Science in Public Schools

Hi Jbthree,I agree with others (particularly, with Rrhain) that there exists no scientific evidence supporting such ideas as a "boom, it happened"-like creation of something from nothing, or of the truly global flood, or of the idea that the planet Earth is just a few thousand years old. Therefore, these "evidences" cannot be parts of something taught in *science* classes - and not because they support or not support some religious doctrine, but because they are simply not scientifically valid.I am a professional scientist - researcher in molecular immunology and a college biology teacher with ~9 years of teaching classes in US colleges. On the other hand, I am a faithful Christian who serves as an elder in an oldline Protestant church and who absolutely loves the Bible. May I, in this regard, give you an advice? Don't trust creationist Web sites. They lie a lot. Partly because their authors intend to, partly because of a deep ignorance of their contributors. I am particularly amazed when I read materials "supporting" the idea of the "young earth" and "arguing" against radiometric dating. My eyes want to pop when I read creationists' interpretations of statistics, esp. linear regression method. Students who attend my university would get F's for having gaps in their knowledge that big.Peace,Richard{Richard - Please use the reply button at the bottom of the specific message, if you are replying to a specific message (which you appear to be doing here). That way links to/from links are put in place. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-02-2005 03:47 PM

Hi JK,Regarding Big Bang, I don't know, not being an expert. From what I read, I guess the evidence is very indirect, based on the speed of divergence of galaxies etc.What I meant by absence of evidence supporting "boom, it happened" kind of creation is that there are no such observations in biology that would support an idea of an immediate and forever "fixed" arrival of a ready species. The notion of such appearance or arrival was deduced from the sacred writings but never supported by any empirical evidence.Richard

I think I agree very strongly with Yaro, on all points.Thinking that creationism can be taught in science classes as an "alternative view" or "alternative theory" simply destroys the purpose of teaching science. Creationism, by definition, is outside of the scope of science because it deals with supernatural. I am a Christian and I very sincerely believe that God is the Creator of all, but I do not know it because I learned it in science class - I simply believe it, in a way like I believe that I exist and the world exists. It's a basic truth for a believer, it does not need to be taught "scientifically" and it does not mesh or mix with the empirical method of modern science.I grew up in the former Soviet Union and I know from experience of my parents' generation, what tragedies can follow when people who are, allegedly, scientists, stop following the commonly accepted rules of the scientific method and sacrifice science for ideology. In the USSR of the 1940's - 1950's genetics was officially declared wrong, because the Communist party line was, genes do not exist, everything is "nurture" (implying that proper indoctrination by the Communist authorities can change everything, and these weird "genes" that resist the direct influence of the environment must be simply put out of the way). When I think about teaching the scientific theories such as the TOE and the anti-scientific ideologies like creationism as simply two alternative "views," I sometimes make a mental comparison with teaching genetics and the 1940's Soviet-style "advanced biology of Michurin-Lysenko-Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin" as two "alternative views." Why, let students decide what they "believe" in, right? Richard