Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
2 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)
Taq
Member
Posts: 10293
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 241 of 609 (606853)
02-28-2011 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by shadow71
02-26-2011 7:09 PM


My problem is that it appears that scientists preach the naturalist message that all is knowable by science.
Scientists don't preach. You have a serious problem with projection.
Science is tentative, as is taught from the very beginning of any science education. It would seem that your true problems lie in your own distortions of how science works instead of how science actually works.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:09 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by shadow71, posted 03-02-2011 7:34 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10293
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 242 of 609 (606854)
02-28-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by shadow71
02-26-2011 7:32 PM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
There is more to life than scientific theory.
We are not talking about Life Class. We are talking about Science Class. What secular purpose is there for teaching creationism in SCIENCE CLASS? How does teaching creationism improve a child's SCIENCE EDUCATION?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:32 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by shadow71, posted 03-02-2011 7:41 PM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10293
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 243 of 609 (606856)
02-28-2011 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Robert Byers
02-28-2011 5:01 AM


No one could teach YEC though it was proven true as long as the present law is in place.
If YEC were true it would have an intrinsic secular use as a scientific theory. Therefore, it would be allowed in science class per the Lemon Test.
My greater point is that there is no such law in the constitution dealing with school subjects.
There is no actual connection between church/state relations and everything the state pays for.
The Supreme Court would disagree, and they have the final word on the matter.
The people simply should have the power to vote up or down these matters.
Then go for it. Start a movement to remove the Establishment Clause from the Constitution. It is doable through the Ammendment process.
Creationism is historic, popular, and intellectually solid.
Care to back this up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Robert Byers, posted 02-28-2011 5:01 AM Robert Byers has not replied

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


Message 244 of 609 (607257)
03-02-2011 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Taq
02-28-2011 4:39 PM


taq;
Scientists don't preach. You have a serious problem with projection.
Science is tentative, as is taught from the very beginning of any science education. It would seem that your true problems lie in your own distortions of how science works instead of how science actually works.
It has been a long time since I have been in the classroom, but I notice a distinct advocacy in some scientific popular writings, ie. Dawkins et. al. where to suggest anything but natural causation is greeted by vitriolic castigation. People , including students, read this and may assume there is no other answer to what is life than science's answer.
This in my judgement is one sided propaganda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Taq, posted 02-28-2011 4:39 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 03-02-2011 7:37 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 252 by Taq, posted 03-03-2011 1:17 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 266 by NoNukes, posted 03-03-2011 2:29 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 245 of 609 (607260)
03-02-2011 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by shadow71
03-02-2011 7:34 PM


So far there really is only one answer
shadow71 writes:
taq;
Scientists don't preach. You have a serious problem with projection.
Science is tentative, as is taught from the very beginning of any science education. It would seem that your true problems lie in your own distortions of how science works instead of how science actually works.
It has been a long time since I have been in the classroom, but I notice a distinct advocacy in some scientific popular writings, ie. Dawkins et. al. where to suggest anything but natural causation is greeted by vitriolic castigation. People , including students, read this and may assume there is no other answer to what is life than science's answer.
This in my judgement is one sided propaganda.
So far natural evolution is the ONLY possible explanation.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by shadow71, posted 03-02-2011 7:34 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by shadow71, posted 03-02-2011 7:50 PM jar has replied

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


Message 246 of 609 (607261)
03-02-2011 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Taq
02-28-2011 4:41 PM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
taq writes;
We are not talking about Life Class. We are talking about Science Class. What secular purpose is there for teaching creationism in SCIENCE CLASS? How does teaching creationism improve a child's SCIENCE EDUCATION?
But isn't Science about life? Science classes cannot just ignore the rest of the world especially when discusing such topics as evolution and the origin of life.
Shouldn't students be taught that Science does not know or even havea clue as to the origin of life on this planet?
That perhaps there are other theories out there as to the origin of life and even evolution, especially macroevolution?
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Taq, posted 02-28-2011 4:41 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Coyote, posted 03-02-2011 8:14 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 247 of 609 (607262)
03-02-2011 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by jar
03-02-2011 7:37 PM


Re: So far there really is only one answer
jar writes;
So far natural evolution is the ONLY possible explanation.
Thats not true. There are other very serious scientific theories being presented by Scientists such as Shapiro, and Wizany, that question natural Darwinan evolution as it is presented today.
I hope in a few days to post an OP on this subject that deals with information in the cells and biocommunciation.
My point is that Science cannot close the book on anything at this point in time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 03-02-2011 7:37 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by jar, posted 03-02-2011 7:56 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 253 by Taq, posted 03-03-2011 1:21 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 248 of 609 (607263)
03-02-2011 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by shadow71
03-02-2011 7:50 PM


Re: So far there really is only one answer
shadow71 writes:
jar writes;
So far natural evolution is the ONLY possible explanation.
Thats not true. There are other very serious scientific theories being presented by Scientists such as Shapiro, and Wizany, that question natural Darwinan evolution as it is presented today.
I hope in a few days to post an OP on this subject that deals with information in the cells and biocommunciation.
My point is that Science cannot close the book on anything at this point in time.
Nonsense. Shapiro is NOT promoting anything other than natural evolution. To claim he is is simply misrepresentation.
There is no such thing as Intelligent Design theory or Creation Science.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by shadow71, posted 03-02-2011 7:50 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2355 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 249 of 609 (607265)
03-02-2011 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by shadow71
03-02-2011 7:41 PM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
But isn't Science about life? Science classes cannot just ignore the rest of the world especially when discusing such topics as evolution and the origin of life.
Shouldn't students be taught that Science does not know or even havea clue as to the origin of life on this planet?
That perhaps there are other theories out there as to the origin of life and even evolution, especially macroevolution?
Don't you realize that science teaches all of the theories for which there is evidence?
Creationism is unsupported by evidence. Until it can come up with something better than "evolution is all wet" it doesn't deserve any place in science or in classrooms.
And that evidence must meet the standards of science to be considered as science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by shadow71, posted 03-02-2011 7:41 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by arachnophilia, posted 03-02-2011 8:29 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 250 of 609 (607266)
03-02-2011 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Coyote
03-02-2011 8:14 PM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
coyote writes:
Creationism is unsupported by evidence. Until it can come up with something better than "evolution is all wet" it doesn't deserve any place in science or in classrooms.
i disagree. if there actually was a problem with evolution, and something pointed it out, that would be very much a legitimate part of the scientific process.
the problem is not that creationism doesn't come up with a better idea. it's that it's all lies, distortions, and misinformation.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Coyote, posted 03-02-2011 8:14 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by NoNukes, posted 03-02-2011 10:26 PM arachnophilia has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 609 (607281)
03-02-2011 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by arachnophilia
03-02-2011 8:29 PM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
arachnophilia writes:
coyote writes:
Creationism is unsupported by evidence. Until it can come up with something better than "evolution is all wet" it doesn't deserve any place in science or in classrooms.
i disagree. if there actually was a problem with evolution, and something pointed it out, that would be very much a legitimate part of the scientific process.
I'm not sure why you disagree. If the pointing out did not include any reference to empirical evidence, then the pointing out should be ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by arachnophilia, posted 03-02-2011 8:29 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10293
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 252 of 609 (607294)
03-03-2011 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by shadow71
03-02-2011 7:34 PM


It has been a long time since I have been in the classroom, but I notice a distinct advocacy in some scientific popular writings, ie. Dawkins et. al. where to suggest anything but natural causation is greeted by vitriolic castigation.
These are popular press books written for a general audience. They are NOT school text books. Again, we are talking about SCIENCE CLASS IN PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS!!!
People , including students, read this and may assume there is no other answer to what is life than science's answer.
Are they reading these books because they have been assigned by the teacher IN SCIENCE CLASS?
This in my judgement is one sided propaganda.
I guess you are unaware of all the popular press creationist books?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by shadow71, posted 03-02-2011 7:34 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10293
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 253 of 609 (607295)
03-03-2011 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by shadow71
03-02-2011 7:50 PM


Re: So far there really is only one answer
There are other very serious scientific theories being presented by Scientists such as Shapiro, and Wizany, that question natural Darwinan evolution as it is presented today.
Do any of these theories lend scientific credence to creationism? If not, then it is not related to the topic.
Einstein showed that natural Newtonian gravity was inaccurate but this did not lend credence to invisible gravity fairies. In fact, Einstein demonstrated that gravity was a natural phenomena that was imperfectly modeled by Newton's laws.
My point is that Science cannot close the book on anything at this point in time.
That is strange since creationists want to close science textbooks altogether.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by shadow71, posted 03-02-2011 7:50 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4617 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(1)
Message 254 of 609 (607311)
03-03-2011 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by jar
02-28-2011 10:01 AM


These are Christian doctrines for many and historically for more.
Your still trying to say the law is irrelevant.
Its the law that God/Genesis can not be taught as true or options where subjects about origins are taught.
The law is invoked here to fight creationism entering the schools by the legislature.
Nothing to do with decisions about the accuracy of creationism(s). in fact the state couldn't legally make a decision about biblical accuracy.
by the law it invokes.
Yet in fact in banning creationism and teaching evolution it twice does in fact break this law.
Somebody call a cop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by jar, posted 02-28-2011 10:01 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by jar, posted 03-03-2011 9:24 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 265 by Briterican, posted 03-03-2011 2:03 PM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4617 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(1)
Message 255 of 609 (607312)
03-03-2011 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Dr Adequate
02-28-2011 1:25 PM


no. come on.
If one is teaching a subject on reality of origins there is nothing indirect goin on.
Its right to the point.
The state is teaching the bible is false by discussing origins with conclusions and then 1, banning the bible 2, teaching evolution etc which contradicts religion for many.
its impossible to get around the logic here.
its impossible to say the founders put in the constitution, back in the day, anything to ban the truth of God/Genesis as they would of believed it.
just this century was it discovered in the constitution.
anyways teaching the facts of origins only indirectly touches on religion. Just can't be helped.
Yet to say its untrue by state dictate is UnAmerican, illegal, and silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2011 1:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 6:20 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 263 by Taq, posted 03-03-2011 11:58 AM Robert Byers 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