What if creationism did get into the science class

I believe Creation should be taught in a different way- more like ID. Students should be presented with evidence for and against evolution, as well as evidence for and against ID. ID does not favor a certain religion, so it is perfectly legal (and even encouraged) under the law to be included in science curriculum. Also, the public supports offering Creation as an alternative in the science classroom.Does that sound reasonable to everybody?

"Hey Cobra!"Hi Quetzal. I tried to reply to the "Cobra Discussion" topic, but it was down. If it comes back up again I will respond."No matter how you dress it up, ID as pushed by the likes of Dembski, Behe, and others of that ilk, is nothing more than biblical literalism hidden away in pseudo-scientific jargon to confuse the gullible."That's one way to look at it. Or, on the other hand, you could assume that Behe and Dembski are convinced of their views for scientific reasons and are not advocating biblical literalism. This seems to me a fallacy of sorts- you are trying to downgrade one view because you claim it is related to another. It's sorta like comparing YEC to flat-earthers in order to refute YEC claims."I will grant that if (and this is a mighty big if) ID EVER comes up with anything resembling evidence for design or a designer beyond the usual god-of-the-gaps or argument from incredulity, then MAYBE it could be considered for inclusion in a science curriculum."I'm glad you think this. However, I must ask, what would you define as evidence for design or designer? The trouble is, any possible "evidence" IDers could ever assemble could be written off as an "argument from incredulity". If this is true, then you are excluding a possible explanation from the realm of scientific thought, thus coming to a naturalistic conclusion before looking at the evidence."As it stands, they have NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. ZIP."You need to answer the above question in order to come to the conclusion that they have NADA."I don't particularly care how many scientific illiterates want ID treated on equal footing with evolution. Argumentum ad populum is just another fallacy - and since that's the best ID can come up with..."I see what you're getting at, but let me clarify my position. First of all, I obviously wasn't saying that because a lot of "scientific illiterates" (that's a little harsh, don't you think? ) think ID is right, ID is therefore true. Also, the "popular" argument was only an addition to my other reasons for including ID in science curriculum (the law supports it, students will be able to think critically, etc.) One more thing is that public schools are for the public, therefore they should generally tend to attempt to please the majority of the public. Obviously, just because students want it does not mean that it should be included, but together with the other reasons for a two-model approach I really don't see any reason for keeping it out of science standards."I'd love to see your "evidence against evolution" that should be taught in science class. What "evidence" do you think you've got?"First of all, we could get rid of frauds and incorrect data in the textbooks. Just the other day I was reading the evolution section of my textbook- and realized that embryological recapitulation and the appendix as a useless organ were taught. These false notions do nothing to improve the science education of students. Another thing that could be included is alternatives to the evolutionary ideas. For example, students could be taught that homology might show similarity in evolved structures- or it might show that a designer used common features when designing animals. Students could be taught that DNA similarity might resemble evolutionary relationship- or it might resemble a creator's use of similar sequences.Evidence against ID could include psuedogenes and the general progression of the fossil record. Evidence against evolution could include (irreducibly?) complex structures and the general lack of transitional forms among different types of creatures. Since abiogenesis is taught in most textbooks, there should be included in the curriculum evidence against abiogenesis. The origin of life as it stands seems to be pretty good evidence for design (or is that just another "argument from incredulity")?Overall, the two-model approach is obviously superior to the one-model approach generally used today. A two-model approach would lead to increased honesty in textbooks (for example, emryological recapitulation would not be used falsely). The two-model approach would allow students to see both perspectives on all issues, and allow the student to see evidence for and against both theories. If, as you believe, ID falls short because of the evidence, why do you think it would be so bad for students to hear the arguments on both sides?Additionally, the two-model approach is encouraged by the law (The recent Santorum act in the report language of "No Child Left Behind" makes this point clear.) Lastly, the public supports the two-model approach overwhelmingly. Therefore, I must conclude that there is no good reason to not use the two-model approach.

Hey there Quetzal."I concede your point. However, the difficulty is that Dembski, Behe, et al are primarily associated with an organization — in fact that’s about the only place they submit articles — that IS 100% YEC/biblical literalist. The Discovery Institute has as its principle tenets a stated belief in the inerrancy of the bible."Somehow I find that unlikely. First of all, I'm sure YEC's would object to considering OEC biblical "innerancy". Second of all, Denton and I believe Berlinski are agnostics. So I would be very suprised if Discovery Institute has a biblical innerancy doctrine."That’s a valid question."Thanks."Remember, they don’t have to prove the whole thing up front — even the ToE has been substantially revised over the last 150 years as new evidence is discovered."Yep."One example would be to show experimentally that directed evolution can happen."I understand what you mean here- but I was not aware that directed evolution was a tenet of ID. Actually, quite a few IDists don't even agree with common descent! Also, even if directed evolution was a tenet of ID, the experiment you propose could not prove very much at all. All it would show is that living things can change their genotypes when they "wanted" or "needed" to. This would not really show that an intelligent agent is guiding the process. I believe that this experiment could be useful for Denton's "Nature's Destiny" hypothesis, but it's implications for proving that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for life as we know it is lacking."Other experiments could probably be designed to show how the anthropic principle operates at the ecosystem level."Don't really know what you mean here."Yet a third possibility (and one I’ve asked for repeatedly from Idists) is a listing of the basic observations from nature that provide the foundation for ID."I thought Behe did this in Darwin's Black Box."Where the argument from incredulity and designer-of-the-gaps keeps creeping in is that instead of trying to provide evidence for ID, the proponents keep trying to find places they can attack the ToE."I believe there is a difference between an argument from incredulity and (for example) irreducible complexity a la Behe.An argument from incredulity would be something like:"The bacterial flagellum requires 20 different proteins to function- and it's built like a motor. It's an incredibly tiny machine with amazing efficiency. Evolutionary processes simply can't explain this type of complexity!"That would be an argument from incredulity. It may sound convincing to someone who already agrees with the conclusions of the author, but in reality it has no valid scientific content. HOWEVER, if you give REASONS why evolutionary processes cannot produce the bacterial flagellum, it's not really an argument from incredulity. That's what Behe did with the concept of irreducible complexity. I know that many of you object to Behe's reasoning on the details for various reasons, and I am not smart enough to defend Behe's examples well. I just think there is a difference between an argument from incredulity and Behe's arguments."This is where I have my biggest problem with ID. Rather than developing the theory as a scientific one, based on evidence, they’ve gone straight from developing an untested hypothesis to political pressure designed to insure it’s taught in public school. They skipped a major step: developing the observational foundation. Right now, all ID has is anti-evolution rhetoric. We want to teach this in schools? I don’t think so."I see what you're saying, but this brings up a tough point. Who is to decide what has enough evidence and what doesn't? Really it's just personal opinions. So I guess it's all a matter of one's perspective as to whether or not ID has enough evidence to be mentioned in science curriculum."Also, are you sure the book said that the appendix was useless, or did it talk about vestigiality — where the function is no longer what it was originally evolved for (as a pouch for digestive bacteria)?"The book claimed that the appendix had no function, which is why I object."OTOH, I don’t agree that teaching creationism or ID is valid UNTIL there is compelling evidence for it — as exclusionary of ToE."I agree."High school ain’t the place."There's a problem with waiting until college- this is a serious issue! The subject of origins is very sensitive and could even cause religous conversion. Students cannot be indoctrinated with one way of thinking up until college (which many will not go to!) The issue is absolutely critical, and refusing to provide them both theories on the grounds that they may not understand some of the concepts is damn near brainwashing."I would have to say that your evidence against evolution is pretty weak."I'm sure you do, since you are a (very) informed evolutionist. An informed IDist could argue that the evidence against ID is pretty weak. However, I think we should let students decide. About the fossil record, it could be mentioned that there are quite a few proposed transitionals in some cases- but in other cases intermediates may be lacking."OTOH, how many high school students do you think have enough grounding in genetics to even understand pseudogenes and why they’re important?"I don't know much about how pseudogenes work or why they exist, but I do know the implications."How many students do you feel could even understand irreducible complexity and the arguments for and against it?"I think many students could understand the concept, just not the details."You’re asking a lot."Fine, then teach neither. Just don't indoctrinate students with one way of thinking."And no, OOL doesn’t provide any positive evidence for ID — yeah, the whole Idist argument is both argument from incredulity (science doesn’t yet understand how it happened, therefore designer-did-it) and god-of-the-gaps (science hasn’t shown how specifically life arose from chemistry, therefore the only alternative is goddidit)."Once again, I think there is a difference between an argument from incredulity and the argument that the OOL provides evidence for ID. On one hand:"The simplest cell has over 200 genes. Evolutionists want us to believe it evolved by chance? Don't think so!"That is an argument from incredulity. However, explaining that the OOL by natural means is unlikely because (for example) the atmosphere either contained oxygen (which would destroy the building blocks) or didn't contain oxygen (in which case there would be no ozone to protect the building blocks from sun rays), seems to me to be a perfectly valid argument. Whether or not my particular example is a good one or not, I think you get what I'm saying.On the other hand, would you rather teach the theory of abiogenesis, in which "Science has yet to provide evidence for any of these hypotheses beyond reasonable doubt." according to your own words. Sounds a bit like brainwashing...."How is it obviously superior? On the one hand, you have huge amounts of positive evidence and multiple converging lines of evidence that anyone can go out into the woods or a road cut (for geology/paleontology) just about anywhere in the world and, armed with a little knowledge, can see for themselves. On the other, you have an old, multiply translated book from a single one of the many religions humans are prey to."I'm not sure why you are trying to bring the bible into this discussion."I refer to my points above — how many students do you think have enough background in either theology OR biology to realistically evaluate a two-paradigm approach?"Then teach neither, if you are so concerned. That would be better than indoctrinating students with one way of thinking."Especially since the only impetus for one of them resides solely in a fundamentalist Protestant approach to Christianity."You seem to be anxious to get religion into this conversation. Unfortunately, I'm not advocating teaching a religion in science class. Also, you are commiting the same logical fallacy as before- trying to drag down one view because you claim it is related to another."Should we also include all of the other religions’ creation myths? Won’t be a lot of room in the text or time in the year to cover much science — which is the whole point of science class."I was not aware that I was advocating the inclusion of a "religous creation myth" in the science classrooms. If you find anything in my posts that hints otherwise, please inform me so that I can delete that portion of my post."I beg to differ. In the first place, the so-called Santorum amendment was a Sense of the Senate, hence a political polemic, not law."Well, according to John West, Far from being irrelevant or meaningless, report language often contains detailed instructions on how a bill is supposed to be applied. While report language does not have the ‘force of law’ it might be said that it has the ‘effect of law,’ because Congress expects it to be obeyed, and federal agencies know this fact and act accordingly. Also, Santorum's personal knowledge of how science works is irrelevant. Besides, someone can be right for the wrong reasons.

"True, it would not provide conclusive evidence for design. However, just as the tight mutualistic relationship between the ant (Pseudomermex) and the bulls horn acacia (Acacia colensii) provides supporting evidence for coevolution, directed evolution would provide supporting evidence for design."It doesn't seem to me that it would have ANY implications for a Designer, because it wouldn't even really show directed evolution. Directed evolution is the idea that a Designer is directing evolutionary processes in order to create life. However, this experiment would show that humans are capable of manipulating the evolutionary process, without the need of a Designer. In all honesty, I think the experiment would offer more evidence for evolution, because it would show that a Designer isn't neccesary for evolutionary changes- only an environment change. Still, I think it would be interesting to see the experiments' results."The anthropic principle is at the heart of Denton’s Nature’s Destiny argument. You would need to show that a given ecosystem, for example, is only capable of evolving into its current form — with all the myriad interacting pieces — by design to the exclusion of the standard evolutionary paradigm."That would be an interesting, albeit difficult, experiment to perform."That’s the point, Cobra. Behe manifestly DID NOT provide any reasons."I thought his reason was because certain biochemical structures have multiple parts which are all needed in order to function. It doesn't matter that he "invented" the term- it makes sense to me. However, people can argue that Behe's examples are all faulty, which is fair. However, I am not an accomplished biochemist (yet ) so I am not able to argue on this level. My point is, you may not agree with his reasoning, but he DID provide a reason, which elevates his argument beyond a mere argument from incredulity."However, the point is the IDists have yet to produce ANY evidence."That's the difficulty- who is to decide whether or not ID has any evidence?"Actually, if that was in fact what the textbook said, I agree with you — I’d object as well. There really needs to be some good reviews/editing done by real scientists."That would be a good idea."I think this is the heart of the creationists’ problem with evolution. It is fundamentally a religious issue."Let's not be too quick to generalize- there are a few with no religous motivations who disagree with evolution and/or agree with ID- such as Denton, Milton, Berlinski, and I'm sure there are others. However, I will concede that many individuals are motivated for religous reasons."They don’t seem to have been overly effected by the indoctrination you’re so worried about."Probably quite a few have. I don't have a problem with people converting religions (although I prefer it when people are Christians), but it is a problem if that may have something to do with being taught incorrect and/or one-sided information. I'm also not claiming that evolution is atheistic- but evolutionary theory surely does have quite a few implications that go beyond the concept of common descent."If ID is not religious, teaching it in school should cause as much problem with religious conversion as straight evolution, right?"I think you are confusing something that is religous with something that has potential religous IMPLICATIONS. I freely admit that ID has religous implications- but so does evolution. If evolution has no religous implications, then what is Dawkins rambling about? It is self-evident that theories on the origin of mankind have religous IMPLICATIONS, but that does not mean they are religous- which is the case with evolution."I never (unlike Dawkins, for instance) insist that evolution disproves God."I think that is a responsible approach, and is similar to the way that I approach the matter (I tell friends and fellow students that it's OK to believe in God and evolution, but I tell them why I don't think this is the case.) However, despite the way you approach it, you must admit that both evolution AND ID have religous implications."Thanks! You don't do half bad yourself for a creationist."I don't know, I seem like quite the amateur. However, I guess there's not too many competent creationists around who are interested in fair discussion, so I guess someone like me will have to do. "Not until the IDists come up with positive evidence for ID. Trying to poke holes in the ToE isn’t going to cut it."First of all, it would be fair game to teach alternative ideas- such as homology due to common design. Second of all, it's back to the same difficulty as before- who is to decide what has evidence? The evolutionists?"Okay, what are the implications of the existence of pseudogenes?"They are thought to indicate evolutionary relationship because they are supposedly "junk" DNA which has remained with organisms throughout their evolutionary history. Also, it seems unlikely that a Designer would design "junk" DNA at all. Some of the strongest evidence pseudogenes provide is that some of them are similar in humans and apes- indicating an evolutionary relationship."Yeah? So how do you go about explaining to a high school student how gene duplication in primitive jawless fish can lead to duplication of Alpha hemoglobin into the Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Gamma hemoglobin molecules in modern mammals refutes Behe’s irreducible complexity?"All you have to do is explain the concept of irreducible complexity, and tell the students that a number of scientists have attempted to make models for their evolution."At this point, since you’ve made the indoctrination assertion several times, I think I’m justified in asking that you provide evidence that this actually occurs — and that teaching evolutionary theory is the mechanism."Perhaps indoctrination is a bit of a strong word. What I meant is teaching as though it is true beyond any doubt, and is something that should or must be accepted."I wouldn’t have a problem with laying out the basis for natural abiogenesis — and including the problems with each current theory."Sounds fair."On the other hand, merely stating it’s unlikely therefore a supernatural entity/designer for which there is no positive evidence didit as the only alternative is utter bunk."Didn't say it was the only alternative- but the alternative should be mentioned. Obviously, if good reasons are shown that chemical evolution CANNOT occur, it seems reasonable to mention the alternative that the first cell could've been designed."Logical fallacy? LOL. Maybe, just maybe, it might be in response to statements like this, Cobra: The subject of origins is very sensitive and could even cause religous conversion."Once again you are confusing something that is religous with something that has religous implications. It IS a logical fallacy to criticize a view because of it's implications. If not, it would be perfectly fair game for me to argue that evolution should not be taught because of it's "implications" for Social Darwinism, genocide, and the Holocaust."Given that your apparent entire concern in this whole evo-cre issue is religious, I think I’m justified in bringing it up."It's not my entire concern, but it is a concern- as it should be. However, you are not justified in attempting to relate ID to any religion you see fit just because ID has religous implications. It would be just a logically invalid for me to attempt to relate evolution to atheism because of the words of Richard Dawkins."Try showing the nature of the designer in ID is not semantically and functionally equivalent to a deity."I've been through this argument before- but the Designer could be aliens who themselves evolved (perhaps in a different dimension?) who then created life on the earth. Is it likely? No. Is it possible? Yes."In the first place, according to you — and I guess John West — the creationists have managed to circumvent the Constitution by forcing the teaching of a foundationless theory that is fundamentally religious (or if you prefer, supernatural) in nature."In what way have we circumvented the Constitution? And who said "forcing"? I thought it was just expected. And see above- ID doesn't HAVE to be religous."Secondly, Santorum has done this without being capable of understanding either the evidence for evolution nor the meaning of the lack of evidence for ID."It wasn't just Santorum- it was almost all of the Senate. And lack of evidence for ID is an opinion.