Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

jar writes; I think your statement is too dogmatic.Science teaches dogma doesn't it? For example Crick's "central dogma of molecular biology."

Nope. Even that is subject to challenge and question.Nor is it dogma in the same sense as religious dogma.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Granny Magda writes; I have no problem with that policy except for the "myth" interpretation.

Hi, Shadow71. That's not really a dogma. Here are some quotes from Crick about the term, appearing on a Wiki page.It was just stupid terminology by Crick: it was really a scientific law (a consistent pattern that emerges in natural phenomena without a real mechanistic explanation).Edited by Bluejay, : Corrected "it's" to "it was," because it obviously is no longer thought to be (as Dr A pointed out).

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

No. Crick, having heard the word "dogma" in Enlish usage thought that it meant "something for which there is no evidence and may very well be false". Which is actually a good description of any religious dogma.That's why he used the word "dogma" to describe what he himself knew was no more than a tentative hypothesis.Finally, science does not teach this "dogma" because all scientists including Crick know it to be false, since retroviruses exist.

I suspect that it would be unconstitutional for a science teacher or any other state employee to label Bible stories as myths. But what isn't so clear is what other kinds of things might get forced into the curriculum in a religious education class in a public school in order to make the course pass constitutional muster.I suspect that the result would be a course in which few fundamentalists would want to enroll their kids.

Too bad.Science is the search for natural explanations for what we see in the real world. Science doesn't teach that the origin of life must be from natural causes, but it only searches for natural causes. If you don't want science to teach in derogation of religious teaching, then religious teaching needs to stop saying things about the natural world that science shows are not so.

---

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

You take umbrage too quick at my use of the word myth. I was using it in this sense of the term; myth
n.
1. a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.The creation myth provided in Genesis 1 and the further myth provided in Gen 2 fit the bill perfectly. They are undeniably mythic.I did not mean to simply say that the story was untrue, although if you like, I will say that.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

This objection wouldn't prevent evolution from being taught, it wouldn't prevent science classes from presenting the meagre evidence available that supports speculating on abiogenesis without mentioning Genesis as an alternative, and it wouldn't prevent an astronomy class from teaching evidenced scientific theories of the history of the universe.I suspect that you really object to far more than you are saying here.

Shadow 71 wrote; NoNukes posts; NoNukes further writes; I don't know what your trying to say in this post. You have taken my comments completely out of context.I never stated that I wanted evolution from being taught. I have stated on many occasions on this forum that I have no problem with evolution, just with the assumption that "random mutation for fitness" and "natural" selection are proven entities.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.I really don't care what you think what you speculate I object to.
Don't put words into my mouth. I know what I am saying.

Science never proves anything. Anything. Ever. Science isn't about proof.Science is about the best explanation for the evidence we have to date. As such, the ToE and natural selection are among the most successful scientific theories ever devised in the history of science. I have no idea what you mean by "random mutation for fitness" so I can't speak to that.

---

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

Science can at times disprove things to a very, very high confidence level.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi Rahvin 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.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Hi subbie, I hope to get back to our GD thread tomorrowi've been having computer probs and I get low on energy at end of day, so only have time for quickies. 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

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

If we are to teach theories with little or no scientific proof then we should include Scientology...right?? or how about all the worlds religious views on creation....lets keep the field level and let our children decide??? I vote for science...it always leaves the door open to changes in our level of knowledge. It is not so rigid as to be one way or wrong in the way it expains things...it lends itself to questions....not blind faith.