What if creationism did get into the science class

"I have a geology field trip starting early tommorrow, so I do need to get to bed, BUT, this has just occurred to me, and I want to post before I forget."
--Wish I could be there, I think I would get alot out of it "Let us suppose that creationism does manage to widely get into the science classrooms of the United States. Therefore, it goes up against mainstream scientific thought, in a widespread and prominent way."
--Let us suppose."What will happen?"
--If I might borrow a phrase from a classic game I used to play, "She's goin down matey!""I think that "creation science", and especially the fundimentalist young earth, short period of creation variety of it, will quickly (and prominently) get it's butt severely kicked. Fundimentalists will come away from it looking like fools."
--In my opinion, there would be some reasons it would go down quick, but it would also depend on whether your going to stick religion in there along with the science of creationism."What the fundimentalist perspective thinks would have been a good thing for them, may turn out to be the greatest blow to Christianity, ever."
--See above."I think religion should (for it's own good), leave science alone, and science will leave religion alone."
--I agree, your either are going to have a scientific mind-set, or a philosophical mind-set, in the least they should be separately taken into consideration on the personal level.--A perfect substitute for 'religion' would be 'faith'.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-27-2002]

"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."
--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. And observation, experimentation, and any test plays its hand in this determination. This is why It is my opinion to agree that the faithful approach, admittedly disregarding scientific testability (if at all the entity can be tested) should not play a part in the science classroom unless religion is left at the door."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.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-27-2002]

"I'm still waiting to hear back from TC."
--I see the thread, "Teaching evolution in the context of science ", is your post #1 the post which you would like my incite on? Or are you refering to another post in another thread. Thanx.------------------

Oops, silly me, I see the post #8 in this thread, sorry, I'll get to it, thanx.------------------

"Firstly, please understand I was only using you as an example - not picking on you particularly."
--That's good to know, No worries, no problem. "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."
--My thoughts seem to have evolved, this quote is a bit old, though I do make my point when it comes to plausibility and possibility."... 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."
--I agree with this recent statement."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."
--Some would take occams razor (or the law of parsimony), though I would differ slightly, of course this may have been highly and scientifically acceptable. Even in its success for over 700 years, it still now seems reasonable to the human mind and its capacity to observe our surroundings. However, in all scientific reality, it is simply no more than a philosophical concept. How something should be considered the 'right' one, is some-what difficult. I do think that it is reasonable to say that if something can be explained fully and be reasoned as plausible than it simply may come down to a personal level of belief until new data can be obtained. To decide plausibility could be based on what the sequence of events may have been. For instance, something plausible may be from something that has been evidently shown could have occurred and that this cause could produce effect that may also be observed. However something implausible may be that this effect does not produce a chain-reaction and simply is resorted to a 'wishful thinking', trying to shove evidence different direction and put them all on the same page rather than showing that they belong on the same page. Over time I'll have to critique myself and sharpen my thoughts on this."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?"
--I think my above statement may be considered, in my arguments I should carry out this reasoning to find just how 'plausible' my interpretation/explanation may be and go from there."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?"
--Evidently so."I don't understand. Can you elaborate? Thanks TC."
--No problem. Well you had stated that 'It's even sadder that they are being encourage into inadequate doctrinaire science by inadequate doctrinaire theology'. So my response was to mean that this is not what I am encouraged by, I am simply encouraged by my desire to have knowledge, to know and observe exactly what it is that makes everything work, and the history behind it. Whether or not it complies with the bible is irrelevant to this thinking. Besides, if my belief is true, I should not be worried in the least because these observations should have the ability to cooperate and cope with the observable, experimental, and testable sciences.------------------

"TC: While you're considering your response to Moose, please consider that you constantly harp on creation science being scientific. You have also stated in post #5 "In my opinion, there would be some reasons it would go down quick, but it would also depend on whether your going to stick religion in there along with the science of creationism." (emphasis added)."
--Yes, I have stated this and will still agree with it."TC, creation science is by definition religious. It has several a priori religious/supernatural assumptions that must be accepted for creation science to exist in the first place:"
--What definition might that be? Because according to how mine works, it has nothing at all to do with religion or faith."1. A creator of some type exists."
--According to mine, creation science has nothing to do with a creator, and so the name itself is misleading."In creationism, this is generally some form of diety."
--Certainly, 'Creationism' is where it all comes together, you smack the bible with creation science (synonymous to 'science') and see what you get, is it going to be a Kent Hovind, or something else?"Creation "scientists" often try and obfuscate the identity of the creator by calling it a Designer, or whatever."
--And I would be to disagree with many of their belief or personal attachments they put in with it."There is no semantic difference between the two concepts. Even arguing the LGM hypothesis ("little green man") leads to a problem of reduction: who created the LGM? and so on. Ultimately, the creator MUST be supernatural for creationism and its child creation science to exist."
--See above, the term 'creation science', is misleading, this is another reason why I had stated 'Good or Bad, I must be the first of my kind' earlier."2. After accepting the unprovable assumption of the existence of a supernatural creator, creation "science" requires acceptance of the premise that this creator intervenes (or did so at least once) regularly in its creation for reasons of its own - again with no mechanism or evidence to back the claim."
--See above."Since science, by definition, cannot comment on supernatural phenomena, creation science is an oxymoron."
--If you ask Kent Hovind, might as well start slapping around that version of 'creation science' all over the place for setting foot in the science classroom."Teaching it in any other venue other than a philosophy course would be anathema. Giving it equal billing with evolutionary biology, or even high school biology, is granting it more legitimacy than it has earned. By all means teach controversies and point up the gaps in scientific knowledge, but don't permit religous dogma or the supernatural to intrude into science class."
--I agree.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-03-2002]