Had a long (off-topic) debate on this today in seminary, basically me and one other friend againt the rest of the class. Heck of a lot of fun, and I now know there's someone else in my seminary class who isn't as TBM as he pretends to be...

Just wondering, what do you all think? Regardless of whether you believe that stuff or not?

Only if Zeus and Thor can also be taught as "plausible facts".

Also, it depends, are you talking about it being in SCIENCE class? If so, then creationism isn't science, it is theology... these are different subjects and should not be intertwined.

Just like Zeus and Thor would be Mythology, not theology (anymore) or Science.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2012 05:45PM by intjsegry.

It was in seminary, so obviously it was the biblical (albeit mo-friendly) version.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2012 05:58PM by MJ.

Sorry about the misunderstanding, I meant that the creation story we were studying was the biblical, mo-friendly one. But the discussion could certainly revolve around one, some, or all of them.

No reason to explode on me like that.

Mythology should be . taught, but not as fact. In the case of the Bible and other holy books,teachers should teach science and stay neutral on other aspects of.religion.

As long as it is understood to be a class about religion, and it gives equal time to multiple different religions. It has no place in any science class.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2012 05:54PM by MJ.

Agreed. It should be a mythology class or part of an English class, not science

I know you'll think I'm nitpicking, but why is it ok to teach creationism in English class? You can teach about Tyndale or Wycliffe, but you wouldn't teach the religious principals of the book, just the cultural impact.

Because mythology is part of.the.curriculum for English in Utah

Actually, I do remember learning Mythology in a class... but I don't recall if it was English or History... I have a vague memory that it was English, and I was confused because I couldn't really see the coorelation. (this was in Utah)

It was also put to us in a very condescending way... Mythology was "ridiculous", or at least alluded to us to be such.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2012 06:09PM by intjsegry.

Got it.

I could also see it taught in historical or anthropological contexts.

It just dawned on me, you mean English lit.

Curious, why part of an English class?

That brings up another question... can the bible be used to teach history?

Some of it is accurate as a historical reference... so if it is use to verify some history, do you just bleep out the "god parts"?

(mind you, this is an atheist asking, because I am actually curious.)

And writing alludes to other writings - especially mythology.

You can't properly teach western literature unless you discuss the bible as well as Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology.

Modern and multicultural literature needs various mythologies to be taught as well in order to understand them.

Couldn't it be possible to discuss creationism in terms of anthropology, a science?

Yea, but anthropology is a social science and doesn't carry with it the strict guidelines that physical science does.

I'd still say no to this, as it is a theology... not a science. Just because events in the bible can be studied in anthropology or archeaology, it doesn't mean that creationism, which is not verified through these sciences should be taught along side with the bible's verifiable facts.

A note here too.. just because events in the bible can be tied to real history, it doesn't also then, by coorelation or association prove the divinity of god or Jesus. These are two different issues.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2012 06:13PM by intjsegry.

That would be like trying to teach Egyptian anthropology or history without talking about Egyptian gods. It is not talking about it in terms of a theology. Gezzz, Greek history or anthropology without the Greek gods?

Not including belief systems in anthropological studies and teaching is BAD ANTHROPOLOGY.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2012 06:17PM by MJ.

Come on you kind of have to include supernatural beliefs when teaching the science of humanity.

I would agree with this. From a sociological, psychological, and even, I concede, an Anthropological point of view, yes, it is necessary to include religion.

Though, the original question, which I got off topic from, was creationism... to which, I would say NO in a science class, sure if it is theology class, or perhaps if in a History class, to teach that it is a theory, that some believe, not a science that explains everything.

The US courts have ruled Intelligent design as nothing but the creation story and thus to be taught in a religious context.

In that regards - it has no place in public schools.

But as I posted up above - mythology has to be taught in school. It is incredibly important to understand for not just English class, but Art, History, Psychology, etc.

I have spent several days on Greek.and Roman gods in both ancient history and Latin classes. Since world religions is a.part of.world history, creationism would fit in with other creation myths.

Like many of you have said, in a science class no it should not be taught. That would violate separation of church and state as it would be teaching a religious principle. However in a curriculum where multiple religions are taught and their ideas are taught then I wouldn't have a problem with it. It depends on the presentation. If it is taught as fact in a science class that's inappropriate. If it is taught as part of history, mythology, or religion classes along with other creation stories from various cultures then I see nothing wrong with it.

HELL no! Or you could teach that some people are such idiots that they believe in creationism.

Creationism is an explicitly religious concept. To maintain the constitutional separation of church and state it should never be taught in public schools. If religionists want it taught in school, they are free to have their own private schools and teach whatever false BS they want.

That is only true if it is.taught as fact or as an alternative to science. The Bible as literature can be taught in schools legally.Without it there is little understanding of much of our art and literature. . Even Dawkins thinksit be taught as part of our.culture

I'll grant that! Gotta watch those xtian teachers, though. They would be tempted to teach that creative literature "good book" as fact.

Most teachers know the rules and act in a professional way. If they don' t you can bet that someone will complain

No...only science based things should be taught as theory.

I certainly wasn't expecting to see so much discussion... Thanks to all those who posted!