Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

Shall I leave you to argue this out amongst yourself?Let me know when the two of you, or rather one of you, has reached a conclusion.

Well, no it isn't. I don't think you've grasped the distinction between implicit and explict. They aren't explicitly saying "Genesis is wrong" any more than the courts are explicitly saying "Robert Byers is wrong". To explicitly say it, you have to actually say it. Not necessarily (but see my next post). It would be equally a breach of the first amendment to teach the doctrine of the Trinity --- not necessarily because it is wrong, but simply because it is religious in nature and outside the scope of what public schools are supposed to do. The mind boggles.No, that is not the law. Ask any judge.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But it's both, don't you see? If there was any indication that creationism was true, then there would be a legitimate secular purpose in teaching it, and you could.On the other hand, it is only possible to find it unconstitutional because it is not merely an error but also a religiously motivated error --- you couldn't use the same laws to prevent people from teaching (for example) Holocaust denial.

My hackles remain erect.When you say "science doesn't prove facts", you are not really telling the truth about science in the English language as it is normally spoken. In ordinary English, science does prove facts and that's the whole point of it.There is a particular version of epistemology in which the word "proof" is reserved for mathematical demonstrations. When you say "science doesn't prove facts", you are not saying anything meaningful about science, you are merely subscribing to the vocabulary of Karl Popper. But in plain English, you are saying something that is not actually true. Science does "prove facts" in the plain English sense of "prove" and "facts".

No, we wouldn't. That was my point.The sense in which we can't "prove" evolution is the same sense in which I can't "prove" that I have two legs. To say so depends on a special meaning of "prove" to which in all our normal transactions in the English language we do not subscribe.In plain English, evolution has been proved. Of course we know that it has occurred. I would bet my life against a donut on this proposition. The evidence is completely unarguable. Yes, there is proof in the ordinary English meaning of the word "proof". If anyone wishes to speak Popperese instead of English, then I think they are morally obliged to say: "There is no proof of evolution in the same sense that there is no proof that Dr Adequate has two legs". Let them say that and I'll give them a pass. But in plain English, we have proved that Darwin was right. The only doubt about it is the sort of philosophical doubt that we can have about everything and therefore in practice have about nothing.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I supposed that you had not understood my original point, and needed it explaining to you again. If it is simply the case that you object to my point but can't think up any counter-argument, I'm fine with that too.

If you mean post #293, it bears no relation whatsoever to any statement that I made, and I am at a loss to think why you thought it was a reply to my post.You were wrong in the first place, and then you were wrong again, but the way in which you were wrong in the second place does not seem to support the way in which you were wrong in the first place.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well I thought I had.If you were to say (for example) that scientists can't "prove" that the Earth isn't flat, then you are not making an insightful comment on the scientific method, you are simply subscribing to a definition of the word "prove" which is not used in the English language as it is spoken. Yes they can. And they have. There is no sense in normal English in which you can describe this conclusion as being unproven or as tentative.

Nothing in science has ever been proved except as "a result of observation". If you wish to make a distinction between the shape of the Earth and (for example) the fact that I am descended from monkeys, you'll have to do better than that.

And establishing the teaching of specific doctrines of certain Christian sects would be state interference in religion. James Madison, who wrote the First Amendment, objected to Army chaplains. If you read the whole thing through, his point is that one can tolerate the existence of chaplains, so long as their existence is never taken as establishing a principle. Which is just what you're trying to do with them right now.

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.

Either that or you missed reading it. One fairly essential legal point that you seem to have skipped over is this: Perhaps you would like to think about that, maybe even address it? Again, you have missed an important point, which I will restate. Got that? I'll add math and logic to my list of things I don't want you to write the curricula for. And yet creationists' "devastating" blather about the law has failed to sway judges just as your equally "devastating" blather about science has failed to sway scientists.Has it occurred to you that maybe they know something you don't?

Yes, we concede the point. We have conceded it several times. I myself have conceded it frequently. The reason you can't teach creationism is because it is religion and because it would serve no secular purpose to do so, because of it being trash.But what else are we to do? You should address my question about Flat-Earthers. If some sect teaches as a religious dogma that the Earth is flat, does that really mean that we shouldn't teach that it's round? You speak of the intent of the Founding Fathers --- well, is that really what they intended?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There are facts that confirm some people's religious views. For example, the Big Bang confirms that our universe had a beginning; it was thought up by a Catholic priest, and was hailed by the Pope of the time as confirmation of the Bible. But that doesn't prevent us from teaching it.Similarly, if the evidence showed that the Earth was ~6000 years old, this would be confirmatory evidence for YEC, but that wouldn't be a reason not to teach it. No, he has a point so far as it goes. Because under the doctrine of "secular purpose" you could teach creationism if it was true, the decision that you can't teach it implies that it's false.