Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 316 of 609 (608396)
03-10-2011 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 3:53 AM


If they teach evolution and ban Genesis in a subject about discovery of truth then they are saying in both points Genesis is not true.
Implicitly, yes --- they are saying that (your interpretation of) Genesis is a load of old cobblers.
Well, it is. And we can't let some guy with a religion play dog-in-the-manger. We can't change, abolish, or censor the facts just because somewhere out there there's some person who makes denial of the facts part of his religion. A sect that taught as a religious dogma that two twos are five should not, and according to the law cannot, prevent us from teaching that it is four.
This is just something that you're going to have to learn to deal with. St Peter was crucified upside down, and you aren't going to see your favorite mistakes taught as facts in science class. I'd say that compared with St Peter you're getting off lightly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 3:53 AM Robert Byers has not replied

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


Message 317 of 609 (608402)
03-10-2011 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 4:09 AM


Nope.
remember there is a clear purpose to why the state should make no establishment about religion. Simply so no faith is made over others and no faith is made under.
A excellent purpose.
There is no need for the state or the church to interfere with each other.
Then the subject of origins comes up and the state teaches ideas that mean religious ideas are wrong.
It breaks the separation. its teaching against religion in its foundations. its doctrines
So religion comes up to defend itself and its told CENSORED.
Why/ Then told the state can't teach religion. right or wrong.
can't say its right. can't say its wrong.
Creationism answers YOU ARE TEACHING ITS WRONG.
Your banning is a second teaching since you claim the subject is about the truth of origins. A right and a left.
The state therefore has a opinion on religious doctrines. its pushing its opinion onto the kids etc.
Its brwaking the very law it invented in the 1900's.
Where is my reasoning wrong here???
The state just cant teach religion period, its not saying it is wrong by not teaching it it just cant teach it if it would it would be braking your constitution. Now as for your cults silly way to get trough the back door well its not science and if it is not science then it is religion and the state cannot teach religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 4:09 AM Robert Byers has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 318 of 609 (608418)
03-10-2011 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 3:44 AM


Robert Byers writes:
The conclusions in science class on origins has little to do with processes. its mostly a history lesson of former investigations.
Assuming this to be true, what processes were used in those former investigations Mr. Byers? Did those former investigations not use the scientific method?
Apparently you have never taken a science course with a lab.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 3:44 AM Robert Byers has not replied

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


Message 319 of 609 (608423)
03-10-2011 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 3:23 AM


Robert Byers writes:
The establishment clause is simply to protect religion from state interference or the state from being controled by some religion to the loss of others. Simple.
That's what I said.
Robert Byers writes:
Its not a purpose to stop a sect but a purpose to protect all sects.
Exactly.
Robert Byers writes:
Yet in origin subjects the state is teaching against sects beliefs and banning rebuttal which is a second act of state interference.
The schools are trying to teach the truth. If the truth is contrary to some sect's beliefs, that isn't the schools' fault.
Rebuttal is not being banned. Religionists are welcome to rebut all they want in their own venues.
Robert Byers writes:
Anyays they never meant schools were included in the "state".
The reason we have courts is because no law can anticipate every eventuality. The courts apply the law appropriately to changing conditions, like the introduction of state-sponsored schools.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 3:23 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 320 of 609 (608445)
03-10-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 3:23 AM


Yet in origin subjects the state is teaching against sects beliefs and banning rebuttal which is a second act of state interference.
You have the wrong way around. The church is telling it's members to accept beliefs that run counter to the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 3:23 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 321 of 609 (608446)
03-10-2011 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 3:53 AM


If they teach evolution and ban Genesis in a subject about discovery of truth then they are saying in both points Genesis is not true.
The subject is SCIENCE. The theory of evolution is science. Creationsim is not. Creationism is religious apologetics, not science. Science class in public schools is not the appropriate place to indoctrinate students into christian apologetics.
Banning creationism would only be neutral if conclusions about origins was not discussed.
It is neutral because all theories must pass the same tests. Creationism failed. Evolution passed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 3:53 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Briterican
Member (Idle past 3948 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 322 of 609 (608453)
03-10-2011 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 4:01 AM


Robert Byers writes:
I didn't dodge. you didn't like my answer.
Its up to the people to decide through the legislature what is worthy for serious conclusions on origins or if just out of respect.
Sorry, still a dodge. I asked YOU if YOU would be happy with the Hindu or Islamic origin myth being taught in science class, as if it were on equal footing with the Christian origin myth, a question you still haven't answered.
As for this notion that the people should decide through the legislature, what happens when "the people" that get to decide this for the school your son goes to turn out to be predominantly Muslim and they opt for the Islamic origin myth to be IN science class, and the Christian one out?
Your position is failing miserably in this thread (even with the creationists), and your post count continues to rise whilst your "helpful input" quotient continues to drop.
Edited by Briterican, : Attack the position, not the poster.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 4:01 AM Robert Byers has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 323 of 609 (608462)
03-10-2011 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 4:09 AM


Where is my reasoning wrong here???
Certainly.
Nope.
Au contraire! If you base your religious ideas on false claims about the physical world, claims that are both contrary-to-fact and refuted by the evidence, then the mere existence of that evidence is what shows your ideas to be wrong. And when science classes present that evidence, it is not for the purpose of teaching that religious ideas are wrong, but rather because presenting and discussing the evidence is a rightful purpose of science education. Indeed, if not for the propaganda and grass-roots activism efforts of the creationist movement during the past four decades, most science teachers would not even be aware that there was anyone whose religious ideas are being challenged by the evidence. When the "creation science" campaign was gearing up in the 1970's and they were doing their travelling debate shows, most of the educators they suckered in were surprised that creationists even existed.
And it is plain as the pixels on your computer's display that if you base your religious ideas on false claims that run counter to the evidence, then the evidence will show those ideas to be wrong. It is not a case of opposing your religious ideas, but rather it is a case of the truth.
remember there is a clear purpose to why the state should make no establishment about religion. Simply so no faith is made over others and no faith is made under.
A excellent purpose.
That much is correct, though it leaves out that it cuts both ways. As James Madison pointed out in his A Memorial and Remonstrance written a few years before he drafted the First Amendment, neither society nor government have authority over religion and government must be kept free of interference from religion. He goes into much detail over that last part.
There is no need for the state or the church to interfere with each other.
As there is also a great need to keep them from interfering with each other.
Though not stopping the church from shooting itself in the foot with blatantly false claims cannot be misconstrued as interference, as you insist on doing.
Then the subject of origins comes up and the state teaches ideas that mean religious ideas are wrong.
Wrong. The state teaches science, which not only includes the evidence, but requires presenting and discussing the evidence. Religion does not enter into it.
It breaks the separation. its teaching against religion in its foundations. its doctrines
Wrong. The state is not violating the separation. The state is not teaching against religion nor against religion's doctrines. The state remains neutral regarding religion.
If the church has chosen to teach religious ideas that are blatantly false, which is something that the state can do nothing about and must not do anything about, then the church must bear the responsibility for having made that choice. The state's neutrality demands that the state take no action here.
Instead, you want the state to break the separation and come to the aid of the church. The only way that the church can get away with teaching such blatant and outright falsehoods is if it can suppress the evidence. You want the state to actively suppress the evidence, to bend to the will of the church. That is not separation. That is not neutrality. That is religious establishment!
It should also be noted that "the church" being discussed here is not all religions, but rather a small set of minority Christian sects commonly (though not completely correctly) identified as "fundamentalists". So you want all US inhabitants to be made to suffer at the hands of the state on behalf of a few extremist sects? It is to guard against precisely such tyranny that we have Madison's "great Barrier which defends the rights of the people", renamed decades later by his life-long friend, Jefferson, as the Wall of Separation.
So religion comes up to defend itself and its told CENSORED.
Bullshit! Er, I mean, Wrong!
First, by trying to get its religious teachings into the public schools, religion is not trying to defend itself, but rather is trying to break separation. Their being blocked from getting their religious teachings into the public schools is not censorship, but rather necessary to maintain the Great Barrier.
Furthermore, creationists are not being censored. They are quite free to present their false teachings in any number of public forums, which they have done very vociferously and with extreme zeal. They just may not require the state to present their false teachings for them, nor to aid them in the presentation of their false ideas.
Why/ Then told the state can't teach religion. right or wrong.
Well, the state is not allowed to teach religion. That is why the state cannot act as an accomplice to religious sects' teaching their doctrine.
can't say its right. can't say its wrong.
Obviously, you are very confused. We are not. The state is not allowed to teach religion. That is why the state cannot act as an accomplice to religious sects' teaching their doctrine.
Creationism answers YOU ARE TEACHING ITS WRONG.
Then creationism is lying through its teeth, yet again. It's been lying ever since it created "creation science" as a deliberate deception to circumvent the courts after Epperson vs Arkansas (1968) had led to the striking-down of the "monkey laws" that had been in place since the mid-1920's.
Science class teaches the evidence. The truth shows creationist claims to be blatantly false.
The solution is for creationism to drop its false claims and replace them with truthful claims. Then creationism would have no need to fear and loathe the truth and would no longer need to resort to lies and deception.
Your banning is a second teaching since you claim the subject is about the truth of origins. A right and a left.
The subject is science. In astronomy, some cosmology may be covered. In biology, some abiogenesis may be covered. These subjects are covered in terms of "these are the current scientific ideas; much more needs to be discovered and worked out." As such, covering them in a science class serves a purpose in science education, that of learning about the prevailing ideas in science.
Religious mythology does not have a place in the science classroom. Presenting religious origin myths would serve no purpose in science education, since religious origin myths have nothing to do with the prevailing ideas in science, nor do they do anything to promote an understanding of science or of scientific ideas.
You should familiarize yourself with science education. A starting point could be the 1990 California Science Framework: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED325324.pdf . You may also wish to read California's Anti-Dogmatism Policy: http://ncse.com/...a/voices/california-state-board-education .
The state therefore has a opinion on religious doctrines.
Yes. Officially, that opinion is one of strict neutrality, as discussed above.
Unofficially, there is something called "public religion", to which government office-holders proffer lip service and to which they seek to appear friendly. In the US, that public religion is predominately mainstream Protestant Christianity. Appeals to or the appearance of support for that public religion are often made in order to curry favor from the electorate; eg, invoke "God" in speeches, making sure to be publically observed attending church. Public religion is a dirty little fact of political life.
its pushing its opinion onto the kids etc.
Yes, though you have a distorted view of what that opinion is. Rather, it is the opinion that the Great Barrier, termed "the Wall of Separation", is needed to prevent Religion and Government from interfering with each other. That one of the principles that our nation was founded on is religious liberty, the freedom to choose and practice whatever religion we wish to and the freedom from any interference from the government because of that choice. That the Great Barrier is needed to ensure religious liberty for all citizens.
BTW, as you read the science education resources I cited above, you will find a statement of the purpose of education, with is to promote knowledge and understanding, but not to compel belief. In stark contrast, the materials and curricula that creationists want included in the public school classrooms do not promote knowledge nor understanding and they strongly seek to compel belief -- we know that from actual cases of creationism entering the classroom.
Its brwaking the very law it invented in the 1900's.
That term "law" is here is a collective term for the entire body of law, which consists not only of legislated laws but also of court decisions -- mainly court decisions. And it did take a long time to build that body of law. One of the reasons why questions of religious establishment took so long to resolve was because of that very thing I mentioned above, public religion, and the majority's feeling of entitlement to impose their own religious beliefs and ideas on the rest of the population. It took a long time to correct that situation.
But now you are arguing to reverse that correction. Sorry, ain't gonna happen.
And BTW, no, the state is not violating that body of law. OK, anti-separation politicians will try, but hopefully we can keep them from succeeding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 4:09 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Robert Byers, posted 03-16-2011 1:59 AM dwise1 has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 324 of 609 (608696)
03-12-2011 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by subbie
03-09-2011 8:50 PM


Re: almost a fact
Hi subbie
All marvelous examples of observation, which is a necessary component of science, but is not by itself science.
Neither is theory by itself science, as you seem to be claiming. Science is a combination of observation, experiment and theory, and it provides a framework for the acquisition of new observations that may not be made without the science predictions.
If a theory predicts an outcome and that outcome is then observed, then the prediction has been proven to be true. This can include validation and invalidation test predictions.
All marvelous examples of observation, ....
It's a little more than that.
Speciation is a prediction of the evolutionary theory of common descent, and observing instances proves that speciation occurs. The observation of specific instances are examples of observations that prove the general process of speciation does in fact occur.
Enjoy.

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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by subbie, posted 03-09-2011 8:50 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by subbie, posted 03-13-2011 1:34 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 325 of 609 (608713)
03-12-2011 8:51 PM


"Creation Science" should have its own science class
Here's how I picture the first day of class:
The teacher walks in and says "God did it. This will be on the final. See you in 9 weeks. Class dismissed."

Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.Valley
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by jar, posted 03-12-2011 9:02 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

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


Message 326 of 609 (608714)
03-12-2011 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Tanypteryx
03-12-2011 8:51 PM


Re: "Creation Science" should have its own science class
Tanypteryx writes:
Here's how I picture the first day of class:
The teacher walks in and says "God did it. This will be on the final. See you in 9 weeks. Class dismissed."
Or, "The question on the final will be 'How did God do it?' Write on no more than two sides of the paper."

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2011 8:51 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by frako, posted 03-13-2011 5:38 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 327 of 609 (608731)
03-13-2011 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by jar
03-12-2011 9:02 PM


Re: "Creation Science" should have its own science class
Or, "The question on the final will be 'How did God do it?' Write on no more than two sides of the paper."
Day 1 he made the light noone knows where it came from cause there where no stars yet
Day 2 he made some land water was alredy there
Day 3 he made plants noone knows how they could have grown cause no sun yet
Day 4 he made the stars it only took him 1 day cause he is god and the fact that there are billions of stars and planets out there matters not he just took his time with erth dint
take his time with the stars or he pulled an allnighter
day 5 he made animals like they are today
Day 6 he made man
day 7 he had to rest
Do i get an A
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by jar, posted 03-12-2011 9:02 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 328 of 609 (608757)
03-13-2011 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by RAZD
03-12-2011 6:27 PM


Re: almost a fact
RAZD writes:
Neither is theory by itself science, as you seem to be claiming.
subbie writes:
The sine qua non of science is hypothesizing. What you are talking about is the mere observation of facts. Certainly science cannot proceed without the observation of facts. But if all that science did was observe and record facts, it would be a barren field. The life of science is the explanation and the prediction.
Science doesn't prove facts. Facts are gathered by observation. Science can guide observation, and often dictates what observation tells us. But science is much, much more than just looking, counting, measuring and weighing. And it's that part of science, the essence of it, that is and must always be tentative. And that's why science never proves anything. Ever.
Well, I can certainly understand how you came away with impression, but only if you completely ignored the part of my previous post that I've bolded.
As I said, science absolutely is a combination of observation and theory (experimentation is nothing more than a specific type of observation), but theory is the more important part. Observation alone gets us nothing but a collection of facts. Facts are necessary before theory, but facts by themselves are trivial.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2011 6:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 329 of 609 (609020)
03-16-2011 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by dwise1
03-10-2011 2:37 PM


Well it comes down to once again if IS the state in banning creationism making a statement its false and if in teaching contrary ideas , evolution, is it making a statement on religion.
IN both cases i say the state is making a opinion on religion by its own line of reasoning and so breaking the very law it invokes to ban creationism.
Your still missing here the actual reality of wjhat is being taught and ot taught on conclusions about origins.
You can't get around my point here.
If your teaching a subject with conclusions and a intent to establish the accuracy of those conclusions and THEN ban a particular conclusion then clearly the banned conclusion is being said to be false.
So a state opinion. so a breach of the separation wall.
I think i'm right.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by dwise1, posted 03-10-2011 2:37 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by frako, posted 03-16-2011 4:50 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 337 by dwise1, posted 03-16-2011 3:09 PM Robert Byers has replied

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


Message 330 of 609 (609021)
03-16-2011 2:22 AM


Well everone we've been around the block on this point.
someones wrong here.
i made my case and watched to see how posters could handle it.
I said the founding fathers never, but never put in the constitution anything banning God or Genesis as the truth or a option for truth in origins in the schools. they were a very protestant people. in fact they might of banned anything opposite to the bible.
You did not and would have to demonstrate the American public back then when making their constitution had o their mind a intent to ban God/Genesis in origins in school education.
no one showed here that intent or even addressed it.
Obviously its impossible and to find no intent would destroy any constitutional claim.
Even the most sceptical on religion as as being accurate on origins would want a freeplay on ideas . A free conscience of all and free discussion about conclusions.
You guys here missed making a essential legal point that you need.
Then with confidence there is no prohibition of creationism in the constitution I simply address the process of the present censorship.
They try to say they are just neutral on religious ideas on origins and simply presenting secular investigations of origins.
WELL. I say that if one bans religious ideas, as they score it, on origins and teaches opposite to those religious ideas, by evolutionism etc, then the state is teaching religious ideas are false. Since they are claiming they teach the truth on these origin subjects.
This is my logic. Its simple math.
tHe state clearly is breaking its own law of separation. It ain't separate about conclusions. its coming down on one side indeed.
One can't ban a conclusion without directly saying the banning means the conclusion is false. Otherwise it would be saying its forced to ban a conclusion regardless of its truth. BUT they are demanding indeed in these subjects they are teaching the truth and process to discovery of the truth.
I have not seen the posters here articulately and logically answer my big attack here.
I think its because you can't.
The logic is devastating.
Thats where we stand right now.

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by DrJones*, posted 03-16-2011 2:30 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 332 by PaulK, posted 03-16-2011 3:13 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 333 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2011 3:23 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 335 by Taq, posted 03-16-2011 11:29 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 336 by bluescat48, posted 03-16-2011 1:22 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 338 by dwise1, posted 03-16-2011 4:03 PM Robert Byers 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