Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,502 Year: 6,759/9,624 Month: 99/238 Week: 16/83 Day: 7/9 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
jar
Member (Idle past 95 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 511 of 609 (611950)
04-12-2011 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 510 by Taq
04-12-2011 11:07 AM


Even if it was a Truth Class
Even if it was a Truth Class, Biblical Creationism would have to be excluded.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 11:07 AM Taq has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 512 of 609 (611952)
04-12-2011 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 504 by Robert Byers
04-12-2011 3:36 AM


Re: Creationism is Religion
The state is making a opinion on God and Genesis conclusions about origins.
Yes: that they are religious.
The state has a opinion on religious truth.
Only that it's religious.
You can't ban something or teach directly opposite to its conclusions and then say your not rendering an opinion on that very thing's accuracy.
Who said such an opinion is not being rendered?
Why is my reasoning wrong?????
Because it's based off of a 'Constitution' that doesn't exist.
THEN the state is officially saying religious doctrines are false.
Of course it's not; in fact, by the demand of the Constitution, the state is officially saying that religious doctrines don't matter in the classroom.
I cannot understand where your confusion comes from.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Robert Byers, posted 04-12-2011 3:36 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 584 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:27 AM Jon has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 513 of 609 (611963)
04-12-2011 12:50 PM


An Argument For?
I went back to look over Mr. Byers's previous posts; I was curious to see what his arguments for Creationism in the classroom were. Unfortunately, all I found were a lot of arguments against evolution, but none that were for Creationism, as the topic of the thread requires.
I find this whole debate about whether teaching evolution is constitutional or not quite irrelevant, then, to the topic. Even if Byers is correct, and evolution cannot be taught on grounds that it violates the Constitution, how is this justification for teaching Creationism?
If we get rid of evolution, why should we fill its place with Creationism? What does Creationism have to offer the science class? How would teaching creationism avoid the 'problems' that teaching evolution supposedly creates?
Mr. Byers: What is your argument for Creationism?

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by NoNukes, posted 04-12-2011 1:41 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied
 Message 585 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 3:13 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 514 of 609 (611978)
04-12-2011 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 513 by Jon
04-12-2011 12:50 PM


Re: An Argument For?
Unfortunately, all I found were a lot of arguments against evolution, but none that were for Creationism, as the topic of the thread requires.
I agree that Constitutionality is only a side issue, but I think you are wrong about Byers. There are bits and pieces of justification for teaching Creationism in Byers' posts.
Further, Byers' isn't necessarily advocating getting rid of the teaching of evolution. His position seems to be that if evolution is taught, Genesis based Creationism should be taught also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Jon, posted 04-12-2011 12:50 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 339 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(3)
Message 515 of 609 (612025)
04-12-2011 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by frako
04-10-2011 7:51 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
The problem with your statement is that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING POINTING TO ANY CREATOR OR DESIGNER.
Besides being a silly lie, the above comment is not the point. its not a matter of your opinion about what reality has to offer, but what it will logically allow, given the available evidence and information. Its is also not what you can prove, were it, evolution itself or evo by soley natural conclusions would fall to the same fate. its only what can be demonstrated from a scientific approach, which ID and creationism accomplish , having nothing to with religion or the spiritual
Typs like you usualy say nothing can come from nothing so you need a creator well where did the creator come from? oh he is eternal dude he needs no creation. why cant the multi verse be eternal and our universe just a production of that multiverse
Again you are geting involved in your opinions, not what is logically and scientifically demonstratable. When you can make this distinction, the light bulb will come on for you
You say life is too complex it needs a designer well it has one its called evolution no need for a magical unicorn up in the sky
frako, stay with reality and that which is logically demonstratable, not opinions for or against frak my main man, why do you think there are only two scientific logical possibilites. because this is what reality and science will allow. dont get caught up in terms, they are not reality
Creationism explains everything with god an explanation for everything is no explanation at all.
frako, dont be simplistic, be completely rational. Creationism is a rational scientific explanation of only two possible solutions, as such it should be included in any scientific approach. there is no possible way for you to win this argument, due to the fact you are in contention with reality and rational not simply a theory
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by frako, posted 04-10-2011 7:51 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by bluescat48, posted 04-12-2011 6:42 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 518 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 6:42 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 521 by frako, posted 04-12-2011 7:26 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 339 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(3)
Message 516 of 609 (612027)
04-12-2011 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by Taq
04-11-2011 12:22 PM


Your next task is to apply this argument to actual scientific research. Show how your view of creationism can be used to perform original research. Then you need to do that research. Then you need to publish it and present it to the scientific community. Then, and only then, can creationism be considered for science class.
taq, the argument is scientific research, in all its parts. No one here as of yet has demonstrated, even by a wisp why it is not. Complaining that it is not is not the same as setting out an argument against it
Yet. they the (SC) cannot even get out of the starting gate, to demonstrate why an examination of physical properties to a valid and demonstratable conclusion is and does not follow a scientific research. Taq is what I just described above a scientific approach? Not does it follow you prescribeed method, but is it logically and philosophically a scientific approach
Then you need to publish it and present it to the scientific community.
What do you think this form is of sorts, chopped liver?
Then, and only then, can creationism be considered for science class.
the tenets and merits and the legetimacy of creationism, if that is what you wish to call it, have existed long before any so called scientific community. The fact that a few are so ingnorant that they cannot see the method, model and conclusion of creationism's approach, is nothing short of silly
it was science before the so-called scientific method. The so-called scientific method simply evaluates what is available and draws conclusions. Something ID and creo was doing while the SM title and its formal tenets was still suckeling the tit
you fellas just put a lable on it
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by Taq, posted 04-11-2011 12:22 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 535 by dwise1, posted 04-12-2011 10:04 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 517 of 609 (612028)
04-12-2011 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 6:33 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
its only what can be demonstrated from a scientific approach, which ID and creationism accomplish , having nothing to with religion or the spiritual
You made the above statement, now back it up with evidence.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 6:33 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 7:24 PM bluescat48 has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10302
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 518 of 609 (612029)
04-12-2011 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 6:33 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
its not a matter of your opinion about what reality has to offer, but what it will logically allow, given the available evidence and information.
We are not talking about Logically Allowed Class. We are talking about Science Class. Either show that ID/Creationism is science or admit that it has no place in science class. Show us specific experiments and how these experiments demonstrate ID/Creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 6:33 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 7:14 PM Taq has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 339 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(3)
Message 519 of 609 (612033)
04-12-2011 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 518 by Taq
04-12-2011 6:42 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
We are not talking about Logically Allowed Class. We are talking about Science Class. Either show that ID/Creationism is science or admit that it has no place in science class. Show us specific experiments and how these experiments demonstrate ID/Creationism.
Logic class and science class are the samething, definitions aside, and especially where ther are only two alternatives, or two possible explanations
Taq, use your haed. Any examination into what is, how it is and why it is, is a logical approach to anything.
Now tell me why an observation of the intricices of the natural world, by way of examination of thier order, or appearent order and the conclusion of design is not a scientific approach. its only science, the sameway "science" completes its tasks
Now tell me what a so-called better scientific approach can tell me about the natural world, that wont be natural or observable, testable or verifiable. Your approach is no different and it will reveal nothing, that creo and ID will not. if so present it
now tell me why discovering minute details in nature, such as "science" does, is some how more scientific in its approach verses a detailed examination of its order and why any conclusions on "sciences" part are better science
it should be obious that both are scientific approaches, even if one is more intricate If not please explain why
this time maybe you could be specific in a logical way and exclude the idea that more research is somehow better research, since more research will only reveal more details of what is already knowable. In thier approaches what capabilites does "science" have and what can it reveal that ID cannnot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 6:42 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 522 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 7:46 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 549 by subbie, posted 04-13-2011 2:27 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 339 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(2)
Message 520 of 609 (612034)
04-12-2011 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by bluescat48
04-12-2011 6:42 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
You made the above statement, now back it up with evidence.
No problem. Bluescat, tell me what it is you do when you want to discover something in the natural world? How do you do it, what is your approach?
change is to evolution, what order is to ID. Niether of us can know absolutely which one of these is the mechanism or spark of and for life, we can only draw tenative logical conclusions
since neither of us can know absolutely, we both use our best scientific approach, to draw exclusive logical conclusions., those where reality will allow no other. But one thing is for sure we are using scientific approaches, neith of which have anything to do with the spiritual
BTVN of the case how could they

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by bluescat48, posted 04-12-2011 6:42 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 527 by bluescat48, posted 04-12-2011 8:20 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 521 of 609 (612035)
04-12-2011 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 6:33 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Besides being a silly lie, the above comment is not the point. its not a matter of your opinion about what reality has to offer, but what it will logically allow, given the available evidence and information.
Does reality alow for a creature that can suspend the laws of nature i have seen no evidence that it does so why do you keep insisting that there is a pink invisible fluffy bunny in the sky that made us.
Its is also not what you can prove, were it, evolution itself or evo by soley natural conclusions would fall to the same fate. its only what can be demonstrated from a scientific approach, which ID and creationism accomplish , having nothing to with religion or the spiritual
You are right to the point where ID and creationism use the scientific approach because that is an outright lie.
Scientific method in its basic form
* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing Experiments
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results
at best creationism and id get to step 3. Show me some id or creationism experiments that would support id or creationism show me peer rewived papers done on id and creationism.
i can show you tones of experiments and papers supporting evolution.
Again you are geting involved in your opinions, not what is logically and scientifically demonstratable. When you can make this distinction, the light bulb will come on for you
So do it logically and scientifically demonstrate your creator you will get a Nobel prise 100% sure of it and you will get your mambo jumbo ideas in the classroom.
frako, stay with reality and that which is logically demonstratable, not opinions for or against frak my main man, why do you think there are only two scientific logical possibilites. because this is what reality and science will allow. dont get caught up in terms, they are not reality
Evolution is not an opinion it is demonstrate it has been tested for at least 100 years, every piece of new evidence we find supports it.
You are not living in reality you are living in your own little world in your own little head where if you cant understand something then it must be wrong and your ideas are correct. Show me the evidence show me the experiments show me the papers on ID and createnism.
frako, dont be simplistic, be completely rational. Creationism is a rational scientific explanation of only two possible solutions, as such it should be included in any scientific approach. there is no possible way for you to win this argument,
As i have shown you above creationism and ID do not come close to being called science, and there are not only 2 possible solutions it is not if evolution is wrong creationism or ID wins by default there are tones of other explanations that would fit better with the FATCS.
due to the fact you are in contention with reality and rational not simply a theory
I am not rational ???? am i the one claiming that the world and everything in our universe was created by a designer because everything is so complex????? Do you know how complex a being would have to be to make our complex world ??? And he is the exception to the rule ???? And you make this statement whiteout any evidence without any facts whiteout any experimentation claim it is science like science is making shit up along the way and ignoring evidence when it does not fit.
If I where a doctor and you where my patient the next time you would come for a flue shot i would not give you one teech the controversy well the flue mutates and EVOLVES so you need a shot every year if you want to stay immune. You dont believe in evolution no shot for you. If you needed an antibiotic i would prescribe penicillin there is no such thing as evolution right so the particular strain that you have could not have evolved a resistance to penicillin so it should help you.
And if you are one of those who believe that the bible is 100% true then i would infect you with leprosy i would not even give you the old cure for leprosy lets not speak of the new one cause leprosy could not have evolved i would give you the bible cure i would take 2 pigeons kill one dip the other in its blood and sprinkle the blood all over you the bible says you will be cured i say you might contract some other desiese but who cares lets teach the controversy.
The scientific Method saves lives it brings food on your table it gave you the comforts you now have including the PC you are writing on and you and all the other creos have the ordasity to make shit up and call it science because the reality does not fit with your particular belief if it where up to me i would shut the power down to your homes forbid you to buy any tech fuel .... How long would your version of the scientific method need to get us to the scientific progress of today, lets check the last time it was in use we call those times the DARK AGES nothing of use was invented by your method only LOST.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 6:33 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 8:02 PM frako has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10302
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 522 of 609 (612038)
04-12-2011 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 7:14 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Logic class and science class are the samething,
No, they are not. Logic is not based on empiricism. Science is.
Any examination into what is, how it is and why it is, is a logical approach to anything.
It is HOW you do the examination that defines science. You need to make a hypothesis and null hypothesis that are testable through empiricism. So please show how ID/Creationism is testable in this manner.
Now tell me why an observation of the intricices of the natural world, by way of examination of thier order, or appearent order and the conclusion of design is not a scientific approach.
Show me how it is scientific. You are the one that claims it is scientific, so demonstrate it. Describe the hypothesis, null hypothesis, and the experimental design used to test them. If you can't, then I can only conclude that ID/Creationism is not science.
Now tell me what a so-called better scientific approach can tell me about the natural world, that wont be natural or observable, testable or verifiable.
That sentence makes zero sense. Please, use your head.
now tell me why discovering minute details in nature, such as "science" does, is some how more scientific in its approach verses a detailed examination of its order and why any conclusions on "sciences" part are better science
Science is not about discovering minute detail. It is about testing hypotheses through empiricism. For someone who claims to know so much about science you seem to get the basics wrong on almost every occasion.
this time maybe you could be specific in a logical way and exclude the idea that more research is somehow better research, since more research will only reveal more details of what is already knowable. In thier approaches what capabilites does "science" have and what can it reveal that ID cannnot.
You have zero scientific research for ID/Creationism. That indicates that ID/Creationism is not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 7:14 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 8:58 PM Taq has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 339 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(3)
Message 523 of 609 (612044)
04-12-2011 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 521 by frako
04-12-2011 7:26 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
You are right to the point where ID and creationism use the scientific approach because that is an outright lie.
Scientific method in its basic form
* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing Experiments
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results
at best creationism and id get to step 3. Show me some id or creationism experiments that would support id or creationism show me peer rewived papers done on id and creationism.
i can show you tones of experiments and papers supporting evolution.
frako, Im not defending creo and ID to see if they pass the present day method and explanation of what constitues science. Im telling you they are science in every sense of the word. They are a physical observation and examination that allows very demonstratble conclusions. While both of us dont agree or like the conclusions of eachothers ideologies and examinations, both are atleast tenative scientifc approaches to explanations
The only barrier that persists in this context is the fact that most science types believe creo and Id involve the supernatural, they do not, or they dont have to
teaching creation or design is not a violation of church and state, because neither are initially religiously based. They are reason and reality based
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by frako, posted 04-12-2011 7:26 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by jar, posted 04-12-2011 8:05 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 525 by frako, posted 04-12-2011 8:10 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 526 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 8:14 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 528 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2011 8:40 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 95 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 524 of 609 (612046)
04-12-2011 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 8:02 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Bullshit Dawn, utter bullshit.
What is the model and mechanism of ID?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 8:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 525 of 609 (612048)
04-12-2011 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 8:02 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
frako, Im not defending creo and ID to see if they pass the present day method and explanation of what constitues science.
Ok ql though this method is very old the foundation of science and that NULLIFIES the second statement you made.
ID and Creationism does not come close to WHAT SCIENCE IS OR EVER WILL BE. AND THEY ARE NOT DEMONSTRATABLE OBSERVABLE.
While both of us dont agree or like the conclusions of eachothers ideologies and examinations, both are atleast tenative scientifc approaches to explanations
Well the thing about science it involves experiments and lots of study and if 2 scientists would disagree on something they would devise an experiment to test witch of their conclusions is right. And the resoults of that experiment would prove witch scientist is correct. CAN YOU THINK OF AN EXPERIMENT THAT WOULD SHOW YOUR CONCLUSIONS TO BE CORRECT AND DISPROVE MY CONCLUSIONS??
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 8:02 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 531 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 9:24 PM frako 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