Refusing to teach creationism in schools is inherently bigotry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nusc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Schools
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the question of whether refusing to teach creationism in schools constitutes bigotry. Participants argue that creationism is rooted in religious belief and not scientific fact, making it inappropriate for science classes. The First Amendment is cited as a reason for not teaching religious concepts in public education, emphasizing the separation of church and state. Some participants suggest that if creationism were to be taught, it could only be in a historical or social studies context, not as a scientific theory. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of teaching various creation stories from different cultures and the potential for perceived intolerance towards Christianity if creationism is excluded. Overall, the consensus leans towards the view that opposing the teaching of creationism in public schools is not inherently bigoted, but rather a stance based on the principles of scientific education and religious neutrality in public schools.
Nusc
Messages
752
Reaction score
2
Is it not to say that by refusing to teach creationism in schools is inherently bigotry?
 
Science news on Phys.org


Nusc said:
Is it not to say that by refusing to teach creationism in schools is inherently bigotry?
That makes no sense. What are you trying to say?
 


By refusing to teach creationism in schools, is this not bigotry?
 


Nusc said:
By refusing to teach creationism in schools, is this not bigotry?
Would you claim that a refusal to teach astrology in schools is bigotry?
 


Creationism is taught in Sunday School.
 


Nusc said:
By refusing to teach creationism in schools, is this not bigotry?
That makes no sense. Either make a credible argument or this is getting deleted.

Do you know what bigotry means?

Do you understand that religion is not taught in public schools in the US?
 


bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
It's not a matter of opinion : creationism is not scientific. It has nothing to do with science. Note that, there is nothing wrong with that : there is a number of thing I believe which are not scientific and I am fine with that, I am aware and accept it. For instance, I (most of the time) believe that french food is the best (others are quite good too). But who cares ? It's certainly not worth teaching.
 


Nusc said:
Is it not to say that by refusing to teach creationism in schools is inherently bigotry?

Isn't the reason why it is not taught in public schools, is because of the fact that the whole 'creationalism' story comes from a religious text and is thus religiously based? Everything that is believed in creationalism comes from the bible, which even in catholic schools is taught to provide one with only a 'religious' truth.
 
Last edited:


Nusc, I'd like to see you form a valid argument. Without it we cannot discuss it.

How do you feel that the term bigotry applies here?
What do you feel is the rationale under which Creationism should be taught in schools?
 
  • #10


Nusc said:
By refusing to teach creationism in schools, is this not bigotry?
Bigotry is intolerance. Creationism isn't taught in school because it is against the 1st Amendment and because creationism isn't science so it doesn't belong in a science class, not because people (who you are referring to, I'm not sure...) are intolerant.

[edit] In fact, the point of the 1st Amendment is to promote (enforce) tolerance, not to promote intolerance.
 
  • #11


russ_watters said:
not because people (who you are referring to, I'm not sure...) are intolerant.

Yeah I was referring to the four horsemen on the premise that science and religious beliefs are fundamentally incompatible.
 
  • #12


Nusc said:
Yeah I was referring to the four horsemen on the premise that science and religious beliefs are fundamentally incompatible.
I don't know who the four horsemen are, nor what they have to say. Please cite.
 
  • #13


harris, hitchens, dawkins, (perhaps not dennett)

Even Weinberg, Feynman, Krauss,...

Most comedians. Larry King.other secularists, skeptics, atheists...
 
Last edited:
  • #14


Nusc said:
harris, hitchens, dawkins, (perhaps not dennett)

Even Weinberg, Feynman,...

Most comedians. Larry King.

Why should creationism be taught in schools? Do you mean that it should be taught as an alternative to science, or in a historical context as a part of social studies? Which version should be used. And who gets to say which version is used?
 
  • #15


Creationism doesn't have to be taught in science class. It could be taught in Social Studies. Could it not?
 
  • #16


You don't seem to be aware of it, but we expect sound logical arguments backed up with facts.

You need to explain why creationism makes sense as a classroom subject, and how its exclusion is caused by a hatred or intolerance of Christianity, or of religion. Probably this argument will include examples of similar subjects with similar backgrounds in non-Christian religions that are taught in schools if it is bigotry vs. Christians, and examples of similar subjects rooted in other cultural institutions that are secular in nature if you want to demonstrate intolerance to religious ideas.

One sentence posts do nothing to further the discussion or even enlighten us as to why you believe what you've said
 
  • #17


I'm not saying creationism should be taught in schools.

I was merely set up to ask was if those opposed to creationism being taught in schools are bigoted.

If you're of religious faith and are opposed to creationism being taught in public schools, what purpose does it serve you?

Does saying that it's not science justify that it's useless?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm asking you guys.
 
  • #18


Evo said:
Do you understand that religion is not taught in public schools in the US?

Really? Do kids in the US not get any religious education in school?
 
  • #19


Nusc said:
I was merely set up to ask was if those opposed to creationism being taught in schools are bigoted.

Are those opposed to teaching Algerian in school bigoted? You have to give some reason for why this is a question worth asking before we can give responses worth reading. As is, it's a yes no question so I'll answer: no.

If you have reasons for why you think it might be bigoted, you can list them and ask us what we think about them. Then we can have a conversation. As is, the question is just a black hole and we don't know what kind of response you're looking for

If you're of religious faith and are opposed to creationism being taught in public schools, what purpose does it serve you?

What purpose does what serve?

Does saying that it's not science justify that it's useless?

Lots of things not taught in school are useful. Also, are you asking about teaching creationism in a non-science setting? The general controversy is about teaching it in a science class
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20


There are certainly some people who are bigoted when it comes to religious beliefs and people of faith, but that is not a definitive statement wrt the teaching of creationism. It is not inherently bigoted to oppose the teaching of creationism in public schools. In fact, in the US, we value freedom of religion as much as we do freedom from religion.

If someone wants their kids taught about creationism, they are free to attend a church, temple, mosque, or synagogue, for that.
 
  • #21


cristo said:
Really? Do kids in the US not get any religious education in school?

Not in public schools; at least not specifically. If it is taught at all, it would be very general and a part of social studies. Some high schools might offer specific courses relating to religous studies, but it is rare to hear about it. Private schools are free do what they want provided that the minimum standards for an education are met.
 
  • #22


cristo said:
Really? Do kids in the US not get any religious education in school?

No. It's kind of a shame. Ironically this is probably the reason why the US is so religious.
 
  • #23


DavidSnider said:
No. It's kind of a shame. Ironically this is probably the reason why the US is so religious.

I would say just the opposite: I think this is why so many people are hostiles towards people of faith. Most people who mindlessly slam religion here seem to know very little about it. The most basic concepts of faith are a complete mystery to people.

Also, many are all but oblivious to the difference between fundamentalism, and more mainstream faiths. In a way, many people who consider themselves to be well educated, are no different that those who blindly label all muslims as terrorists.
 
Last edited:
  • #24


Ivan Seeking said:
I would say just the opposite: I think this is why so many people are hostiles towards people of faith. Most people who mindlessly slam religion here seem to know very little about it. The most basic concepts of faith are a complete mystery to people.

They're a complete mystery because they are designed to be that way.
 
  • #25


Ivan Seeking said:
I would say just the opposite: I think this is why so many people are hostiles towards people of faith. Most people who mindlessly slam religion here seem to know very little about it. The most basic concepts of faith are a complete mystery to people.

And so many people of faith are oblivious to religions other than their own. The sword cuts both ways here
 
  • #26


Ivan Seeking said:
If someone wants their kids taught about creationism, they are free to attend a church, temple, mosque, or synagogue, for that.

And/or homeschool their children.
 
  • #27


Ivan Seeking said:
Most people who mindlessly slam religion here seem to know very little about it. The most basic concepts of faith are a complete mystery to people.

Explain this.
 
Last edited:
  • #28


drankin said:
Creationism doesn't have to be taught in science class. It could be taught in Social Studies. Could it not?
Yes, it could - as a historical curiosity, though, not as a theory on how we got here. I've never heard of a creationist being ok with that.

I had a a couple of English classes in high school where we read a few stories from the bible.
 
  • #29


Nusc said:
I was merely set up to ask was if those opposed to creationism being taught in schools are bigoted.
What does that mean? If you don't believe that it is bigoted, what motivated the question? Where did you hear that it was? I don't like arguing with a brick wall or via proxy. It seems disingenuous because it alleviates the need for the other side to present rational arguments under the guise that the arguments are just "questions", when really they are arguments.

Where did you get the idea that not teaching creationsim was due to bigotry? Who are we arguing against here?
Does saying that it's not science justify that it's useless?
Creationism is an idea that directly contradicts the scientific theory on how we got here. Therefore, the only place it could be close to applicable is in science class as an alternative to science. But since it isn't science, it doesn't belong there.

It's not a matter of justifying that it is useless, it is just a matter of having nowhere that it would properly fit...and that 1st Amendment thing.
 
Last edited:
  • #30


cristo said:
Really? Do kids in the US not get any religious education in school?
The only mandatory religion in US schools is a unit or two on world religions taught in social studies (history) class. It isn't taught as 'here are your options, pick one' or anything - just like we're taught about Naziism, but without the purpose of making us Nazis.
 
  • #31


Nusc said:
Is it not to say that by refusing to teach creationism in schools is inherently bigotry?

Which creation story should we teach in order to avoid bigotry?

Sanema creation story

Muslim creation story

Chinese creation story

Australian aborigine creation story

Humanist creation story

How come the meaning of so many creation stories is that humans should care for the Earth and there's so few creation stories where the meaning is all of the Earth's resources were put there for the pleasure of man?
 
Last edited:
  • #32


russ_watters said:
The only mandatory religion in US schools is a unit or two on world religions taught in social studies (history) class. It isn't taught as 'here are your options, pick one' or anything - just like we're taught about Naziism, but without the purpose of making us Nazis.

Oh right, so there is some religious education. Admittedly, we probably had a little more, since we had a religious education class, but it was taught with the intention to educate, rather than offer religions to join.
 
  • #33


BobG said:
Which creation story should we teach in order to avoid bigotry?

Sanema creation story

Muslim creation story

Chinese creation story

Australian aborigine creation story

Humanist creation story

How come the meaning of so many creation stories is that humans should care for the Earth and there's so few creation stories where the meaning is all of the Earth's resources were put there for the pleasure of man?
Good point and they all contradict each other in principle.

Argentina passes same-sex marriage:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/07/15/argentina-same-sex-marriage.html

It's sad that it's the 21st century and this is a problem in society when there are greater issues to deal with. Inherent in the beliefs of monotheistic religions tell you that homosexuality is an abomination.
 
Last edited:
  • #34


Is there a point to this thread? 30-odd posts in, I can not discern what that might be. What does same-sex marriage have to do with teaching creationism?
 
  • #35


This thread is pointless, the OP has not given enough information to begin a discussion, and now has changed the topic.

Closed.
 
Back
Top