Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 7 of 66 (481622)
09-11-2008 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Syamsu
09-11-2008 8:08 PM


Creation "science" in classrooms
So simply present the best possible evidence for creation you can think of.
Creation is a religious belief, not something that can be addressed through science. It is based on belief, not on evidence.
What you are advocating is that science kowtow to your religious beliefs; kind of like an affirmative action program, eh?
That brings up the question: just what religious beliefs qualify for this affirmative action program? Just yours? Or all of the approximately 4,300 extant world religions? Or if we limit it to Christianity, you do realize that there are some 43,000 different branches of Christianity, don't you? Do you want to teach them all, or just yours?
I think it would be a better idea for you to deal with religion in churches and the like, and let science deal with scientific matters in other venues.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Syamsu, posted 09-11-2008 8:08 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Syamsu, posted 09-12-2008 6:41 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 10 of 66 (481636)
09-11-2008 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by johnfolton
09-11-2008 11:22 PM


Teaching lies creation "science"
What you are advocating teaching is a pack of creationist misinformation, distortion, omission, quote mining and outright lies.
Every point you make has been refuted by science, and the evidence is overwhelmingly against a young earth. Your carbon 14 dating claims are of particular interest to me as I deal with that field a lot. Your claims are outright distortions and deliberate misrepresentations of the data. Every one has been refuted, but YECers of course refuse to believe the evidence because YEC beliefs are not evidence based!
Why should such distortions and lies be taught in science class just because some fringe group believes them?
It would seem to be a more suitable subject for an abnormal psychology class.
(The Enlightenment happened; get used to it!)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by johnfolton, posted 09-11-2008 11:22 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2008 12:14 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 12 by XX, posted 09-12-2008 12:19 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 14 of 66 (481652)
09-12-2008 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
09-11-2008 5:37 PM


On teaching creationism in science class
Ultimately, the topic of debate then is, whether abject refusal to discuss that other people have other ideas is ultimately worse than accepting that other ideas exist, acknowledging them, and then explaining the scientific ideas. What are people's opinions on mentioning teleology as a way of leading to explaining natural selection as a design-argument-buster? On providing historical context on the various beliefs and ideas that preceded Darwinism (not just the religious ones)? And how some of those ideas remain in popular belief?
Each way of handling the situation has its own pitfalls, so which is ultimately better?
In spite of some of the comments on this thread, creationism is a religious belief, and it, along with associated ideas such as a young earth, have no scientific evidence to support them.
Creationists apparently want their beliefs considered, respected, and, most importantly, not refuted in science classes so that those students who hold those beliefs are not made to feel bad or to doubt their religious beliefs.
Sorry, science is not in the "feel good" game. Science can't teach students that those religious beliefs are supported by scientific evidence because they are not. Science can't avoid confronting the subject because to avoid the evolutionary sciences, biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, and all methods of dating would essentially gut the scientific curriculum.
And science can't avoid drawing conclusions from data. Someone on this thread suggested teaching just the data and avoiding the conclusions. That won't work. Science is facts and theories. As Heinlein has noted, "Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness. A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts."
So the problem comes down to whether you teach science in science classes and let feelings be hurt on occasion, or whether you censor science for all students in order to protect a small number of students from learning what has been discovered by mainstream science.
Since the Enlightenment, we no longer have to kowtow to religious authority and science is free to go where the data leads. The answer then is obvious--teach science in science classes.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 09-11-2008 5:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by XX, posted 09-12-2008 1:39 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 18 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2008 6:49 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 19 by Syamsu, posted 09-12-2008 7:09 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2008 1:07 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 26 of 66 (481806)
09-12-2008 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Syamsu
09-12-2008 5:02 PM


Re: On teaching creationism in science class
The problems science has with creationism, is the same problem it has with free will.
Anyway what specifically would be taught.
Creationism would have to be taught as "Some folks believe... but science has found no evidence to support that belief."
This would amount to an affirmative action program initiated only because creationists have more votes on a school board somewhere, or bigger lawyers, rather than being a legitimate part of science. And everyone would know it.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Syamsu, posted 09-12-2008 5:02 PM Syamsu has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 66 (481894)
09-13-2008 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Modulous
09-13-2008 11:43 AM


Critical analysis?
I don't propose we should teach creation myths: I propose that X should be more like 'the world was created by something like God' or that Y might be 'the world had existed forever'.
Will this creation idea be subjected to the "critical analysis" that science excels at (and that creationists want applied to the theory of evolution but not to their own beliefs)?
A science class can teach that creationism is a belief held by some number of people, but any details of those beliefs should be subject to critical analysis.
"Critical analysis" is how science distinguishes between different ideas. To give religious beliefs equal time in science classes, without applying that critical analysis, amounts to affirmative action for ideas that don't belong in science or in science education.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2008 11:43 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2008 2:12 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 56 of 66 (482012)
09-13-2008 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by johnfolton
09-13-2008 11:26 PM


Re: Creation "Science"
You are your creation "science" talking points -- you're getting to be a one-trick pony.
And all those points have been rebutted by mainstream science, but you keep posting the same nonsense as though it was real science.
Reminds me of Heinlein's line:
Belief gets in the way of learning.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Why don't you start a thread just on the carbon 14 nonsense you are so fond of quoting? A refutation here would be off topic, but if you have the ability to do just one focused point, such as carbon 14 dating, we could get into it in some detail in a dedicated thread.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by johnfolton, posted 09-13-2008 11:26 PM johnfolton has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024