Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 271 of 609 (607954)
03-08-2011 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Dr Adequate
03-03-2011 6:11 AM


Dr Adequate writes:
If one bans genesis on a subject where the object is truthful discovery of conclusions then one is saying GEnesis is untruthful.
Implicitly, perhaps.
I ask all posters here WHERE is my reasoning failing???
Well, for one thing, you overlook the legal concept of secular legislative purpose. There is a good reason for at least implicitly teaching that creationism is rubbish, namely that it is. Similarly there would be a good reason for teaching that it was true if it was true, namely that it was true.
Again, I invite you to imagine a sect that taught that two twos are five. Would that sect, by its existence, make it unconstitutional to teach the multiplication table?
Not implicit and not perhaps. Its explicit that in conclusions about some origins Genesis is wrong and further being banned is a state comment that its wrong.
Any court claim can not get around this equation that in a subject about discovery of truth a BANNING is state opinion its not true.
Yes that sect would make it unconstitutional. Yes thats the law as invented in the 1900's.
Reverse. if the sect taught that two twos are four and the state taught it was five likewise the sect stuff would be banned.
This is happening today.
The law is not applied as it claims its intended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 6:11 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Son, posted 03-08-2011 11:37 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 287 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-08-2011 11:37 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 289 by Taq, posted 03-08-2011 11:48 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 272 of 609 (607955)
03-08-2011 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by jar
03-03-2011 9:24 AM


Re: why the Creationists drive people away from Christianity
jar writes:
Robert Byers writes:
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.
They are not Christian doctrines for MOST of the established Christian churches.
No one has to teach that Creationism is wrong, all of the facts and evidence shows that Biblical Creationism is simply Dogma and false doctrine, lies perpetrated by the Christian Cult of ignorance.
Creationism is banned from science classes because it is false, not because it is religion.
Your problem is that when the facts are taught and the evidence examined the kids realize that what they had been taught based on the Bible is false. If the folk that taught them were so wrong about the stuff that is easy to check like evolution and age of the earth and that there was no Biblical flood, why would they believe any of the other stuff they were taught?
Your just plain wrong.
its banned because of the law. They say it. Posters here argue it.
First the law must be revoked before it can and you can claim creationism is banned because of its lack of substance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by jar, posted 03-03-2011 9:24 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by jar, posted 03-08-2011 8:50 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 288 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-08-2011 11:44 AM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 273 of 609 (607956)
03-08-2011 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by ringo
03-03-2011 9:29 AM


ringo writes:
Robert Byers writes:
If one bans genesis on a subject where the object is truthful discovery of conclusions then one is saying GEnesis is untruthful.
Again, the law excludes all religious viewpoints equally. If scientists discover that Genesis - or any other book - is untruthful, the law doesn't ban those discoveries from the classroom.
Equally or not. Excluding Christian, for many, doctrines , by law, of origins in subjects insisting they are about faithful processes and conclusions upon truth in some origin issue MEANS the state has officially said some christian doctrines are false.
Official and so illegal by the very law it invokes to censor same doctrines.
I think I'm right here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by ringo, posted 03-03-2011 9:29 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by ringo, posted 03-08-2011 9:47 AM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 274 of 609 (607957)
03-08-2011 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Taq
03-03-2011 11:58 AM


Taq writes:
The state is teaching the bible is false . . .
No, they aren't. The Bible is never mentioned in science class.
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.
No one is banning the Bible. Children are still free to attend any church they want and read any book that they want.
The only ban here is on the actions of the government, not the citizen. The founders clearly stated that state and religion are to be separate.
anyways teaching the facts of origins only indirectly touches on religion. Just can't be helped.
Teaching that circulating thunderstorms produce lightning touches on belief that Zeus makes lightning. Should we ban this from science class as well?
Again. The bible is being said to be false as its denied as a option for conclusions on origins that by definition mean the bible is wrong. Thats two things.
The state by law is saying the bible is false on some conclusions otherwise they would only be saying they are prohibited from teaching Genesis because of law regardless of whether its true.
A absurdity in subjects based on finding the truth not just as a conclusion but where process is emphasized.
Wow.
The banning is about school classes and not home sweet home.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Taq, posted 03-03-2011 11:58 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by dwise1, posted 03-08-2011 3:24 PM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 275 of 609 (607958)
03-08-2011 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Briterican
03-03-2011 2:03 PM


Briterican writes:
Robert Byers writes:
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.
It is clear from your comments that you would support the introduction of creationist teachings into public schools. Would it be correct, however, to say that you would only support the Christian origin myth? Why not the Hindu, or Roman origin myths? Is the Christian origin myth supported by a greater body of evidence than the others?
I'm concerned that you seem unable to grasp the difference between evidentially-based material and faith-based material. I think it is safe to assume that you would not want your children being taught the Hindu origin myth as though it was on all-fours with the Christian origin myth. Please correct me if I am wrong.
What I'd like to understand better is this: If you seriously believe that this specific origin myth (Genesis) deserves equal time in the classroom with evidentially-based material, surely you must accept that, in the spirit of fairness, the many other faith-based origin myths (which many millions of people presently adhere to) should also be included?
If you work through this chain of logic, surely you can see why the Christian origin myth does NOT belong in the science classroom. Put simply, if it deserves time there, then so do multitudes of other unsupported assertions, leading to a colossal waste of time that would be better spent on the examination of tangible, evidentially supported material.
Chains of logic here are not getting your side to reach to the other side.
First things first.
The silly law invented in the 1900's has to go.
then its up to the people through the legislature to decide about their schools and kids and realtionship with everyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Briterican, posted 03-03-2011 2:03 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Briterican, posted 03-08-2011 1:53 PM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 276 of 609 (607959)
03-08-2011 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by NoNukes
03-03-2011 3:23 PM


NoNukes writes:
Robert Byers writes:
If one bans genesis on a subject where the object is truthful discovery of conclusions then one is saying GEnesis is untruthful.
I ask all posters here WHERE is my reasoning failing???
Your reasoning is off in a number of places. Here's my take on one of them.
Your premise about what the object is is not correct.
Science is about uncovering knowledge through application of the scientific method. It is not about uncovering truth using Ouija Boards, prayer and fasting, reading the Bible, or mystical divination even if those particular things happen to work.
Even without the first amendment, reading Genesis or the Prose Edda would not be proper lines of inquiry about anything in a K-12 science class.
Science class is never about process only but about conclusions.
Its really conclusion class on matters of natural history that claims to employ a higher standard of investigation and so a higher confidence in conclusions drawn.
Anyways its still the law that banns creationism and not a accusation that its not science or rather a equal standard of investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by NoNukes, posted 03-03-2011 3:23 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2011 5:48 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 278 by frako, posted 03-08-2011 6:29 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 279 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2011 7:47 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 284 by ringo, posted 03-08-2011 9:58 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 285 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-08-2011 10:36 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 290 by Taq, posted 03-08-2011 11:52 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 277 of 609 (607971)
03-08-2011 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:21 AM


RB writes:
Anyways its still the law that banns creationism and not a accusation that its not science or rather a equal standard of investigation.
Can you name one discovery made directly as a result of creationist or IDist theories?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:21 AM Robert Byers has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 278 of 609 (607973)
03-08-2011 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:21 AM


Anyways its still the law that banns creationism and not a accusation that its not science or rather a equal standard of investigation.
And still it is not science nor an equal standard of investigation.
why let me try and explain it to you as simple as possible.
Science makes theories based on facts, facts are things known to be true, when we have our theory if any fact contradits the theory the theory is false, and a new theory must be made that also explains that fact.
Creos work diferently they have a theory that must be true at all costs before they even look at the facts, when a fact contraditct their theory they ignore that fact, make up silly things to explain how that fact is wrong.... things like that.
If science had been using your method all these years we would still be treating tooth pain with a hot poker stuck in to the ear, common cold with old socs around the neck, killing and burning pigeons to heal various desieases (as instructed by the bible), ...... (actually practiced medicines)
As you can see science is the direct oposite of creationism there fore it cannot be taught in a science class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:21 AM Robert Byers has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 609 (607976)
03-08-2011 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:21 AM


Science Class
Byers writes:
Science class is never about process only but about conclusions.
Its really conclusion class on matters of natural history that claims to employ a higher standard of investigation and so a higher confidence in conclusions drawn.
Anyways its still the law that banns creationism and not a accusation that its not science or rather a equal standard of investigation.
Yes it is the law that bans creationism in pubic school. It seems that you have finally learned to read the first amendment. This is progress on your part. Fantastic!
Now we just need to work on your knowledge of what science is about. Can you explain the basis for your assertion that science is conclusion on matters of natural history and has nothing to do with process? Your own statement about a claimed higher standard of investigation seems to conflict with your assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:21 AM Robert Byers has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 280 of 609 (607983)
03-08-2011 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:06 AM


Re: why the Creationists drive people away from Christianity
Robert Byers writes:
Your just plain wrong.
its banned because of the law. They say it. Posters here argue it.
First the law must be revoked before it can and you can claim creationism is banned because of its lack of substance.
You are talking about the court decisions that affirm that Creationism is NOT science and that claiming Creationism or Intelligent Design are scientific is a lie and an attempt to introduce religion into science classes?
Get serious Robert.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:06 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Phat, posted 03-08-2011 9:39 AM jar has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 281 of 609 (607997)
03-08-2011 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by jar
03-08-2011 8:50 AM


Re: why the Creationists drive people away from Christianity
jar writes:
Robert Byers writes:
Your just plain wrong.
its banned because of the law. They say it. Posters here argue it.
First the law must be revoked before it can and you can claim creationism is banned because of its lack of substance.
You are talking about the court decisions that affirm that Creationism is NOT science and that claiming Creationism or Intelligent Design are scientific is a lie and an attempt to introduce religion into science classes?
Would you say that the belief that GOD exists and created the universe more rational than Biblical Creationism?
I think that I understand your point (as I understand it to be) that beliefs should never be a basis of law. Freedom of belief is the only exception, and would go for all beliefs.
Would a belief that God created the universe Ex Nihilio drive people away from acceptance of said philosophy in the pool of reality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by jar, posted 03-08-2011 8:50 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by jar, posted 03-08-2011 9:52 AM Phat has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 282 of 609 (608000)
03-08-2011 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:09 AM


Robert Byers writes:
Equally or not. Excluding Christian, for many, doctrines , by law, of origins in subjects insisting they are about faithful processes and conclusions upon truth in some origin issue MEANS the state has officially said some christian doctrines are false.
The point of the Establishment Clause is to prevent the doctrines of one sect from being placed above the doctrines of other sects - equality of religion. The application of that clause by the courts excludes all religious doctrines from public schools.
Science itself tries to exclude falsehoods from the science classroom, regardless of whether those falsehoods are Christian doctrines or not.
What we're talking about here is an attempt by some Christian sects to have their doctrines taught as science, excluding the opinions/doctrines of other Christian and non-Christian sects. That is what violates the Establishment Clause.

You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:09 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 3:23 AM ringo has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 283 of 609 (608002)
03-08-2011 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Phat
03-08-2011 9:39 AM


Re: why the Creationists drive people away from Christianity
Phat writes:
jar writes:
Robert Byers writes:
Your just plain wrong.
its banned because of the law. They say it. Posters here argue it.
First the law must be revoked before it can and you can claim creationism is banned because of its lack of substance.
You are talking about the court decisions that affirm that Creationism is NOT science and that claiming Creationism or Intelligent Design are scientific is a lie and an attempt to introduce religion into science classes?
Would you say that the belief that GOD exists and created the universe more rational than Biblical Creationism?
I think that I understand your point (as I understand it to be) that beliefs should never be a basis of law. Freedom of belief is the only exception, and would go for all beliefs.
Would a belief that God created the universe Ex Nihilio drive people away from acceptance of said philosophy in the pool of reality?
HUH?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Phat, posted 03-08-2011 9:39 AM Phat has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 284 of 609 (608006)
03-08-2011 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:21 AM


Robert Byers writes:
Science class is never about process only but about conclusions.
Science class certainly should be about the process of science, just like driver education should be about the process of driving. Legality aside, creationism has little scope in the science classroom because it has no process. It's like teaching telekinesis in driver education.

You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:21 AM Robert Byers has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 609 (608012)
03-08-2011 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:21 AM


Science class is never about process only but about conclusions.
You're absolutely wrong.
How many science classes have you taken? When was the last one?
Science class is definately about the process.
I simply googled "science class" and found science-class.net - science class Resources and Information.
They have a shit ton of science lessons on there, I went to physics and pulld up the first lesson, which was on Acceleration:
science-class.net - science class Resources and Information.
And what do you know... Here's the lesson:
quote:
Procedure:
1. Make a ramp from the board and a wooden block.
2. Roll the skateboard down the ramp.
3. Use the meterstick to measure how far the skateboard travels.
Record.
4. Repeat steps 2 & 3 for a total of 5 trials.
5. Use a rubber band to attach a washer to the skateboard.
6. Repeat steps 2 4.
7. Add another washer to the skateboard.
8. Repeat steps 2 4.
9. Add a third washer to the skateboard
10. Repeat steps 2 4.
It all about the process and doesn't even get into the conclusion until after the stundent goes throught the process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:21 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 3:44 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024