I absolutely think so! I think that it makes the most sense, and people just need to get over it. :mad:

~Is there already a topic about this?~

Maybe, but I'll reply anyway. ^_^

I think that, regardless of religious beliefs, it should still be taught, if only in an objective manner. I don't think most anyone can make a truly educated decision on who/what they want to believe in without considering all alternatives.

Yes, I believe in it and therefore I think it should be taught at schools.
I'm a Christian but come on. You can't contradict scientific evidence! . I remember, I joined a meeting for a religious organization and they actually said that evolution was a scheme of the devil so that we could stop believing in God! Religious fanatics just take things in the Bible a tad too literally. I'm a Christian who believes that the Bible is figurative

Some people are so reluctant to think that we "sprang from apes" that they don't want to believe in evolution. I find this funny . Besides, we didn't spring from apes. At least not directly...we just came from the same branch as they did.

Today, evolution is still just a theory, isn't it? I don't understand why they don't just make it into law already! What other alternative is there anyway?

I don't really believe in Evolution, I find it hard to believe that I was once very much like an ape 500 million years ago :lol: But this is probably because I have never been taught about Evolution, maybe I would believe it if I really knew what it was about.

My school already taught us most stuff about evolution, like homo erectus and homosapiens, in SOSE. We're just distinctly related, not directly, I think.

Evolution is still a theory, I think, because as much evidence there is out there, it's still not enough to prove everything evolution says is true. :unsure:

Besides, I think that evolution and the creation story of the Bible are very similar... or rather, some aspects of it. I mean, if I'm not mistaken, there was water and land before anything else, and then vegetation, and then sea creatures and reptiles, and then birds and then mammals. The sequence of the appearance of life on earth millions of years ago according to science is very similiar to the creation story in the Bible.

(blink)

Anyway, in any case, evolution should be taught in schools, if only to understand several related concepts in science essential to some subjects. :P

It is still a theory, but to me, it makes the most sense. That's my argument!

Thank God I have found someone like you. You're probably one of the very Christians I have seen who actually accepts Evolution in some way.
Or. think the same as I..

I believe it in full stop.

There is actually evidence IMO, for evolution occuring more so then for Creationism actually happening.

There is actually evidence IMO, for evolution occuring more so then for Creationism actually happening.

Macro evolution has actually been observed which is a strong piece of evidence for the evolutionist debate. However the exact details and passage of that evolution is still incredibly murky. Being an important scientific theory and tantamount to the study of biology it should certainly be studied in science classes.

Creationism should be studied in the realm of philosophy or social studies depending on schools and curriculums. It cannot be taught in science because its basis is found in thought and opinion rather than any empirical evidence. This is not to say that it is necessarily wrong (though I think it is) but that it does not belong amongst theories supported by empirical evidence. It is simply not science.

Zhakeena

That is true, I've always found it rather interesting. I know there is a theory about the engram of our minds and the possibility of linked memory between generations. This could in some way also explain this phenomenon. However would you agree that the time span upon which the Bible states this occurs is incorrect?

I think parents should have a choice if of what their children should be learning. They should have a creationist class and an evolutionist class so the parents can decide what is best for their child. After all, father knows best. lol
But seriously, both have ups and both have downs.

Not to be a dick, but pussyfooting around is pointless, one is factual and one is belief, the only place creationism is going to be taught in a school is Religious/mytholigy classes, it's not a reality, neither is 'intelligent-design' which is creationism in a lab coat.
if parents want to teach thier children about thier beliefs why can't they do it at home or in the places of worship that they attend?

Raist - About what you said on time spans. Well, in a sense the time spans could be inaccurate depending on how you look at it. I'm sure that what the Genesis meant by the 7 days (creation happened within 6 days, with 1 day for God to rest) weren't in Earth time, but rather in God's time. 1 day for Him could be, like, a million years or so for us... so, I dunno. :P Hehe!

However, similar as the sequences in the Bible are with the Evolution theory, they are a bit off in some parts... hmm.... :unsure:

DQ - I agree with Raist. Creationism may be taught in schools but of course, not in science courses but in philo or theology classes. And for most part it isn't as simple as God throwing words around and creating things out of thin air. That's just on the surface; there are deeper things to it that parents can't teach at home. Churches could work but I know it can't be stuffed in an hour of Mass and all... :unsure:

Aaaanyway, yeah. Theologians use schools to teach those who want to learn about this. Nothing wrong with that, I think! :D

And, er, may I ask you to be more careful with your words? There are people (like myself) who think that creationism is real, you know. :o ;)

Well, if its ok to allow evolution, then why don't they allow god?
Its like, the schools in todays society try and scrap every last bit of Christ out of schools.

That's because your God isn't everyone else's God, if they have one at all. If you teach one religion, you have to teach EVERY religion, and it's far easier to attempt secularism.

Besides, if believing in Evolution makes me less of a Christian than taking the creation story literally I don't think you're concentrating on the right areas of the religion. Last time I studied it, Christianity was about love, community, and performing God's will through out the world. How life began is pointless compared to how one chooses to live during their life.

Evolution may be a theory, but to say it doesn't have grounds to be taught would be the same as saying gravity is only a theory and thus shouldn't be taught in schools. It's up to the individual to decide what they believe about the universe, and if one class in their school is going to 'sway them to the other side', their beliefs weren't very strong to begin with.

Personally I think evolution is a load of crap. I guess I bellieve in god or that theory towards "greater beings",but than again I only guess, and my mother tells me "You don't bellieve in god and you start to worship the devil i'm kicking you out",why does she think if I don't bellieve In god I bellieve in the devil? to me they go hand in hand ying and yang,I dunno i'm a spiritual person,My belliefs are based on emotions not scientific evidence or stuff churches force feed you.Thus my conclusion is, since god is a "theory" to the scientists and it is so "taboo" to teach in schools,well evolution is also a "theory" hence allowing one or the other would be favoriteism so nullify them both,everyones happy ^_^.

Thus my conclusion is, since god is a "theory" to the scientists and it is so "taboo" to teach in schools,well evolution is also a "theory" hence allowing one or the other would be favoriteism so nullify them both,everyones happy happy.gif.

You mustn't understand the general rules of reasoning or empirical evidence then.

But I don't believe Evolution. That's why I was taken out of state schools, because of the bias. God is kept in the Relicgious Education, with the myths and legends and whatnot, while in science is taught on the base of theories of a couple of men who wanted to believe something other than God.

This funny little verse in the Bible makes me smile. ^_^

"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” --- John 8:32

I don't mind Evolution being taught in schools, but Creationism should be taught along side it. Then the students have a choice, instead of being brainwashed.

But you have a choice to except it or not, how can you be brainwashed, Creationism isn't a science and has no place in a science class room. From the sound of your post it looks like whoever believes in evolution is brainwashed.

And being taking out of school cause of a lesson, seems like your parents were afraid you may learn something different. Seems like you can't learn any ideas out of your relgion, thats sound like being close minded and brainwashed. If I want to learn creationism can I not go to a church and seek info on it.

Personally, the idea of no longer teaching evolution at schools horrifies me. We'd be doing our children a terrible diservice. For various reasons, the educational system is bad enough as it is right now and the anti-intellectualism going on in the world is scary enough as it is; there's no need to make it any worse.

FinalfantasyForeverx3:

So how is it that your emotions tell you that evolution is "a load of crap"? :unsure:

The thing is that the theories don't have equal merit in terms of physical evidence and so on, which is why the theories are treating unequally in schools - one has much more going for it in terms of physical, factual evidence than the the other. And it certainly wouldn't make me happy to nullify both theories - teach both if you must, but for heavens sake don't teach neither!

*~*EnglishRose*~*:

Now, you made this comment in response to an arguement for secularism so I'll reply accordingly. ^_^ I know you don't believe in evolution, but with so many different cultures and religions (and different branches within each religion), people end up being taught a lot of things they may not believe. But that's what's good about keeping education as secular as possible - you get a mixed bag and a secular school is one with the least biased atmosphere and attitude towards learning possible.

Evolution is taught as a part of science, it was always intended to answer scientific questions rather than philosophic ones, and the members of the school faculty in charge of teaching you this find it valid. Whatever you personally believe, it doesn't change that a lot of respected and brilliant people, as well as the men and women whose job it is to teach you science/biology, people who know what they're talking about, support this theory - it's widely accepted, so to not teach it would render young people seriously ignorant. If a student won't believe what's being taught, I suppose that's fair, but it still has to be taught because even though evolution is a theory, it's one that is (and should continue to be) taken very seriously. These ideas are taught objectively based on factual evidence. I don't see what's wrong with passing on this knowledge to children. It'll better equip them to grow up challenging ideas, at the very least.

I don't know what your experience is, or the circumstances surrounding your removal from school, so I'm afraid that I can't really comment on that. Did things really get so bad that you were taken out? Was there no Christian group in your school? My secondary school leaned towards Christianity, hymns and prayers were mandatory despite our beliefs but over the seven years I spent there it gradually became more secular and open-minded, so a group/club/society was set up for Christians or anyone interested in or curious about Christianity, there were regular meetings - didn't your school have anything like that? Or were there no teachers you could go to for advice?

I don't know about your school, but mine certainly didn't group Christianity with myths and legends. All the major religions were grouped together, following the curriculum, and myths were only brushed over briefly during our first year. Myths don't belong in RE, only the current major religions (teachers don't have much time to hammer all this information into our heads after all, there's no time to delve that deeply into ancient beliefs). You can study Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddism to A-Level, though the school will usually select only three of these subjects (as well as some philosophy, usually ideas derived from one of the selected religions) for students to study and be assessed on; the school chooses which religions will be focused on during the course of the two years. It's rare to hear of Christianity being one of the religions neglected in this sense - because of a large Christian population, most schools will definitely keep it in (it's usually the Eastern religions that are left out). Many schools also have ethics classes, so students are able to learn more about Christian thought and beliefs through this too.

So I'd hardly say that Christianity is neglected in favour of science. It's just treated differently because it's a radically different subject, it'd be intellectually redundant to approach the two in exactly the same way.

And I think you're way off by branding ideas like evolution as "theories of a couple of men who wanted to believe something other than God". First of all, who cares what these men (I'll grant it to you that the revolutionary ideas we're talking about right now were formed by men, but try not to write off all scientists and thinkers as exclusively men) thought about God? Why should their personal beliefs undermine their discoveries? It's totally irrelevant when it comes to science. You're making gross simplifications by writing off this kind of research as just the efforts of men who don't want to believe in God (I'm not just talking about Darwin here, I think this applies to many others whose discoveries contradicted Christian thought). Scientists don't look for evidence to justify a theory - for a credible theory to be formed, you need to start with factual evidence first and then go looking for more to back it up. You can't start by just wanting an alternative to God. You form a theory using the facts you already have, then look for evidence to prove it. It's nothing to do with God or religion, it's about learning the truth (or getting closer to that) about the world we live in.

But how exactly is that quote relevant? For one thing it can be interpreted in many ways, but I don't see how it backs up the points you've just made in any way. Care to elaborate?

But where and how should Creationism be taught? Are you suggesting that it should be taught as a science even though there's substancially less evidence and support from the scientific community for one than the other? It's theology, not a science. The very basis of Creationism is unscientific, and it's impractical to think that it can be taught as a part of the science corriculum - many teachers may refuse to do so, and filling every school with a Creationist teacher (are there even enough to go round?) is a ridiculous waste of school funds, which are low enough as they are. If taught, it should fit into the RE curriculum somewhere, not alongside science.

And how does teaching evolution brainwash students? Students are presented with facts, that's all, and it's not as if 100% of them are even taking in and learning these facts. Teachers do their best to increase their students' knowledge and understanding, so they don't miss out on useful information (for example, I've noticed that many members here who don't believe in evolution don't seem to fully understand it, or get their information from bogus sources).

For one thing, it's only mandatory that they learn rudimentary biology (and chemistry and physics, but we're talking biology here). British students aren't obliged to take any science classes after they've done their GCSE's (16, to anyone outside the UK who doesn't know). After that, you can take it to A-Level and beyond, or leave it at that and learn from books or documentaries, or never go near the subject again. By GCSE students only know the basics, I'd hardly say it's the equivalent of brainwashing. And considering as there's a lot of work to be done teaching students the basics, isn't the fact that evolution is there, taught as a part of the basic corriculum in the first place say enough about what a respected theory it is? Schools will not teach students every passing trend in scientific circles, especially not at such a low level. Evolution is there and taught for a reason. Let's not forget that science lessons also usually make a lot of use of examples to make things clearer and help a young student understand why evolution is said to be the explanation of this, that or the other and why it's such an important theory (one of the ones that stands out for me is the video evidence of the butterflies in a part of England that over the years changed their colour).

It's alright to ask questions in science, it's alright to challenge theories and the status quo - that's how we get ahead, progress, learn and develop our understanding, further our knowledge and make and rationalise new discoveries. Learning about things like evolution won't take that questioning ability away from students. ^_^

And couldn't I turn that around and argue that anyone who's been raised religiously has been brainwashed from birth? :whistle:

Gale:

WORD. That's all I have to say right now. :yes:

Same here! :D :D

goddess_in_pink07, please could you cut down on posting replies which fail to contribute to the discussion. If you agree with EnglishRose, why not elaborate on why; just stating that you agree seems rather pointless. See this following section of the forum rules:

Thank you. ^_^

They do teach creationalism. At least in my school. It's in a course called World Religion. They also teach about evolution in a course called science (or more specifically Biology and some sociology courses). I don't hear anyone complaining about Creationalism being taught in World Religion, since it is very much associated with religion. Why are some people complaining about the evolution theory being taught in science, since it is very much associated with science?

YAY, HB is back! Good times for all :)


Englishrose

But I don't believe Evolution. That's why I was taken out of state schools, because of the bias. God is kept in the Relicgious Education, with the myths and legends and whatnot, while in science is taught on the base of theories of a couple of men who wanted to believe something other than God.

I have to ask you a question Englishrose. Are you planning on going to College, University etc? If you are, I suggest you work on your reasoning and argument skills. You're not defending your claims very efficiently. Firstly, religion is taught as a form of philosophy in state schools. Where it is not taught, no philisophical principles are taught and so no bias is upheld. In fact a greater bias exists in Catholic schools where religion is taught without any opposing theories or arguments. This is not to say I disagree with this principle, only that your argument that there is a bias against religion in schools is invalid. As for teaching evolution, you still don't seem to have grasped the basic laws of empirical evidence. An evolutionary theory was created. This theory was debated and discussed in academia. It was eventually adapted. The original theory of natural selection as proposed by Darwin is no longer accepted, it is fallacious and wrong as proven by many observations and other forms of empirical evidence. However the adapted theories that have grown from it continue to evolve (excuse the pun) and now we have a theory that is as right as we can form from the information we have. It is logically and empirically valid for the time being. You may not agree with it (though I would argue you do so on terms that contain far weaker premises and thus far worse arguments than those for evolution), but you cannot effectively argue it not being taught in schools.



This funny little verse in the Bible makes me smile. happy.gif

"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” --- John 8:32

I mentioned conditionals in another topic here. Google it and come back to this. This is a poor premise for an argument as it contains an arbitrary conditional.



I don't mind Evolution being taught in schools, but Creationism should be taught along side it. Then the students have a choice, instead of being brainwashed.

Ok, firstly, as has been stated before, I'm sure most people here believe creatonism should be taught in schools. Taught alongside a variety of philisophical theories both religous and not and in a religous class. Evolution should be taught in Science as it is a scientific theory. It has the backing of empirical evidence which creationism does and cannot have.

Lastly, please don't use such ridiculous terms as brainwashing in this case. The younger and less developed a mind the easier it is to influence. Evolution is not usually taught in schools (from my knowledge and experience, which I admit in this example is limited) until the ages of 13 or 14. At this age a person has developed several theories and beliefs about their world that are fairly concrete, and are far less likely to be unduly influenced. In short, they are better able to reason or argument any proposal that comes their way, including evolution.

Let's compare this example to Christianity. They prey on the minds of children from the youngest of ages, as young as children are able to interpret and learn. They teach them not only with reason but with fear and absolutes and no opinion or thought to the contrary.

Of the two examples Englishrose one is clearly more akin to brainwashing than the other, and I would even go so far as to say that you may be an example of that.

That's true. ^_^ But I haven't really heard of any other "religious science" or theories that make up the majority. I guess that's my own fault, but I Evolution is just a theory like everything else. I have never seen or heard of Evolution in action.

Sort of, go-with-the-flow? If most people believe it, then believe it yourself? Alot of people I know smoke or have smoked, but I wouldn't go with them and ruin my life. No offence to smokers. :lol:

Nope, at least, not that I know of. -_- They were based on hymns and prayers too, we sung Christmas songs about Jesus in the choir. It's an old school, John Smith went to school there. (You know, the same guy from Pocohontas :P ) It is based on Christian values, but there was no Christian Club that I knew of. All the science teachers I knew, were believers of Evolution. No teacher I knew was a Christian.

And I would like to add in bold, just so you know:

I was never taken out of school because my parents told me too. It was of mine and my brother's own accord, we made the decision for ourselves. My parents had to pay extra money for us to go there too, because it was a private school with a different education, that is being spread worldwide.

Of course. Where are you from, Hyper? I've never heard of a school that sounds so open-minded, to be honest. :ermm:

I've heard some stories about Darwin recanting his beliefs in Evolution before he died, which of course, would say that Darwin saw the error of his ways. But, I don't really know if that's true, so I would say that I don't believe it.

Their personal beliefs mean alot, from a Christian point of view, Hyper. According to the Bible, what decisions they make now depends on where they spend their eternity in at the Judgement. If they choose to believe that Evolution is science, and they never accept Christ, their names won't be in the Book of Life. I care alot about what they believe. Their eternal future depends on it.

That's my point. Why is it called a theory? Why is it not fact? If there is evidence that cannot be refuted in any way, then why call it theory?

It's not really relevant. Well, I believe Creation is the Truth. So, it's relevant to me. :P

But how do you know that Creationism cannot be supported scientifically?

I don't want to go into proof, and debates on this psrt, but I've been reading about Astronomy, and I read about dying stars, and that the spectral classes of stars(the "fingerprint" of a star based on temperature and composition ), the brightest of the stars are classed as O. Then B, A, F G K M and S, slowly getting dimmer.

O and B stars could generate heat and light for ten million years or so at the most. After that, these stars grow cold and dark. Yet there are O and B stars shining brightly. This shows that the Universe cannot be more than ten million years old, though some evolutionists claim that some stars are replaced by "stellar evolution". But noone has ever seen a star form. The death of stars is final.

That was quoted from a book by Dr. Jonathan Henry. ^_^ Yeah.

Of course. I think this particular debate is based on a matter of opinion.

(I could tell you why the butterflies have been changing their colour. But it would conflict with Evolution. :whistle: )

Absolutely, yes. But God gives people the choice whether they want to believe Him. Not that Evolution forces people to believe, and maybe brainwash is too strong a word. But I think that The government could ease up a bit on what they teach in some cases.


Wow, that took me a while! :bounce:

I was going to, I wanted to be a vet, but I've decided to give my life to the Lord and maybe open up a Christian School, believe it or not. True story. :) As for me supporting my opinions, well, that's your opinion.

How can you say that? Though I'm sure you know that Christianity and Catholicism are quite different, I'm not saying that schools are completely biased against "religion", I'm not saying that at all. But in the science area, I find it very narrow minded.

About the other part of your post...

Are basically saying that the theories will change when a new piece of evidence comes along to suit evolutionists theories? That doesn't sound consistent to me. The Bible is unchangeable, and there continues to be evidence for Creation.

Though evidence and can be interpreted as evidence for Creation, it depends on how that person interprets it, no?

Are you so offended by a verse from the Bible? Or are you annoyed with me? Like I said before, there was no real reason why I posted it, it would not be relevant to you. But it is to me.

If you say so. But I was the only one who could make the choice of accpeting Jesus in my Life.

Englishrose

As for me supporting my opinions, well, that's your opinion.

Actually, that's not just my opinion. There are certain objective rules of argument and logic that have been formulated over the years by philosophers and the like. These are specifically designed for the purpose of evaluating how good an argument is. Yes, everyone can have an opinion, but some opinions are far better argued and backed than others, making them more credible. I can tell you by those objective rules that you are not arguing your opinions with much validity and are committing a lot of fallacies.

For more information go here: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm



How can you say that? Though I'm sure you know that Christianity and Catholicism are quite different, I'm not saying that schools are completely biased against "religion", I'm not saying that at all. But in the science area, I find it very narrow minded.

Oh I know there is a world of difference between the two. My point was that while there is no bias in any sphere of the public sector of education towards religion, there is a bias in some part of Christian education. I am not including the religion as a whole here, only showing that your claimed bias is not only incorrect but, if anything, the opposite of what is true.

And, honestly Englishrose, why can you not accept that Science is not religion? You cannot teach religion in a Science classroom. It is impossible by the very basis of the study of Science. Science requires empirical evidence, not heresy and argument. This is why philosophy or political theory can't be taught in Science either; there is no way of empirically testing these disciplines. Religion cannot be taught in a Science classroom. The concept is inherently ridiculous. Why can you not understand that? It is not narrow minded, because it is not meant to be there. Religion should be taught as a part the social sciences, with all major religions to the world today given equal weighting. This will show that Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Athiests and Agnostics all have valid reasons for their beliefs.

But I will repeat this one more time in hopes you understand Englishrose, religion cannot be taught in a Science classroom.

Are basically saying that the theories will change when a new piece of evidence comes along to suit evolutionists theories? That doesn't sound consistent to me. The Bible is unchangeable, and there continues to be evidence for Creation.

What world are you living in? Honestly, what planet are you on? This is one of the most basic human principles. The ability top learn and adapt when new evidence or circumstances come our way. It's not supposed to be consistent, it inherently can't be consistent. That's the whole point of Science; progression through constant research and debate. By your theory we should still ascribe to the world being flat as that would make our thoughts on the matter consistent. And the Earth is the center of the universe of course, no denying that by the development of mathematics and the telescope. Nope, we have to stay consistent!

Here's a simple little argument.

A.) We can never be sure that what we know is not just how things seem to be.
B.) Even what we know at the present may be proven false if new information comes along.
Therefore
C.) We can never really know anything.

I'll admit it's not a very good argument, and fallacies can be found, but it serves a purpose in what I'm trying to say. Namely premise (B) which states that our current beliefs may be proven wrong if new information comes along. This is what happens with scientific theory. New information is found and scientists will look to see what is the most logical and reasonable way by which it fits into our knowledge of the world. This system of constant research has now led to a considerable theory called Evolution. No one claims that it is most definitely true, and it may very well still be wrong, but the point is that it is not the same theory that it began as. As new evidence was found and adapted the theory changed along with it, but the theory did not die or suffocate because of it. As this continues to change we'll see whether new evidence continues to support it (as has so far been the case) or whether it is indeed proved to be false.

The point, Englishrose, is that consistency in the realm of epistemology is not only incorrect, but inherently so. It belies a denial of a changing world and denial of the fact that we know very little about our world. Oh and you can't claim that God existing is proof that creationism is true. It's circular reasoning and relies upon that conditional that I mentioned before. Check it out so we can start arguing these terms properly.

Though evidence and can be interpreted as evidence for Creation, it depends on how that person interprets it, no?

I see where you're trying to go with this, but unfortunately you're taking it in the wrong light for two reasons. Firstly, new evidence found is rarely placed into the theory of evolution to see how it fits before banging a few holes in the framework and jamming the new evidence in. That's not how scientific theory works. The evidence will be found and then ascribed to all the current theories to test hypotheses and find proofs and falsehoods. It just so happens that so far none of the evidence found has been able to rule out evolution. In fact it's only served to strengthen it's validity. It has had to change the theory at points, but this is the same with all scientific theories. It doesn't serve to remove their validity and doesn't remove the basis of the original hypothesis.

Now secondly, and this more importantly, regardless of this evidence it can never be found as proof for or against Creationism. The point you don't understand is that creationism stems from a belief in a God. I'm not saying that that makes it inherently false, it certainly doesn't, but it does mean we can never test that theory for it's validity unless this God that allegedly exists somehow tells the world. That conclusion not only seems unlikely but also inherently wrong in regards to how the deities of the world are depicted. So no evidence found can support creationism. The only way creationism can be proposed, taught or persuaded is through argument and by attempting to persuade people to the belief in God. Even attempts at negating Evolution don't prove creationism, so you are left with only the alternative of proving God's existence as validating your claims, and even if you manage to convince people that God does exist you still haven't proven creationism to them. See the problem there. Creationism cannot be empirically tested or researched, thus no evidence can be found for it, for or against, and it cannot be taught in Science classrooms. This is why it must remain in the social sciences.

Are you so offended by a verse from the Bible? Or are you annoyed with me? Like I said before, there was no real reason why I posted it, it would not be relevant to you. But it is to me.

We are currently in a debate. You can post whatever you like, but you have to assume that whatever you post to me will in some way be interpreted as a conclusion or premise of your argument. Thus nothing you type, unless you tell me so, will I see as simply being "for you" but rather I will see it as trying to support your argument in some way. In this case the quote mentioned when we will know the truth. I took this to be a fairly weak support for your opinion that one day we will know the truth of these matters and the obvious problem with your supporting premise was the fact that it relies on a conditional. Thus I pointed you in the direction of researching conditionals so you wouldn't make the same mistake in the future and hopefully we wouldn't get stuck in a roundabout circle of pointless, fallacious arguments.

You can post whatever you like, and no I'm not annoyed with you. I quite like the Bible actually, it's a decent read aside from everything else.

If you say so. But I was the only one who could make the choice of accpeting Jesus in my Life.

Perhaps. But I, and others, could present a fairly convincing argument that your choice was distinctly affected by your influence from religion at such a young age. But I don't intend to get into an argument on determinism here.

However I will say this. The person who has been detailed with an argument at the age of 13 or 14, presented with evidence and asked to believe or not to believe has a far greater say in their choice than someone told that Christianity is the way of things at the age of 5 or 6.

You may have made your choice, but I argue that your free will in this case was far more limited than that of the other example.


To All
On an aside to this argument I would just like to say that I think that Creationism should not be taught in schools. I just realised this in responding to Englishrose and I have reasons for this. Firstly, I'm simply presuming that we agree that Creationism should only be taught in a Social Science classroom, because, frankly, the argument that it be taught in Science holds no validity whatsoever. However you may be wondering why I think it shouldn't be taught at all, well it's really quite simple. Creationism's only point is as a negation of evolution. It can only be proved be proving the existence of God, something which Christians are trying to do anyway, with or without this theory, and furthermore even once someone believes God does exist, this still does not prove the validity of creationism. Perhaps God created the world in a different way in different times to this theory, we simply can't know.

Creationism then is not even a particularly valid theory as it exists mostly as a negation against evolution. This is not to say you have no right or claim to believe in it, you most certainly do, but it seems pointless to teach it in religion when it would simply be wasting people's time. Surely the small time spent on religion would be better off teaching the proofs and edicts of Christianity and the other religions that hold far more weight than the negating principle that is Creationism. Certainly the topic may come up in the class via discussion and at this point it should be entailed and presented in full (it's not a particularly hard theory) but setting aside time for it as a major topic seems wasteful and pointless. Just my two cents.

I think some people need to realize that when Evolution is taught in class, it is not taught to be the truth. They teach it as a theory and show reasons which led people to believe it were true. But many still have doubts and they in no way force you to believe in it. It is not something taught to disprove god, or support atheism but to show a process of natural biological alterations in order to adapt to the change in the environment and to survive. It's relevant to a lot more than just the question of god and how we became to be.

*~*EnglishRose*~*:

You haven't heard of other "religious sciences" because large numbers from many other major religions are able to accept evolution, and reach the conclusion that it's the work of [insert deity here]. However, there are Islamic creationists, just in smaller numbers than Christian creationists, and theories of Islamic Creationism tend to use the existence of evolution and the theories which can support it, as proof of Allah's work, hence there is an intelligent designer, so there are important areas of difference between Islamic and Christian approaches to Creationism and Intelligent Design.

As for seeing evolution in action, what about fossils? I know that other members here (myself included) have provided you with links and images to illustrate this. Can't you understand how these fossils generate such compelling evidence? Many of us have tried to make you "hear" of evolution in action...perhaps you should review those posts? Evolution also doesn't have to be a dramatic physical change; the developing of biological resistance to harmful substances, as has been observed in bacteria, insects, etc are also instances of evolution taking place. Fossils, geography, anatomy and genetics all support evolution, and can be seen.

I'd hardly compare getting a decent education to taking up smoking, ER. And you're twisting my words here. I was trying to explain the system and emphasise why it's in the curriculum and so widely upheld (perhaps I'm not doing a good enough job and you'd like to hear it from Raist instead?). Students of science (ie: what our science teachers and the scientists who present the government with reasons to include evolution in the curriculum were) are taught to think logically (just as literature students such as myself are taught to think analytically, because it's the method that will best serve us in our chosen careers), and as a result will be able to judge for themselves if the evidence concerning evolution doesn't add up. They aren't taught to go with the flow and go along with what they're told, they are taught to think and deduce things for themselves. At university level and beyond you aren't graded on how well you can parrot information anymore, you're graded on the conculsions you reach on your own in independant research, and the methods you use to reach that conclusion.

And I'm not talking about believing in evolution, I'm talking about teaching it. Students can decide for themselves what to believe in, that's not the responsibility of the teacher - his/her job is to educate them by presenting them with the facts they'll need to pass their exams. And frankly, I think most teachers would weep from joy if their 13/14 year-old students refused to be spoon-fed information and started to follow up on their classes by doing independant research on the subject. :lmao:

And speaking personally, though I tend to take things with a pinch of salt, I find very little reason to question this overwhelming evidence from respected people, especially when I'm hardly a science expert myself. I readily accept that these men and women know what they're talking about far more than I do when tackling the same subject. Reading a book a scientist has written is a world away from the years of research it takes to write one. Research on the internet is not equal to years of study, a degree, doctorate, PhD, and so on. This applies to you too, so you really should keep that in mind. I'm not saying don't question, because science is all about asking questions and finding reliable and trustworthy facts, but there comes a point when you must respect the credentials of the person/people who is answering you.

If you don't mind my asking (and feel free to refrain from answering), what were your reasons for deciding to leave your school? And did you move to another school, or study at home? May I also ask how old you are and how long you've been out of school?

I attended secondary school in Wales, ER. There isn't a different standard for schools there, they all must meet the same educational requirements as English and other British school. But most of what you just quoted from has nothing to do with open-mindedness; it's just the curriculum. It wasn't open-minded; it just met government requirements on how to teach us. It was a very average school.

Here's how it goes (or how it went for me, at least) concerning Religious Education:

The first three years: Study of all six major religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism) with exams on all of them, which do not contribute to our GCSE score in any way.
-- Now we had a choice of which subjects to drop from several groups (ie: languages, technology, textiles). However, certain subjects (Maths, Science, Welsh, English) could not be dropped. The group in which RE was included also included History and Geography. We were only allowed to choose one subject from each of these categories to continue studying to GCSE level. I chose drop History and Geography and stick with RE.
GCSE level: The amount of religions tackled is thinned-out, and we studied a smaller range of religions, but far more indepth. It was mandatory (eg, part of the curriculum which the school cannot change, at least not without protest and good reason to do so) to study Christianity, Judaism and the philosophies of Natural Theology, Utilitarianism and Modalism (these three were all grouped under philosophy which was one paper, rather than three on each of the branches of thought). After studying for two years, we had an exam paper each of these three (Christianity, Judaism and the various philosophies), each one being 3 hours long.
-- Then we got to choose wjich subjects to take to A-Level, now we could only choose at least three but (advisedly) no more than five. One of the subjects I chose was RE.
AS and A-Level: For the next two years the class studies three different religions in much more detail - again, Christianity and Judaism are mandatory, but the school is allowed to choose the third (Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism), and what subject is chosen usually depends on the teacher's preference and knowledge.

Anyway, that as I understand it, is the curriculum - it's not controlled by the school, but by government requirement. Obviously, no-one even in Britain will have the exact same experience as me, but I don't think it should waver too much from what I just referenced.

Ethics classes consisted of a 45 minute lesson per fornight, based on group discussions, and were not introduced until my 4th year there. These classes were headed by our deputy headmistress (no special teacher was hired) who approached the group with a "hot topic" every fortnight, and tried to lead the class in a discussion. There were no exams on this, it was seen more as a social exercise. Obviously, since the majority of the class (including our deputy head) were from a Christian background, the rest of the class were exposed to Christian views and vice versa. Not all schools have ethics classes, but it's certainly not unusual, ER. Anyway, I don't think that the adherence to national curriculum and introduction of (very) basic ethics classes makes my school as abnormally open-minded as you seem to think (anyone else have thoughts on this? agree? disagree?).

And for the record, I don't think my school was very open-minded at all. :lol: For one thing, we were all banned from speaking any English (except in English classes). As it prides itself on being a traditional Welsh school (there was an English-speaking school in our town too), obviously only children from Welsh families who were fluent in the language should have been sent there but in the case of my best friend, her family had recently moved to Wales and she was sent to our school because of the stricter discipline and significantly lower number of teen deviants, smokers, drug users, etc. So my best friend was sent to our school but her grasp of Welsh was very poor and she was shown very little leniency by teachers when it came to grading her work (obviously needing to be written in Welsh) and they often invited open ridicule of her in classes, and the way she was consiently treated by the majority of the supposedly mature staff never failed to disgust me. It was also not very uncommon to come across what I can now identify as forms of bullying from teachers, religious fanaticism in some teachers and xenophobia and constant slipped-in anti-English remarks from others (it wasn't a complete nightmare - there were many kind, considerate and even some very awesome teachers, but the behaviour of the others was never questioned or challenged). I remember during one cancelled lesson we had to ourselves, the teacher watching over us (quite the ogre) told us that in this free time if we read, it could only be Welsh books, and if, on her time, we chose to do work, it could only be on the subject of Welsh and a boy in my class got into a huge argument with her over his right to do his science homework in this time if he wanted to. The place wasn't some facist torture-chamber, but it was hardly an open-minded utopia either. <_<

Anyway, enough with the personal anecdotes! ^_^

I've heard this too, but as it stands there's nothing to confirm it as more than a myth or a rumour (ie: there's absolutely no evidence that the sole witness to Darwin's alleged conversion even visited him at all). And even if it is true, it's totally irrelevant. Whether he did or didn't renounce his beliefs doesn't alter scientific fact (not that Darwin got it right anyway, but his research certainly helped pave the way). The theory of evolution - and all other scientific theories - rests on far more than its creator's personal beliefs. If he did recant on his deathbed, he certainly provided no scentific proof that his belief in evolution was false whilst he was doing it.

That's fine for you to believe ER, but how exactly is this relevant to the text you just quoted from me? You've skipped to a completely different point and not really interacted with what I had posted. We're weren't discussing whether or not scientists are damned for forming reasoned and logical theories from observations of natural life, we were talking about whether or not the personal beliefs of scientists undermine their discoveries. Which of course, I think is nonsense. Personal beliefs have no place in scientific research and a scientist who tries to form a theory based on his/her personal beliefs alone will have that theory torn apart pretty soon. Their personal beliefs have no effect on the veracity of their discoveries in any way. Whether or not any scientists worships God, Allah, Lilith, no higher power at all, or fluorescent green hippos is an utterly private matter and amounts to squat when it comes to the validity of their research, which can be jugded using factual support.

Here's an extract of a dictionary definition of the noun "theory":

1) A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.
2) Abstract reasoning; speculation.

What you're doing is associating "theory" exclusively with and unproved or imperfect idea, whereas scientific theory is something very different which carries its own definition. The theory of evolution belongs in the first definition whereas something like, "I have a theory that Cloud is a repressed homosexual because of his devoted, crush-like attachment to Sephiroth and his intense friendship with Zack weighed against his ambiguous responses to all the women who show romantic interest in him" is a statement that fits in the second definition, as it is pure speculation.

"Theory" is a word with more than one meaning and in this case is being used differently in this context to how it is commonly understood in colloquial and informal speech. A theory can still be valid and regarded as fact - it is not unanimously accepted because of, as you suggested in an earlier post, the personal beliefs or an anti-God bias amongst members of the scientific community; a theory is accepted after questioning and analysis of its evidence - every researcher's claim is challenged by other researchers. A theory is judged by its evidence. A hypothesis can survived the years mainly because its evidence was convincing, the hypothesis survived repeated tests using cladistic analysis, and the alternatives were too vaguely phrased, there was no convincing evidence for them, and they failed repeated cladistic testing. Scientific theories are also valid as they can (in the sense that a scientific theory can be defined by the following) explain data and make predictions about the natural world, such as predictions that are useful for future scientific research. The theory of evolution has usefulness to scientific research - it can be used, (and yes, this is a valuable element), and there are now testable hypotheses (there's a big divide between evolution and creationism in this particular respect) and new methodologies based on evolutionary reasoning. The wide variety of factual physical evidence for this theory is overwhelming and after well over a century of research, evolution is regarded by scientists as a fundamental aspect of nature

If you want to find what is upheld as a scientific law then you should tackle physics instead. For example, laws such as Hubble's Law (which is often used to support the theory of a big bang) and try to work around it (remember there are plenty of theories in physics, too).

Then I can't help but wonder why you put it there, especially if you had no response in mind if I were to respond to that quotation. :ermm: Like Raist has said, if you put it there then we can only assume that it's somehow related to your argument as a support of your opinion. -_-

Its very premise is unscientific, and as Raist has been reiterating, based on a conditional. Creationism relies on God exisisting, which cannot be proven. Also, creationism's approach to evidence often goes against the scientific methods - the Creationists already have their conclusion and are looking for facts to justify a theory, whereas a more scientific approach is to begin with the physical facts and then form a theory in order to make sense of them. Creationism also contradicts and flat-out denies a wide and huge variety of physical evidence found in anatomy, cosmology, genetics, fossils, geography and astronomy, and also rely on attempting to debunk the evidence for evolution as its main soucres of "proof" rather than attempting research in order to find hard physical evidence which can combat that which evolution has in its favour.

What about the speed of light; the fact that the light we see now has travelled billions of years, from stars now long dead, before it can reach our eyes? And how do these stars that apparently contradict predictions as to how bright they should appear (which could be down to any number of variables) discredit the many observations of Third-Stage/Radiative Supernovae and Supernova Remnants?

Care to share it with us? ^_^

Raist is a brilliant debater, ER, and he has a far greater knowledge on the subject (of effective debate) than you and I, so I'd honestly take the constructive criticism. Yes, it's his opinion but it's a very informed opinion and he's trying to help you become a stronger debater, so I don't see why you should brush him off. -_-

Okay, I know this was aimed at Raist, but let me try and explain it to you another way...

First we had FFVII, and that was all we took our evidence supporting the Cloud/Aeris pairing from. Now over the past year, we've been overwhelmed by new evidence such as AC, LO, DoC, MotP, CoT, etc. So what do we do? Ignore them? No, we adapt our Cleris theories, because our understanding of the C/A pairing is enhanced with the introduction of each new piece of evidence into the Compilation. To keep our argument for C/A as fresh and reasonable and as considerate of what S-E is trying to portray we must shape our theories and add an analysis of the new evidence and its relevance to C/A. Are we being inconsistent because we don't use the one original source (or rather, because we add to it)? No, we're just incorporating new information into what we already know. Our theories on Cloud and Aeris' relationship are changing because of new evidence which enables us to learn more about the two characters and how they respond to each other, each other's absence, and the presence of other possible love interests, such as Tifa and Zack. Prior to AC's release, many CloTis thought that Cloud and Tifa had sex under the Highwind and would get married after the game's ending, and that Aeris would be happy because she always loved the Zack in Cloud - this has been proven to be wrong, Cloud and Tifa never slept together and after two years are not even an item, and laughably far from a blissful marriage, it's been officially stated in MotP that Aeris loves Cloud more than Zack, and Case of Tifa can even be interpreted as hard evidence for why a romantic relationship between Cloud and Tifa will never work. Or should AC and CoT not be considered in debates at all because using new evidence makes it inconsistent? Is it wrong to use the new evidence concerning FFVII because it comes from change? Are our C/A arguments and theories wrong because we'll just change and update them again should Square release a new FFVII-based game or novella? :sad:

Does that make it easier to understand? ^_^

Anyway, I just have to echo Raist by saying that of course the theories will change. This is a good thing. New evidence will appear and once the evidence and whatever implications it carries is proven, the theory will be updated. This is how science works. We keep learning new things so we need to continue incorporating the new information with the old and attempting to reconcile the two. When new evidence shatters a previous assertion, the old belief is dropped or modified. You can't compare an ancient text which legally can't be changed or amended to scientific research taking place in a world of new discoveries and theorising. Of course the Bible is unchangeable - if someone started to write another Book within it, it would not be accepted. It's a historical text, it's illegal to tamper with it. Science is a whole different matter because to cause some change and gain new information and incorporate that into a theory isn't tampering science, like it would a literary text, but is enhancing it.

But what about Baptism? When a child is baptised, its parents (and also godparents, if there are any) make a vow to raise the child in God and teach him/her to love Christ and to live in the moral manner commanded by the Bible. Now, I've never seen a family who took these promises made to God seriously who gave their children a neutral perspective, and let them know that they could decide for themselves when they were older. All Christian parents I've known (including my own) act on their baptismal vows by telling their children as soon as they're old enough to understand that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are real, Christianity is the true faith, etc, and this information is given completely uncritically on the parents' behalf. So of course children believe it. This is how religion generally works and keeps a large population of followers - not only is the convertant won over, but their family too. Parents are taught that to indoctrinate your child is morally good, and that they are blessing their child by doing so.

You may be right that God gives people choice by instilling doubt in their minds as they grow, but this doesn't change that Christianity supports the indoctrination (I think we should use this term rather than "brainwashing" in most cases, as "brainwashing" implies a very different process) of young children. By the time they reach the age where they can reason better and learn to question authority, they've already been rather heavily influenced, and their ability to choose freely has been somewhat limited.

And there are some frightening extremes too (nothing to do with Babtismal vows)... Anyone remember the story of Zach, the 16 year-old boy who, after coming out to his parents was sent to spend many weeks in a "Love in Action/Refuge" camp in order to "cure" him of his homosexuality? [Here's a link to where you can find more information, links, etc] Now it's one thing for these centres to exist for consenting adults to choose to submit themselves to the "treatments" but the issue here was forcing a minor against his will to submit himself to weeks of Reparation Therapy... Obviously, I know that Zach's parents, the founders and "counselors" of the centre and those who believe in the effectiveness and validity of Reparation Therapy don't make up the majority of Christians, but this is a very strong and disturbing example of Christian brainwashing (and yes, I think the term fits in this case) at work.

(Btw, if you feel any replies made to this clash too much with the Homosexuality thread, then feel free to post any comments there if you find it appropriate ^_^)

And also, wouldn't you say that Jack Chick's Chick Tracts (if you're unfamiliar with them, you can view them here and a tract on evolution here) were designed specifically for younger readers? Linking to the site made me read a few tracts again, and...ugh. I really have to choke down an angry rant. This sort of stuff has been warping children's minds for over 40 years... :mad:

Raist:

I'm sorry I have to rush my answer to you, but I just wanted to quickly let you know that I agree with you on this - apart from in Ethics classes, I honestly don't think that Creationism has a place in secondary/high-school level education. One problem I have with it, on top of what you've already pointed out, is its impracticality to fit into a curriculum. Even in RE, it would be tricky because to study it in any depth and detail would necessitate the possibility of an exam question on the topic (by which I mean essay question). I find this problematic because the options for exam questions seem rather limited, to me, and also any question would require more knowledge of the "science" of creationism rather than Christian thought and philosophy, which clashes with the module's aims. Students walk into an exam expecting to be tested on their knowledge of religion rather than "scientific theory". So if it can't become a part of the exams, then it's redundant to do more than brush over it in classes, or prioritise it over teaching aspects of Christianity that will actually appear in the final exams.

Sorry for keeping this reply so brief! :sad:

...If you'd like to reply to anything I addressed to ER that you feel strongly about, I have no problem with that. ^_^

Hyper Ballad

Hello, hello. I just thought I'd liket to add a few comments. As they're not directly aimed at ER, but are rather general points I'll direct them towards you to see what you think. On a side note, I think ER is taking a break from the Lifestream (this always happens when we start debating HB) so we may not get a reply for awhile.

If anyone wants to jump in and attack our posts please do so. It keeps the thread entertaining. :)

Now where was I? Ah yes, those points...

Research on the internet is not equal to years of study, a degree, doctorate, PhD, and so on. This applies to you too, so you really should keep that in mind. I'm not saying don't question, because science is all about asking questions and finding reliable and trustworthy facts, but there comes a point when you must respect the credentials of the person/people who is answering you.

This is mindblowingly true. It is one thing to read and quickly understand the general principles of a topic. But to create and support the original claim that you are now reading takes, quite literally, years of study. Week after week of experiment, observation, reading, questioning and discussing. And after all this it is quite likely that you may have found yourself at a clearly incorrect hypothesis and have added little to the scientific worth of the community, other than the fact that you've disproven something of course. The work is still most definitely worth the effort however, but it goes to show that we need to accept a certain level of acceptance with these scientists. There lives are their work.

But even then, the reason it is easy, and possibly necessary, to have a certain level of acceptance with scientists is that they rarely, if ever, give a conclusive stance on a topic. You rarely hear scientists say "Evolution is an educated fact" They're more likely to tell you that it is a "well tested and researched theory and seems to have a lot of supportive evidence". Their constant doubt is another factor that enables us to believe in their work. They're clearly open minded individuals.


HB...you had ethics classes at school? I'm so jealous.

In Australia I have to admit our religous education is abysmal. In kindegarten we are taught on a very basic level some of the simply stories from the Bible, but do not go far beyond the birth of Christ. Once school starts religion is never touched again. The only time it may be brought up in the curriculum is in regards to another topic. In history or political and legal studies for example. All religions are not studied in any other form throughout the entirety of a student's life. This also includes any philisophical theory. Frankly, I think it's disgusting and it tends to encourage an anti-intellectual atmosphere.

However, there is a slight catch to this. At the present point in time Australian school students are split in attendance between public and private schools at about a 50% ratio. Half go to government schools and half go to private schools. The majority of these private schools are catholic schools or at least Christian and from my knowledge there would be very few, if any, non-religous private schools. These private schools do run very intense religous educational programs (though the people I know don't seem to have gotten anything out of it :( ) and so the above factors can be a little misleading.

Nevertheless I think religous and philisophical education need to take a more important role in the curriculum. The only time children are taught to think analytically is in some of their English studies (as you point out HB) and even in these cases it is only done so in the higher level classes. So we have a generation of children (in Australia at least) that do not know how to think, write and read analytically and critically. I've been arguing with my teachers for years that some study of religion, philosophy and the guidelines of argument should be included into the curriculum. Being a "stupid, naive teenager" I wasn't listened to of course.

Third-Stage/Radiative Supernovae and Supernova Remnants?

:unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

...

???

*scratches head*

Can someone explain what that is?

I'd love to know :D

Okay, I know this was aimed at Raist, but let me try and explain it to you another way...

Thanks for that HB. You managed to clarify what I had to say. Nice examples
:)



HB, I would reply to your reply. But I agree with you...on everything you just said...so it seems kind of pointless :(

OOOOO, but this just gave me an idea for a new topic!

YAY! I'll endeavour to have it written up sometime today!

i think they should teach it..

they shouldn't shelter the kids...

they say that the evolution thingy is just a theory, it's not yet proven, bla bla bla.. well, there are a lot of theories taught at school.. if you're gonna remove the evolution theory, then remove einstein's theory of relativity too...

true or false, either way, it would be nice if everyone's informed, nobody's ignorant... it's still up to the person if he wants to believe in the theory or not anyway..

i've been going to a christian school since my kindergarten years up to now, my college years... both schools taught the theory of evolution... but they didn't force us to believe it nor did they force us to disregard it completely...

they also taught us about Genesis... but they didn't force us to believe it either,

they just pressed us with all the facts, all the alternatives that surround both theories...

and then they let us decide for ourselves...

the bible is full of symbolisms anyway.. :whistle:

Geee, thanks for the info.
I totally agree with English Rose though!
I just can't agree with evolution, but i could care less about it because in my point of view it makes no sense what so ever. And people keep in mind that this is MY opinion.

I just don't know why people are having a fuss over god in schools. God has every right in schools as anything else.

goddess_in_pink07


I just can't agree with evolution, but i could care less about it because in my point of view it makes no sense what so ever. And people keep in mind that this is MY opinion.

I understand that this is your opinion. That's fine, you have every right to it. The point of this thread is to discuss and debate those opinions, partly in an attempt to persuade others that our claims are true (otherwise it wouldn't be an argument by it's very definition) and partly because it's a damn lot of fun. :)

So, now that we understand your opinion - namely, that evolution makes no sense whatsoever - let's hear the justification for that opinion. Why do you think that evolution makes no sense at all?

I just don't know why people are having a fuss over god in schools. God has every right in schools as anything else.

Are you aware of the reasoning behind the seperation of church and state? There are political and philisophical theories behind why government schools are not allowed to be indoctrinated by the state, and it leads back to the Middle Ages when religous doctrine ruled societal life to ridiculous lengths. It is also an attempt to stop indoctrination of youths in schools.

However, you do have a claim as to the study of God and religion having every right to be taught in schools. This is undoubtedly true. However school curriculums have so many different avenues of education to cover.

Maths, Science, English (by this I mean the study of the written word or visual media etc, not the language itself) and the social sciences must all be taught on some level. With the increasing dependence on maths and science to attain a high paying and secure job in the professional world there is also an inclination to intensify study in these areas. The social sciences and english are not neglected but they now have less time to cover the wider range of areas. Furthermore, with the growing epidemic of obesity and constant anxiety, bordering on paranoia, about health and sexual problems, even less time can be attributed to these subjects as they must attempt to battle other educational, and not explicitly academic, concerns. So now that the Social Sciences are left with very little time they have to make cuts on what will and will not be studied. This is usually done on the basis of priority and merit. It is a general truth that political theory, geography and similar subjects are more likely to be beneficial later in our lives. So religion and philisophy and get pushed down the line.

Now we also have to consider that to teach religion fairly and adequately (and without the threat of indoctrination) it is also necessary to give the major religions in our world equal and adequate teaching time. If we cannot do this then the study is biased and somewhat pointless. So religious and philisophical education get pushed further down the line of priorities. See how difficult it is to fit this in?

I have no problem with religion being taught in schools, frankly I'm an advocate for it, but in many cases it's just not plausible. The point here however is whether Creationism should be taught in schools (I'm leaving Evolution out of this because I think there is no justifiable case for it not being taught), and to that both HB and I have shown well justified reasons for it not being the case. No one, as of yet, has refuted those claims.

I used to be Christian but I believe in evolution. However my view of gods work is different. To me I believe that God started the whole chart of evolution and just sat back and watched things work on how he made it.

This is my opionion because I don't believe that we came from Adam and Eve if I recall correctly