Four Ways to Keep Creationism Out of Public Schools

  • submit to reddit

Nineteen-year-old activist Zack Kopplin says that including creationism in science class concerns him because “we need to be teaching evolution and embryology and the big bang theory … good, established science. We’re not gonna keep our way of life and ensure the survival of the human race if we don’t teach our students science.”

Here are four things you can do to get creationism out of science class.

Tell your story: If you have been taught creationism in school, post a message on Kopplin’s Facebook page or website. You may also contact the National Center for Science Education or the Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Call your representative: If you live in a state that has a creationism law, like Louisiana or Tennessee, call your legislators and ask them not to support the teaching of creationism as science in public schools and to vote these laws down.

Report a school: If you live in a state where there is a school voucher program — particularly Arizona — and have more information about creationist voucher schools, contact Kopplin on Facebook or via his website. He will add your school to his map.

Track the Issue: Learn about Kopplin’s Second Giant Leap Campaign which asks President Obama to put an end to science denial legislation and to appropriate 1 trillion dollars in new funding to scientific research and development. Stay on top of this issue by following Kopplin on Twitter (@RepealtheLSEA) or by liking his Facebook page.

  • submit to reddit
  • Herman Cummings

    You are advocating to continue to only teach Atheism, with is unconstitutional. We need to also teach the “Observations of Moses”.

    Herman Cummings

  • Aly

    No, atheism is a lack of belief in god. No one is teaching lack of belief in god. What is being taught is science, in science classrooms. There is no room for religion to be taught in the classroom. That is what the home and church are for.

  • Ryan Burkhart

    Not allowing the Unconstitutional teaching of Creationism in public schools does not mean they “teach atheism”. It’s simply the government upholding its Constitutional requirement to NOT endorse any religion, denomination OR lack-thereof.
    With atheism, there is nothing to “teach” anyhow; it’s simply disbelief regarding the existence of gods – it’s not a religion, dogma, philosophy, worldview, etc..

    Churches and parents can teach mythology to THEIR children if they want them to remain ignorant; schools should only teach facts.
    Government should not be used as a tool of religious indoctrination or to keep ignorant the children of others.

    Without freedom FROM the religious beliefs of others, there is no freedom OF religious belief and practice.

  • Matt Armstrong

    You don’t teach a “lack of belief”. That comes naturally as one gains intelligence and learns about the world around them and stops believing in fairy tales. Far too many people are happy covering their eyes and plugging their ears saying “NOPE! NOPE! NOT LISTENING! NOT LISTENING!” and going about their daily lives blinded by ignorance. Creation is NOT science, nor is it fact.

    If you want to teach creation in the science class, then you’d better be prepared to teach each and every origin story from each and every religion, else you will find lawsuit after lawsuit about religious discrimination.

    You have your religious schools to teach your religion. You keep your religion to yourself and don’t force it upon anyone else.

  • Dan Eastwood

    Oh Herman, you’re such a kidder!

    For those not familiar with his work, Herman Cummings is the worlds foremost authority on Genesis. Just ask him, he will tell you. He’s also mostly harmless.

  • Brandt Hardin

    Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

  • Christopher R Weiss

    He’s also a little nuts….

  • Lisa Kazmier

    I think someone should bring up the equal validity of the FSM and demand that any school using creationism had it, too, or neither.

  • Thomas Kelly

    Another way around this insanity, which may actually
    increase knowledge and not stunt it, is to allow the teaching of creationism —
    and be sure to teach ALL of the creation stories. Given the vague
    “creationism” label, this can be done legally.

    I would like to see examples of *other* creation
    stories noted in these debates. There are a few active religions with differing
    creation stories. Perhaps this would provide those in favor of
    “their” creationism being taught with much needed perspective.

    Background: I was brought up a nice Irish Catholic
    boy. In my teen years I became heavily involved in the Methodist Church. I was
    Youth Group President, Lay Leader, and I went on missions. At around 18 I
    stopped going for two reasons. First – I was struck by a revelation (pardon the
    pun). As I learned more about the world, I realized so many other people in the
    world (and certainly in the history of the world) believed something completely
    different. Thus, realizing I simply assimilated the religion that I was exposed
    to. I then asked myself, “As most of the world believed different things
    (some with even greater conviction than those around me), how can I know that
    what I have been told is *the* Truth? Especially as I seem to only be linked with
    this particular religion as a result of being born to this particular family, in
    this exact part of the world”

    Concomitant with this realization was also an
    understanding that my association with the Church had become exclusively socially-driven,
    and was no longer faith-based.

  • Skeptic NY

    I advocate the teaching of not collecting stamps as a hobby!

  • Anonymous

    They should just teach Joseph Campbell’s course on mythology, which covers all religions and their evolution (ironic?) over the centuries. This would clear the “establishment” hurdle and give the students a broad perspective of what it actually means to be religious.

  • beairdboy

    Why not allow both theories? I see science in Genesis and both hold value to me.

  • Dan Crane

    Because evolution is a scientific theory, and the book of Genesis is an unscientific religious creation myth.

  • Anonymous

    That would be awesome. I am always struck at how the evolution of Judaism and Christianity, for example, is so unknown by anyone but the skeptics that I know. Even the frequency of ancient characters who were reputedly born of a virgin, born on Dec 25th, resurrected, had 12 disciples, etc. just being aware of how often plagiarized that stuff was would be an eye opener.

  • Anonymous

    For starters, creation is not a theory, it’s a story. As a story it is not science and does not belong in a science classroom. Also, google “theory”.

  • Christopher R Weiss

    Really? Genesis got even the order of appearance of animals wrong. It claimed, water, then air, then land when the evidence says water, land, then air. There is no science in genesis when even the most fundamental and basic facts claimed in the story are wrong.

  • Christopher R Weiss

    The “observations of Moses” is still a creationist position. This has already been ruled unconstitutional.

  • Wordsmith818

    Because “both” is a language mistake here. Evolution is one theory, and there is no other theory. Creationism is not one theory or one story, but a thousand stories expressed by a thousand belief systems. Teach evolution in science class, and all the creation stories in literature class. They are wonderful. The Genesis version isn’t even the best one, so don’t limit yourselves to just that one.

  • Theo Tsourdalakis

    No. Atheism is a BELIEF that there is no God.

    I agree with you that in the science classroom, the scientifc method should prevail. Observation, measurement, repeatability – but does Darwinian/Macro evolution satisfy these criteria?

    What empirical evidence is there that our great ……….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?

    Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
    “The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can’t create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”

  • Theo Tsourdalakis

    Atheism is a BELIEF that there is no God. That belief can be propagated.

    Evolution is its key doctrine and that is why it is being treated like a sacred cow and shielded from scientific scruity.

    The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion – this is baloney!

    The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.

    The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation. Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great …. Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?

  • Dan Crane

    Well, the Genesis creation myth is actually kind of crap…incredibly misogynistic in character. But there are most definitely a lot of interesting creation stories – as one of the above commentors noted, Joseph Campbell’s work in the area of mythology is excellent reading material.

  • Theo Tsourdalakis

    Regardless of Genesis. The scientific evidence supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution is woeful. The scientific evidence CONDEMNS Darwinian/Macro evolution if you apply it rigorously.

    Even atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel recognizes that Darwinism is not true. In his book “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False ” he said

    “.. for a long time I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe, including the standard version of how the evolutionary process works.
    The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes. …

    It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection. We are expected to abandon this naive response not in favor of a fully worked out physical/chemical explanation but in favor of an alternative that is really a schema for explanation, supported by some examples”
    (pp. 5-6).

  • Dan Crane

    “The scientific evidence supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution is woeful.
    The scientific evidence CONDEMNS Darwinian/Macro evolution if you apply
    it rigorously.”

    Considering the distinction between macro and micro evolution is usually only insisted upon by creationists, as there is no barrier between the two. Macroevolution is merely an accumulation of microevolution, when the mutations eventually change an organism beyond the species level. And speciation has been observed. There’s also plenty of DNA and fossil evidence to support the theory of evolution – to say it is “woeful” is simply untrue.

    Nagel essentially argued from incredulity – essentially trying to argue that things were too complex to have evolved by chance. And a wide array of scientists have pointed out the flaws in this stance, including science Nagel failed to account for. Of course, it would also be prudent to point out that Nagel doesn’t dismiss darwinism (micro or macro) – he’s being critical of materialism.

  • Dan Crane

    “Atheism is a BELIEF that there is no God. That belief can be propagated. Evolution is its key doctrine and that is why it is being treated like a sacred cow and shielded from scientific scruity.”

    Quite simply, you don’t know what you’re talking about. An atheist does not believe in god – there are no doctrines or dogma beyond that definition.

    “The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When
    Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it

    Except for all the research and experimentation to the contrary. This is, of course, the new fundamentalist creationist tact – ignore the scientific consensus, ignore the fact that evolutionary theory has a vast amount of empirical and experimental support. Instead, falsely insist that it isn’t real science and doesn’t belong in the classroom.

  • Dan Crane

    The same Dr. John Sanford who now currently identifies as a young-earth creationist, despite the mountains of evidence that give lie to that position. He’s seeking to justify his unscientific faith-based beliefs, and in order to do that, he has to try and dismantle science that disagrees with his adopted fundamentalist nonsense.

  • Frank E. Lohrke

    I find that the only arguments I see expressed against Darwinian evolution are made by people who have no knowledge of science and usually very little understanding of the religion they profess belief in.

    It does no use trying to debate these fundamentalist’s. Their only agenda is to promote their version of religion at the expense of the rest of us. Even at the expense of our children getting a serious education allowing them to compete in a global society.
    Why not stick to teaching facts in our public schools and leave the religious teaching in church where it belongs.

  • DickVanstone


  • DickVanstone

    Atheism is a belief there is no god just as NOT collecting stamps is a hobby

  • Tock Teebles

    Microevolution which is scientifically observable should certainly be taught. However, a paramecium turning into a porpoise is a complete different story. Instincts, metamorphosis, DNA, and the incredible diversity of life is in scientific opposition to the belief that it all arose without a god.

  • Dan Crane

    The insistence on a separation between micro and macro evolution is completely arbitrary – there is no barrier between the two. Macro evolution is simply the accumulation of microevolutionary changes which causes the organism to transcend the species level.

    Instincts (?), metamorphosis, DNA and the diversity of life don’t provide any scientific justification whatsoever for believing in a god.

  • Rufus Rams

    They would only use “extra biblical” scolars like Josephus as a rebuttal to those claims. It’s sickening.

  • Theo Tsourdalakis

    The distinction between Micro and Macro evolution is real.

    We can observe micro evolution (minor changes) but we cannot observe Macro Evolution (the development of new body parts or functions).

    It is poor science to conclude that just because observe Micro evolution that Macro evolution “must have happened”. There are many examples where extrapolation leads to fatal results. Consider 2 examples:
    a) If you have a headache you take 2 aspirin and you feel better; you may think that taking 20 aspirin would make you feel fantastic – but it does not. It will probably kill you.
    b) Sunshine is nice, you need it make make vitamin D; however it is good only in small doses; big doses will give you skin cancer.

    Conclusion: Micro Evolution does NOT prove Macro evolution.

    Even the Berkely, evolution website ( confirms micro and macro evolution are distinctly differen

    Evolutionists deceive the unsuspecting by doing a “bait and switch”. The show overwhelm the students with details of micro evolution; the IMPLY that this proves macro evolution. This deception has been played long enough.

  • Edna Bambrick

    Keep religion in your churches. Same with your child raping and sodomy. Thank you.

  • Deirdre Seim

    This is like believing that my feet have the power to walk down to the corner store, but that the same step after step motion could not possibly carry me the theater across town…. Walking is transportation that will take you, slowly, to wherever the road leads. Evolution is nothing more mysterious–is it the same step over and over and over– it is wondrous but perfectly predictable that a porpoise is one long term result.

  • mad as hell

    I don’t believe a trustworthy educational system should ever forbid discussion of any thoughts. But that’s OK. I don’t consider what we have in the US as an educational system. Having been a credentialed teacher in public schools I can assure you not much is learned there. That assessment was validated by a German exchange student boarded with my neighbor that assured me his studies here were not impeded by his slow formal English understanding, “It’s OK. This school is teaching what I learned in Germany 2-3 years ago, so I’m doing fine.”

  • mad as hell

    To the reply, So you actually believe monkeys given enough time will actually type something even close to poetry, not to mention Shakespeare? I have a baccalaureate of science in biology and microbiology and recombinant DNA and am aware of the number of these “accidents” that would need to occur AND ACCUMULATE without natural pressures (habitat availability, weather, lack of predators) , making the new quality once again unavailable (aka. extinct). All of the scientists I got to talk to say it’s impossible, and one even did a published simulation to show that it would take waaayy longer than scientists believe the earth has existed for that paramecium (which is extremely complex by the way) to develop into another form. If you can’t get recognized phd experts in recombinant DNA, thermodynamics, microbial physiology, to accept that it was an accident, why, or better yet, how can you insist we have all the answers to nature and no one should be allowed to discuss it anymore? Very simplistic, & very dangerous to knowledge to not allow free exchange of ideas. Also, if it is only a series of happenstances, why worry about extinctions? They’ll come back again in perhaps a little different form.

  • Mad as hell

    I find the title “Creeping Creationism” of the show amusing! It’s antithesis is “creeping evolution”! I love the open discussions on Moyers’ show!!!! This discussion often shows belief in science as a religion. If you are angry when you discuss how silly creationism is and how right science is then please know this, your religion is science, a very popular sect in the world right now. Just saying.

  • Andes75

    I can’t understand why this is still an argument religion and
    science are completely different. Creationism is Religion, Evolution is Science. Does anyone have a dictionary out there?

  • rationalismplease

    The simple fact is that creationism and ID are not science. See the Wikipedia article on the Dover case of 2005. If you want to teach creationism or ID in a philosophy class, that’s fine. Keep it out of science classes.

  • rationalismplease

    Ironically, most Europeans accept evolution as fact. The fact that almost of of US citizens do not is a condemnation of our education system, which I agree desperately needs overhauling.

  • Flippy McFlappinstiffer

    God said it. I believe it. Slam dunk Done.

  • Anonymous

    In the beginning there was God and God was alone for centillion’s of eons. One day God was sitting there contemplating the “what if” of endless galaxies and their effect on anything at all and had a V8 moment. As the hand smacked the forehead >>KABOOOOM<< that was the
    Big Bang and the beginning of 3D existence. Approximately 13.798 billion years ago +- 37 million years. P.S. Dinosaurs were dead for millions of years before people waddled ashore.

  • Don Montgomery

    And if you reside in Louisiana or Tennessee request that if creationism is taught it is taught as an overview of all creation stories, or at least both Genesis creation stories. At least children will see that there is not one creation story even in Jewish and Christian history.

  • oddjob

    Bray all you want.

  • Anonymous

    But teaching Creationism in schools will insure that the great unwashed will remain the great unwashed.

  • oddjob

    Presumably you also don’t eat pork or shellfish, or wear clothes made of blended fabrics, or shave your face, either.

  • Anonymous

    History is not story telling and neither is science.

  • Alvaro Nieto

    Much of what you say sounds reasonable, except for the part about “it would seem reasonable”, based on what exactly? Please cite the peer reviewed paper on which you base this or please enlighten us with a sampling of the equations that prove this “reasonableness”.

  • JR

    I thought this was a non-issue when I saw you post it. I had no idea creationism is already being taught in public schools. Insane! Different states really are like different countries. I live in NY and I can’t imagine the idea even being entertained.

  • jayel

    On this subject , like stem cell application both side are way off and neither are very open minded .. When we get it that when tissue is just a substance or a divinely dna programed life , we will start to agree on the evo/crea waist of time arguments. In the bible where it refers to the first man adam a quickening spirit and the last man adam a living soul – in context , it explains and answers your ridiculous arguments.. Form are provided and consciousness quickens through form . Forms do not evolve – consciousness does . So both sides are right and both are stubborn and wrong . A true scientist will never argue with blind unreproducible tales – as a true Christian would be gentle enough to allow anther their own way .

  • Mephisto the Great

    Wow. Nothing about talking to school administrators first. Who’s to say it not simply a specific teacher’s decision? Instead, we report them to our government or other watchdogs, much like the Hitler Youth who ratted out religious groups in the 30s.

  • Eric

    I wonder if creationism is taught in science classes in Germany? Nein? Yeah, thought so.

  • Anonymous

    I doubt tythe School Adminstrator can say anything about it!!
    The School Board buys the books!
    The teacher may have little say in the matter, might be a good idea to ask as we have a lot of variations in out approach to schooling!

  • Failbot

    People only claim science is like a religion if science runs askew of their religious beliefs. Unless of course, Mad as hell, you’re making such postings in discussions about stars, plate techtonics, internal combustion engines, medicine, etc. Wait, science is constantly being tested, by science. The fundamental foundation of modern religion, that there’s a universal code of right and wrong that results in an afterlife reflecting the adherence to that code, has been around for quite a long time and hasn’t changed a bit. Nor will it, ever. Because science is based on facts, facts the are continually clarified by repeatable, observable, controlled experimentation. Religion most certainly is not. And remember, not being able to definitively disprove something is not proof of its truth. What you probably don’t realize is that, for the most part, you’re a scientist already. If I told you my car ran because little spirits pushed everything around under the hood, you’d laugh me out of town, but that is religion. Belief without verifiable fact. So if you want to say that people have ‘faith’ in science, that’s fine. But that faith has been able to continually hone our understanding of the world around us. You either accept science or you don’t. You can’t say it works fine for your car but not for the origins of the universe. At least without people rolling their eyes, just a little, when you’re not looking.

  • Regina Carol Moore

    Did you read the entire article and understand it? All but one of the groups/people he suggests telling the truth to are watchdog groups, not the police or any representative of the government.

  • Matthew Crockett

    The Gigantic flaw in your argument is that you swallow without even Questioning the ideas that creationism somehow encompasses Every view that acknowledges God while any view based on science is somehow both atheist and anti-Christian.

    The hard truth is that creationism applies Only to the Fundamentalist point of view. Plenty of Christians believe evolution is valid; they just aren’t theocratic fundamentalists.

    The purpose of using trickery to inject creationism into classrooms is simple: to promote an entirely FALSE conflict of science VS. religion. Some people yearn for the sort of superstition-based version of Christianity found in the Middle Ages instead of the more questioning version that was enhanced by the Reformation. This is borne out by the fact that, even if our legal system works against the idea of burning scientists for witchcraft, there Are plenty who seek to get the government to Punish those who believe differently than them.

  • Anonymous

    Well said GEOgiff . IF you can believe in ”nothing” before the bang then you can believe in a supreme being to get it started. I take the BIG BOOK to be metefores,simolies,etc… and see science to be fact vs faith.

  • Matthew Crockett

    The requirement Isn’t that something not be taught but that it not be Mislabeled. The reason creationism shouldn’t be taught in a science class is because it’s not Science; it’s Religion and, if taught, should be discussed in a religion class

  • Matthew Crockett

    Science is based on analyzing temporal data and as such it has Nothing to say on religious question (either for or against). What people believe is a separate field of study for good reason. I personally believe in God; I simply don’t claim science provides the tools to “prove” my beliefs to others.

  • Flippy McFlappinstiffer

    Nope. Beef, chicken and mutton only. Cotton is the fabric of life and a wool coat and a manly beard. No manscaping here. That’s the way my submissive wife likes it. I’ve told her so…once.

  • Matthew Crockett

    Macro evolution is proven by the fact that the fossil record contains life forms that can be laid out in a series with each providing successive variations.

  • Matthew Crockett

    Creationism is Only promoted in the US by Christian Fundamentalists and they don’t tolerate the idea that other faith’s creation stories be accorded validity. The one thing that best establishes how sketchy the practice is is that Jewish people (who had the book of Genesis long before Christians) aren’t exactly well represented among the ranks of creationist-supporters.

  • Matthew Crockett

    When Charles Darwin first published Origin of the Species, many theologians of his time described his book as “a description of divine providence”. The change that occurred later was Specifically to spite atheists. It was asserted by fundamentalists that Christians had some sort of duty to Only believe things that would never be accepted by atheists.

    The Fact of the matter is that truth doesn’t change just because you don’t accept or misidentify the Source of an idea. If Christians and atheists disagree about what set the universe in motion, that doesn’t make any difference in accepting the laws God set in motion.

  • BullMoose

    Just because mankind does not know all the answers does not mean that “science” doesn’t. Of course “science” knows the answer–the basis of all science is fact. We just dont’ know all the “facts” yet. I, for one, have never believed that science and religion have to be mutually exclusive. The Bible is a poetic rendering of the history of the world since the invention of the written word. I had a space cadet for a roommate once (aka astrogeophysicist) and she believed that the creation account could be interpreted as a poetic version of the Big Bang theory. Fundamentalists tend to forget the fact that the Bible, whether it be the true word of God or not, was written down by men, often hundreds of years after actual events took place, meaning they were writing down stories that had been verbally passed down through the generations, then re-written and copied over and over by men, who happen to be fallible, BTW, and then translated into hundreds of different languages by other fallible men, and then re-copied in the different languages, and then “modernized” as well. So often the King James Bible is quoted by fundamentalists, but I learned in my AP English class in public school that the King James Bible, the first English translation, took much poetic license in it’s translation. It was meant to be pretty to read and listen to. It was not meant to be an accurate translation. And, yes, I also learned in that AP English class how there were clearly two different writing styles in the creation story, along with 2 different versions. One says man was created first and the animals and woman were created to keep man company; the other says all the animals were created first, but none was good enough so God finally made man. No, I didn’t learn that in my catechism class; I learned it in public school. Is Creation a science? Only in as much as it may be a poetic recounting of science. Let’s leave the teaching of religion to the churches, and the teaching of science to the schools.

  • Michael Kenney

    If a teacher did choose to teach creationism in her class, she should be removed from teaching. It’s the equivalent of teaching that 1 plus 1 equals 3 in Math class.

  • Mephisto the Great

    I figured the “call your legislator” qualified as government.

  • Arm of Keaau

    Put the sacramental juice down, sober up, and try to explain your position once again with complete thoughts please. (_: FBI

  • Arm of Keaau

    Just a hop-skip-and a jump from New York, you’re southern neighbors are diseased with creationism. How young are you to not be aware of the Bible-belt affectation? (_:

  • Arm of Keaau

    Wan’a start a new Christian sect? This is a great starter story! (_: FBI

  • Mike Lince

    ‘Atheism is a BELIEF that there is no God.’
    Opinion stated as fact is still opinion, and you are entitled to it. Preaching your opinion is dogma, which you are also entitled to do. Credibility is another issue, however, and you have stated nothing to establish yours.

  • Mike Lince

    Defining atheism for purposes of discussion is not the same thing as teaching atheism. This discussion belongs in a history or social studies class when world religions are subjects of study.
    Your comments demonstrate the benefit of private school and homeschooling options. You should pursue whatever educational objectives that motivate you to act as long as your actions do not siphon any tax dollars away from publicly-funded education. Indoctrinating your own children is your option. Indoctrinating others’ children is not your option or your right.

  • Mike Lince

    ‘… in the science classroom, the scientifc method should prevail. Observation, measurement, repeatability…’
    Darwinist thought is consistent with these criteria. Darwin was, in fact, a scientist having studied natural science and medicine. Given your line of reasoning, we should not teach Einstein’s Theory of Relativity because it is only a theory. How about we teach critical thinking? It is okay to leave some of the great questions of our time unanswered, but that does not mean we should not study them. Then let students decide for themselves their beliefs based on analysis rather than preaching.

  • Anonymous

    In the meantime, if you live in a state that teaches creationism as the truth, try home schooling your children. Granted, many who home school are Fundie creationists, but that doesn’t mean that you have to be.

  • Anonymous

    Well, here’s one for you..I was brought up in the South and I first attended public school in 1954..the beginning of the “battle against Godless communism.” We were never taught creationism and we were never inundated with religious symbols in the classroom. I don’t know where the push for teaching it in the schools comes from except those who are fearful of their loss. It isn’t “historic” in my experience.

  • pat o’brien

    All together now: We don’t know. However, science deals in facts and theories which are always open to other ideas based on sound theory

  • Regina Carol Moore

    Did you read my entire reply? lol “All but one” I said.

  • Liberal in CA

    Creationism should never be taught in either a public or private school. There is NO evidence or basis for it…

  • Liberal in CA

    Flippy- don’t be a dick!

  • Anonymous

    Understood. Aren’t fundamentalist Christians trying to make “Creation” the standard in public schools there? I’ve heard of other states doing it.

    With no standards, you should be able to decide what’s best for your children.

    My cousin home schooled her son. He completed high school at 16 and college at 20. Home schooling isn’t for everyone, but when done right, can be very rewarding.

  • Mephisto the Great

    Notice there has been no actual rebuttal of my initial issue, that this “report all violators” mentality smacks of fascism. Doesn’t this seem a little creepy to you?

  • Anonymous

    Well since technically a day is the amount of time it takes for the Earth to complete one rotation it wouldn’t really matter if there was a sun. On the other hand, the bible describes the Earth as being the center of the universe and the sun orbiting the Earth. Using that model a day would be the amount of time it takes the sun to orbit the Earth, and without the sun there would be no way to measure a day, whether at the poles or not.
    Of course, since the Earth orbits the Sun everything in the bible is moot since it is wrong.

  • Anonymous

    They should be, but in many States and schools they aren’t. There are plenty of administrators who are complicit with this nonsense of “teaching the controversy” about evolution, as if somehow creationism is some sort of scientific alternative to evolution.

  • Anonymous

    No, it smacks of trying to get a decent education for our children. Nobody is suggesting throwing people in jail or worse for people teaching creationism. All we want is to stop them from doing it because besides being unconstitutional, it helps keep our children ignorant. It is totally appropriate to report someone for teaching creationism as if it is science.

  • Robert Mesnard

    Absolutely false Secular! The Bible most certainly does NOT say the universe revolves around the earth. That is a complete falsehood. It was an atheist scientist named Aristotle that proposed that, it is not in the Bible anywhere. Since you are wrong on that point, all of your comments are moot.

  • Robert Mesnard

    If evolution is a science, why are there HUGE gaps in the fossil record
    of development of species? For instance, why can’t anyone find fossils
    of giraffes with short necks and other fossils of giraffes with
    increasingly longer necks? This perplexed Darwin as well. In fact
    Darwin devoted an entire chapter of his “Origin of Species” to that
    question. It has never been resolved, yet many people think evolution
    is fact and ignore that it is a very poor theory. There is also the
    fact that to be a “science”, the results must be must be both observable
    and repeatable. If evolution is not a science, then why is it being
    taught in science class. Lastly, why must we teach one or the other?
    Why can’t students be exposed to evolution and intelligent design both? What harm would it do?