|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3184 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Rahvin writes;
When we look at the world around us, the only source for the idea of Biblical Creationism is the Bible itself. Therefore, it is nothing but religious dogma, even if it's correct, because we cannot possibly derive it from anything else. You miss the point of my reply to Dr. Adequate. He infers that religious dogma has to be untrue. How does he know this? If he cannot scientifically explain the origin of life, on what does he base this disregard of religious dogma? Rahvin writes;; Of course not. Biblical Creation is always a possibility, just as it's conceivably possible that we're actually plugged into the Matrix. There is always the possibility that everything we think we know is wrong, that the maps we've drawn of reality were all based on faulty information. But given what we observe and experience, what we predict and test, we can establish that some hypotheses are more likely to be true than others. It is more likely that I am located in an English-speaking region on Earth than on the Moon. It is fantastically more likely that I am on Earth than on Jupiter. Do you intrepert Dr. Adequate as meaning that religious dogma may be correct?That is my point, he completely rules it out, and I don't think he is able to do that w/o an exlanation of how life began. Rahvin writes;
If you teach Biblical Creationism in a school, then you need to also teach every other conceivable possibility with a similarly small probability of accuracy, knowing full well that each and every one contradicts direct observational evidence. At that point, why teach anything at all? That is really not a valid point. Would you agree that Creation is one of the most accepted possibilities for the universe and life?I believe educators are able to select the most possible and probable reasons for life and teach them in a responsible manner. The last I heard Science was not claiming it is incapble of error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Should we teach the children that there is no plausible explanation of how life began, but .... but what. A brilliantly executed "god of the gaps" argument. Well done. In science class rooms, they are supposed to teach science. If there is in fact no plausible explanation for the beginning of life (a question I will not look to creationists to answer), then we should teach that there is no plausible explanation, but here are the lines of research that show some promise. What we absolutely shouldn't do is say, we don't know, so goddidit. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3184 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Theodoric writes;
Your version of creationism is based upon the bible isn't it? Show me a creation story that is not based upon religion. Show me a creation story that does not include a god or supernatural being of some sort. Do you now see how ludicrous your statement is? I was commenting that Dr. Adequate was stating that it was a religious dogma and therefore could not be true. I was not denying it is a religious dogma. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes: Theodoric writes;
Your version of creationism is based upon the bible isn't it? Show me a creation story that is not based upon religion. Show me a creation story that does not include a god or supernatural being of some sort. Do you now see how ludicrous your statement is? I was commenting that Dr. Adequate was stating that it was a religious dogma and therefore could not be true. I was not denying it is a religious dogma. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is dogma and so it cannot be taught. It really is that simple. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I was commenting that Dr. Adequate was stating that it was a religious dogma and therefore could not be true. He actually didn't say that. He noted that it was once plausible, but now is only religious dogma. In the context of this thread, it is obvious that what he was saying is that there is no scientific evidence supporting it. This is fact. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3184 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Granny Magda writes;
It depends on what you mean by "creationism". The bulk of those who are referred to as creationists (in the context of this forum) are Christian biblical literalists. They are anti-evolution fundamentalists. If given a free reign to teach creationism in schools, these guys would be teaching stuff like; The Earth is about six thousand years old. The Theory of Evolution is an atheist conspiracy. Humans have no common ancestry with apes. The Noahic Flood was a real event. Adam and Eve were real people and our ancestors. And so on. This is a far cry from the kind of creationism that you're talking about, which suggests only that the first origins of life were intelligently guided. It's a very different beast. Call it "creationism-lite". I personally agree with your statements above. I am of the opinon that evolution is a very well documented scientific theory. I don't agree with the scientific intrepretation of it's cause, because I belive in creation., and do believe creation in some manner has occurred. I am of the opinion that the 21st century theory of Natural Genetic Engineering of James A. Shapiro, even though he is a naturalist, leads to the possibility of intelligence in the cells that could not have come from random mutations in re to fitness. But I don't agree with Dr. Adequate that religious dogma is false and not to be considered. In the class room evolution and creation can be discussed by intelligent instructors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2356 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In the class room evolution and creation can be discussed by intelligent instructors. And the evidence for creation is???? Evolution is based on evidence, so what is the evidence for creation? Or should teachers just say "There is no credible evidence yet known for creation" and move on to the next subject? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3184 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined:
|
taq writes;
On top of that, creationist organizations such as AiG clearly state that creationism is a belief that is unfalsifiable and based on a religious text. How is that not a religious dogma? I am not saying creation is not a religious dogma. I disagree with Dr. Adequate who, I belive, is saying it is religious dogma and therefore is not true. Taq writes;
Creationists state that they do know the origin of life, but that statement is based on religious dogma. Once again, unless science can prove the origin of life, how can you rule out either one? Taq writes;
There is no scientific evidence to suggest that it is correct, hence it is not appropriate for science class in public schools Nor is there scientific evidence to suggest it is incorrect. The instructors should be well qualified and prepared to present both sides of the issue.Until there is absolute proof of the origin of life I do not belive it is proper to leave Creation out of the classroom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3184 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Coyote writes;
And the evidence for creation is???? Evolution is based on evidence, so what is the evidence for creation? Or should teachers just say "There is no credible evidence yet known for creation" and move on to the next subject? Perhaps the instructor could tell them that science has no scientifically agreeed theory of the orgin of life, and the Bible does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life. To this day we cannot say with certainity whether either or both are correct. That will be for you to read about and decide. After all they are students.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes: Perhaps the instructor could tell them that science has no scientifically agreeed theory of the orgin of life, and the Bible does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life. To this day we cannot say with certainity whether either or both are correct. That will be for you to read about and decide. After all they are students. But saying "the Bible does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life" has absolutely no informational content. If someone said "the Book of Endor does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life" and it would be equally valid. Neither gives us any information about how life began. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2356 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
shadow71 writes: Perhaps the instructor could tell them that science has no scientifically agreeed theory of the orgin of life, and the Bible does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life. To this day we cannot say with certainity whether either or both are correct. That will be for you to read about and decide. After all they are students. Below is an example of another tribal myth. Do you want to have that taught also? Or do you want us to just accept your tribal myths? The Creation of Men and Women Do you have some empirical method for examining these various myths and evaluating their potential accuracy? And what criteria would you apply to them? Remember, any criteria you apply has to apply equally to all. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.1 |
There are other intrepretations of Genesis So you admit your creationism is based upon Genesis in the Bible. How can you think it is anything but religious dogma? What would you call it? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 288 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
I am of the opinon that evolution is a very well documented scientific theory. I don't agree with the scientific intrepretation of it's cause, because I belive in creation., and do believe creation in some manner has occurred. Not because of the evidence? As far as I am concerned. I see no reason to believe such a thing, but really, it's up to you want you want to believe. Just don't confuse your beliefs with science.
I am of the opinion that the 21st century theory of Natural Genetic Engineering of James A. Shapiro... Yeah, I noticed.
But I don't agree with Dr. Adequate that religious dogma is false and not to be considered. You have misunderstood what Dr A is saying. He said that creationist beliefs (such as in a six thousand year old Earth) have been falsified and thus proved to be no more than religious dogma. That puts them beyond the scope of science class.
In the class room evolution and creation can be discussed by intelligent instructors. Hopefully by intelligent ones, yes. But the truth of the matter is that there are a lot of teachers out there who are only too keen to teach kids wrong-headed nonsense like the six thousand year old Earth in their classes. So what do we do about those bozos? I do believe that both the Genesis creation myth and the modern Theory of Evolution have their place in the classroom. I just prefer that the religion go in a religious education classroom and that the science go in a science classroom. Any other set up is just going to give fundamentalist Christian teachers an opportunity to preach Biblical literalist/inerrantist rubbish in their classes and that's unacceptable. Mutate and Survive On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Clearly, if creationism is taught in the public schools, it would be "creation science" or ID or whatever new deception the creationists dream up to hide their agenda from the courts.
To this day we cannot say with certainity whether either or both are correct. That will be for you to read about and decide. After all they are students. Presented straight out of the creationist play-book for using our schools to proselytize. The purpose goal of science education is for the students to understand the ideas and concepts of science; science education explicitly does not want to compel belief. Real-life experience with creationism being taught in the classroom has been that they "taught both sides and left it up to the students to decide which to believe", whereas actually they misrepresented evolution and made false claims and then urged the students to decide then and there between this thinly-veiled "unnamed" Creator and godless evolution. The science classroom is for learning science, not for proselytizing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: But I don't agree with Dr. Adequate that religious dogma is false and not to be considered. In the class room evolution and creation can be discussed by intelligent instructors. I would expect that a proper science class discussing these subjects would inevitably be at least partly dismissive of acceptance of dogma. I wouldn't want my kids to be taught religion in a science class. I'm perfectly okay with taking charge of their religious training outside of school. Science classes are not 'philosophy of thinking' classes. In a science class we should expect students to actually practice the empirical scientific method and to follow the evidence whereever it leads. Edited by NoNukes, : Corerect misattribution
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024