Creationist/ID Education should be allowed

You are making some fundamental mistakes in your descriptions of science and how it works.For example, evolution is a biological or life science, and does not deal with cosmology.But even more fundamental is your use of "theory" and "law" --absolutely incorrect.Here are some definitions that might help:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

​

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

Science is about understanding the universe. Trouble is, the universe is a big, complex place. It's not possible to study everything at once. That's why scientists take smaller subjects and examine them in detail. Biology is one of those subjects and evolution is a part of biology. the Big Bang is not biology. In trying to force an understanding of both the Big Bang and biological evolution as if they were one subject, you're making both of them harder to understand, not easier. Well yes; creationism, although I would hesitate to call it science. Evolution is perfectly compatible with many forms of creationism. One could simply assume that a god (or gods) created life and that then, that life proceeded to evolve.Now I don't think that's a good idea or anything, but certainly evolution is compatible with that scenario. One could posit any number of scenarios whereby life came to exist. It doesn't really effect evolution. All we need know is that life began to exist, then began to evolve.I would also note that we can observe evolution taking place in the here-and-now. No amount of speculation about origins could possibly trump those real-world observations. Or our understanding of them is wrong. Well as Crashfrog notes, it's not a very helpful label. It's actually pretty unhelpful. Further, the Big Bang theory goes a lot deeper than just a label. It is built upon multiple observations and a very profound understanding of physics. Don't confuse the label with the theory itself. Both of those pairs fit each other well. Only one pairing has the advantage of being true.I don't get it though; what is it that you think makes evolution and the Big Bang a poor match for each other? Where's the beef?Mutate and Survive

Unfortunately an enquiring mind will always want to start at the beginning of a story or in this case theory. A building naturally starts with its foundations. For this reason, for the idea of evolution to stand up in the mind of a student, he/she will expect the theory to have a solid foundation, root or beginning.- This is where it becomes dodgy to justify teaching only evolution in its present form as anything more than an idea, and a bad one at that. When one re-traces the "rivers" of evolution they end up at their source which is this fanciful puddle of primordial soup which is where all life was supposed to begin. This is where many thinking people are left completely dumbfounded and beyond incredulous at the ridiculousness of it all. We are taught about the amazing intricacies of the DNA of a simple uni-cellular amoeba- (when I was doing biology at high school (1992), we were taught that an amoeba was the simplest of creatures and may have been the first life form) yet it's genome is massive and highly complicated- to call even this "simplicity" a random event is insulting to even the meanest intelligence. My feeling is that if we cannot agree on the origins of life then we cannot teach evolution, we need to teach on issues where we have common ground, ie on the facts that we currently observe from current evidence that can not be open to conjecture in any way. It is merely speculation and arguably and ironically religious in itself (because through evolution some "seek" to obviate religion) for "evos" to push ideas/agendas on such fanciful ideas as the big bang theory and primordial soup for the origin of life, etc as theories when in fact they are just ideas that defy common sense. Would it not be more ethical albeit a compromise, to include a separate subject (or as a subject within a subject) of beliefs, hypotheses and even theories that could be studied to embrace ideas from all quarters. I fail to see how spending so much time and resources fighting over the past can be of use to man or planet. I probably needn't mention it but it is my conviction that there is a Creator God, and I for one would object to my child being taught theories that exclude a God and have no plausible beginnings

Hi Genologist,The topic of this thread is whether creationism/id should be taught in science class, not whether evolution should not. I think most here would agree that what we teach in science class should have a strong evidential foundation. For the sake of argument let us grant that evolution does not have that foundation. What would you replace it with in science class that *does* have the necessary foundational support?--Percy

No, that would not be ethical. Evolution is the only theory of the origin of species that is supported by all scientific evidence. It would be a lie to pretend otherwise in a science class. I cannot agree with this rationale for teaching creationism in science class. It would be unconstitutional in the US to revise a science curriculum for this reason. Perhaps a compromise would be for you to teach your child religion at home or in Sunday school.

That, of course, covers the entirety of science. Why pick on a single branch of biology to omit?

quote:

---

A building naturally starts with its foundations. For this reason, for the idea of evolution to stand up in the mind of a student, he/she will expect the theory to have a solid foundation, root or beginning.- This is where it becomes dodgy to justify teaching only evolution in its present form as anything more than an idea, and a bad one at that. When one re-traces the "rivers" of evolution they end up at their source which is this fanciful puddle of primordial soup which is where all life was supposed to begin.

---

Of course you are confusing intellectual foundations with historical foundations. Interestingly enough tha confusion only seems to apply to evolution. I've never seen anyone argue that we can't say that the planets orbit the sun because we don't fully understand how the planets form or that we can't say that Jesus existed because we don't know where or when he was born.

quote:

---

My feeling is that if we cannot agree on the origins of life then we cannot teach evolution, we need to teach on issues where we have common ground, ie on the facts that we currently observe from current evidence that can not be open to conjecture in any way.

---

Which would seem to either allow the teaching of evolution or rule out very large amounts of science - perhaps all of it. The fact of the existence of transitional fossils, for instance, depends not at all on how life began. Indeed, none of the evidence for evolution depends on that, so obviously that is not the real problem.

quote:

---

It is merely speculation and arguably and ironically religious in itself (because through evolution some "seek" to obviate religion) for "evos" to push ideas/agendas on such fanciful ideas as the big bang theory and primordial soup for the origin of life, etc as theories when in fact they are just ideas that defy common sense.

---

On the other hand I'd say that the idea that your uninformed opinions have anything like as solid a basis as a strong consensus of expert opinion is an expression of pride, and nothing more. I don't think that your pride is a sound basis for educational policy.

quote:

---

Would it not be more ethical albeit a compromise, to include a separate subject (or as a subject within a subject) of beliefs, hypotheses and even theories that could be studied to embrace ideas from all quarters. I fail to see how spending so much time and resources fighting over the past can be of use to man or planet.

---

I'd say that dishonesty is rarely ethical. And it would be dishonest to pretend that science is on the same low level as the religious apologetics of creationism. Putting both in your hypothetical class would do just that. The current status is fair and ethical- and yet you wish to keep fighting about it. Why should those who disagree surrender just because you say that the fight isn't worth it - when you clearly don't believe what you say.

Yeah, I wanted to say pretty much what PaulK said. If you just want to use this as an argument against evolution, then it's a bit of special pleading. If, on the other hand, we are going to use your argument generally:* Then we can't teach anything in biology, because all facts in biology are historically contingent on the origin of life.
* We couldn't teach any chemistry, 'cos we don't know the origin of chemical elements (of course, scientists think that they do, but a creationist such as yourself will dismiss their opinion as "fanciful", since it conflicts with your dogma).
* We can't teach the theory of gravity unless we know the origin of mass.
* We can't teach about electricity unless we know the origin of electrons.
* We can't teach languages until we know the origins of language.
* We can't teach history unless we know the origins of humanity.
* We can't teach geology unless we know the origin of the Earth.
* We can't teach astronomy unless we know the origin of stars.
* We can't teach the germ theory of disease unless we know the origins of germs.If we can't teach anything until we have an origins story for it that creationists can agree with, then we cannot, in fact, teach pretty much anything, and civilization would collapse within a generation. But I don't hear you making any such general objection. I don't hear anyone doing so. When your child is taught how stars burn through nuclear fusion, do you actually object to this because (a) God doesn't come into it (b) you don't consider the scientific account of the origin of stars to be plausible?

Well it would appear that we could still teach mathematics and logic.But yeah, I'd come up with a pretty similar list of things Genologist logically should protest against being taught. I'll note that most creationist don't have any problem using the technology for which that infernal science creates the basis.

Because those are purely human creations? Well, in the first place many Christian apologists don't believe that (see my debate with sac) but in the second place even if they were, who invented counting, eh? You don't know. We have no origin story for mathematics.

I stumbled upon the webpage which had excerpts from a Christian "Sciencebook". I was appalled - the adults who write and feed this kind of crap to children should be...in search of a better term, ridiculed.I am truly sorry for the kids who have to endure that; "Electricity is a mystery. No one has ever observed it or heard it or felt it ... We cannot even say where electricity comes from."11 Eye-Opening Highlights From a Creationist Science Textbook - 11 Points

There is a place and a plan for people who would write such a textbook for children. I cannot say exactly where and what, but the location is somewhere in Ring 4 (perhaps ditch 8??).Just sad. What the @#$% happens if the child ever finds out that we know exactly what electricity is?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There must be something more in the book which brought you to criticize the rather correct ttempt to say that we STILL can not explain what Energy actually is, beyond saying that "It is that entity that makes things move," or hardly any better, "Energy is the ability to do work."Focusing on just the one form of the seven different forms of Energy is less than desirable, but the writer's point is valid.And, what we do KNOW about energy is that The Law of Conservation tells us that the material Universe appeared when whatever this Energy may be trasformed itself into the material Universe.So, in a sense, this thing we call Energy IS the creator of the Cosmos and IS the Cosmos, transcending and interpentrating it, however, i.e.; panentheism.

We seem to know a lot about what electricity can do, but we do not know what it is.
All we KNOW is that if a charged particle is moved, two fields apparently appear, one magnetic and the other electrical as we have come to detect and call them.We have learned to use this to perform Work for us, and we can measure that work and say how much electrical power has been consumed.But what this mystery is, exactly, defies our explanations.
Whatever it is, we observed what it can do, called it electricity, and have studied what it can do extensively, speaking in a way that hides the fact we never explained what it is.

When I thought that things could not go any worse than allowing Michelle Bachmann into the Intelligence Committee - I was proven wrong.There are absolutely no limits to the stupidity -
The chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology said today that the committee would hold hearings next week to settle the question, once and for all, of whether meteors exist.Read more: House Science Committee Questions Existence of Meteors | The New Yorker