Teaching Creationism in Public Schools

I read through DAND's poll and post about non-English speaking Americans. My outrage with that issue is similar to my outrage at the issue stated in the title to this post.

I just read an article about the Dover, PA Public school system requiring science teachers to include mention of Creationism in the teaching of biology. That is that the theory of evolution can not be taught without also including creation as the explanation for what evolution itself can not explain.

This policy is currently being tried in court.

First let me establish that I am Catholic. Therefore, obviously I accept that there is a Divine Designer. That is not what this thread is about.

I have eight years of university biology. I am able to reconcile evolution and Divine Creation. The Catholic Church reconciles Divine Creation and evolution. That isn't what this thread is about either.

This is what it is about.
Science is science and religion is religion. Even as a practicing and faithful Catholic I am incensed that a public school would be teaching creation as science. Religious concepts are the responsibility of a child's parents and faith community to teach to the child. It is not appropriate for the public educational system, funded with public monies, to subsume this responsibility.

Secondly, who's version of Creationism is going to be taught? Which Christian interpretation is to be emphasized? Interpretive or Fundamental?

I would love for my son to be able to attend a Catholic school. My county doesn't have the financial base to support a private school. However, if the public school system here made the decision to require Creationism be taught as science I would pull my son out and home school him. And, I'd be making a lot of noise about it.

Well...That is VERY interesting...

My siblings go to Dover...My brother is a Freshman and my sister is in 8th grade...

It's a wonder my mother didn't bring it up...

I'm the strong-willed crazy wench in the family...I think I'll be giving mum a call and having a little discussion about that...Then put a call into the school...

Happen to have the link to the article?

Try this
http://start.earthlink.net/article/n...50926-74968232

I got this article from the National News on my earthlink start page.

A little byte about this was just on my local news. It said that 20 other school systems are considering adding Creationism to their "science" programs too.

I remember one day in biology when we had a debate about creationism vs. evolution. It was clear from the beginning that creationism IS NOT a science, and was explained for those who may not know what it is. That was a very interesting class (obviously, since I remember it 10 years later).

What gets my panties in a twist is that they want it represented as a science. What ever happened to separation of church and state? Good ol' George is doing his best to ruin that (and I'm a native Texan!). A big resounding UGH!!!!!

News update regarding the trial.
http://start.earthlink.net/article/n...0928-859570319

I dont see a problem with them teaching any theories it may be better that way as the children can see different ways of thinking
Just my opinion

A Theory requires evidence! Show me what evidence supports the "theory of creationism". Having got that off my chest, I am a high school biology teacher...just started the unit on evolution today. I used to teach in the infamous county here in GA that had those goofy stickers, I had to spend an entire afternoon of my preplanning to put those stupid things in the textbooks! No student even noticed them until it was on the news, they never really bothered to read the book either. I also used to teach at a Catholic high school that also required science teachers to cover the theory of evolution. We have our "dabate" on Friday...I drive my students crazy by presenting arguments for and against the theory of evolution, they never really know where I stand...and they don't need to, they can make up their own mind. I just have to present the SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL about "how", they can believe whatever they want about "WHO".

I respect others opinions
And i agree with the seperation of church and state that is to say i agree with the context it is written in
I would not like it if the church made the rules
However it seems a little ridiculess to Change the pledge of allegiance and remove god from it,Which is the other side of the coin
Next they will say to change money just because it says "In God We Trust"


I would also like to add that i am in no way looking to argue here as i have my hands full at the moment...lol
I hate having to say that,But i'm playing it safe

Originally Posted by Dennis1

I respect others opinions
And i agree with the seperation of church and state that is to say i agree with the context it is written in
I would not like it if the church made the rules
However it seems a little ridiculess to Change the pledge of allegiance and remove god from it,Which is the other side of the coin
Next they will say to change money just because it says "In God We Trust"


I would also like to add that i am in no way looking to argue here as i have my hands full at the moment...lol
I hate having to say that,But i'm playing it safe

Were you aware, cq, that the "under god" part was NOT part of the pledge until, I believe, 1954? It was added sometime in the mid-fifties.