What if creationism did get into the science class

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: Wish I was going! A few thoughts. The first is that creationists argue for 'equal time' as if science operated that way ... As far as teaching creationism in schools, I think it is fine. I teach it every year during my presentation of historical geology and I also have taught it in a course on pseudoscience (hope I don't get banned for using that word!). It has no place or value as a scientific endeavor and there is no point in pretending that it does.

---

For my part, it is most telling that creationists demand time be given for alternative theories (or one alternative theory) often contending that this will sharpen critical thinking among young scientists. Yet the one thing they do not propose it that this is set in the context of a course unit dealing with the philosophy of science. It is not critical thinking they wish to advance, but their theory.Reading the posts from young creationists on this board, the one thing missing from their education is not science, but an understanding of the problems of induction and inference to the best explanation or the well understood issues in determining best hypotheses.It is very sad to see an excellent mind like TC's wasting his time on "plausibility" and "possibility" when the philosophy of science has done so much to establish the grounds for reliable inquiry.It's even sadder that they are being encourage into inadequate doctrinaire science by inadequate doctrinaire theology.

Firstly, please understand I was only using you as an example - not picking on you particularly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I don't waist my time on "plausibility" and "possibility", I use my time on having an inquiry on exactly what observing our universe has to hold about its given history. The people on this board can well see that virtually anything is 'possible', whether it is ', 'plausible', or 'feasible', is the question that is at the crux of earth history.

---

I'm not so sure. Here's a pair of wee quotes from you:My standpoint on Evolution is that it is possible, but not a plausible enough explination, my explination on the other hand, seems much more feasibly correct.... however, if you can show that this can actually happen in plausable conditions ... assume that it takes a flood for this decent to happen, this shows that these conditions are needed for this to happen in a given period of time.My objection to this approach is that much of the philosophy of science is concerned with exactly these issues - how does one determine the best hypotheses, and which method of inference is best suited to the hypotheses being considered.My impression is that you spend a lot of time researching the observations and experimental results secondhand, often in impressive detail, but relatively little time considering how they support a particular position - for example, what inductive methods are appropriate to the nature of the evidence?It's a common enough problem. After all, we naturally assume we have a basic grasp of the methods of reasoning - are we not all reasonable people? [b] [QUOTE]"It's even sadder that they are being encourage into inadequate doctrinaire science by inadequate doctrinaire theology. "
--Good or bad, I must be the first of my kind.[/b][/QUOTE]I don't understand. Can you elaborate? Thanks TC.

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Percy has restored Mr. Pamboli's topic, and my memory is now refreshed, in that that topic degenerated into quips about rugby.

---

Yes it did, rather. Better luck with this one.I'm still waiting to hear back from TC.