|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1654 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Teapots&unicorns, and welcome to the fray.
Exactly! Why isn't there a theology class/elective in schools (instead of history- it's like living in the past LOL). Not only would it prevent indoctrination (or at least lower it), it would also both encourage kids to make their own choices as well as encouraging research and free thought. It's been tried. FUNDIEs (Fundamentalists Under Numerous Delusions Involving Evolution) don't like it for the same reason they don't like evolution in science class - it doesn't teach only their religion. Evangelicals complained, and had the class removed from the curriculum. So much for "both sides" eh? Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. For other formating tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1654 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... after all, I'm just a blasphemous athiest. Gosh, I'm shocked to hear that , I mean your name, your icon, your signature ... I had no clue!
I personally think that religion is a completely subjective choice to be made after viewing the facts ... So you have made a subjective choice that there is/are absolutely no god/s after viewing the facts? Interesting. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1654 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks, Teapots&unicorns.
Sorry, should have put that better. I think that, while viewing the facts (at least with the supernatural), we all see them through our own lenses, and so we make subjective decisions based on objective facts. Yes, all of our sensing of objective reality is filtered by our senses. Blue is a popular color because of the way our eyes see blue. How we fit all our experiences together into a unified understanding of reality is called our world-view, even though not everything can be explained.
EX3. Religion can give people hope through acceptance. I like hope. Therefore, I should accept it. (But which one?..........) Or give them the impression they know the answer to the unknowns, or it may be left over from some evolutionary benefit (fearless warriors get rewarded in afterlife) to the population, or it may be a side effect of a thinking brain. Or there just may be something that is out there and is immune to our testing and objective evaluations. All we can say, really, is that what we know of reality, is what we know of reality.
X. Chocolate ice cream triggers sweet taste buds. I like sweet foods. Therefore, chocolate is better than non-sweet flavors (are there any?). Salt. Sugars and salts provide energy and minerals. I like green, dark green, but I don't like pink or pastels. I can't tell you why, though, I just find that this is what I prefer. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1654 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Rahvin
Essentially, the government (including publicly run schools) must remain completely neutral on the matter of religion. A non-science comparative religious class is permitted. It was tried in California, but too many Christian parents objected to their kids being taught about the other world religions. Sad. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1654 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi subbie, I hope to get back to our GD thread tomorrow
i've been having computer probs and I get low on energy at end of day, so only have time for quickies.
Science cannot prove those 2 points, they are inferred by scientists, not proven. You cannot show by experiement "natural selection". You cannot show "random mutation for fitness" but merely extrapolate it from findings. Science never proves anything. Anything. Ever. Science isn't about proof. Actually both mutation and natural selection have been demonstrated to occur in labs and in the wild. These are FACTS that are known to be true. How? Mutations are demonstrated by changes in hereditary traits in following generations that did not exist in earlier generations and DNA analysis. Random selection is demonstrated by the change in frequency of hereditary traits that led to better adaptation. Google "e. coli long-term experiment" and you will see a population of bacteria grown from a single cell that over many many generations develop an ability to consume citrate that was not present in the parent population/s. Further analysis demonstrates at which generation two different mutations occurred that led to this feature. Google Peppered moths and Galapagos finches and you will see examples of natural selection in the wild. You can also see Peppered Moths and Natural Selection for a thread discussing this point. What is not proven is theory, here the theory that evolution - mutation AND selection - can explain all the diversity of life as we know it. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : add ecoli by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1654 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Briterican,
It is clear from your comments that you would support the introduction of creationist teachings into public schools. Would it be correct, however, to say that you would only support the Christian origin myth? Why not the Hindu, or Roman origin myths? Is the Christian origin myth supported by a greater body of evidence than the others? Why not teach all the real American religious narratives on creation/s etc? Native American Spirituality
quote: Doesn't sound to me like it would be a bad class to teach, talking about spirituality as a common theme in religion would be an interesting concept, and it shouldn't raise any concerns by people comfortable in their various faiths. Native American Religion in Early America, Divining America, TeacherServe®, National Humanities Center
quote: Sounds sort of similar to the Hindu faith, where there is a wild pantheon of spirits, but they are also all different aspects of the one universal god. I think the word "soul" is misleading here and implies a similarity to Christianity (or Hinduism, where the Christian concept came from) that is not necessarily valid: spirit would be better -- immortality of the human spirit and an afterlife -- and that would be more consistent with the first article. I think it would be an interesting class, but it would have to be a humanities, comparative religion, class, not a science class. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1654 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi subbie, I'll get back to our debate later.
The sine qua non of science is hypothesizing. What you are talking about is the mere observation of facts. Certainly science cannot proceed without the observation of facts. But if all that science did was observe and record facts, it would be a barren field. The life of science is the explanation and the prediction. Science doesn't prove facts. Facts are gathered by observation. Science can guide observation, and often dictates what observation tells us. But science is much, much more than just looking, counting, measuring and weighing. And it's that part of science, the essence of it, that is and must always be tentative. And that's why science never proves anything. Ever. Science does prove facts: there are many experiments that have proven that
What is never proven are the theories, but even there it is not completely cut and dry: through the process of the scientific method and building on the information we already know, we develop an approximation of the facts of reality that we don't yet know. As the theories are tested and refined, either through falsification and restatement or through validation and extension of the theory, we achieve a closer approximation to the unknown facts of reality than we had before. Einstein builds on Newton to achieve a closer approximation for the action of gravity, and all the gains in information that were derived from Newton's theory are still there, now supporting General Relativity. The next theory of gravity will build on Einstein and refine our approximation even further. A well tested hypothesis can become a theory after peer review and replication of results by other scientists, including the replication of positive evidence resulting from predictions and the negative replication of falsification tests. A well tested theory that has withstood many independent attempts to falsify it can be called a strong theory, or a law (coyote has a nice reference for defining hypothesis, theory and law, wish I kept the link). Thus we can say that validated, confirmed and heavily tested theory approximates fact (~fact) or that validated, confirmed and heavily tested theory approaches fact (→fact) Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1654 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi subbie
All marvelous examples of observation, which is a necessary component of science, but is not by itself science. Neither is theory by itself science, as you seem to be claiming. Science is a combination of observation, experiment and theory, and it provides a framework for the acquisition of new observations that may not be made without the science predictions. If a theory predicts an outcome and that outcome is then observed, then the prediction has been proven to be true. This can include validation and invalidation test predictions.
All marvelous examples of observation, .... It's a little more than that. Speciation is a prediction of the evolutionary theory of common descent, and observing instances proves that speciation occurs. The observation of specific instances are examples of observations that prove the general process of speciation does in fact occur. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024