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]

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
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.

​

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.

---

JM: 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.CheersJoe Meert

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.

"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]

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

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.

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

Moose!,Awesome, you know I am enamored with the Precambrian! What are you going to look at in Wisconsin, the Baraboo? I am going to do some field work this summer in Missouri (St. Francois Mountains) continuing some work that is coming out in Tectonics (in print and cover photo!, electronic is published). Anyway, I love teaching Precambrian as well.
As for the main topic, here's the rub. Creationism sounds good to those with a passing knowledge of science. I doubt that high school and middle school students have the necessary skills to distinguish some of the finer points. No doubt, some students could do it, but I don't think they have developed a good enough understanding of basic science (trust me, I've judged a number of science fairs).CheersJoe MeertPS: Are you going to do graduate work?

​

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

​

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

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]

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.

"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.------------------

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).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:1. A creator of some type exists. In creationism, this is generally some form of diety. Creation "scientists" often try and obfuscate the identity of the creator by calling it a Designer, or whatever. 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.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.Since science, by definition, cannot comment on supernatural phenomena, creation science is an oxymoron. 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.Separating Religious Fundamentalist "Science" from Science[/URL], by Tim Berra. Directly related to Moose's OP, here's a quote from the article:

quote:

---

Religious fundamentalists want us to believe that the evolution/creation debate is ostensibly about science for they have a great deal at stake. The goals of "creation science" have far more to do with religion, politics, law, and education than science. To whatever extent the scientific trappings of "creation science" are accorded credence by the schools or by the courts, much will suffer: freedom of thought; an informed, open minded American public; the vitality of science and technology; and the fate of our society in an increasingly competitive, increasingly educated world.

---

I LIKE this guy.

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-30-2002]