Would the institution of teaching creationism in the science curriculum lead to a generation of acceptance and

Creationism is neither scientific nor Biblical and should not be taught.

True science should be taught. Evolution is not a "true" science but a theory that is greately divided. True sdience supports a creator that organised everything. Most scientist will not accept that as they would have to accepts a higher power.

I believe in creation but not in 7 literal 24 hour days but in "days" refering to epocs of time of unknown length. The Bible says before the earth was being made ready for life it already excisted along with the stars planets and suns of the "heavens" This agrees with "true science" and expalins why science finds species suddenly appear.

If we take creationism as anything other than, at best, a hypothesis then it serves to undermine the scientific process by masquerading as what it is not. A scientific theory is not the same as the more "common" definition of a theory. Taking it as a fact would be the closest thing to blasphemy that science can have against it. Creationism has no research to support it and cannot be experimented to be proved false.

It is entirely faith based, there is no science there whatsoever, and the little science that may be hiding in there is vestigal at best. If we take that as a scientific theory then it opens the door to every other "theory" that some people believe has credence. It may be a slippery slope, but, it would be unscientific to let in creationism as a theory and teach it but dissallow any other "theories" because they are unscientific.

It wouldn't necessarily cause the downfall of science or cause the scientific system to collapse, as it could still be maintained at the higher levels, but amongst the general populace science would become even more diluted and degraded.

Man this subject makes me more angry than it should.

Creationism belongs in theology class, not in the science book. I say this because every scientific theory must use the scientific method. I hear many people say over and over that evolution is a theory not a fact. What they don’t understand is that evolution is a theory based on facts, while creationism is a theory based in faith. I don't think teaching creationism would "lead to the stagnation of science as a discipline." But I do think as an American it would be embarrassing.

The end of scientific inquiry? I think not. Intelligent minds will always want to know the facts and not just blindly follow worn out religious mythology. Why would the teaching of creationism even be considered in the scientific realm? It has absolutely no basis in any kind of scientific fact or theory. If it is taught anywhere it should be in a philosophy or mythology classroom in college, definitely not in a public school system.

If we taught Creationism as a valid theory (and it's not a theory ... it's a baseless supposition) then we would also be opening up the doors for the teaching of other religious (or non-religious) views ... regardless of validity ... into the school system.

By doing so, not only would all of those who support Creationism be offended by the notion of other religious views being presented to their children, but it might also result in such a watering down of the material that none of the views would ever be discussed (due to time requirements) ... but simply mentioned in passing.

The part of all this that Christians who cry out for religious teaching in the schools, and other areas of the government, don't quite seem to understand is that in keeping the separation we are actually PRESERVING their religious views.

Odd how they fight for the very thing that would ultimately destroy their freedom of choice with regard to religion.

i don't think so. science will always be a curiosity based platform. if creationism is proven to be a fact, scientists will set out to either prove or disprove that finding, with no bias attached.dna research has already proven we all come from a common ancestor. that finding neither proves nor disproves at this point the validity of either creation or evolution. finding a given always sets scientific minds on another search. they just are curious about the truth.

I don't think the Lord has a problem with scientific investigation- nor do I; but perhaps it might irk Him a little that we are using science as a means to explain Him away instead of learning about Him through His creation.

I guess I don't understand why so many are in such a twist to simplify the complexity of the world, the life on it, and the entire universe in order to disprove the possibility of a supernatural God. To me, most scientific discovery reinforces all I believe about our Creator, and proves Him to be the dynamic and capable God He claims to be.

I would think it would be a comfort to know that there is someone out there who is bigger than any problem we could face and more than able to intervene on our behalves to solve it.

There is no hostility between faith and science. NONE. They can actually compliment each other.

Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.... We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be." (-Pope John Paul II)

John Paul is clearly aware of this dynamic: that either science or faith - whether in the hearts of individuals or institutions -can attempt to absolutize its role by claiming itself to be the sole source of truth. Yet, experience, the Pope explains, has taught the Church that this is not the way the relationship should be lived. In order to promote the well-being and proper functioning of both science and faith, the legitimate autonomy of each within its own domain must be recognized and respected. Only then can a healthy relational unity be established between them. John Paul explains it thus:

The unity that we seek, . . . is not identity. The church does not propose that science should become religion or religion, science. On the contrary, unity always presupposes the diversity and the integrity of its elements. Each of these members should become not less itself but more itself in a dynamic interchange, for a unity in which one of the elements is reduced to the other is destructive, false in its promises of harmony and ruinous of the integrity of its components. We are asked to become one. We are not asked to become each other.

Both religion and science must preserve their own autonomy and their distinctiveness. Religion is not founded on science nor is science an extension of religion. Each should possess its own principles, its pattern of procedures, its diversities of interpretation and its own conclusions. ... While each can and should support the other as distinct dimensions of a common human culture, neither ought to assume that it forms a necessary premise for the other.7

The model here is that there are two autonomous realms of knowledge. There is what reason can attain through the use of the scientific method; and there is that knowledge which has its source in revelation. Both science and faith have points of contact: they both illumine an aspect of reality. Science considers the world and the human person on the horizontal level, the level of physical/chemical processes and of quantifiable matter. Religious faith, on the other hand, considers the vertical level: the level of the human person's transcendent origin, dignity and destiny: the level of the human person in his or her relationship with God.

What is going right into a technological know-how lecture room could desire to be desperate with the aid of scientists. it is their container of learn. EDIT: Technically "technological know-how" isn't a container of learn itself, yet you get the component. there are a number of fields of learn interior technological know-how. i'm an engineer. as quickly as I went to varsity, I found out engineering from textbooks written with the aid of engineers. The professors had PhDs in engineering. on the junior intense college, or intense college ranges, the fabric can learn with the aid of a instructor (particularly than a PhD interior the sector). however the fabric could desire to nonetheless be desperate with the aid of the experts of their very own container of learn. So if the college room is approximately ABC, the experts interior the sector of learn of ABC could desire to be sure the coursework. Why you may enable the scholars be sure, or the mother and dad be sure, or a school board be sure, or politicians be sure? they should not be sure the coursework for some thing they only have a layman’s information of.

I don't believe the theory of creationism belongs in a science class; however, I do think it can be taught as long as all different creationist theories from different belief systems in a humanities class. Leave science classes for physics, chemistry, geology and biology.