L. Schaefer of CA 4:15PM February 25, 2009

"If high school curricula include mention of the neutralism-selectionism debate, or the promise of the new evolutionary developmental biology, and the challenges posed by the structure of the genome, and the relevant teachers are conversant enough with contemporary biology to discuss these topics accurately, so much the better. It would be a major achievement, at least in the United States, if high school science instruction achieved such a level. However, in contrast, ... the criticisms leveled against evolutionary biology by ID creationists are vacuous and driven by their theological agenda. Moreover, the ‘controversy’ within biology allegedly over evolution versus ID creationism is an artificial controversy generated by the claim that evolution is controversial. To the extent that this book helps resolve that artificial controversy, or at least remove it from the debates about science education, it will have served its purpose." (Sarkar, Sahotra. Doubting Darwin? Creationists Designs on Evolution. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2007; p. 166.)
As Sarkar notes, perhaps it is time we raise the educational bar and start assisting our youth to become critical thinkers about the real issues that modern 21st century biologists are grappling with. Why not use Sarkar’s book as a classroom text, or material therefrom? I think you are really selling our youth short, for it is possible to teach this material to 8th and 9th graders. My 14 year old is able to grasp these concepts. By including some history (i.e., how ideas have evolved on the subject within the field) we are helping our children become critical thinkers, and hence, better prepared to make creative contributions to the field. This also helps them differentiate the real ‘controversy’ opposed to the red herrings ID-Creationists throw up all the time. This would be an advance in eduction, I think.

Rob of WA 12:14PM February 17, 2009

The comments I've read on this article are misguided. One asserts that Darwin would have been a proponent of Social Darwinism--there is no reason to suppose this as Darwin was concerned with natural selection and evolution. His methods were purely scientific. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with science. Another comment misrepresents human evolution by stating that evolutionary scientists claim humans evolved from apes. Instead, they claim we have common ANCESTORS. The third comment shows a student who appears to stubbornly not allow scientific theory to penetrate his/her brain.

Ellen Guarco of CT 7:59PM February 15, 2009

Just from a social point of view Darwinsim shoul be completely reviewed and questioned as unbiased taints. Darwin would presuppose that black were in a class less than whites. It was no accident that Hitler picked up on his ideas and inserted some of his own. The fuel for the fire of social survivalism starte in cultural biase. Truth be told even the best scientist review thier work in the prism of their own cultural expreiences.
I know you will tell me this is a big stretch, but how much have changed and stretched time to fit the evolution model. Given no real links and only gaps it is the perfect cover to sound perfectly right. Given enough time any criminal can find an alibi.
Truth is prejudice has played a significant historical role in this and no one she feel more duped than the black man for all this misappropriated science

Stan Bednarz of NY 6:42PM February 14, 2009

If I have a choice between Darwin's theory of evolution and Creationism- my choice is Darwinian but in my view the unknown history of mans origins is too long to be sure that humanity grew out of the primates that we call chimpamzees or apes....which seems to be the assumption of Darwin ...to say or imply that humanity evolved directly out of apehood is hard to believe because of the lack of evidence and secondly because they could have evolved parallel with each other.... I am not buying creationism nor the theory that our ancesters were apes millions of years ago.....

Steve S. Roisman of CA 4:30PM February 13, 2009