|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: should creationism be taught in schools? | |||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I was reading the book The Tower of Babel by Robert Pennock. He discussed a court case dealing with this issue. I wish I could remember the exact case, and who was involved, or even where it took place, but I remember the judge's ruling. He said "science is what scientists do."
So what does this mean? It means that whether Creationism is right or wrong (and it is most certainly the latter), it shouldn't be taught in a science classroom. A biology class would never discuss the beauty of early American Transcendentalist literature. Such a topic belongs in an English class. In a science class we are taught SCIENCE--not English, not computer networking, not foreign language, not government and law, etc. "Science is what scientists do." Scientists DON'T do Creationism! Trék In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Hey there! Welcome to the forums fellow Minnesotan .
Fairness has nothing to do with it. Just because the students don't like what they are being taught, does not mean they should be taught something different. They are taught the truth (as scientists see it), and whether they like it or not is their own problem that they will have to deal with when they come to accept that we did evolve through a mindless process from basic life forms millions of years ago. And furthermore, when we do look at it "from merely a scientific point of view," we see that evolution is the theory that needs teaching.
...would not be appropriate for people to have to hear about creation if they don't believe in it... It is a science class. The students' beliefs have nothing to do with the curriculum. In fact, it would be even more inappropriate to teach children garbage science like Creationism as though it was even half-way valid.
...the same can be said of students now who are hearing about evolution and not believing in it. Isn't it unfair for them? Like I said, fairness has nothing to do with it. We don't teach children that which makes them feel good; we teach them that which is correct... I mean, I know most certainly that statistics doesn't make me (or most of the other students in the class) feel good, that doesn't mean the curriculum should be changed.
While I agree that creationism should not be taught in schools... That's what we like to hear . Trék In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5118 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
As a biology teacher who believes that students should be critical thinkers and lifetime learners, I would like to teach creationism and intelligent design in my biology class. Actually, I would love to teach an entire year-long class on the nature of science and creationism/ID and evolution. The problem is that the people who want me to teach creationism/ID in the public school science classroom would not like how I treated their "wedge issue".
After a throrough examination of what science actually is and what it deals with, I would launch into the mountainous evidence for evolution and the total failure of creationism/ID to even remotely be considered science. I, of course, have time constraints on what material I can (unfortunate to say) "get through" in a school year. The state definitely has inadequate standards, but my students now have to pass the state biology test in order to graduate from high school. So, I have to teach at least what the state wants. I definitely add more, especially with the nature of science and evolution, but there is not enough time for everything I would want. As much as I would love to lay the smack down on creationism and ID, I just don't have the time. Surprisingly, in my five years of teaching, I have only had one student and her parents attack (and they attacked) my teaching of evolution. I think it is b/c I handle the nature of science twice in the school year--at the beginning before anything else and again right before I teach evolution. One thought--why is creationism/ID still an issue? I think that certain groups require a monster to slay in order to garner votes or to add converts. It is all political. This issue, as well as abortion, is constantly kept alive by politicians in order to polarize voters. Vote for me and I will get rid of "evilotion" or at least have "truth" taught in public school biology classes. However, they will never "win" the issue. If the issue went away, then they would not have an issue to rally the votes around! They would then have to talk about real issues and, I know I am being partisan here, our current incarnation of conservatism is careless and heartless when it comes to the real issues of helping all Americans. Not too many votes there (I hope)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
pianoprincess* Inactive Member |
As a biology teacher who believes that students should be critical thinkers and lifetime learners, I would like to teach creationism and intelligent design in my biology class. Actually, I would love to teach an entire year-long class on the nature of science and creationism/ID and evolution. huzzah. i would like to take your class. i've never understood why ppl keep saying that kids should 'go look at the evidence themselves' and not allow all the ideas to be shown since niether one is proven. =) This message has been edited by pianoprincess*, 02-04-2006 12:40 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Do you think that we should spend a lot of time on flat earth or geocentrism in science class?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
PianoPrincess, rest assured that if enough time was allocated to really look at both sides in sciences classes the ones who would be screaming bloody murder would be the YEC'ers. You might note that the geology, dating and biological evolution threads are comparitively quiet to completely silent here. That is because when issues are brought up in them the details are examined and the YEC'ers tend to duck out very quickly.
The same thing would happen in science classes. When the evidence for deep time, geology and cosmology was examined and the falsehoods used as evidence against them by the likes of ICR and AIG shown then those now crying for equal time would suddenly understand the old saying: "Be careful what you wish for."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5118 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
Yes, I would give the evidence for both, but the beginning of the class would deal with the nature of science. Then, and only then, could I talk about why evolution is one of the most inclusive and, if I may say, eloquent examples of credible science. However, like I said in my post, any creationists or ID proponents would cry foul as I ripped apart the "evidence" for creationism or ID. Yes, students would get a "balanced" treatment of evolution and creationsism/ID, but the weight of evidence for evolution and against creationism/ID would make the class seem biased towards naturalistic processes. As it should be, since the avalanche of tested, peer reviewed and falsifiable evidence for evolution would bury any credibility seemingly held by creationism/ID. I am happy that you would want to take the class, though!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
The scientific thought process has proven to be a great tool into understanding the workings of our environment. It's very nature separates it from faith. This is essential. If we look at the history of belief systems....they have propagated endless false assumptions based on "divine belief" The history of religions has also been very divisive. Well so has science I guess....the divisive part is human nature.
Science has a hard enough time weeding out it's own bad eggs. At least the nature of science will force any views it holds to continually be re-examined. By its nature scientific thought will not fall into the trap of "divine truth". That is the beauty of that thought process. The spiritual/eternal/moral...ect. is a whole other animal. It is another thought process altogether. Science has no conscience. It needs none...that is not it's purpose. Intent and meaning are spiritual matters. Intelligent design implies intent with further implied deeper meaning and therefore has no place in the realm of scientific thought. In fact there is a danger to clear scientific understanding if one begins to infer intent. The human fallibility factor would go through the roof in terms of scientific study. "intent is completely subjective" Likewise Science has no place in claiming that there is no such animal as a higher power in whatever form without impirical evidence. Otherwise science will fall into the category of faith and religion. This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-19-2006 06:28 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
I would also say that if a person has used science to arrive at the conclusion that a higher power does not exist then they have used the process as a religion and have sadly missed the boat or are in denial of a large part of what it means to exist. And we do exist....well at least I do....because I say so.....and you must have trust/have faith that I do or in truth to scientific thinking....deny my existence.
Yes...yes...I know...I am merely chemical processes and an intricate string of learned responses emanating from a collective network of single celled organisms ect...ect.... Glad to meet you to... This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-19-2006 06:33 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would also say that if a person has used science to arrive at the conclusion that a higher power does not exist then they have used the process as a religion and have sadly missed the boat or are in denial of a large part of what it means to exist. And we do exist....well at least I do....because I say so.....and you must have trust/have faith that I do or in truth to scientific thinking....deny my existence. That's as may be, but we were discussing the theory of evolution and the teaching of same in schools --- did you not see the sign as you came in?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
carbonstar Inactive Member |
There is no way that Creationism can be tested at all. Science has a method it has to follow and testing and observation are two of them. How can one test God? It is impossible, and unobservable. Spirituality should stay out of the labs and science books.
Teaching this in a philosophy or religions class is appropriate. Edited by carbonstar, : No reason given. - "Only two things in life are infinate, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
smadewell Member (Idle past 6115 days) Posts: 48 From: Midwest, USA Joined: |
Notice you don't see Rabbis demanding that Creationism be taught in public schools. Why? Because most know that there's no conflict with the aggadhic tale of Genesis and the order in which science tells us life arose on Earth.
CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN RABBIS - On Creationism in School Textbooks How 'bout we just stop reading the Bible in English and read it in Hebrew instead. Now there's a thought!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Welcome to EvC smadewell,
Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure, but I warn you it can become habit forming. In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant. Pay particular attention to our Forum Guidelines and all will go well. Again welcome and fruitful debating. Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
Helpful links for New Members:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], and Practice Makes Perfect
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, creationist, specifically, the young-earth creationism promoted by most Biblical literalists in the U.S. can be tested. One makes predictions based on the theory, and then sees whether the predicted phenomena are observed. Let's give it a try, shall we? (1) If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and if radiometric dating gives consistent dates, then all reliable radiometric dates should be less than 10,000 years old. In actuality, radiometric dating does give consistent dates; however, the dating consistently shows a long, four billion year history as described by conventional geology. (2) If the universe is less than 10,000 years old, we should only be able to see stars that are less than 10,000 light years away. Furthermore, as time passes, more stars should become visible as enough time has passed for the light to reach us from those stars. Again, in real life we see stars and galaxies out to billions of light years away. (3) If all species were specially created, then in so far as there are similar characteristics among different species, these similarities should be mixed among the species in such a way that it should be possible to produce significantly different nested heirarchical patterns. In reality, the different characteristics that serve to identify different species are not distributed randomly; essentially the same nested heirarchy is produced no matter who does the classification and the methods that person chooses. (4) If the earth is only 10,000 years old, then the geologic column should consist of granitic or basaltic bedrock overlain by sediments that can be accounted for by known depositional methods operating over 10,000 years, perhaps including the originally created topsoil. In fact, in most places the geologic column contains deep, deep layers of lithified sediments that have resulted from ancient, and now non-existent, rivers, seas, deserts. Furthermore, these layers show chemical and structural changes that are known to take place only over very long time periods under conditions of very high heat and pressure. So creationism doesn't pass the obvious tests that can be applied. Of course, the creationists try to explain these away; nothing wrong with that in itself -- one always tries to understand why a theory does not match the observations before one throws out the theory. However, the creationist explanations either cannot be tested themselves, or, when they can be tested, themselves predict phenomena that are not observed. That is why the first geologists, working under the creationist paradigm, had to eventually abandon creationism and adopt geologic theories that involved known processes operating over long periods of time. "These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not." -- Ernie Cline
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024