nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: − + − Nevertheless, in the United States, the teaching of [[biology|biological]] [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] in the public schools is a significant area of contention, while the teaching of alternatives such as [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]] are other aspects of the dispute. − + + + + + + +
Creation vs. evolution debate (view source)
Revision as of 13:37, March 1, 2009
, 13:37, March 1, 2009Expand what the debate covers, by breaking some of introduction into a new section.
It concerns the question of how things came to be, including the [[universe]], [[Earth]], [[life (biology)|life]], and [[homo sapiens|mankind]].
It concerns the question of how things came to be, including the [[universe]], [[Earth]], [[life (biology)|life]], and [[homo sapiens|mankind]].
The debate has a long history,<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=3-240}}</ref>, and today is carried out in the [[mass media]], churches, and the [[Internet]]. A major focus of the debate concerns what should be taught as [[science]] in [[public schools]]<ref>{{hnb|Peters & Hewlett|2005|Ref=CITEREFPetersHewlett2005|p=1}}</ref>, although the leading creationist and Intelligent Design organisations oppose efforts to make creation or Intelligent Design a compulsory part of school curricula.<ref>{{hnb|See, for example, Sarfati|2008}}</ref>
The debate has a long history,<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=3-240}}</ref>, and today is carried out in the [[mass media]], churches, and the [[Internet]]. A major focus of the debate concerns what should be taught as [[science]] in [[public schools]]<ref>{{hnb|Peters & Hewlett|2005|Ref=CITEREFPetersHewlett2005|p=1}}</ref>.
In the first case, [[evolutionists]] argue that Creation Science and intelligent design should not be taught in the public schools because they are fundamentally [[religion|religious]] in nature and not science. Evolutionists claim they are thinly-disguised schemes to introduce religion to the classroom. In the United States, a recent court decision has affirmed this position, barring the introduction of intelligent design into public science curricula.
== The debate ==
Although the debate ostensibly focuses on the origin of living things (i.e. did they evolve from other living things or were they separately created), the debate also encompasses related issues such as the origins of the universe, galaxies, stars, the solar system, Earth, the geologic record, and life itself.
In the United States, the teaching of [[biology|biological]] [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] in the public schools is a significant area of contention, while the teaching of alternatives such as [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]] are other aspects of the dispute, although the leading creationist and Intelligent Design organisations oppose efforts to make creation or Intelligent Design a compulsory part of school curricula.<ref>{{hnb|See, for example, Sarfati|2008}}</ref>
In the first case, [[evolutionists]] argue that Creation Science and intelligent design should not be taught in the public schools because they are fundamentally [[religion|religious]] in nature and not science. Evolutionists claim they are thinly-disguised schemes to introduce religion to the classroom.
Creationists argue that evolution is anti-theist [[ideology]] dressed up as science,<ref>{{hnb|Hayward|1998|p=2}}</ref> and that religion, in the form of [[Secular Humanism]], is already in the classroom.
Creationists argue that evolution is anti-theist [[ideology]] dressed up as science,<ref>{{hnb|Hayward|1998|p=2}}</ref> and that religion, in the form of [[Secular Humanism]], is already in the classroom.