|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,507 Year: 6,764/9,624 Month: 104/238 Week: 21/83 Day: 4/0 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3192 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
jar writes;
It is dogma and so it cannot be taught. It really is that simple. I think your statement is too dogmatic. Science teaches dogma doesn't it? For example Crick's "central dogma of molecular biology."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 97 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes: jar writes;
It is dogma and so it cannot be taught. It really is that simple. I think your statement is too dogmatic. Science teaches dogma doesn't it? For example Crick's "central dogma of molecular biology." Nope. Even that is subject to challenge and question. Nor is it dogma in the same sense as religious dogma. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3192 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Granny Magda writes;
I do believe that both the Genesis creation myth and the modern Theory of Evolution have their place in the classroom. I just prefer that the religion go in a religious education classroom and that the science go in a science classroom. Any other set up is just going to give fundamentalist Christian teachers an opportunity to preach Biblical literalist/inerrantist rubbish in their classes and that's unacceptable. I have no problem with that policy except for the "myth" interpretation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2956 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Shadow71.
shadow71 writes: Science teaches dogma doesn't it? For example Crick's "central dogma of molecular biology." That's not really a dogma. Here are some quotes from Crick about the term, appearing on a Wiki page. It was just stupid terminology by Crick: it was really a scientific law (a consistent pattern that emerges in natural phenomena without a real mechanistic explanation). Edited by Bluejay, : Corrected "it's" to "it was," because it obviously is no longer thought to be (as Dr A pointed out). -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Science teaches dogma doesn't it? For example Crick's "central dogma of molecular biology." No. Crick, having heard the word "dogma" in Enlish usage thought that it meant "something for which there is no evidence and may very well be false". Which is actually a good description of any religious dogma. That's why he used the word "dogma" to describe what he himself knew was no more than a tentative hypothesis. Finally, science does not teach this "dogma" because all scientists including Crick know it to be false, since retroviruses exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: I have no problem with that policy except for the "myth" interpretation. I suspect that it would be unconstitutional for a science teacher or any other state employee to label Bible stories as myths. But what isn't so clear is what other kinds of things might get forced into the curriculum in a religious education class in a public school in order to make the course pass constitutional muster. I suspect that the result would be a course in which few fundamentalists would want to enroll their kids.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1513 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
shadow71 writes: subbie writes;
A brilliantly executed "god of the gaps" argument. Well done. In science class rooms, they are supposed to teach science. If there is in fact no plausible explanation for the beginning of life (a question I will not look to creationists to answer), then we should teach that there is no plausible explanation, but here are the lines of research that show some promise. What we absolutely shouldn't do is say, we don't know, so goddidit. That is a policy I could live with in the schools. I just do not agree that there should be a negative response to Creation. For example to teach the students that the origin of life must be from natural causes, would be a derogation of religious teaching. Too bad. Science is the search for natural explanations for what we see in the real world. Science doesn't teach that the origin of life must be from natural causes, but it only searches for natural causes. If you don't want science to teach in derogation of religious teaching, then religious teaching needs to stop saying things about the natural world that science shows are not so. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 296 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
You take umbrage too quick at my use of the word myth. I was using it in this sense of the term;
mythn. 1. a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. The creation myth provided in Genesis 1 and the further myth provided in Gen 2 fit the bill perfectly. They are undeniably mythic. I did not mean to simply say that the story was untrue, although if you like, I will say that. Mutate and Survive On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
shadow71 writes: object to telling the students that Creation must be naturally caused. This objection wouldn't prevent evolution from being taught, it wouldn't prevent science classes from presenting the meagre evidence available that supports speculating on abiogenesis without mentioning Genesis as an alternative, and it wouldn't prevent an astronomy class from teaching evidenced scientific theories of the history of the universe. I suspect that you really object to far more than you are saying here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3192 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined:
|
Shadow 71 wrote;
That's all I meant. I have mixed feelings as to whether this should be taught in a Science class, but do object to telling the students that Creation must be naturally caused. There is no proof of that, as their is no empirical proof of Creation as the origin of life except for the Scriptures, and as for myself, Roman Catholic theology. NoNukes posts;
object to telling the students that Creation must be naturally caused. NoNukes further writes;
This objection wouldn't prevent evolution from being taught, it wouldn't prevent science classes from presenting the meagre evidence available that supports speculating on abiogenesis without mentioning Genesis as an alternative, and it wouldn't prevent an astronomy class from teaching evidenced scientific theories of the history of the universe. I suspect that you really object to far more than you are saying here. I don't know what your trying to say in this post. You have taken my comments completely out of context. I never stated that I wanted evolution from being taught. I have stated on many occasions on this forum that I have no problem with evolution, just with the assumption that "random mutation for fitness" and "natural" selection are proven entities. Science cannot prove those 2 points, they are inferred by scientists, not proven. You cannot show by experiement "natural selection". You cannot show "random mutation for fitness" but merely extrapolate it from findings. I really don't care what you think what you speculate I object to.Don't put words into my mouth. I know what I am saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1513 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I never stated that I wanted evolution from being taught. I have stated on many occasions on this forum that I have no problem with evolution, just with the assumption that "random mutation for fitness" and "natural" selection are proven entities. Science cannot prove those 2 points, they are inferred by scientists, not proven. You cannot show by experiement "natural selection". You cannot show "random mutation for fitness" but merely extrapolate it from findings. Science never proves anything. Anything. Ever. Science isn't about proof. Science is about the best explanation for the evidence we have to date. As such, the ToE and natural selection are among the most successful scientific theories ever devised in the history of science. I have no idea what you mean by "random mutation for fitness" so I can't speak to that. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 97 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
subbie writes: I never stated that I wanted evolution from being taught. I have stated on many occasions on this forum that I have no problem with evolution, just with the assumption that "random mutation for fitness" and "natural" selection are proven entities. Science cannot prove those 2 points, they are inferred by scientists, not proven. You cannot show by experiement "natural selection". You cannot show "random mutation for fitness" but merely extrapolate it from findings. Science never proves anything. Anything. Ever. Science isn't about proof. Science is about the best explanation for the evidence we have to date. As such, the ToE and natural selection are among the most successful scientific theories ever devised in the history of science. I have no idea what you mean by "random mutation for fitness" so I can't speak to that. Science can at times disprove things to a very, very high confidence level. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Rahvin
Essentially, the government (including publicly run schools) must remain completely neutral on the matter of religion. A non-science comparative religious class is permitted. It was tried in California, but too many Christian parents objected to their kids being taught about the other world religions. Sad. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi subbie, I hope to get back to our GD thread tomorrow
i've been having computer probs and I get low on energy at end of day, so only have time for quickies.
Science cannot prove those 2 points, they are inferred by scientists, not proven. You cannot show by experiement "natural selection". You cannot show "random mutation for fitness" but merely extrapolate it from findings. Science never proves anything. Anything. Ever. Science isn't about proof. Actually both mutation and natural selection have been demonstrated to occur in labs and in the wild. These are FACTS that are known to be true. How? Mutations are demonstrated by changes in hereditary traits in following generations that did not exist in earlier generations and DNA analysis. Random selection is demonstrated by the change in frequency of hereditary traits that led to better adaptation. Google "e. coli long-term experiment" and you will see a population of bacteria grown from a single cell that over many many generations develop an ability to consume citrate that was not present in the parent population/s. Further analysis demonstrates at which generation two different mutations occurred that led to this feature. Google Peppered moths and Galapagos finches and you will see examples of natural selection in the wild. You can also see Peppered Moths and Natural Selection for a thread discussing this point. What is not proven is theory, here the theory that evolution - mutation AND selection - can explain all the diversity of life as we know it. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : add ecoli by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4403 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
If we are to teach theories with little or no scientific proof then we should include Scientology...right?? or how about all the worlds religious views on creation....lets keep the field level and let our children decide??? I vote for science...it always leaves the door open to changes in our level of knowledge. It is not so rigid as to be one way or wrong in the way it expains things...it lends itself to questions....not blind faith.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024