Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Royal Society and Creationism In Science Classes

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the less-than-intelligently-designed-proposal dept.

Education 892

An anonymous reader writes "The Reverend Professor Michael Reiss, a biologist and Anglican priest, is the education director for the Royal Society, the venerable British science institution. He recently called for creationism to be discussed in science classes, not just in religion or philosophy classes. Science journals reacted with a world of 'WTF' and the Royal Society backpedaled furiously. Now Nobel laureates are gathering to get him fired: 'The thing the Royal Society does not appreciate is the true nature of the forces arrayed against it and the Enlightenment for which the Royal Society should be the last champion.' The blogs, of course, are loving it."

cancel ×

892 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24999901)

Post!

eat my shorts slashdot !! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24999909)

Eat my shorts slashdot !!

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25000053)

Flamebait, is that a new one or am I too green?

It /should/ be discussed in science classes (5, Insightful)

dbolger (161340) | more than 6 years ago | (#24999931)

I have no problem with students being shown the difference between science and "creationism". One is the very antithesis of the other. How can the average student be expected to argue against this nonsense if they don't understand what it is and why it is not science?

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (5, Interesting)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#24999949)

I agree. Creationism and other pseudoscience should be discussed in science classes. I doubt that's quite what the good reverend had in mind though.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (5, Insightful)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000015)

It should be taught in a way to show how it isn't science, and requires no evidence (it's belief based), and is specific to the judeochristian religion. Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (-1, Flamebait)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000337)

It should be taught in a way to show how it isn't science, and requires no evidence (it's belief based), and is specific to the judeochristian religion. Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.

First, many scientific theories are based on no evidence (string theory) and at this time we don't even know when they can be proven, if ever, but yet I'm sure many people can cite cases where universities are teaching string theory. Many theories are also based on assumptions that, given the human tendency to act holier-than-though, we think must be right or otherwise, God forbid, our theory might end up being wrong.

Second, many religions have a concept of a Creation. The exact details are unknown which is why, unfortunately, scientists don't believe it because they seek hard facts which are not discussed in the respective religions' holy books. The various Creations though have at least two things in common: there was a beginning and it didn't happen by accident. If you stick to those general premises then you don't run into the typical separate of church and state issue that *only* arises when people want to insert topics specific to Christianity. If you make the reasoning for insertion and the actual discussion generic then those who complain of church and state go away because you can use the same excuse everyone who tries to insert Islam into the school system uses (and get away with it unfortunately): it's a history lesson. In this case, it's a scientific one.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (5, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000089)

From the link ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism [guardian.co.uk] ), here's what he said:

"Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught."

Seems very reasonable to me.

If you do things the wrong way, you can prove you are right, but teach nothing.

If you teach nothing, you do not have a science class.

The uproar over what he said appears to be rather unscientific.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (4, Insightful)

bytesex (112972) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000339)

The problem is, that if you're not prepared to have your beliefs shaken, you're not really fit for science. Maybe it should be prefixed with a 'shake-your-belief' class, in which you do all sorts of little experiments like trying to see colour in the semi-dark, do simple maths in base-9, explain the mating behaviour of seahorses, and compare the height and circumference of a drinking glass (just things off the top of my head that could confuse a fourteen year old).

If I may expand upon that ... (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000387)

The problem is, that if you're not prepared to have your beliefs shaken, you're not really fit for science.

Now imagine a class with 10 Creationist students in it.

All arguing their latest talking points with the teacher.

All demanding that books X, Y and Z be read to show the "facts" of Creationism.

All saying that authors A, B and C have "disproven" evolution.

All claiming that evolution is a religion.

Fuck that. Put Creationism in a World Religions class and just save the time and arguments. As can be seen from the comments here, even self described "nerds" have trouble understanding what science is (and is not). Why bother with the confusion and the arguments?

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000243)

I doubt that's quite what the good reverend had in mind though.

You couldn't spare the 60 seconds it took to read exactly what the reverend said? If you had you would have seen that's kind of what he did have in mind.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (4, Interesting)

Boronx (228853) | more than 6 years ago | (#24999975)

It should probably be discussed in any section on the history of biology as an example of an inferior theory that was replaced by a superior one.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (2, Informative)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000125)

Yes. I remember learning LaMarckism and other ancient views (that many "teach the controversy" people seem to think is what evolution claims), and why it is utterly false and not science.

Of course you can't disprove creationism. I claim that God created all the fossils and other evidence to plant doubt and tempt us. How can you prove me wrong? You cannot. This simple lack of falsifiability is why creationism is not, and never will be, science.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (0, Offtopic)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000027)

While you're at it, throw in literary theories into science classes. Astrology should be popular also. Maybe we can get the Scientology people to sponsor that in the science class also.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (1, Troll)

ChuckSchwab (813568) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000041)

UM, I think you neglected to mention that Evolution is also just a theory at this point.

Yeah, you might want to mention that part when you advocate suppressing alternative beliefs in the classroom...

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (3, Informative)

Tsujiku (902045) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000117)

"also just a theory" What do you mean? It will always be "just a theory."

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (1)

dzelenka (630044) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000193)

UM, I think you neglected to mention that Evolution is also just a theory at this point.

Yeah, you might want to mention that part when you advocate suppressing alternative beliefs in the classroom...

Like the "theory of gravity"?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 [theonion.com]

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (5, Insightful)

Drakonik (1193977) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000205)

We don't object to theories being taught, we object to things that aren't science being touted as science.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000097)

I have no problem with students being shown the difference between science and "creationism". One is the very antithesis of the other. How can the average student be expected to argue against this nonsense if they don't understand what it is and why it is not science?

Using that yardstick, you have to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in science classes too, so you can argue against this nonsense.

Students learn how to identify and dismiss bullshit by being taught the scientific method [wikipedia.org] . It works on any bullshit.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000255)

I have no problem with students being shown the difference between science and "creationism". One is the very antithesis of the other. How can the average student be expected to argue against this nonsense if they don't understand what it is and why it is not science?

Using that yardstick, you have to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in science classes too, so you can argue against this nonsense.

Students learn how to identify and dismiss bullshit by being taught the scientific method [wikipedia.org] . It works on any bullshit.

True.
However, I find that kids are taught too much theory; dissecting creationism could prove a valuable exercise in applying the scientific method.

Bullshit is all-pervasive, and if any kind of education is to succeed, it should equip the students with proper bullshit-detectors.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (1)

rhyder128k (1051042) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000389)

It's possible to demonstrate one of the scientific principles that contradicts creationism.

Take five creationists and five scientists 200 miles into the wilderness. At this point the traits of believing in what the bible and believing in science said are equally represented within the sample group.

Now give the scientifically orientated people GPS units. The creationists can rely on their God to help them.

A week later, amongst the survivors, the trait of believing in God has been eradicated. Hopefully those people will pass that trait onto their offspring.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (3, Interesting)

Heather D (1279828) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000121)

The problem here is that the people pushing this would quickly stir themselves into a froth over any honest discussion of these matters. This would quickly turn the class into an exercise in name-calling, pressure tactics, and outright threats, not unlike the talk show circuit, except probably even worse. It would end up becoming a denial of service attack upon the system.

Frankly, it probably should be discussed in the social classes, but if the public discourse that has already happened is any indication this would probably start something resembling a riot in many schools. I seriously doubt that the same society that has allowed this mess to escalate to this level would have the spine needed to put a stop to it.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000303)

The problem here is that the people pushing this would quickly stir themselves into a froth over any honest discussion of these matters. This would quickly turn the class into an exercise in name-calling, pressure tactics, and outright threats, not unlike the talk show circuit, except probably even worse.

Tonight, on Jerry Springer: my son is an evolutionist!

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25000133)

And while they are at it, they can point out that the Roman Catholic Church (the one started by Peter the Apostle) is 100% OK with and supports the theory of evolution and the rest of those "christians" are simply ignorant cave-dwelling idiots.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000233)

Calling creationism the antithesis of science is high praise for creationism indeed.

But this is overwhelmingly an American point of view. Science is science, and creationism is irrelevant.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000297)

the difference between science and pseudoscience should be taught in science classes, but that doesn't require that creationism be added into the standard curriculum. it should be up to the teacher to decide how to best convey these concepts to students. if they want to bring up creationism, they may. but if they want to use astrology, alchemy, ufology, time cube, etc. to illustrate their point, then that should be up to the discretion of the teacher.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000341)

discussing it as a "why this is not science" subject is good. Discussing it as a scientific discipline is not good.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (1)

TheSambassador (1134253) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000351)

I think religion should be taught, just not in Science classes. Creationism is not Science because it isn't something that can be tested.

However, "seperation of church and state" aside, would it be so bad to have a "World Religions" course in high school? Maybe one that covered the top 10 relgions in the world, talked about what they believe and explained their common practices. This wouldn't be a "teaching the Bible as fact" kind of thing, it would be the promotion of understanding of other cultures and beliefs. I have actually met people who actually believe that all Muslims are terrorists.

Of course, the tricky thing is how to cover all religions equally and without bias. A Christian teacher is probably a lot more likely to speak of other religions with disdain than with the kind of unbiased coverage that this kind of class would require.

Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (1)

antaeus (585293) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000391)

When I took biology in high school, we discussed some scientific ideas that proved not to have scientific merit - for example, spontaneous generation, or the ancient belief that sickness was due to an imbalance of earth, air, fire and water in the body. I think that creationism and other pseudoscience should be taught in science classes to illustrate a point.

But theories like spontaneous generation could be disproved without causing religious and political turmoil. There are a number of people who believe in intelligent design and creationism, and they can make a lot of trouble for any teacher who debunks such ideas in a classroom. Teachers need to know that their school boards will support them in such situations - and it's very possible that the school boards have members who favor those ideas.

C'Mon England (3, Insightful)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 6 years ago | (#24999943)

I thought you were better than this. This is one American import I hope you don't accept.

Creationism is not science. Period.

Re:C'Mon England (1)

S-100 (1295224) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000215)

Creationism is not science to the same degree that evolution is not religion. However, evolution is usually taught as a secular religion, and for the most part, the people pushing for creationism to be taught alongside it want nothing more than parity for the two philosophical beliefs.

Of course, the "open minded" evolutionists want the other side muzzled, marginalized, fired and otherwise silenced. People knowing the true meaning of a "liberal" education can only shake their heads.

Re:C'Mon England (1)

beardedswede (1223312) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000317)

"Creationism is not science. Period."

But Intelligent Design is!!

Re:C'Mon England (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25000363)

I thought you were better than this. This is one American import I hope you don't accept.

American? You think creationism arose in America? That's very amusing. Or are we just looking at a way to take a swipe at Americans? Because I notice while we didn't invent creationism, we did discover the molecular structure of DNA and the fossil remains of australopithecus afarensis.

Misleading summary (5, Informative)

Homburg (213427) | more than 6 years ago | (#24999963)

The summary here is absurdly slanted. Reiss didn't advocate discussing creationism in science classes; he wrote that, if students bring up creationism, science teachers ought to be in a position to explain why creationism isn't a scientific alternative to evolution, rather than simply refusing to discuss the issue at all. Quote:

"If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works."

That's an eminently sensible position.

Re:Misleading summary (1, Troll)

db32 (862117) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000069)

What? You expect a group of militant atheists to be any better behaved than a bunch of religious fundamentalists? They are basically the same thing, and rely on unbelievably literalist or warped interpretations of various religious texts to attempt to maintain their relevance.

I am just as disgusted by the militant atheist blathering on about Science proves there is no God as I am the religious fundy trying to pass of creationism as Science. The only way the militant atheist can even begin to pretend to "disprove God" is to rely on bizarre interpretations of God in the most literal sense from the most wackaloon fundy.

I suspect that if somehow we could destroy one of these polar forces the other would follow and we would finally wind up with a balanced world wehre Science can do Science and Religion can do Religion and neither one will have penis envy over the other and we can all move on.

Re:Misleading summary (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000141)

Angry people will be angry and hateful people will be hateful regardless of their beliefs. Those only determine how easy their arguments are to destroy, not what they believe.

Re:Misleading summary (4, Funny)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000177)

I am just as disgusted by the militant atheist blathering on about Science proves there is no God as I am the religious fundy trying to pass of creationism as Science.

Now, I must admit I haven't read any atheists more militant than Dawkins, so I might be out of my depth, but I haven't ever encountered the stance that "science proves there are no gods".

As a linguist, I can readily assert that gods do in fact exist. So do elves, gnomes, unicorns and honest politicians. Now, outside language, that's a wholly diferent and highly debatable matter (do note that I never put trolls on the list, as we have the whole of the internet to actually prove their existence).

Re:Misleading summary (0)

db32 (862117) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000267)

Roam through the science section of a book store. There are quite a few out there. Multiple books on the subject. Which amuses me that they would waste so much of their lives dedicated to proving a negative that, according to them, has absolutely no impact on their lives anyways. The most amusing piece for me is that aside from that whole proving a negative problem, they fail their own logic. The very definition of an omnipotent force existing outside of the rules of science pretty much kills science ever being able to prove or disprove its existence. So, they "disprove" the existence of their own concocted definition of God.

Similar to this concept. I can prove right at this moment that I do not have a wizbanglefrat in my hand. Since I get to define what a wizbanglefrat is and it doesn't have to match anyone elses definition of a wizbanglefrat I can indeed state that there is not one in my hand. Then I can proceed to make outlandish statements about anyone who has a differing definition of wizbanglefrat and write numerous books on the subject rather than doing anything actually productive. :)

Re:Misleading summary (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000347)

Roam through the science section of a book store. There are quite a few out there. Multiple books on the subject.

I will take your word for it, as I haven't seen anything like that in any Croatian bookstore.
I have, however, seen Behe's tracts, as well as other creationist books, placed in the science section, which I find to be even worse.

Re:Misleading summary (2, Insightful)

entrylevel (559061) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000381)

You sir, are an extreme moderate.

No worries though, I also make an attempt to stand between the darkness and the light. It's an impossible goal that is worth pursuing.

Re:Misleading summary (2, Interesting)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000109)

Knowing the way we functioned in school, though, this position may prove to be a hindrance. It only takes one or two trolls to turn every class into a creationsim debate.

But if what you quote is correct, why has it turned into such a heated issue? The last thing that should happen is science not discussing certain issues.

Re:Misleading summary (1)

stormguard2099 (1177733) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000201)

People have a hard time reading things apart from their biases. Look at all of the fanboyism that runs rampant. Look at any politically motivated debate.

People tend to intepret vague things the way they want. Here is a section from the bottom of the WTF article linked:

the Royal Society has put out a statement affirming that it is opposed to creationism being taught as science.

In a statement Reiss has also clarified his comments. "When young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis."

Well, no-one would argue with that. But it's a bit different from implying that creationism should be taught alongside science, as he did when he said that "in certain classes, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue".

That last sentence seems very far from advocating teaching it in a class but if you are looking at this with the preface of a priest talking about the topic i suppose it can seem different.

Re:Misleading summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25000355)

I can tell you why it's turned into a heated issue.

It's dead simple, people see science as a religion now. Rather than successfully teaching the bulk of the world to think for themselves, we've taught them to view whatever science turns out as "right", like a dogma. Rather than that whatever science turns out is our best approximation of the right answer FOR NOW, has a good chance of being wrong, and almost unquestionably is not the full picture.

I am anything but a creationist, but in this debate so often people say "what do you believe". Anyone who "gets" it will say one of a) "what I believe doesn't matter" or b) "I do not believe in any scientific theory at all, as scientist it's my job not to". Anyone who "believes" in evolution and thinks the concept of "belief" has any place in science has completely missed the point. In the words of XKCD "science, it works bitches". Belief is irrelevant, and THAT is the point of science.

Creationism vs Evolution (5, Insightful)

fluffykitty1234 (1005053) | more than 6 years ago | (#24999967)

This is a great class to teach kids about what science is, and what the differences between scientific theories, and a non-scientific theory is.

For example, in science a theory is supposed to be able to make predictions: I throw the apple up, and gravity accelerates the apple back down etc. Have the kids then try to explain what predictive qualities Evolution has, and what predictive qualities Creationism has.

It could be a great teaching tool IMHO.

Embrace, and extinguish. ;)

Re:Creationism vs Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25000209)

What?? You mean God pushes the evil fruit away from heaven.

Re:Creationism vs Evolution (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000409)

For example, in science a theory is supposed to be able to make predictions: I throw the apple up, and gravity accelerates the apple back down etc. Have the kids then try to explain what predictive qualities Evolution has, and what predictive qualities Creationism has.

Creationism doesn't predict anything (although the Christian Bible does) and what evolution predicts can't be proven because it is conveniently impossible for us to be around long enough to see any new species develop. So what say you now? Past evidence for both is actually the same set of evidence but interpreted differently depending on whether you have an aversion to group thinking not biased towards secular beliefs. Because we all know group thinking occurs in church and schools alike and we are all taught to take what a teacher says as gospel, pun intended.

Eh... (0, Flamebait)

that IT girl (864406) | more than 6 years ago | (#24999969)

Honestly, why NOT teach both? Look, depending on which way your beliefs slant, you have a little bit of evidence and a lot of faith that it happened that way. Nobody has conclusive proof of either one, so why not teach both major theories?

Re:Eh... (1)

mikey1134 (628079) | more than 6 years ago | (#24999993)

I don't think the word theory means what you think it means...

Re:Eh... (0, Redundant)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000047)

Inconceivable!

Verify or falsify, or quit calling it science. (1)

getuid() (1305889) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000251)

I don't think the word theory means what you think it means...

What about the words "verifiable", or "falsifiable"? Do you think that means what I think it means?

Well, if it's verifyable/falsifiable, it's sicence. If not, it's not.

The moment you stop trying to verify/falsify a theory, it stops being science and becomes belief, because -- the name gives it away -- if you refuse to "verify", then all that you're left with is having to "believe" it...

Re:Eh... (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 6 years ago | (#24999995)

Along with all the other "major theories" that have every come along? L. Ron will thank you.

Re:Eh... (1)

mikey1134 (628079) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000017)

Don't forget the Pastafarian creation story, or Last Thursdayism...

You are using "theory" incorrectly. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000005)

Nobody has conclusive proof of either one, so why not teach both major theories?

Because then you would be perpetuating the error you just made.

A "theory" in science has evidence to support it.

Where is the evidence to support Creationism?

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25000281)

Where is the evidence to support Creationism?

The bible. And when you take an oath, on what do you lay your hand? A science textbook?... Heeey...wait a minute...Isn't a violation of some such n' such amendment?

Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly. (0)

Dannkape (1195229) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000365)

Where is the evidence to support Creationism?

It's called "evidence that contracts evolution". Creationism is then offered as an alternative.

Re:Eh... (2, Interesting)

that IT girl (864406) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000021)

To expound upon that...

Whether people like it or not, there ARE two major theories that both have evidence that can point to it, and plenty of credible scientists who think it happened that way. The only thing we know 100% is that we don't know 100%. The only reasonable thing to do, then, is to present both of these theories, give them equal time, and let the students draw their own conclusions about which one they're going to accept. I think this is the best way to make new discoveries, actually. If a young, bright, enterprising student is presented with two possible options, harmonizing on some points and conflicting in others, they may want to do more research, test things, and who knows? Maybe they will find the missing links in the fossil record, or maybe they'll find a giant fingerprint of God or something. Whereas if you just present one side and have the students remain ignorant about the other side, they will accept it complacently and not question things much further. That, obviously, would be a bane to discovery, and to progress.

You've just repeated your error. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000061)

The only reasonable thing to do, then, is to present both of these theories, give them equal time, and let the students draw their own conclusions about which one they're going to accept.

Again, a scientific theory has evidence to support it. It is falsifiable. It can be tested.

Yet you keep using the same word to describe evolution and Creationism.

It is that exact error that is the reason against teaching Creationism.

Re:Eh... (2, Insightful)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000071)

Please point out the credible evidence for creationism. It's not science. Creationism isn't a Theory in the scientific sense. Just in a layman's sense.

Re:Eh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25000151)

Well then you should have absolutely no difficulty in presenting the evidence for creationism. Where is it, by the way? I ask in all seriousness, and I've read a few books by creationists, they've never presented any. Every single discussion or debate I've seen or been in no creationist has ever presented evidence for creationism. Absurd, easily disproved pot-shots at isolated bits of evidence supporting evolution, sure. Quote mines aplenty. But pro-creationism evidence? Not a shred. So could you please kindly direct me to it? I've been asking and waiting for it for nearly 20 years now.

Re:Eh... (2, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000167)

There is no more evidence for creationism than there is for absurd theories like the IPU (may Her Grace forgive me) and the FSM, I'm afraid. I've read their materials, their textbooks. They are full of misinterpretations, science that was current two decades ago, and outright false facts presented as truth.

A fact which contradicts natural selection is not the same as a fact which supports creationism. That is the product of a false dichotomy.

Re:Eh... (4, Informative)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000217)

The fact that one requires blind faith pretty much takes it out of the requirements for it to be a scientific theory.

And if you really want to count Creationism as a theory, even though it requires the lack of evidence in order to follow it..

Whether people like it or not, there ARE two major theories that both have evidence that can point to it

There are not 2 major theories; there are more than 200 major theories! You don't understand what you are talking about. If you really want to limit how humans were created (from dirt and a rib and a finger from a supernatural man no less) then you are one ignorant person.

Re:Eh... (3, Insightful)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000349)

Creationism / Intelligent Design isn't a theory. The only "evidence" for it is some text in a book and some fake photoshopped pictures of digs of four meter tall humanoid skeletons.

It is not reasonable to present both evolution by natural selection, which has mountains of evidence behind it, and creationism / ID as equally plausible scientific theories. The only role Creationism / ID should play in a science class is as an example of a nonscientific explanation of how we came to be here.

What missing links are you talking about? More fossils are unearthed every day, and regularly, they discover a new species of hominid that fits in between two known species. Then you'll just whine about the missing links between the older known species and the newly discovered ones, ad infinitum. Take the real numbers: there's an infinite amount of them between any two integers. The "missing link" between 1 and 2 would be e.g. 1.5, and that would give rise to two new "missing links" -- one between 1 and 1.5, and the other between 1.5 and 2. This could go on and on forever (no barrel-throwing monkeys at the end, though).

Of course they should not let students be ignorant of the fact that many people prefer to believe some old book instead of a theory that's been debated and improved for 150 years by thousands of very smart and diligent scientists, all trying to disprove (parts of) it, and replace it with new ideas -- that would make them very famous and allow them to hold a speech in Stockholm. There is no conspiracy to push evolution by scientists who are afraid of religion or something like that. It would require thousands of intelligent and ambitious people to willfully forego their chance at the Nobel Prize. Never gonna happen.

It comes down to this: evolution by natural selection is a good theory that explains the wide variety of life found on this rock, and which makes biology make sense, and creationism and ID are just the LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU yelling of desperate religious people.

Re:Eh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25000395)

As far as credible evidence goes, the theory that a giant monkey shat out the universe is equally valid to Creationism. But you don't see THAT taught in science classes...the bastards.

Re:Eh... (1)

Cantareus (1362535) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000065)

Both major theories? I wasn't aware there was more than one. I think if there is another major theory that is supported by half as much evidence as the current theory is it should be definitely be taught.

Re:Eh... (0, Troll)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000095)

I happen to believe in Evolution, and believe Evolution is strong enough to withstand the crackpots who believe in Creationism.

Talking about Creationism is about being able to speak openly and being able to discuss things. Of course Creationists will always resort to the bible as proof, which is kind of ironic since the bible is just words that somebody happened to have written. It's like saying, "oh Lead Zeplin in the stairway to heaven meant blah, blah."

Getting back to the point science is about discussion, even if sometimes that discussion is pointless.

I always bring up the following point. Imagine today somebody came up and said, "hey God spoke to me and said we should do x,y, and z." The first reaction is crackpot, and that is not good. Because who knows maybe God did speak to them. Maybe God did say something. We have become so cynical that if something does not fit into a nice neat folder xyz then well it simply cannot exist. And I know that this is not the case since so many things happen that we cannot explain.

Here is an example, why can twins "sense" each other? I am not going to revert, "because God did xyz" What I am saying is that this ability of one twin sensing the other is something that we have just not being able to explain and it does not fit neatly into our standard discussion points. And hence we kind of have to be careful of what is right, and wrong.

Though I am all for a good logical creationist discussion, and I am guessing it will be rather short.

Re:Eh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25000271)

Here is an example, why can twins "sense" each other?

They can't, apart from in the normal human senses sense. That was tested years ago.

They might _think_ they have a magic ESP connection to their twin, they might _say_ they do, but it's indistinguishable from random.

Re:Eh... (0, Troll)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000103)

that IT girl [slashdot.org] , I was gonna make you my next beat-off girl, but now that I know that you are a follower of this "evidence of the supernatural" when it comes to the ehem CHRISTIAN religion, I'll beat off to someone else. Personally the pagans always win me over. If you want to worship anything, worship nature. I'll continue to understand what theories REALLY ARE, and keep my own mind open on feasible possibilities, none of which are based on the supernatural.

Both? just two? (1)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000159)

Honestly, why NOT teach both? Look, depending on which way your beliefs slant, you have a little bit of evidence and a lot of faith that it happened that way. Nobody has conclusive proof of either one, so why not teach both major theories?

We also need to teach the Indian version, Chinese, some of the Wica versions, etc...

But it's all a waste of time because Nyx created everything and this nonsense of Evolution or God is just superstition.

Anyway, I have my afternoon prayers and I need to discuss my stock purchases with the Oracle. Shit, i forgot to get my bull for my sacrifice. Boy oh boy, the gods are sure going to be pissed! Hurricane Ike came because of me! Sorry!

Why no teach "Mother Turtle" (1)

snarfer (168723) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000163)

You advocate teaching the dogma of ONE minor branch of ONE religion. Why not force kids to learn about "Mother Turtle", too? Why not force teaching of Scientology as well? Or Satanism?

Re:Eh... (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000173)

I have no trouble wuth people believing in Creation, or in a Creator. However if this is mentioned in a Science class, then the facts taught should be those that are scientifically verifiable. ie the Creation Event happened BILLIONS of years ago, not thousands as taught by _some_ christians, and that while there is no scientific proof of the Existance of The Creator, there is nothing to disprove that existance either.

How does a scientist know what's true? (1)

LrdZombie (70317) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000181)

All facts begin as dreams, dreamt by a wizard. If the wizard crosses the path of a scorned widow, then he shares it at the town council. Now, it is a hypothesis, and it is time to drown the wizard. If he floats, he is an evil wizard and must be burned alive. If he drowns, then the hypothesis is true! The king is told and he consults with his menagerie of birds. If the king is satisfied, then it becomes an Old Wives Tale and science is once more advanced!

Re:How does a scientist know what's true? (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000393)

I wish I had something funny and relevant to share, but all I can think about is Bob Odenkirk yelling "FUUUUCK" and running down the street with a shopping cart full of eggs.

Re:Eh... (1)

mikael (484) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000261)

Explain how matter can spontaneously come into existence, and then not only form itself into complex arrangements of molecules (DNA, RNA, viruses), bone, muscle, skin, brain, but also happen to be in just the exact state to be able to live and reproduce. For any species, there must be at least eight such creatures to be instantly created otherwise they would have been inbred within several generations.

Why go to the effort of creating hundreds of thousands of different species (flowers, insects) that only exist in tiny clusters in places all over the world?

Then why also go to the effort of creating and burying the skeletons of hundreds of species that never existing (since the world didn't exist before 3000BC?).

Why would native people like the Aborigines in Australia have legends passed down by word of mouth from generation to generation that relate to a time 10,000 years ago, when there were forests and lakes in Australia (confirmed by analysis of soil core samples?). What about cave paintings which are carbon-dated to before this time?

You end up with a whole set of physical evidence which contradicts one theological research paper.

Creationisum == Stupid God (4, Insightful)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 6 years ago | (#24999983)

Creationisum is an insult to the glory of God. How dare people say that God, being all knowing and all powerful, could not design and impliment a dynamic system but had to settle for a simple static one.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God (4, Insightful)

MicktheMech (697533) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000049)

This is essentially my position. By saying God couldn't have created life through an evolutionary mechanism is essentially placing limitations on His power. Something we Christians generally don't do. It's very sad that a very vocal group mostly localised in the U.S. (and to a lesser extent Canada) have been creating this image of Christians being irrational zealots.

The root of it all is that these American "evangelicals" aren't what the rest of the world uses "evangilcal" to mean. It's just a word the've taken to replace "literalist". These are literalists, plain and simple. Why don't they call themselves that? Because literalism is frowned upon by most of mainstream Christianity.

Re:Creationisum == Stupid God (2, Interesting)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000185)

Humans wrote the bible; God wrote the rocks.

Yeah, stupid (4, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000013)

But people are trying to get him fired over it? That's bullshit. The guy can hold his opinion, and as long as he sticks to the curriculum without creationism, why get him fired over his goddamned opinion? These Nobel laureates aren't the ones being taught in his class and have very little to do with him, but they'll gang up anyway. The theist/antitheist sword cuts both ways. Both sides are capable of being intolerant assholes, and this is just more proof.

Re:Yeah, stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25000127)

I've found it to be an axiom of politics and religious debate that the only sane people are the ones in the middle.

Re:Yeah, stupid (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000137)

Worse. Go read _everything_ he said here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism [guardian.co.uk]

I think he actually deserves an apology. It's amazing the reaction he got.

What next, are they going to burn down churches because of what he said? Just because someone happens to mention creationism in the same breath as science classes?

They're starting to behave like religious nutters too.

Re:Yeah, stupid (1)

PuckSR (1073464) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000219)

I must first agree with several other posters, the slashdot summary is incredibly slanted when compared with the actual comments made by Michael Reiss.

That being said, it isn't stupid that people are trying to get him fired. This is similar to the situation in Texas when a member of the education board was dismissed for speaking out against creationism. It isn't as much an issue of what is being said, and more of an issue of who is speaking. Michael Reiss addressed an inflammatory and incredibly hot topic. He made comments that could easily be twisted and misinterpreted, as SLASHDOT did, and he made these comments without discussing his public opinion piece with the rest of the royal society.

Let me provide an analogy.
It is unethical for a CFO to cook the books. It would be unethical to fire an accountant because he refused to lie.
However, it would be an entirely different issue if an accountant for a major company wrote an article claiming that he thought that "company X" was a failure and that he thought they would be bankrupt within a year.
Get the difference?

tooth fairy, santa, and easter bunny ... (5, Funny)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000023)

.. to be taught in science classes next year.

Re:tooth fairy, santa, and easter bunny ... (1)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000153)

Hey, I've done years of serious research/dissecting regarding the presence of the tooth fairy and would appreciate it if you wouldn't clump my serious research with nonsense like creationism, you inconsiderate oath!

As for recording my work--the police records, widespread word on the forensics of the dentist blood on my trusty axe, wanted posters and signs at the ADA are more than enough credible sources, despite what those elitist tooth fairy wiki editors say.

It's spreading to Europe too? (4, Interesting)

hkz (1266066) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000039)

It's a bit worrying that the creationist movement is starting to raise its head in Europe as well. It's not that it's new, it's that previously only US creationists were bold, loud and revered enough to take science on headfirst and actually win. It used to be that we west-Europeans, including the creationists, took it as self-evident that creationist beliefs were just that, beliefs, and hence confined to the private sphere. But from the looks of it, our fundies are getting audacious and trying to manufacture the same kind of "controversy" here. Meh, did these people not learn about the Enlightenment? Do they not care? I guess that's why we cannot have nice things.

Re:It's spreading to Europe too? (4, Interesting)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000257)

It's mostly not Christian creationists - they remain a vanishingly small minority. It's Muslims - a substantial number of them do believe that rubbish. We're developing a population sector which believes in the literal truth of its holy book, and I suppose the Royal Society doesn't want to get firebombed for insulting the Prophet by suggesting that Adam and Eve never existed and so the Koran is a lie and Mohammed a fraud...

Re:It's spreading to Europe too? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000293)

As already mentioned, Reiss is clearly not a creationist (as you would know if you had RTFA.)

His basic point is that students with creationist views will clam up and refuse to learn any biology since the basis for biology is contrary to their beliefs. Failure to address these beliefs is failure to teach these students real science. These students have not heard of the enlightenment, and are guaranteed to be hostile to it if their beliefs are not addressed.

Related stories (1)

MK_CSGuy (953563) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000045)

Related Stories:
[+] Ask Slashdot: How Do You Interview A Sysadmin Candidate? 476 comments

wtf?
doesn't /. editors have control over the related stories section?

Creationism should be taught by the parents. (2, Interesting)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000055)

I know general principals in evolution. The only thing I have against the word evolution being thrown around so much is that people use it for different things. For example last year the news was reporting,"Over fished species are showing signs of hyper evolution." They said this because weird genes are expressing themselves. They implied that when a species gets low on population that they evolve faster. As an arm chair scientist, I rather see this as the inbred effect that when there is less DNA in the gene pool that genes are expressed strongly for several reasons. I wouldn't call it evolution as much as gene loss or genetic erosion. I just think that the word evolution is overused.

I also know creationism happened. The thing that strikes me is that non-Christian accounts of creationism would be taken in also. It said Muslim, but why stop there. Why not throw in other man made religions too? There is no end to the number of ways that the universe can be created when you use man made religions. I mean having all sorts of different theories on reality through string theory is bad enough. When you throw the scientific method out the window, you're not left with something that should be taught in a science course.

Re:Creationism should be taught by the parents. (1)

Boronx (228853) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000249)

At the most basic definition, evolution is the change in gene distribution in a gene pool, so your fish example is definitely evolution.

Re:Creationism should be taught by the parents. (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000291)

I also know creationism happened. The thing that strikes me is that non-Christian accounts of creationism would be taken in also. It said Muslim, but why stop there. Why not throw in other man made religions too?

And maybe throw all this into new classes? We may call them "religion" or "philosophy"...

When you throw the scientific method out the window, you're not left with something that should be taught in a science course.

I agree. Creationism CAN be mentioned in one sentence with evolution. But only using "contrary to".

Friends, it is time. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25000067)

Time for space pants!

society in decay ignores creators' advise (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25000087)

nothing new there? there's no where left to hide, & it's becoming more&more clear that EVERYTHING made by man fails.

'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & the notion of prosperity, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Discussion != Endorsement (4, Insightful)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000099)

The columns seem reasonable. Creationism should not be taught in science class as science, but it certainly is part of the context in which the theory evolution came about. One could hardly teach about Copernicus without mentioning Heliocentrism, or Pasteur without Spontaneous Generation.

I've attended lectures by Roberts and Nurse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25000105)

Nurse is the President of Rockefeller University, though his claim to fame is with the cell cycle, and Roberts was the restriction enzyme guy at New England Biotech. They are good speakers. All I remember of Nurse's speech was... "Check your wastebins on Friday night," as you may have thrown out an important culture earlier. Roberts was pimping a nonprofit journal article library.

Seems fair to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25000113)

Seems fair to me. Teach in science class why Creationism and ID aren't science, and in religion classes, why, for examples, Dawkins views on religion are stuck firmly in the victorian age.

How do you know you're right? (1)

ProteusQ (665382) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000161)

When you're able to shut everybody else down.

Of course, that usually doesn't mean a gag order, but with topic, we'll make an exception. That's how we maintain our status as open-minded, free thinkers.

Fire him? (1)

Heather D (1279828) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000239)

Hm, this is the sort of response that I'd expect from the other side of the field on this issue. The suggestion that he put forward is reasonable and rational. The only error he made is in assuming that the public schools are rational and reasonable places. This has yet to be adequately demonstrated.

Ideally it should be discussed in the social classes, but the most likely result, at least in the US, would be chaos. Maybe it's different in the UK but I'm not optimistic.

Reasonable (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25000241)

Dr. Reiss has been repeatedly taken out of context with his comments. The media has consistently misinterpreted what he said to mean that he supports the teaching of creationism in science classes. In fact what Dr. Reiss said was that if a student asks about creationism, the teacher should be prepared to explain to that student why creationism is not science, something that I think most level-headed people would agree with. To reiterate, Dr. Reiss did NOT say that creationism should be in any way be endorsed in science classes, only that the student should be made aware of WHY it is not science.

Burn the heretic! (3, Insightful)

John Jorsett (171560) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000295)

I think creationism is nonsensical, but the reaction over this is reminiscent of the Inquisition. Calling for firing someone for voicing a heterodox opinion is getting uncomfortably close to a modern-day auto da fe.

Entertainment And Truth at the same time (3, Informative)

uassholes (1179143) | more than 6 years ago | (#25000377)

Funny stuff and painfully true standup comedy about trogladytes living among us who still believe in ancient primitive superstition (religion):

http://www.youtube.com/patcondell [youtube.com]

Get rid of it all!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25000397)

Stop teaching how the world started and about evolution. Then there will be no need for creationism to be taught in schools. If you want to learn about creationism go to Sunday school. If you want to learn about evolution go to Sunday school of sciences or what ever. Let the parents decide what their kid needs to learn. OMG did I just say let the parents make the decision. Whoops!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?