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.-----
Added by edit on 4/28/02: I have just discovered that this topic seemingly duplicates a pre-existing topic - Mr. Pamboli's "Teaching evolution in the context of science" at http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=21&t=1&p=3 . As I type this, those pages seem to be missing, but I assume they will be restored. If so, perhaps this topic should be closed, and the line of discussion be moved to Mr. Pamboli's topic. We shall see what happens. --- Moose
-----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.What will happen?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.What the fundimentalist perspective thinks would have been a good thing for them, may turn out to be the greatest blow to Christianity, ever.I think religion should (for it's own good), leave science alone, and science will leave religion alone.I gotta go to bed.Regards,
Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Hi Moose!

​

Did you really mean to post this in the Great Debate? I know this forum used to be the primary discussion forum here, but I've decided to make it the forum for formal debate between two people taking turns. The debate itself would have a time limit (number of exchanges), would be moderated, and would be judged at the conclusion. I haven't been promoting this yet as I'm a bit busy with technical matters concerning the website.

​

Should I move this to the Education and Creationism/Evolution forum?

​

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

---

I didn't know your intent for "The Great Debate", and I was unaware that the "Education and Creationism/Evolution" forum even existed. That new forum looks to be the place for this topic - Move away!Will e-mail you also.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Joe Meert (from message 3):

quote:

---

Wish I was going! A few thoughts. The first is that creationists argue for 'equal time' as if science operated that way. Equal time is given to good science and bad science is rejected. The problem is that creationists (for all their rhetoric) would not stop with equal time because it would require equal time for Hindu stories, Islamic stories etc. Soon, they would try to eliminate all competitors. The small censorship you see at places like Terry's would come to dominate education. The generation stuck in the creationist rut would fall so far behind in a rapidly advancing scientific and technological society, that our strength in those areas would be undermined. 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.

---

-----First, let me try to set some ground rules for this discussion of a hypothetical situation.1) Any constitutional impediments are set aside.2) The conflict is between science and fundimentalist (or near fundimentalist) Christian creationism. Other religions or varities or Christianity need not be involved.3) The fundimentalist view need not get equal time; They get the time they need to present their science (and I here deliberatly don't put quotes around science). --- AND --- Mainstream science is presented in it's full form, not some variation that has been "watered down" to molify the fundimentalist perspective. In other words, both sides get to present all their science.4) Put the creationist science into the same classes as the mainstream science. Let creationist biology go up directly against mainstream biology. Same for physics, geology, and wherever else the creationist wish to interject their science.-----Now let mainstream and creationist science battle it out. What will happen? Will the creationist side even be able to come up with a creationist science curriculum?-----(And as a side question, will Kent Hovland get widespread exposure, to display his wonderful ideas? --- In the present system, is he not largely having his success by preaching to the choir?)-----Quick geology field trip side note: The trip was a one-dayer, lead by Dr. Richard Ojakangas, of the University of Minnesota, Duluth. He is retiring this year. The trip was part of the Precambrian Geology class (of which I am sitting in), and was to give a quick overview of the Archean and Early Proterozoic of northern Minnesota. Next weekend - northern Wisconsin and Michigan. Will try to post some field trip details, somewhere.Mooseps: composed on WordPad, which doesn't have spellcheck. My Word is on the other computer.------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Mr. Pamboli - My apologies for seemingly cutting into the territory of your pre-existing topic, "Teaching evolution in the context of science". I had lost all track that such a topic existed.I have tried to access your topic, and get nothing but blank pages. I have e-mailed Percy, to point out this problem.MooseAdded by edit, later 4/28/02: Percy has restored Mr. Pamboli's topic, and my memory is now refreshed, in that that topic degenerated into quips about rugby. I guess we'll keep this (here) topic going --- Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-28-2002]

The essence of my intent for this topic, is to propose that "creation science" be killed off by giving it the exposure it apparently desires. This could be in the classroom, or in some other prominent public forum. I think that, given this great exposure, "creation science" will be exposed as the scientificly empty concept it is.I am also posting relevent material in the "What is a scientific theory of creation" topic, at:
http://EvC Forum: what is a scientific theory of creation -->EvC Forum: what is a scientific theory of creationMoose2/7/04 edit - Corrected bad link - Fortunately I had Adminnemooseus handy, to open the topic for me - Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-30-2002][This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 02-07-2004]

Extracted from message 13266 of the Yahoo Group site:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionversuscreationism/message/13266thesower9 said:

quote:

---

Perhaps I am wrong here, but I would like to see creationism given
time in a science class. In my mind, this issue will not go away
until creation science is confronted head on in the science class.
This would force the CS movement to develop a theory of their own, no
more sitting on the sidelines and lobbing assaults against our gaps
in evolutionary knowledge. They must then provide the positive
supporting evidence and potential falsifications.

​

Since we know they cannot do any of the above, they will have to tuck
tail and run. But the key here, is that they will have to admit to
their followers and the rest of the world, that they failed. Up to
now, science has been on the defensive with claims of bias, atheism,
etc. So my solution is to say loud and clear, COME ON DOWN!

​

I know Lenny feels we should not give these people a forum, and I
agree that the debate forums are worthless, but I think by saying NO
outright (which is the logical answer to this) we need to force them
to confront the issues, rather than allowing them to be martyr's for
their cause. Being martyrs only enhances their authority with the
faithful. I remember being in South Carolina in 1983, and watching
Jim Baker claim the government was coming to shut down his ministry
and remove his god from America. Rev. Jim the martyr for Jesus! The
faithful, fearing the worst, would send in millions to save their
god. By exposing Baker as a fraud, most of the faithful and their
dollars disappeared.

---

Extracted from the reply (message 13267):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionversuscreationism/message/13267Suttkus said:

quote:

---

In a perfect world, it would. In this world, it would just open the
door to the many creationist teachers to start their lectures on
evolution with "Evolution violates 2LoT so is impossible, while
anything's possible for God. All the evidence points to
creationism. If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"
followed by the standard list of ICR and AIG accepted "evidence" like
fossil fingers and squashed trillobites.

​

Most public school science teachers, I'm sorry to say, just don't
know enough about what they're teaching. I had a few well read
science teachers in school, but most of them really didn't have a
clue. I simply don't feel that the man who told me that compasses
point backwards in the southern hemisphere and that "nobody knows how
the constellations formed" is going to be able to explain what's
wrong with creationism in a classroom.

---

Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Quoting myself (message 16):

quote:

---

The essence of my intent for this topic, is to propose that "creation science" be killed off by giving it the exposure it apparently desires. This could be in the classroom, or in some other prominent public forum. I think that, given this great exposure, "creation science" will be exposed as the scientificly empty concept it is.

---

Brads responce (message 34):

quote:

---

Moose, as you probably already know I hold an opinion in opposition to this if i understand you correctly. But we would both be showing our hands before the "game over" sign. For if creations are allowed to be let pass and stoped by consensus you have allowed to be named then...

---

OK, amazingly enough, I think I may follow you, up to the "...". You are opposed to exposing the weaknesses of "creation science", by allowing it wide exposure in the context of the science classroom, or some other public forum (ie mainstream newspapers?).

quote:

---

...I would have had my way by way of analogy to Newton on what homology could become that even the professional scientists on TAXACOM could not get beyond the impossible nature of of. I was thinking that NEON would be that public forum but now I think that indeed creationism will go rather private should the indivudal nature of development continue with the message of Lewontin's triple helix to recieve no support. It can not be that my mother and her generation that believes it understood something from "nature vs nurutre" will outlive my generation generally in time though we do indeed share much the same space/ground. I allways hope it will not come to me proposing to get into outer space to accomplish my biological maturity but age was not enough to grant be biological father status. A little too personal but true.

---

Now you have lost me. Would you care to express an opinion in a form that someone can actually understand?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

A portion of my message 9, of the topic, to (perhaps?) guide things more back on topic:

quote:

---

First, let me try to set some ground rules for this discussion of a hypothetical situation.

​

1) Any constitutional impediments are set aside.

​

2) The conflict is between science and fundimentalist (or near fundimentalist) Christian creationism. Other religions or varities or Christianity need not be involved.

​

3) The fundimentalist view need not get equal time; They get the time they need to present their science (and I here deliberatly don't put quotes around science). --- AND --- Mainstream science is presented in it's full form, not some variation that has been "watered down" to molify the fundimentalist perspective. In other words, both sides get to present all their science.

​

4) Put the creationist science into the same classes as the mainstream science. Let creationist biology go up directly against mainstream biology. Same for physics, geology, and wherever else the creationist wish to interject their science.

​

-----

​

Now let mainstream and creationist science battle it out. What will happen? Will the creationist side even be able to come up with a creationist science curriculum?

​

-----

​

(And as a side question, will Kent Hovland get widespread exposure, to display his wonderful ideas? --- In the present system, is he not largely having his success by preaching to the choir?)

---

So, I ask again, how well will creation science hold up, to the scrutiny of widespread exposure?Moose[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-13-2002]

quote:

---

I did enjoy the website.

---

Their theory of creation (http://www.trueorigins.org/creatheory.asp) is indeed relevant to the topic here. The question is, how strong is their theory?I have also recently started a topic, specific to the above sited page. It is "Trueorigins Theory of Creation", in the "Is It Science" forum. It can be found at http://EvC Forum: Trueorigins Theory of Creation -->EvC Forum: Trueorigins Theory of Creation .Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe