Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,417 Year: 6,674/9,624 Month: 14/238 Week: 14/22 Day: 5/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 139 of 609 (606065)
02-23-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dr Adequate
02-22-2011 9:30 PM


Dr. Adequate wrote;
Arguably when creationism was still plausible there would have been a legitimate secular purpose in teaching it. Now that it's just a religious dogma, there's no reason for teaching it any more than teaching the Bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2011 9:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by jar, posted 02-23-2011 5:03 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 141 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2011 5:23 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 142 by Rahvin, posted 02-23-2011 5:42 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 143 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2011 5:57 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 144 by Granny Magda, posted 02-23-2011 5:58 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 145 by Taq, posted 02-23-2011 6:33 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-23-2011 9:14 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 146 of 609 (606097)
02-23-2011 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by jar
02-23-2011 5:03 PM


jar writes;
As a Christian I can state with a very, very, very high degree of confidence that Creation as in Special Creation is not only not feasible, it is irrelevant and unsupportable and only makes GOD look like a fool.
Wow. I guess I have heard it from the top of the mountain. Pray tell what is this very, very, very high degree of confidence that Creation is not feasible based upon?
Is that based upon your scientific studies? Give me the cites.
And what is your definition of "Special Creation"?
Should we teach the children that there is no plausible explanation of how life began, but .... but what. Give me the scientific theory, not speculation as to how life began.
And how does it make God look like a fool?
You must be absoultely sure as to how life began correct? Tell me how and I will rest in peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by jar, posted 02-23-2011 5:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by jar, posted 02-23-2011 7:46 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 152 by subbie, posted 02-23-2011 7:48 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 147 of 609 (606099)
02-23-2011 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by NoNukes
02-23-2011 5:23 PM


Re: Yes, its dogma
NoNukes writes;
Even if the fundamentalist, literal interpretation of Genesis were 100% true, at this point that interpretation is solely based on the Bible. There is no independent, extra-Bible support and not all believers in the Bible's truth agree with that interpretation. That means creationism is religious dogma.
There are other intrepretations of Genesis other than the "fundamentalist" as you say.
Can you honestly state w/o knowing the origin of life that there could be no creation event?
Is there a scientific accepted theory of the beginning of life? What is the scientific dogma on the creation of life?
I guess religious dogma is whatever you perceive. Have you read the Roman Catholic Church's position on evolution and creation?
NoNukes further 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2011 5:23 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2011 7:31 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 149 by cavediver, posted 02-23-2011 7:39 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 162 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2011 8:41 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 169 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2011 9:35 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 151 of 609 (606105)
02-23-2011 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Rahvin
02-23-2011 5:42 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Rahvin, posted 02-23-2011 5:42 PM Rahvin has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 153 of 609 (606107)
02-23-2011 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Theodoric
02-23-2011 5:57 PM


Re: really? really?
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2011 5:57 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 02-23-2011 7:54 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 155 by subbie, posted 02-23-2011 7:56 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 156 of 609 (606110)
02-23-2011 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Granny Magda
02-23-2011 5:58 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Granny Magda, posted 02-23-2011 5:58 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Coyote, posted 02-23-2011 8:09 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 163 by Granny Magda, posted 02-23-2011 8:41 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 165 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2011 8:54 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 170 by bluescat48, posted 02-24-2011 12:27 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


(1)
Message 158 of 609 (606113)
02-23-2011 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Taq
02-23-2011 6:33 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Taq, posted 02-23-2011 6:33 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Taq, posted 02-25-2011 5:32 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 159 of 609 (606114)
02-23-2011 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Coyote
02-23-2011 8:09 PM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Coyote, posted 02-23-2011 8:09 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by jar, posted 02-23-2011 8:29 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 161 by Coyote, posted 02-23-2011 8:40 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 164 by dwise1, posted 02-23-2011 8:42 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 166 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-23-2011 9:04 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 203 by Taq, posted 02-25-2011 5:43 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 179 of 609 (606251)
02-24-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by NoNukes
02-23-2011 7:31 PM


Re: Yes, its dogma
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2011 7:31 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by NoNukes, posted 02-24-2011 3:40 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 180 of 609 (606254)
02-24-2011 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by subbie
02-23-2011 7:48 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by subbie, posted 02-23-2011 7:48 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 02-24-2011 3:31 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 181 of 609 (606257)
02-24-2011 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by jar
02-23-2011 7:54 PM


Re: really? really?
jar writes;
It is dogma and so it cannot be taught.
It really is that simple.
I think your statement is too dogmatic.
Science teaches dogma doesn't it? For example Crick's "central dogma of molecular biology."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 02-23-2011 7:54 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 02-24-2011 1:38 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 184 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2011 1:50 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2011 2:29 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 183 of 609 (606261)
02-24-2011 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Granny Magda
02-23-2011 8:41 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Granny Magda, posted 02-23-2011 8:41 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by NoNukes, posted 02-24-2011 3:25 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 188 by Granny Magda, posted 02-24-2011 3:37 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


(1)
Message 190 of 609 (606319)
02-24-2011 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by NoNukes
02-24-2011 3:40 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
Shadow 71 wrote;
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.
NoNukes posts;
object to telling the students that Creation must be naturally caused.
NoNukes further writes;
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by NoNukes, posted 02-24-2011 3:40 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by subbie, posted 02-24-2011 7:42 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 196 by NoNukes, posted 02-24-2011 10:22 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 198 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 1:27 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 200 of 609 (606456)
02-25-2011 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by NoNukes
02-24-2011 10:22 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
No Nukes writes;
Sorry, but you are objecting to the teaching of the scientifically accepted theory of evoloution in science classrooms. The evidence that random mutation and natural selection occur in nature and that they are responsible for the diversity of species is overwhelming. Nobody cares all that much that you personally are not convinced.
I am basing my position on "natural" selection, and "random" mutation both on my view of creation and James A. Shapiro's Natural Genetic Engilneering papers on 21st centrury evolution that ,in my opinion, provide evidence that both selection and mutation for fitness may not be completely natural and random.
These issues were discussed in the now closed thread Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution.
NoNukes also writes;
You can pretend to be on-board with the position of the Catholic Church on evolution, but you aren't anywhere near being able to live with that.
I am completely in agreement with the Catholic's Church"s teaching on biological evolution, which accepts evolution as part of creation and "special creation" in re Man's soul.
Telll me where I am wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by NoNukes, posted 02-24-2011 10:22 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by NoNukes, posted 02-25-2011 3:16 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 206 of 609 (606589)
02-26-2011 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Taq
02-25-2011 5:32 PM


taq writes;
Until creationism is capable of being scientific it has no place in science class. We are not talking about Possibility Class. We are talking about Science Class. It could be true that the Universe was magically poofed into being just last Thursday complete with a false history and false memories. Should we teach that too?
Why do you feel it necessary to include a religious dogma in science class?
My problem is that it appears that scientists preach the naturalist message that all is knowable by science. Perhaps to temper that hubris, the students should be told that perhaps science may not have all the answers and for more than 10,000 years religious teachings based on revelations in the Bible teach that maybe science will find answers to many questions, but not all.
I just don't like the arrorgance of "Science will deliver the answer or its not there."
I avoided this issue by sending my children to Catholic schools where they recieived execellent educations and were not reduced to robotic christian fundamentalists as many posts by scientists on this board propose may happen if we happen to mention that perhaps science does not have all the answers.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
Edited by shadow71, : spelling & punctuation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Taq, posted 02-25-2011 5:32 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by jar, posted 02-26-2011 7:18 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 216 by Theodoric, posted 02-26-2011 10:53 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 217 by bluescat48, posted 02-27-2011 12:25 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 218 by NoNukes, posted 02-27-2011 12:56 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 241 by Taq, posted 02-28-2011 4:39 PM shadow71 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024