|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,507 Year: 6,764/9,624 Month: 104/238 Week: 21/83 Day: 4/0 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. Why drag the Bible into it? In the first place, it too does not contain a scientifically agreed theory of the origin of life, and in the second place wouldn't the first amendment require that you mention every other origins myth as well? How about this: "No-one knows how life began. Some religious people have various conflicting hypotheses that all involve magic in some way, but there is absolutely no evidence for this, and overwhelming evidence against it in that the scientific evidence to date is that there's no such thing as magic. Hence, although we do not know and may never know the details, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that life was produced by natural causes." Of course, as this is true, it would hardly be acceptable to you, but it does implicitly refer to the Bible and its scientific value (zero).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2364 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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. That's what the creationists are so afraid of. When students are exposed to the scientific method and empirical evidence many tend to dismiss dogma and unsupported beliefs. Why else do you think creationists are so anxious to get their beliefs back into classrooms. And if they ever succeed, do you think they will allow challenges based on empirical evidence and the scientific method? Empirical evidence and the scientific method are not what creation "science" and intelligent design are all about. More like the exact opposite. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think it is premature to state that creationism is just a religious dogma. I don't see how you can state that w/certainty when the Origin of life is not known.For instance if the origin of life was not random then you may have Creation. My question to you is can you state with certainity that Creation is not plausible at this time in our existence? By creationism I meant fiat creation of species/"kinds"; that is, the bit that is falsified by our knowledge of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: Nonukes writes: Completely irrelevant. The origin of life is not the only disagreement with science. What do you mean by that statement? It is completely incomprehensible. Yes, my statement is poorly written. The creation story in the Bible disagrees with science on far more than the origin of life. The creation story is incompatible with the scientific evidence for the origin of species, including man. But I see you're now denying having said that creationism is not dogma. Perhaps I need not have bothered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4447 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
In the class room evolution and creation can be discussed by intelligent instructors.
Yes, but not in the same type of classes. In no way can any form of creationism be taught in a science class, for it is not science, any more that evolution must not be taught in a course on religion(s). Edited by bluescat48, : sp & clarity There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3888 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined:
|
And the evidence that random mutations and natural selection can multiply levels of complexity to form the sophisticated life forms we see today is???
You can't always pull out your demand for evidence based thinking, when in fact you have no evidence for the overall mechanisms of how evolution has worked and created multi-faceted co-operative systems; and even scientists like woundedking reluctantly has had to admit that all we can do is speculate, because without a time machine we may never know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And the evidence that random mutations and natural selection can multiply levels of complexity to form the sophisticated life forms we see today is??? As I pointed out last time you asked this, it's bleedin' obvious. Clearly a sufficient number of mutations can turn any genome into any other genome. Now, your turn. Do you have any evidence for magic as a causative factor in biology?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4626 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined:
|
Rahvin writes: Hi Robert, Perhaps you aren't aware of some of the clauses in the American Constitution, being that you're Canadian. The very first Amendment to our Constitution states:
quote: The bold section is what we call the "establishment clause." It means that no governmental agency (local, state, or federal) can make a law that establishes a state religion. This has been interpreted by every single Supreme Court that has needed to question the issue to also include the endorsement of any religion by the state. Essentially, the government (including publicly run schools) must remain completely neutral on the matter of religion. The reason is simple: we are not a nation of a single religion, but rather a melting pot of many belief systems, and for our government to endorse one set of beliefs, everyone who believes otherwise would have their rights violated. For exactly the same reason that a schoolteacher cannot require every student in the classroom to pray to Allah, or make an animal sacrifice to the Great Spirit, or tell students that no god(s) exist, that same schoolteacher cannot say that god(s) do exist, or mention Jesus, etc. Christians don;t tend to want their tax dollars endorsing Hindu or Islam or Atheism, and neither do non-Christians typically want their tax dollars being used to endorse Christianity. Religion is a matter for families and places of worship. Schools are publicly run, and to protect the rights of all of us must remain totally neutral on the subject. The second part of the First Amendment means that, while the government is restricted from expressing religion, individuals are not in any way. Christians are completely free to pray, worship, and read the Bible whenever and wherever they please, with the sole exception of doing so in an official capacity while being paid by public funds (like, say a teacher). Likewise, I as an Atheist am totally free to disbelieve in any religion, but if I were employed at a public school, is would not be allowed to tell students that their religious beliefs are false. Do you see how this works? Christian Creationism in a public school would violate my rights and the rights of my children, because it would mean my tax dollars would be used to endorse a set of religious beliefs I do not follow, and worse, it would mean endorsing those beliefs to my children. Hindu Creationism would do the same for Christians as well as Atheists like me. To protect the religious rights of all of us, the government must remain strictly neutral and mute on the subject. That's how the freedom of religion works. I can answer everyones same points by dealing with this post.This is why I always prevail. Nobody said why my post was wrong. Just repeated slogans. The important thing of this post is INDEED the state must be neutral on religious matters.Yet when teaching about origins and 1) banning creationism and 2) teaching ideas against creationism THEN its not neutral on some Christian etc doctrines. Its fully involved in truth discovery. Its also involved in censorship. If the state is teaching about the accuracy of the bible on origins then its breaking the very law used to ban the bible. If the state further censors the bible on origins while presenting itself as seeking and teaching the truth of origins then again its breaking the law it invokes.How not? If the state teaches Genesis is false then its not neutral! The establishment claus was a great idea to stop the state from bugging the public on religion. Yet by teaching the bible is false or not allowing the bible as a option for origins, so again saying its false, the STATE is buging the public surely. The thirteen colonies DID not put anything in the constitution to ban God or Genesis in schools. Absurdity for such a religious people.The purpose was to stop interference between state and church. Yet teaching about origins crosses the boundaries. By teaching evolution or banning creationism the state is making a establishment of religion. Its saying its not true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The important thing of this post is INDEED the state must be neutral on religious matters. Yet when teaching about origins and 1) banning creationism and 2) teaching ideas against creationism THEN its not neutral on some Christian etc doctrines. [...] By teaching evolution or banning creationism the state is making a establishment of religion. Its saying its not true. But if you are going to go down that path, where are you going to draw the line? Some people will argue on religious grounds that the Earth is flat. Does that mean that we can't teach that the earth is round without breaching the Establishment Clause? We can't let religious people play dog-in-the-manger in that way, can we? If I founded a religion tomorrow which had amongst its tenets the proposition that two twos are five, would it then become wrong to teach the multiplication table? Even if we only had creationism to worry about, between them creationists have been wrong about nearly every subject in science, from thermodynamics to genetics to geology to the scientific method itself. Is every subject in science to be taboo if some religious person has made being wrong about that subject part of his religion? The only sensible thing to do is to say that teaching math and science and history and whatever else is acceptable even if it contravenes the religious dogmas of certain people. Or look at it this way. Suppose that all the evidence supported Young Earth Creationism. Suppose, for example, that radiometric dating showed that the Earth was six thousand years old. Suppose that the fossil record showed modern species persisting from the bottom on up. Would you then be saying that it is a breach of the First Amendment to teach these facts in school because they gave support to a particular religious view? I don't think you would. Nor would I. The facts should be taught.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 97 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Robert Byers writes:
I can answer everyones same points by dealing with this post.This is why I always prevail. Nobody said why my post was wrong. Just repeated slogans. The important thing of this post is INDEED the state must be neutral on religious matters.Yet when teaching about origins and 1) banning creationism and 2) teaching ideas against creationism THEN its not neutral on some Christian etc doctrines. Its fully involved in truth discovery. Its also involved in censorship. If the state is teaching about the accuracy of the bible on origins then its breaking the very law used to ban the bible. If the state further censors the bible on origins while presenting itself as seeking and teaching the truth of origins then again its breaking the law it invokes.How not? If the state teaches Genesis is false then its not neutral! The establishment claus was a great idea to stop the state from bugging the public on religion. Yet by teaching the bible is false or not allowing the bible as a option for origins, so again saying its false, the STATE is buging the public surely. The thirteen colonies DID not put anything in the constitution to ban God or Genesis in schools. Absurdity for such a religious people.The purpose was to stop interference between state and church. Yet teaching about origins crosses the boundaries. By teaching evolution or banning creationism the state is making a establishment of religion. Its saying its not true. First, Biblical Creationism and the literal truthfulness of the two mutually exclusive creation myths found in the Bible is not "Christian Dogma"; it is in fact only held as dogma by the Christian Cult of Ignorance. Biblical Creationism, like the Biblical Flood and the Biblical Exodus are not true. That is not a religious statement but rather a statement of fact. However, Biblical Creationism, the Biblical Flood and the Biblical Exodus certainly could be taught in literature classes or when studying other mythology. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 670 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Robert Byers writes:
If the state taught that Treasure Island is true but War and Peace is fiction, that would not be neutral. If it teaches that both are fiction, that is neutral. If the state teaches Genesis is false then its not neutral! Similarly, teaching that Genesis is fiction - i.e. it doesn't match our observations of the real world - is not a breach of neutrality. Neutrality means not treating one book differently from all of the others. That isn't really what you want, is it? "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Robert Byers writes:
I can answer everyones same points by dealing with this post.This is why I always prevail. Nobody said why my post was wrong. Just repeated slogans. Actually Rahvin explained in detail where your post departs from the actual law in this country. But you are not prepared to even acknowledge any such explanation. You prevail in your own head simply by denying all contrary evidence with mere repetition.
Byers writes: The important thing of this post is INDEED the state must be neutral on religious matters.Yet when teaching about origins and 1) banning creationism and 2) teaching ideas against creationism THEN its not neutral on some Christian etc doctrines. Unfortunately for you, according to the law, teaching science that happends to disagree with religious doctrine is neutral and constitutional. If the science leads to evidence that conflicts with your favorite religious doctrine, teaching the science does not violation the first amendment. Here's a relevant quote from the Supreme Court decision Edward v. Aguillard regarding a law requiring teaching Genesis based creationism whenever evolution was taught.
quote: Byers writes: The thirteen colonies DID not put anything in the constitution to ban God or Genesis in schools. Absurdity for such a religious people. The purpose was to stop interference between state and church. Yet teaching about origins crosses the boundaries. Sorry, but that simply isn't the law, and repeating it like a slogan won't make it so. Most likely the colonists did not want their neighbor's church to dictating to them on religious matters any more than they wanted the state to dictate to their own church. Keep on prevailing, Mr. Byers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
arachnophillia writes: this isn't entirely accurate. technically speaking, it only means that federal law making agencies (eg: the congress) can't establish a state religion. the "state" part was secured by the fourteenth amendment, which says in part: You are correct to point out that portions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states only by way of the fourteenth amendment. But it is incorrect to point to the Privileges and Immunities clause as the mechanism. Instead, incorporation is based on the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment. That Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment was essentially rendered meaningless by the Supreme Court in Slaughterhouse cases of 1873. Very few court decisions since 1873 have cited the P&I clause of the 14th Amendment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3192 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
NoNukes posts;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Have you read the Roman Catholic Church's position on evolution and creation? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes I have. Is it your opinion that their position is dogma free? I am not saying the Roman Catholic teaching is not religious dogma. I was questioning Dr.Adequate as to his reference to "just religious dogma" as meaning that religious dogma could never be true. If creation is the origin of life then Dr. Adequate is wrong, as I interpreted his statement That's all I meant. I have mixed feelings as to whether this should be taught in a Science class, but do object to telling the students that Creation must be naturally caused.There is no proof of that, as their is no empirical proof of Creation as the origin of life except for the Scriptures, and as for myself, Roman Catholic theology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3192 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
subbie writes;
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. That is a policy I could live with in the schools. I just do not agree that there should be a negative response to Creation. For example to teach the students that the origin of life must be from natural causes, would be a derogation of religious teaching.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024