|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,497 Year: 6,754/9,624 Month: 94/238 Week: 11/83 Day: 2/9 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4624 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Otto Tellick writes: Robert Byers writes: The state can't say its neutral on religion and then teach its false. When a given religious group makes assertions that conflict directly with observable evidence, and insists on belief in these assertions as a condition for membership, it's unavoidable that a proper, objective education must lead successful students to the conclusion that the given religious group is wrong in their assertions, and that the students are better off not being members of that group. Students who don't reach this conclusion are not successful -- i.e. they fail. (We're talking here about assertions such as denying the genetic relationship of common ancestry among all primates, including humans, among all mammals, including humans, and so on.) Since such a religious group has no basis for its counterfactual beliefs other than choosing to adopt a particular interpretation (of some translation) of a chosen "sacred text", it is really the group's own fault that their conditions for membership are incompatible with a proper and objective education. As we know, many religious groups make different assertions, which don't conflict with observable evidence, yet are based on (the same translation of) the same "sacred text" -- the difference is that they've chosen to interpret the text in a way that acknowledges and accommodates reality. The public schools, which are obligated to provide proper, objective education to all attending students, don't create any conflict with these latter religious groups. Conflict with groups of the former type are inescapable, but the former type of religious group has an intrinsic conflict with reality; public schooling is not the only problem these people will face in life. The state accommodates home schooling for those adherents who choose to "protect" their children from factual information, even though this works to the detriment of these children and the community and nation at large. If you, as a US citizen, really are firm in your insistence on denying reality, you should count yourself lucky that you live in a country where the government does not require you to accept reality, and even allows you to hide reality from your children for as long as your children can stand it. AMEN. Proper objective, education.So laws banning creationism must mean either objectivity is NOT the first priority or the state is officially saying creationism is false. The law says they can't say its false because this is the law they invoke to say you can't say its true. You make my case here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The law says they can't say its false because this is the law they invoke to say you can't say its true. You might as well write: "The law says you can't practice CPR because this is the law they invoke to say you can't commit murder." Those would be different things. Kinda ... opposite things. You can (implicitly) teach that creationism is false, because it serves a secular purpose to do so. You can't teach that creationism is true, because it serves no secular purpose to do so. This is the law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Then logically if the state teaches creationism is not true then it is making a opinion that its not true. THis by teaching evolution and second by banning creationism upon subjects where the truth is clearly the point of the teaching. so the state is not separate from the church. its teaching the church is wrong on some points. So they break the law they invoke. No they do not. Because the law they invoke is the actual law and not the crazy shit you've made up in your head. We have explained to you --- many times --- what the law actually is and why. Please stop lying. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Again I say its indeed unworkable. So they had to retreat and say YES you can teach stuff that says some religious idea is wrong. That was not a "retreat" --- they have always done so.
Yet I insist that if they allow religious ideas to be taught to be false then they have broken the law they invoke to censor religious ideas. And you are, of course, lying.
The state can't say its not allowed to teach religious ideas as true and THEN say it can teach them as untrue ... Yes it can. Obviously. Not saying something is true is eminently consistent with saying that it is false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Then logically if the state teaches creationism is not true then it is making a opinion that its not true. THis by teaching evolution and second by banning creationism upon subjects where the truth is clearly the point of the teaching. so the state is not separate from the church. its teaching the church is wrong on some points. So they break the law they invoke. Huh? Of course they don't. The law as applied to education forbids the State from taking religious beliefs into consideration when deciding what to teach or not to teach. It doesn't take Fundamentalist Christianity into consideration any more than it takes Astrology or Moose's 2+2=5 doctrine into consideration. This is an application and upholding of the law, not a breaking! Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
the state is officially saying creationism is false. No. The State is officially saying that Creationism is religious doctrine, and so it cannot be taken into consideration when deciding what to teach or not to teach, as doing so would be a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Itinerant Lurker Member (Idle past 2911 days) Posts: 67 Joined:
|
quote: In my classroom when we talk about geology or evolution I often get students who tell me that they/their parents don't believe in things like an old earth or common descent. My response is always that yes, some people do believe that but the evidence we have supports an old earth and evolution, and in science we explain things using evidence. Call me crazy but I don't see how this "bans" or "contradicts" religion. No one is saying that students cannot hold religious beliefs or even express those beliefs in the classroom - all that is said is that the evidence supports a different view. Lurker
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Creationism IS false.
It is not the Law that says that but reality. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10299 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Then logically if the state teaches creationism is not true then it is making a opinion that its not true. No science teacher in any public school is teaching that creationism is not true. Creationists are the ones teaching kids that evolution leads to the conclusion that creationism is false. Creationism is never mentioned, positively or negatively, in pubic school science classes.
To justify your censorship you must admit the truth of these origin subjects is not the priority of education.
You have things completely backwards. You must demonstrate that creationism is objectively accurate with respect to the scientific method before it can be considered for science class. Creationists have consistently failed at doing this. If the priority is accurate scientific theories then creationism should be excluded because creationism has failed as a scientific theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 338 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
No they do not. Because the law they invoke is the actual law and not the crazy shit you've made up in your head. We have explained to you --- many times --- what the law actually is and why. Please stop lying. Since I clearly believe that creationism and ID are the samething and can provide more than valid reasons why they (it) should be taught in the classroom, prehaps you would like to demonstrate why I might (in your opinion) be making things up or lying I say the law is shortsighted and inaccurate. Perhaps you would like to take up the opposite postion to demonstrate otherwise. My guess is that you are to afraid Prove me wrong on both accounts if you are so inclined Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 338 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
Creationism IS false. It is not the Law that says that but reality. Your as ignorant about reality as you are about creationism and ID. You wouldnt know what reality was if it was following you. Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 338 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
If the priority is accurate scientific theories then creationism should be excluded because creationism has failed as a scientific theory. Your problem is that you misunderstand what creationism is or is not. Creationism has nothing to do with the specifics of any religion. Creationism is another word for design. Creationism cannot fail as a scientific theory because its foundation is based in the reality of the physical world, in the nature of observation demonstrated by order, law and purpose. These things are undeniable and unmistakable Now I can only know this by applying scientific methods and rules to that reality, hence ID or creationism is as much a scientific method as anyother and it serves a definate SECULAR purpose Unless you are prepared to demonstrate otherwise Can you explain what your scientific theory allows me to know that ID does not and what it qualifies as science but mine does not. Now be very specific Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Creationism is another word for design. And yet one rarely sees sentences like the following:
One day a dress-creationismer named John was hired to creationism a dress. "When I've finished creationisming this dress", he said to himself, "it will have an excellent creationism. What a well-creationismed dress it will be!" Creationism cannot fail as a scientific theory ... But it has. Which strongly suggests that it can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Since I clearly believe that creationism and ID are the samething and can provide more than valid reasons why they (it) should be taught in the classroom, prehaps you would like to demonstrate why I might (in your opinion) be making things up or lying Wait, you're Robert Byers? That explains the illiteracy and mental confusion.
I say the law is shortsighted and inaccurate. Perhaps you would like to take up the opposite postion to demonstrate otherwise. I have done so.
My guess is that you are to afraid You guess that I am "to afraid" to do what I have in fact been doing? Well, I guess that that's consistent with what we know of your powers of reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 338 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
But it has. Which strongly suggests that it can. Now we have got the ball rolling, lets see if you have actually done what you say you have. Ive set out an argument which states that creationism cannot fail because it is based in the observation of order, law and purpose in the reality of the natural world. Did you touch this argument, absolutely not. the best you had to offer was that creationism has failed. Now i dont know where you learned to debate, but i am accustomed to the opposition actually responding to the argument. perhaps you would like to try again I stated that Creo and ID are a scientific theory because they follow the same tenets to thier conclusion, therefore not only qualify as a ST, but should be present as such in the classroom Since creationism and ID have nothing foundationally to do with religion, perhaps you could demonstrate why my case is not valid. My guess is that you will avoid this by a bombardment of sarcasm and lame wit lets see what happens, Doctor, always ready with the answer Ill give you another chance to demonstrate that I am wrong without another display your overwhelming wit and charm Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024