Teaching the Truth in Schools

thank you for making the distinction btwn religion and science. creationists and those creationists that are now hiding behind the intelligent design banner should realize that the theories associated with the theory of evolution are great examples of scientific research. more later...1-science is defined as a system of exploring the natural universe through data collected by observation, experimentation, and peer verification. You use natural laws to explain natural phenomena.2-science limits itself to things that can be observed, measured or detected.3-theories, like the theory of common descent and the cell theory, are explanations of several phenomena that are supported by many hypotheses that have been tested many times.4-hypotheses are testable ideas based on empirical observations.a few things we should notice:1-science explains NATURAL phenomena in the NATURAL universe that is guided by NATURAL laws. religion deals with the supernatural. of course, people can still argue that there are natural explanations as well as and alongside supernatural explanations for occurences in the bible. of course, the same could be said of any book that intertwines reality with fantasy. however, i wouldn't advocate using those fantasy books in science classes or as guides to how to treat antibiotic-resistant bacteria.2-science limits itself to those things that can be detected. many hypotheses support the big bang theory without being able to show what happened exactly at the big bang. how do we know? no one was there so all you are doing is speculating! o--kay, but the Hubble expansion and cosmic microwave background radiation that we can detect could only result from a universe expanding from an incredibly dense and hot ball about 15 billion years ago. whatever happened before the big bang is up in the air. some people say that god started the universe via the big bang. i see no problem with that. but to say that a god spoke and created planets and suns and whatever in six 24 hour days is ridiculous and not supported by the evidence.3-theories are grand in scale and encompass many hypotheses. the same techniques and the same logic uphold the theories associated with evolution as well as they hold up the cell theory or the germ theory of disease. the last two theories are easily accepted by everyone who hears them. it would be ludicrous to assert that new living things appear through spontaneous generation. look at mitosis or meiosis under a microscope if you don't believe me. it is the same with evolution. after looking at the fossil record and the transitional forms presented in it, it is absurd to think that evolution did not occur. [i know, i know, creationists will say that there are no transitional forms, but don't buy it. look for yourselves at the horse series and the whale series. besides, even after looking at archaeopteryx, creationists say it is either fully a bird or fully a reptile and then demand another transitional fossil. a reptile with feathers and wings and a beak containing teeth is not transitional!?! oh well, some people still don't believe the theory of plate tectonics, even when an earthquake hits!!!]4-when we say a hypothesis is testable, it also means that it is falsifiable--we can come up with an outcome that would falsify our hypothesis. the same is true for theories and parts of theories as well. if anyone could find the remains of a person besides those of a dinosaur (or any tertiary fossil within creataceous rock) then evolution could be falsified. guess what!?! we don't find that people once lived alongside dinosaurs. in texas, some people claim that worn out or vandalized (yes, some of the dino tracks were altered with chisels) dino footprints were actually human footprints. and get this, these footprints show a giant man walking beside a dinosaur! this stuff might be fun in the town of bedrock, but sooner or later reality has to kick in.sorry if this sounded like a lesson, but this is, after all, about education. creationism does not deserve equal time with evolution in the classroom b/c creationism cannot even satisfy the basic requirements of science. on the other hand, evolution (or better yet, all of the theories that fall under the umbrella of evolution) is one of the best examples of scientific endevour in modern times. for the past 150 years or so, no one has been able to falsify evolution. and it is not like anyone doesn't try. science is not pleasant and may seem uncaring and unfair, but that is the only way the objective truth comes out. knocking off a theory such as evolution would be the crowning achievement of anyone's career. however, no one has been able to refute evolution from within all the scientific fields, so how seriously should we take a book of myths and the preachers who wield them clumsily, trying to slay the monster of naturalism (which, by definition, is all that science can deal with) and atheistic evolution! by the way, evolution doesn't make any supernatural claims. it cannot. it is science not religion. creationism however relies on borrowed myths and archaic laws and rituals.just a science teacher's perspective...[This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-12-2004][This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-12-2004]

i don't think i saw anything in your post saying that evolution is impossible. let us forgive the uninformed notions of a ninth grade student. i teach 123 ninth graders every day and lets just say that their minds change quite often. they are at a different level of learning and their minds are still developing.i just hope that our youngster realizes the dangers of placing a book of subjective beliefs, myths and rituals in a science class. if i teach that you can decide which is better science (meaning better to you and your brainwashing family/community/etc.)--evolution or creationism--i am committing the greatest sin of all--lying to my students.the fact of the matter is that science has to stay objective b/c that is the only way we can say "hey, this is why those bacteria are unresponsive to our strongest antibiotics" or "hey, if this nitrogen base fails to attach during transcription i am going to produce an errant protein that will now label my cells as foreign so now they will be attacked by my own immune system so this is how we can go in and use gene therapy to try to fix this..." and the list goes on.try and use the bible to cure aids or cancer or lukemia or cystic fibrosis, etc. don't be the woman who let her child choke to death on a piece of banana while she stood by and prayed for god to forgive her sins and save her child. place biblical lore on the same level with well-tested scientific theories and we will all be choking on bananas.[This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-15-2004][This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-15-2004]

thanks for the reply. sorry i didn't get your abiogenesis thing with pasteur. i guess i wasn't thinking about that way. pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. several hypotheses about what happened prior to abiogenesis are well supported, although there is no real consensus on where it occurred. we have fossilized amino acids in meteorites! anyway, there are so many ways, different recipes if you will, that show how we can produce organic macromolecules from inorganic substances. the only thing i can find on abiogenesis are that fossilized protocells (if they are actually protocells and not cellular left-overs) look incredibly similar to those created in the lab. in time, though, these questions will most likely be answered.now, i would like to assure everyone that i try my best to instill critical thinking skills into my students. i also spend the first two weeks of every school year going over the nature of science and psuedoscience. i take great care so as not to offend any of the christians in the county i work in (which would be everyone except me and my dog!) by saying that science limits itself to nature and natural phenomena and is not equiped to answer questions concerning anyone's faith. however, if i am asked about specifics, like the biblical flood story or adam and eve, i have to answer scientifically--sorry, no evidence for either myth, or for that matter, almost all of the OT. and a lot of the NT. show me the evidence. and just like you said ian, arguments from authority mean squat! maybe that's why my students don't listen to me!?![This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-16-2004]

phatboy-- thank you for understanding the differences between religion and science. it is not often that i read comments from people who can see that science deals with one thing while religion deals with another. both are vital to our society and culture and satisfy different needs that we all have. i base my assertion that the bible is myth on the mythological accounts of other influential cultures in the eastern med and middle east at the time the OT was composed. for example, the flood story is almost identical to the flood story from the epic of gilgamesh and the commandments and laws of the bible are an obvious adaptation or clear assimilation of hammurabi's code. other OT stories have many parallels and identical story lines to other babylonian myths, as well as the myths of the persians and egyptians.fantasy is an escape from reality. in fantasies, people can feel empowered to change any aspect of an oftentimes hostile and unforgiving reality. for example, many people fear death. believing we will go to a better place, or any place at all, after we die soothes the anxiety we feel about death.

good point. i would rather have the future doctors and technicians of tomorrow being trained by experts in their own fields. if i am ever on the operating table, i would be fine with my surgeon praying before he operates as long as he knows what to do based on anotomy, physiology, biotechnology, etc.as a biology teacher, i would resist any efforts to force me into turning out witch doctors and shamans instead of well educated young adults who can think critically and evaluate reality.