Why is Creationism/Big Bang so important?

[Ubiquitous]

After having yet an other pop at an American on an other forum complaining about how he wants to leave the US when he is older because he is so upset with how the origins of mankind is taught in school, I have to ask people, WHY is it so important to you?!

What I don't understand is can't schools teach BOTH creationism and the big bang theory in school? Back when I was very young at primary school I was taught about God creating the earth - probably because it is a much easier theory to understand than the big bang one. This was fine by me - all I wanted to do was play with my toy cars in the mud.

Then when I got to Secondary school I was taught by my physics teacher that the universe was created in the big bang. Conversely, my RE teacher taught me that God had created earth in seven days. So what did I do? I made up my OWN mind [along with probably 99% of the other thousand pupils at my school] that the earth was in fact created by science, not God. This process took me all of five seconds.

Did my world change that day? Did my political views suddenly change? No, hardly anything changed because to be honest I didn't really care. I had more important things to worry about, such as bullies and getting my homework in on time.

Yet, internet forums that involve Americans seem to almost always involve this great debate between the two sides. What I don't understand is why all the fuss? Does it really matter to a youth of under 16 years of age how the earth was formed? Can't both sides of the argument be taught - if not by school [as I believe in the US there are places where schools will only teach one side of the story] then by other means e.g. mass media entertainment, parents, the government etc? Can't the kids make up their own minds [if they really give a toss, that is]?

So tell me - if I was a 16 year old kid not just in America but in the UK as well, why is this debate more important than, say, getting my maths homework in on time? And if these kids aren't capable of making up their own minds about the great debate [which I find hard to believe since everyone at my school managed to do so, not that it was ever a point of conversation because we simply did not care] then why should we care?

Now I realise that there are people out there who's lives for some reason revolve around this matter and may get upset with my 'don't really care/understand the issue' viewpoint. Each to their own I guess - but if you want to feel insulted by what I just said then go ahead because frankly I am tired with reading about people wanting to move away from America because of such a [seemingly] trivial matter when thousands of people each year risk their lives to flea to the US from other [in my opinion] backwater countries.

[Lord Revan]

Because creationism is like communism, it works (at all) only if there is no different opinion.

[Lord Revan]

Because creationism is like communism, it works (at all) only if there is no different opinion.

Ghetto edit:just look how fast the USSR selfdestructed when free thinking was introduced.

[WyrdNyrd]

Have a look at Ravengrim's "Parting Shots" thread. In between all the invective launched at him/her/it, there were also several very good points made about why it matters.

[Ghost Rider]

Simple. Creationism has the same level of truth as saying the sun revolves around us.

Literally why should we teach students a LIE?

[Kane Starkiller]

Why don't people understand that creationism is not a theory. It's myth and fairytales.
And what's this I constantly hear about letting people making their own mind. Even if 99.9% of people of Earth chose the creationist MYTH it would still not make it right.
Maybe we should also teach the theory that electrical current is bunch of little dwarfs running through copper wiring alongside the current theory and let studens make up their own mind. Well guess what those engineers won't know jack shit about electrical devices or how to build or repair them.

[Ubiquitous]

Literally why should we teach students a LIE?

Well I like that reason, that seems to make more sense than anything else I have thought of.

Playing devil's advocate here - creationists think that the big bang is a lie. Should we not leave it to the individual to decide which is the truth, such as in my schools case, or is this too dangerous of an approach in a culture where creationism and the big bang is so intricatly linked to political ideology? Obviously over here no major political party supports the idea of creationism, which is probably why there is no probably surrounding the matter.

On a related matter, does anyone here know the official policy in the UK on teaching evolution? Should I have been taught the big bang in primary school or were the rules different back then [late eighties/early nineties]?

[Ghost Rider]

Literally why should we teach students a LIE?

Well I like that reason, that seems to make more sense than anything else I have thought of.

Playing devil's advocate here - creationists think that the big bang is a lie. Should we not leave it to the individual to decide which is the truth, such as in my schools case, or is this too dangerous of an approach in a culture where creationism and the big bang is so intricatly linked to political ideology? Obviously over here no major political party supports the idea of creationism, which is probably why there is no probably surrounding the matter.

Not as much the danger potlitcally as literally teaching kids that the Sun revolves around us or we revolve around the sun. Some students are motivated to find the truth, others aren't. Education is to progress and motivate one's mind to find the truth, not muddle things and confuse the hell out of the impressionable.

Literally Creationism is an unprovable lie that relies upon circular logic and never looking deeper.

[Rye]

There aren't just two sides, there are potentially infinite ways, and many of them stupid, asserting that the earth is younger than the city of jericho. Fuck teaching kids a million stupid-ass ethnic mythologies and then letting them "choose the right one". Sanity has already concluded they're not realistic, so why teach them?

Popular misconception is no reason to teach it in schools, for fuck's sake. Creationists think that anything that clashes with their preformed conclusions are lies. Who gives a shit? They're committing the intellectual prostitution of both pontificating on subjects they know nothing about, and lying to push forth their agenda. Fuck them. Just because they can speak doesn't mean they have a point. We don't teach flat earth shit. We shouldn't teach that magic is an acceptable explanation. We shouldn't teach ethnic mythology as fact.

There is not enough time to teach all the current theories, "alternative theories" like homeopathy, or breatharianism, and it's just fucking stupid, it really is. Can you really imagine, teaching in some geography lesson that the world is flat? Or in anthropology, showing humans expanding from africa, then saying "okay, and some people believe aliens plotted people around here, or that the great sky spirit oven cooked biscuits that became people, with white people being undercooked, black people being overcooked, and native americans being just right". Or hell, why not teach aryan supremacism? Let the kids decide! 1+1=3, the holy trinity says so! Teach the controversy!

Dumb dumb dumb.

[Ubiquitous]

Hmm ... what about if we didn't teach children about either creationism or evolution? I realise that the latter may be a probably as it links into so many things in high school science so perhaps my idea would be flawed before it even begins, but maybe this approach would allow for the pupil to make up his/her own mind when the time is right, if they really care.

Although thinking about it that idea has so many holes in it that it simply wont work. Ah well - I am satisfied now with the 'don't teach a lie' reason. My attempt to play devils advocate stops here.

[Rye]

Because evolution is factual and is a critical part of biology. Allowing censorship of facts because religious people don't like them is similarly stupid.

[Ubiquitous]

Ghetto edit - although before this thread dies I am still curious to know whether the big bang theory is taught in primary schools in the UK, if anyone knows.

[Rye]

I don't recall being taught the Big Bang theory till secondary school physics, however, in my primary school at least (a Church of England one), evolution was covered to some extent, mainly natural selection and common ancestry.

[tharkûn]

Simple. Creationism has the same level of truth as saying the sun revolves around us.

For the hell of it you can make a valid case that the sun does revolve (loose definition of the word revolve) around us. However in making that case through GR you make the entire question completely irrelevent.

Literally why should we teach students a LIE?

Most lower level science is a lie. Electron orbits? Those are lies, all you really have are probability waves that have maximums in the the orbits. Neutrons and protons in the nucleus, electrons on the outside? Lie as well, the 1S orbital has an anti-node at the nucleus, literally probability waves states that the most likely place to find those electrons per unit volume is in the nucleus. There is nothing wrong with teaching a lies in science, so long as it makes it easier to approximate the real world or makes it easier to eventually learn the truth.

Being a lie, in and of itself, is not a reason not to teach it students. Being a useless lie on the otherhand ...

[Rocker5150]

So maybe in primary school they should teach that God makes it rain? Perhaps complex theories and ideas should be presented in lower grades, but in a simplistic form in which a 'supernatural' deity is responsible?
J
ust remember that when someone gives 'God' as an explaination, it is the same as saying 'I don't know'. It's actually worse because it means that instead of admitting a lack of personal knowledge on the subject, you are simply making wild claims involving invisible Gods, spirits, etc.

I find it comical as well as insulting to the scientific community when people who don't know anything just ignore what man has discovered and go back to the primitive claim of 'Gods in the sky' being responsible. The sad thing is that most of these people seem to have no idea that they are so clueless. I just hope that they keep their crapola in the church and out of the schools!


-Kevin

[Ghost Rider]

*snip*

And lo, new levels of nitpicking because I didn't include higher education.

[Darth Wong]

Most lower level science is a lie. Electron orbits? Those are lies, all you really have are probability waves that have maximums in the the orbits. Neutrons and protons in the nucleus, electrons on the outside? Lie as well, the 1S orbital has an anti-node at the nucleus, literally probability waves states that the most likely place to find those electrons per unit volume is in the nucleus. There is nothing wrong with teaching a lies in science, so long as it makes it easier to approximate the real world or makes it easier to eventually learn the truth.

You confuse outright lies with oversimplifications. There is nothing wrong with oversimplifying for the sake of early comprehension, but that is completely different from an outright lie.

Being a lie, in and of itself, is not a reason not to teach it students. Being a useless lie on the otherhand ...

Don't be ridiculous; being a lie is a perfectly good reason not to teach something to students. You can't seriously equate oversimplifications to outright lies. There's a huge difference between telling someone that evolution is natural selection (an oversimplification) and telling someone that evolution doesn't happen at all (a complete lie).

[dworkin]

Most lower level science is a lie....

Been reading 'Science of the Discworld' again?

Must be why I tell my students that these are models for understanding atoms, photosynthesis, plate tectonics, whatever. I also tell them there are more complex models.

To show the difference I produce the stylised map of the school (handed out at the start of the year) and the architect's copy. Both are maps. But one is far more complex and detailed.

I don't know about the UK. But down here evolution is a fact.

[Zero]

The true issue with teaching big bang theory along with creationism is that creationism wishes to be taught in the science course, along with the more sensible theories. If you had been taught creationism in your science class, it would lend to it the notion in your mind that it was valid. Learning about it in a class designed to teach religion is quite a different bit altogether. If creationism is taught alongside sensible theories, it will give students the false idea that creationism has some realistic merit, and is actually scientifically valid. This is bad.

[FedRebel]

After having yet an other pop at an American on an other forum complaining about how he wants to leave the US when he is older because he is so upset with how the origins of mankind is taught in school,

He's probably just kid who likes the 'easy' way better

I have to ask people, WHY is it so important to you?!

One is based on fact (ie. the observed expansion of the universe)

The other was probably cooked up while under the influence of highly concentrated opiates

So you have Science which is backed up by legions of evidence and creationism which is backed up by onlyone book

What I don't understand is can't schools teach BOTH creationism and the big bang theory in school?

Too little time plus that thing called the U.S. Constitutuion

The seperation between church and state puts a damper on that idea

Back when I was very young at primary school I was taught about God creating the earth - probably because it is a much easier theory to understand than the big bang one.

...and it was probably a private school

Yet, internet forums that involve Americans seem to almost always involve this great debate between the two sides. What I don't understand is why all the fuss?

[Morpheus Voice]...some are so hoplessly dependent on the Bible, that they will fight to protect it.[/Morpheus Voice]

Lets say that you're in a hallway with a guy, there are two open doors so you can see what is inside

The one on on your left leads to a room which has a man who is wearing a labcoat over a shirt and tie, around him are several tables full of fossils, geologic samples, research papers, books, charts, model organs, etc.

The one on your right leads to a room which is mostly bare save for a cross on the wall and a man in a suit with only one book under his arm.

A third man in the hallway tells you that each man believes that he knows how life and the universe originated, one of them is incorrect. than he says that you can only choose to listen to one of them.

A sizable portion of people will choose what's easiest, problem is the easy one is wrong, but it makes the lazy and poorly educated think it's true with great success These people are so cinvinced that they want to force this view on others and if something should contradict what they believe they'll try to destroy it.

To put the long windedness to an end...

Creationists see the Bigbang and evolution as threats, so they do whatever they can to discredit them. (ie. "the thoery of evolution is racist")

The 'other guys' are just defending their position.

Does it really matter to a youth of under 16 years of age how the earth was formed?

the young are very impressionable, and as you get older learning new things geta more difficult

Can't both sides of the argument be taught - if not by school [as I believe in the US there are places where schools will only teach one side of the story] then by other means e.g. mass media entertainment, parents, the government etc?

Not really

It would be difficult and piss alot of people off

In no time flat a christian soccer mom who didn't care what her kids watch, sees/heres of such a program, they'd throw a tantrum

Can't the kids make up their own minds [if they really give a toss, that is]?

Yes but parents tend to exert a measure of control over their children, the christian ones wouldn't like their kids and all kids to be 'corrupted' by the "pawns of Satan"

So tell me - if I was a 16 year old kid not just in America but in the UK as well, why is this debate more important than, say, getting my maths homework in on time?

Don't ask me, I'm just a 'tool of Satan'

The local christian fundi would tell you ehy it's so important

And if these kids aren't capable of making up their own minds about the great debate [which I find hard to believe since everyone at my school managed to do so, not that it was ever a point of conversation because we simply did not care] then why should we care?

Fundi: To learn of and appreciate God's gift to us, so that you can pray to him and give him thanks.

Science: You have questions, I have answers. Whatever I can't prove I give my thoughts and the evidence that backs them up.

[wolveraptor]

Hey guys, get this: I heard some crazy-ass biologist tell me that studying the evolutionary theory was critical to the sciences of medicine and pathology, as well as uncovering our own past. What a loon. I mean, who really believes that pathogens and pests can develop resistances to antibiotics and pesticides. Hah! What a crock.

[tharkûn]

I'm using the definition of lie as:

A false statement deliberately presented as being true.

The statement that electrons are excluded from the nucleus is false. If a teacher deliberately presents that statement as true, when they know the truth, then it is denotatively a lie.

Don't be ridiculous; being a lie is a perfectly good reason not to teach something to students. You can't seriously equate oversimplifications to outright lies.

How are you defining lies?

If a teacher uses oversimplifications without taking responsible steps like dworkin mentions then I think it meets all the requirements of being a lie.

Aside from semantics, you'll get no arguement from me.

[lPeregrine]

The statement that electrons are excluded from the nucleus is false. If a teacher deliberately presents that statement as true, when they know the truth, then it is denotatively a lie.

The statement, while not 100% true, is a fairly good aproximation of the truth. In most cases, electrons are excluded from the nucleus. When teaching a simplified model, you don't need to worry about the exception of one orbital. When you move on to the more detailed model, you introduce the special case.

It's just like teaching physics without relativity. Teaching F=MA is fine, since it's true 99.9% of the time. We even use it in every engineering class I've had. Your house was built with these "lies". The .0000000000000000000001% error from not accounting for relativity doesn't matter. It doesn't make it a lie.

Compare this to creationism. You aren't teaching an aproximation, you're teaching a complete lie. Creationism isn't a simple version of reality, it's 180 degrees from truth. You can't just add the specific cases on to the existing knowledge like with the atom structure example. To go from creationism to reality requires completely unlearning everything you've been told, then starting over from the beginning.

Don't be ridiculous; being a lie is a perfectly good reason not to teach something to students. You can't seriously equate oversimplifications to outright lies.

How are you defining lies?

If a teacher uses oversimplifications without taking responsible steps like dworkin mentions then I think it meets all the requirements of being a lie.

Aside from semantics, you'll get no arguement from me.

Who cares about the reasonable steps. Usually when you're teaching these oversimplifications, it's because the full version is beyond the student's ability to understand at the time. Mentioning it isn't going to help the student's understanding of the subject.

[Molyneux]

The statement that electrons are excluded from the nucleus is false. If a teacher deliberately presents that statement as true, when they know the truth, then it is denotatively a lie.

The statement, while not 100% true, is a fairly good aproximation of the truth. In most cases, electrons are excluded from the nucleus. When teaching a simplified model, you don't need to worry about the exception of one orbital. When you move on to the more detailed model, you introduce the special case.

It's just like teaching physics without relativity. Teaching F=MA is fine, since it's true 99.9% of the time. We even use it in every engineering class I've had. Your house was built with these "lies". The .0000000000000000000001% error from not accounting for relativity doesn't matter. It doesn't make it a lie.

Compare this to creationism. You aren't teaching an aproximation, you're teaching a complete lie. Creationism isn't a simple version of reality, it's 180 degrees from truth. You can't just add the specific cases on to the existing knowledge like with the atom structure example. To go from creationism to reality requires completely unlearning everything you've been told, then starting over from the beginning.

Don't be ridiculous; being a lie is a perfectly good reason not to teach something to students. You can't seriously equate oversimplifications to outright lies.

How are you defining lies?

If a teacher uses oversimplifications without taking responsible steps like dworkin mentions then I think it meets all the requirements of being a lie.

Aside from semantics, you'll get no arguement from me.

Who cares about the reasonable steps. Usually when you're teaching these oversimplifications, it's because the full version is beyond the student's ability to understand at the time. Mentioning it isn't going to help the student's understanding of the subject.

Not to mention - when models are taught to students in school, they TELL THEM that they are models. When we learned about Bohr's model of the atom, the teacher (and textbook) were very clear on the fact that it was NOT an actual depiction of objective reality - just a limited model.

[Darth Servo]

After having yet an other pop at an American on an other forum complaining about how he wants to leave the US when he is older

If he is a creationist, where is he going to go? Last I checked, they don't teach creationism at all in Europe. Does he plan on living in the strongly Catholic Latin America?