Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Michaeladams
Post Volume: Total: 918,943 Year: 6,200/9,624 Month: 48/240 Week: 63/34 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Taq
Member
Posts: 10249
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 134 of 609 (606024)
02-23-2011 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Robert Byers
02-22-2011 8:58 PM


The founding Yankee and Southern Puritan/Protestant people did not in any way put in their constitution anything to ban God or Genesis as truth or option for truth on origins in public institutions where the issue comes up.
Therefore there is no law against creationism in biology class etc.
There is a law. It is called the Establishment Clause. It is found in the Constitution. Look into it.
One can simply say the state is not everything the state pays for.
And yet it is. Public schools are paid for with public tax money which places public schools under the Establishment Clause (as well as the 14th Ammendment which puts States under the same constitutional laws as the federal government).
One could also say the present law of censorship by addressing conclusions about origins to kids and then banning creationism(s) and teaching opposite ideas that deny creationism is in fact brwaking the very law it invokes for the censorship.
If we were talking about Idea Class you might have a point, but we aren't. We are talking about Science Class, and creationism is not science. On top of that, creationism as part of a science class has no secular purpose and excessively entangles the government in religious matters. This means that creationism fails the Lemon test.
The whole point of the Establishment Clause is that it necessarily censors what the government can say. That is the whole point of the clause.
Creationism is on soldi ground for all freedoms in schools on these issues and simply needs people to push the matter in politics and in court cases.
Why not push creationism to scientists as a matter of science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Robert Byers, posted 02-22-2011 8:58 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10249
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 145 of 609 (606092)
02-23-2011 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by shadow71
02-23-2011 5:00 PM


I think it is premature to state that creationism is just a religious dogma.
Creationism isn't science, that is for sure.
On top of that, creationist organizations such as AiG clearly state that creationism is a belief that is unfalsifiable and based on a religious text. How is that not a religious dogma?
I don't see how you can state that w/certainty when the Origin of life is not known.
Creationists state that they do know the origin of life, but that statement is based on religious dogma.
My question to you is can you state with certainity that Creation is not plausible at this time in our existence?
There is no scientific evidence to suggest that it is correct, hence it is not appropriate for science class in public schools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 5:00 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 8:16 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10249
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 202 of 609 (606488)
02-25-2011 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by shadow71
02-23-2011 8:16 PM


Once again, unless science can prove the origin of life, how can you rule out either one?
As it pertains to science, it is question of how you rule one IN, not out. What evidence do we have that points to a supernatural origin of life? If none, then what place does it have in a science class?
Nor is there scientific evidence to suggest it is incorrect.
There is no evidence that can falsify a religious dogma. That is what it is called a dogma. You are only making it more obvious that the source of creationism is religion, not evidence.
Until there is absolute proof of the origin of life I do not belive it is proper to leave Creation out of the classroom.
Until creationism is capable of being scientific it has no place in science class. We are not talking about Possibility Class. We are talking about Science Class. It could be true that the Universe was magically poofed into being just last Thursday complete with a false history and false memories. Should we teach that too?
Why do you feel it necessary to include a religious dogma in science class?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 8:16 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:09 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10249
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 203 of 609 (606490)
02-25-2011 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by shadow71
02-23-2011 8:23 PM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
Perhaps the instructor could tell them that science has no scientifically agreeed theory of the orgin of life, and the Bible does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life.
What secular purpose does this have? How does this improve a child's education in the sciences? Will they have to understand supernatural mechanisms in order to have a productive career in the sciences?
To this day we cannot say with certainity whether either or both are correct. That will be for you to read about and decide. After all they are students.
No one is saying that they can not make up their own mind. Last I checked, no one is stopping these kids from entering places of worship and learning about the religious beliefs of others. However, it is unconstitutional for the government to push religious dogma as science using public money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 8:23 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:32 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10249
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 204 of 609 (606491)
02-25-2011 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Bolder-dash
02-24-2011 12:53 AM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
And the evidence that random mutations and natural selection can multiply levels of complexity to form the sophisticated life forms we see today is???
There are plenty of threads discussing this. This thread is meant to discuss the legitimacy of creationism in the science classroom.
Once again we see the scientific inadequacy of creationism being hidden behind a tu quoque fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-24-2011 12:53 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10249
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 205 of 609 (606493)
02-25-2011 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Robert Byers
02-24-2011 2:49 AM


Yet when teaching about origins and 1) banning creationism and 2) teaching ideas against creationism THEN its not neutral on some Christian etc doctrines.
So if a religion teaches that strep throat is instead caused by the evil spirit Marklar are teachers no longer allowed to teach Germ Theory in science class? If we only taught scientific theories that did not conflict with previous religious beliefs we would have no theories to teach.
It is not the fault of the government that religious believers accept dogma that conflicts with the empirical evidence.
If the state is teaching about the accuracy of the bible on origins then its breaking the very law used to ban the bible.
They are teaching about the accuracy of scientific theories as demonstrated by the empirical evidence. It has nothing to do with the bible.
The thirteen colonies DID not put anything in the constitution to ban God or Genesis in schools. Absurdity for such a religious people.
The purpose was to stop interference between state and church.
So you think that the state indoctrinating students into a literal interpretation of Genesis is not interfering with the religious freedoms of the students? Really?
By teaching evolution or banning creationism the state is making a establishment of religion.
How is the banning of religious indoctrination in public schools an establishment of religion? If they ban drugs from the schools are they establishing drug use?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Robert Byers, posted 02-24-2011 2:49 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10249
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 241 of 609 (606853)
02-28-2011 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by shadow71
02-26-2011 7:09 PM


My problem is that it appears that scientists preach the naturalist message that all is knowable by science.
Scientists don't preach. You have a serious problem with projection.
Science is tentative, as is taught from the very beginning of any science education. It would seem that your true problems lie in your own distortions of how science works instead of how science actually works.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:09 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by shadow71, posted 03-02-2011 7:34 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10249
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 242 of 609 (606854)
02-28-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by shadow71
02-26-2011 7:32 PM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
There is more to life than scientific theory.
We are not talking about Life Class. We are talking about Science Class. What secular purpose is there for teaching creationism in SCIENCE CLASS? How does teaching creationism improve a child's SCIENCE EDUCATION?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:32 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by shadow71, posted 03-02-2011 7:41 PM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10249
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 243 of 609 (606856)
02-28-2011 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Robert Byers
02-28-2011 5:01 AM


No one could teach YEC though it was proven true as long as the present law is in place.
If YEC were true it would have an intrinsic secular use as a scientific theory. Therefore, it would be allowed in science class per the Lemon Test.
My greater point is that there is no such law in the constitution dealing with school subjects.
There is no actual connection between church/state relations and everything the state pays for.
The Supreme Court would disagree, and they have the final word on the matter.
The people simply should have the power to vote up or down these matters.
Then go for it. Start a movement to remove the Establishment Clause from the Constitution. It is doable through the Ammendment process.
Creationism is historic, popular, and intellectually solid.
Care to back this up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Robert Byers, posted 02-28-2011 5:01 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10249
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 252 of 609 (607294)
03-03-2011 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by shadow71
03-02-2011 7:34 PM


It has been a long time since I have been in the classroom, but I notice a distinct advocacy in some scientific popular writings, ie. Dawkins et. al. where to suggest anything but natural causation is greeted by vitriolic castigation.
These are popular press books written for a general audience. They are NOT school text books. Again, we are talking about SCIENCE CLASS IN PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS!!!
People , including students, read this and may assume there is no other answer to what is life than science's answer.
Are they reading these books because they have been assigned by the teacher IN SCIENCE CLASS?
This in my judgement is one sided propaganda.
I guess you are unaware of all the popular press creationist books?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by shadow71, posted 03-02-2011 7:34 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10249
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 253 of 609 (607295)
03-03-2011 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by shadow71
03-02-2011 7:50 PM


Re: So far there really is only one answer
There are other very serious scientific theories being presented by Scientists such as Shapiro, and Wizany, that question natural Darwinan evolution as it is presented today.
Do any of these theories lend scientific credence to creationism? If not, then it is not related to the topic.
Einstein showed that natural Newtonian gravity was inaccurate but this did not lend credence to invisible gravity fairies. In fact, Einstein demonstrated that gravity was a natural phenomena that was imperfectly modeled by Newton's laws.
My point is that Science cannot close the book on anything at this point in time.
That is strange since creationists want to close science textbooks altogether.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by shadow71, posted 03-02-2011 7:50 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10249
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 263 of 609 (607377)
03-03-2011 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Robert Byers
03-03-2011 3:54 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Robert Byers, posted 03-03-2011 3:54 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:14 AM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10249
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 264 of 609 (607379)
03-03-2011 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Robert Byers
03-03-2011 3:57 AM


The law doesn't say Genesis is illegal.
The law does state that it is illegal for a public school teacher to push Genesis as an accurate scientific explanation as part of a public school science class. No such ban is in place for private schools.
If one bans genesis on a subject where the object is truthful discovery of conclusions . . .
You have already stated that you do not want children taught facts that contradict your religious belief. I hardly think that "truthful discovery" is what you are after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Robert Byers, posted 03-03-2011 3:57 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10249
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 289 of 609 (608035)
03-08-2011 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:04 AM


Its explicit that in conclusions about some origins Genesis is wrong and further being banned is a state comment that its wrong.
Genesis is not mentioned in science books. It is not the fault of the government that people choose to accept religious beliefs that conflict with scientific facts.
Also, teaching evolution has a secular purpose. It is a necessary part of any education in the biological sciences. If these students go on to have a career in the biological sciences then they MUST understand the theory of evolution. If these students hope to understand the findings that biologists make then they too must understand the theory. This is not so for creationism. There is zero secular purpose for teaching creationism. It is nothing more than religious indoctrination, something the state is not allowed to participate in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:04 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10249
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 290 of 609 (608037)
03-08-2011 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:21 AM


Science class is never about process only but about conclusions.
Another lie from Robert.
Anyways its still the law that banns creationism and not a accusation that its not science or rather a equal standard of investigation.
Creationism is banned because it is not science and is pushed solely for religious purposes. If you disagree then start a new thread and show how creationism is science, including testable hypotheses and the experiments used to test them.

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