But that you ought it to be a false theory doesn't mean it is a false one.

I got also teached about the spontanious birth of life beings from dead objects like a bag of garbage. It's definately a false theory, but at that time a logic one :P
This is what they saw, what they observed, Mice spontaniously came to existence at places with garbage. Who says that what we saw so far in science is what we think it is?

The point of the 'spontaneous birth' of life was that it had a quite clear cause that wasn't 'spontaneous'... lol. Seems you've missed the point there?

Cheers

This is an old trick , which I was expecting from a fundamentalist but it is not your case as far as I know

The trick is :

arise a lot of doubts about everything , make a confusion and , finally...
the Bible claimed ...full stop...

The situation is not so drammatic
Of course some theories which are accepted nowadays might be refuted in the future but we are talking about advanced studies
The school must teach only those theories which have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt , evolutionism included

Yeah, that's the psychology behind it all. Confuse people, scare them, make them unsure about their own ideas.. then bamm!! shoot loads of Bible-talk on them and they will fall for the trick.

I think schools could use a bit more psychology classes as well, as a lot of people do not seem to understand a great deal of human psychology.

in case anyone has missed so far in the various threads in hilbert's, i'm a Christian. but Creationism should not be taught in school science classes. it makes sense to teach the most popular scientific theory, and teach why, so kids can be tested on what the theory is and why the theory could work scientifically.

many schools (at least here, anyway) give kids religious options for different subjects, and that's the perfect context in which to discuss Creationism.

otherwise, if you want to teach Creationism, why teach it from the Bible? i'm a Bible-believer but from the perspective of someone who doesn't, why choose the Biblical account over that of other religions?

@those trying to have a psychology discussion on the evil motives behind religions: stop.

@those who continue to say that evolution from a cell as the origin of all life is proven fact: stop.

this isn't your thread, guys.

julz

I agree to give kids different religious options but I dont agree about " different subjects"
Do you mean that in Australia some schools are allowed to teach the kids that evolutionism is a false theory while creationism is the true one ?

If I understood correctly, this is , in my opinion, an abuse of the concept of democracy

Here in Europe, religious people can run schools but they are not allowed to choose the " subjects "
Obviusly you can not prevent the teachers to have some influence on the student, this is democracy but they must follow a common programm

This is what I meant, in my previous thhread saying :

Education is not a right, it is a duty

Nobody should be permitted to teach false theories

absolutely not. science is still compulsory, and only evolution and the big bang are taught in that (with regard to the origins of life and the universe, anyway). but we can do religious studies as well, separately.

julz

Thanks
This is absolutly, right, of course

Didn't sound too confusing to me, rather quite logic . My intention was not to cause any confusion at all or play mind tricks, and I can assure you that my final word certainly won't be 'The Bible!' . Anyway, I do support the teaching of false theories, at least let children know they exist and how and why people would think like that, rather than focussing on 'the one possible theory'. (I hope) it helps evolving an open minded society, with respect for other ideas, even if they seem silly.

Small problem, bible study is not a class in school

Why does it matter if the christian belief of creation is taught? How much flak does Greek mythology or Egyptian teachings get when brought to the table?



That also leads to the question of why is a theory, which has yet to be proven with little evidence (two skulls which could be birth defects [I know it sounds far fetched, but it does happen ]) treated as if it is scientific fact. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the scientific thing to do in proving a hypothesis is finding enough evidence to prove the theory, if there isn't enough proof, it isn't made law and is discarded. Why then is evolution treated as a law? Simple, it's an easy answer to questions, which really means "we don't know". If I am wrong about the evidence give me more please.

As for biblical texts, there are texts that date back to the times they speak of, it's not just stuff that some catholics wrote up, the texts were dug up out of caves, if carbon dating will be used on skulls use them on the artifacts. There are also writings by Roman officials such as Pilate among other people. As for creation, there is spacial evidence that such a thing could have happened, it has been examined more and more lately by select scientists. There are facts that prove that our solar system was designed to harbor life on this planet, things just seemed to be perfectly put into order to allow life on this planet, and for us not to be continually pelted by comets and asteroids (which Jupiter blocks). There is enough evidence in this area to at least consider the subject. Who is to say that the big bang (also a theory, but i accept the possibility, being a theory and all) wasn't the creator himself doing such a thing? The question is, why Isn't most of this stuff taught, or at least examined in a scientific way?



I'm not sure that a church would teach evolution, but I agree that both should be taught in school. I also think that most biblical studies should be history, and perhaps creationism as science, as well as evolution's (and by evolution I mean the original theory, adaptation) facts. Evolution isn't taught much in school either, so i think it would be fair that both be taught in science. I think it should be up to the pupil to decide what they will believe.