Why wouldn’t teachers mention the Big Bang Theory? It’s not as though it’s religion – it’s solid, evidence-based science. You know, the thing that religion isn’t.

“In all 14 years of my life in public tennessee education, i maybe heard the word ‘god’ once or twice. It doesn’t change the science classroom.”

Yet there are apparently science teachers in Tennessee who openly teach creationism in the science classroom. According to the latest (20 April 2012) weekly e-newsletter of the National Center for Science Education: “Mike Kohut, a researcher at Vanderbilt University studying evolution education in Tennessee, found in his interviews of students and teachers that “one director of schools admitted he knew teachers taught creationism in the classroom. A teacher said he was offended he is forced to teach evolution. A science coordinator said teaching evolution was a good way to get fired in her district.” Kohut regarded it as likely that teachers who wish to introduce intelligent design would understand the law allowing them to do so.”"

–good god woman. that has to be the single most ridiculous comment i have read. The classroom isn’t some kind of religious deathtrap. Most elementary teachers won’t even mention god or the big bang theory. In all 14 years of my life in public tennessee education, i maybe heard the word ‘god’ once or twice. It doesn’t change the science classroom

It doesn’t? I thought that while a law was on the statute books, it was legal.

“The law can be struck down if it is found to be unconstitutional.”

Yes, and at *that* point it would no longer be a law. But until then it’s still the law.

“It probably is unconstitutional, so probably will be struck down if anyone tries to adhere to it.”

Again, are you sure? I thought it would need to be challenged in court for it to be struck down. While people simply adhere to it, it remains the law. Or do they do things differently in Tennessee?

The law can be struck down if it is found to be unconstitutional.

It probably is unconstitutional, so probably will be struck down if anyone tries to adhere to it.

The reason for the law, as stated, is political. They do it so they can get voted in by dumbass voters, even though it doesn’t change anything.

Jiminy

Joshua.Menser (122) said:

I am not sure I understand why people are afraid of Creation being on option taught in the classroom.

What makes you think anyone is afradi of “creation” being taught in science class?

The objections are not based on fear, but on other emotions, such as outrage that anyone would suggest that science teachers waste their breath on such obvious garbage as “creation science”.

Short version – creationism is not science, and has no place in a science class.

To give you some idea of how anti-reality creationists are, the ICR has (I am given to understand) a statement on their website to the effect that scripture always trumps evidence. Science, by way of contrast, has shown us that the best way to learn about the world is to reject our preconceptions and accept only that which evidence and reason show us to be so.

I am not afraid for history to be compared to what is written in the Bible because it has stood the scrutiny and test of time, so I don’t understand why science is “doomed.”

As Peter B opints out, the bible doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Why else have all leading theologians concluded that the bible is not to be taken literally, but should be interpreted as parable and metaphor?

Science is doomed if children are taught that magical thinking is a valid way of understanding the world.

Some of your reactions make it sound like science is weak and therefore cannot stand up against any type of theological belief.

Such as what?

What reaction makes it seem that science is “weak”?

Don’t be vague, back up that claim with specific examples.

As it happens, every time a scientific conclusion is compared against religious doctrine, it is the religious doctrine that is shown to be weak, unless you adopt the approach of the ICR.

Shouldn’t the truth always win out?

It has already done this.

The “debate” only continues because creationists refuse to acknowledge that they are soundly beaten. Creationism has no basis in fact.

If a student is presented with both options (evolution/creation) and are educated about both then why should you be afraid about anything?

As has already been pointed out several times in this thread, creationism has no scientific merit whatever. Mentioning it (even in passing) in a science class is a waste of a teacher’s time. Given the timetabling constraints on most science classes these days, discussing creationism would be an extra drain on a teacher’s time that would push out something of actual value.

Schools are not supposed to be in the business of indoctrination so how does multiple options and opposing viewpoints hurt a student’s education?

Creationism is not an opposing viewpoint. It is the simple rejection of fact-based reasoning and the dogmatic gainsaying of any argument.

Some of you say science cannot include any opinions and must all be based on facts, but if that is the case then there are many areas of science that will also be excluded based on this standard.

Science does not reject opinion per se, but for an opinion to have any merit in science, it must be based on fact and reason. Creatinism is based on neither fact nor reason.

Many have seemed to forget that most science classrooms and testbooks includes the study of theories. If that is the standard, which I have no problem with, then opposing theories have to be presented as well or it can become indoctrination.

What you so blithely ignore is that there comes a point where the evidentiary basis for a scientific theory is so broad and so substantial that it would be ludicrous to treat the theory as anything other than fact. Atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, evolution, quantum mechanics, and many others fall into this category.

It is genuinely irrational to contend, for example, that evolution does not happen, although the fine details of how, where and when it happens are still being resolved.

Seriously, can we just keep science instruction in science class, and religious instruction at home, or church?! One discouraging word here though, about 1/8th of science teachers nationally, have recently been found to not only accept creationism as correct, but teach it that way in science class!!

Whether teaching nonsense in science class is an omen of doom, may depend on how valuable you think science instruction is in this day, and age. Anyway, the worse TN looks, the better FL looks standing nearby.