Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 226 of 245 (166776)
12-09-2004 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by MiguelG
12-09-2004 10:10 PM


T o p i c !
I'm afraid that all that is getting rather off topic.
In addition, d yankee, after bragging about a knowledge of science didn't seem to be able to actually support anything he had to say. You'll probably not be hearing from him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by MiguelG, posted 12-09-2004 10:10 PM MiguelG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by MiguelG, posted 12-09-2004 10:45 PM AdminNosy has replied

  
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 1976 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


Message 227 of 245 (166778)
12-09-2004 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by AdminNosy
12-09-2004 10:43 PM


Ah well - my apologies
...for straying from the topic somewhat.
From what I've seen from my lurker's viewpoint I would tend to agree with your summation.
Cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by AdminNosy, posted 12-09-2004 10:43 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by AdminNosy, posted 12-09-2004 10:46 PM MiguelG has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 228 of 245 (166779)
12-09-2004 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by MiguelG
12-09-2004 10:45 PM


Well don't apologize
Just stop lurking and start posting!!!
That was, other than topic, a good post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by MiguelG, posted 12-09-2004 10:45 PM MiguelG has not replied

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 245 (167245)
12-11-2004 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by d_yankee
12-01-2004 7:50 PM


Creationist predictions?
d_yankee's assertions are not backed by evidence, and at least some of these assertions are simply false. Clearly d_yankee is just spewing without thinking. Even Pope John Paul II said, "faith can never conflict with reason," and has endorsed evolution.
1) Unlike d_yankee, I can provide some data: For scientists as a whole, most are indeed atheists (see Nature 386 (1997):435-436) and atheism is growing (53% in 1914 to 72% in 1998); however, the number of agnostic scientists remains the same between 1914 and 1998 (21%). I have not found data on evolutionists per se. There are no data I could find about any evolutionists who have "swayed" over to ID, and I challenge d_yankee to provide such data.
In any case, the point is that evolutionism in no way asserts an atheistic position. Atheism is a faith-based position that has nothing to do with science per se. This is an important point to bring up in classrooms, because most students (like d_yankee) do not understand how to derive predictions from hypotheses or how to distinguish between hypotheses that make predictions and those that don't.
2a) Strange that d_yankee of all people should associate orogeny with "fountains of the great deep". Clearly this is an interpretation and NOT a literal reading of biblical scripture. Although they rhyme, "fountains" and "mountains" are not the same thing. So either d_yankee violates his/her own adherence to literal fundamentalism or does not know how to distinguish between words that begin with "f" from those that begin with "m". But this is not the point...
In order to use the biblical account in a science classroom, we need to know: What specific prediction about the distribution of molluscs derives from bursting fountains of the great deep? What are the data purported to be consistent with these predictions? How are these data inconsistent with evolutionary predictions? If the data are consistent with both hypotheses, they cannot be distinguished by these data.
2b) Also strange that d_yankee purports to have read many translations of the bible, asserts with no proof that scientists are "biblically retarded", and then fails to understand that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are completely different--and in part conflicting--creation myths. In Genesis 2 (which is likely to have been written earlier than Genesis 1), man is created first from dust, before plants and water appear. Woman is created at the end, after the animals are created and named by Adam. In Genesis 1, water is created (the "vault" as well as the sea) before land is created. (Of course, 3 of the Days occur before the sun is created, but that's beside the point.) Then animals of the sea and then animals of the land are created (days 5 and 6). Man and woman are created LAST.
These two different myths have different purposes: Genesis 1 (composed by priests) explains how order arose from chaos and provides the explanation for a holy sabbath (and also the 7-day week!). Genesis 2 (really a "Just-So Story" weaving together a number of originally independent folk tales, undoubtedly older than the myth of Genesis 1) is focused on humans and explanations for such characteristics of humans as feelings of hostility to snakes, pain of childbirth, subordinate social position of women, obligatiion of men to work, why we wear clothing, etc. More importantly, the latter myth serves to make man realize that the world we live in is more of man's making than God's (who intended humans to live ignorantly and blissfully in Eden). In Genesis 2, God even says that man has now become like him in the capacity to distinguish good from evil. These aspects of the myth place the burden of responsibility for the world's welfare solidly in the hands of humans, not God's.
For the science classroom, we would need to know how these two different myths provide predictions about data that can be collected. For example, on possible prediction is that there should be no clear order to the genetic relationships among species (which, by the way, is just Latin for "kinds", so "species" and "kinds" are synonymous and there must therefore be the same number of species as there are kinds). The rationale is that species or kinds were created independently. The only creation event that must show dependency is that human females must be most closely related to human males, since Eve was cloned from a rib of Adam. (Can cloning thus be unholy?) On the other hand, evolution predicts a very clear, hierarchical order of genetical relationship among all organisms.
My purpose in initiating this discussion topic was to suggest that science educators have largely failed to teach students how science works and how to be critical thinkers. Proof lies in such products of our educational system as d_yankee. Bringing both creationism and evolution into classrooms to compare and contrast them as putative scientific hypotheses is one way to get students thinking again. We cannot continue producing sponges (of either the Horvind or the science variety); we need to produce thinkers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by d_yankee, posted 12-01-2004 7:50 PM d_yankee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2004 9:06 PM David Fitch has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 230 of 245 (167261)
12-11-2004 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by David Fitch
12-11-2004 7:13 PM


Re: Creationist predictions?
David,
I have skipped a lot here, so forgive me if it is covered before. At first I wondered what your real motives were. We shall see.
David Fitch in post #1 writes:
As a university prof. who teaches and does experimental work in evolutionary biology, I am astounded that creationism is not taught alongside evolution in most schools. There are several arguments to support such "balanced" curriculum: ....
(4) By advocating "balanced" presentation, I am NOT advocating "equal time". It would be silly to spend equal time on flat-earth hypotheses as on round-earth ones. But students are crying out for "some time" to be spent on creation, and this is completely OK, as long as we stick to creationist hypotheses that are testable.
and in post #229 writes:
For the science classroom, we would need to know how these two different myths provide predictions about data that can be collected. For example, on possible prediction is that there should be no clear order to the genetic relationships among species (which, by the way, is just Latin for "kinds", so "species" and "kinds" are synonymous and there must therefore be the same number of species as there are kinds). The rationale is that species or kinds were created independently. The only creation event that must show dependency is that human females must be most closely related to human males, since Eve was cloned from a rib of Adam. (Can cloning thus be unholy?) On the other hand, evolution predicts a very clear, hierarchical order of genetical relationship among all organisms.
My purpose in initiating this discussion topic was to suggest that science educators have largely failed to teach students how science works and how to be critical thinkers. Proof lies in such products of our educational system as d_yankee.
The typical answer I have seen to the question of DNA and genetics is that it is evidence of design using similar systems in different applications, a rather weak argument and ultimately untestable.
I have always felt that both creationism (and ID) would fare poorly in school science classes where they are kept to the task of presenting scientific data\information -- and that the amount of time needed to cover their hypothesis would be fairly brief.
To me there would be two aspects to focus on:
(1) What predictions can be made from creationism (or ID) that would need to be true to differentiate it from evolution and how do you test {it\them} to see if they prove out?(as you mention above)
and
(2) Where you cannot differentiate the mechanisms of creation (or ID) from the mechanisms of evolution, what does adding a supernatural aspect to the process do to further our understanding of the process?(the occam's razor part of science)
If you cannot scientifically differentiate the living process of creation from the living process of evolution, and if adding an arbitrary supernatural element does not improve our understanding of the process of life, then there can be no controversy or conflict between the "how" science of understanding the process of life and the "why" faith in an external purpose.
One of the problems however, is that not every school would have a truly scientific forum to hold those classes: it is not a level field of education, and there are many people who, in ignorance, stupidity, maliciousness or insanity will take advantage of the situation to make a dishonest presentation. Call me jaundiced, but I have seen the ability (?) of many teachers fail to be adequate to this question (and others ... ).
I think the country would be better served by putting a major emphasis on the teaching of logic, and how logical arguments are constructed and what the common logical fallacies are that everyone runs into (homework assignments on TV ads would be fun).
For without this basis your program is doomed to be bogged down by failure to understand the logic of the arguments.
I also think that part of the problem is that all public schools are funded locally, and this leads to necessary different ability to teach due to different ability to fund the teaching. Perhaps if High Schools were funded and run on a state rather than a local level and they set standards for the students to meet to be admitted there would be a place for this type of program...
For what it is worth, those are my thoughts on the subject.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by David Fitch, posted 12-11-2004 7:13 PM David Fitch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by jar, posted 12-11-2004 9:27 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 235 by David Fitch, posted 12-12-2004 11:53 AM RAZD has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 231 of 245 (167264)
12-11-2004 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by RAZD
12-11-2004 9:06 PM


Re: Creationist predictions?
The problem I have with teaching Creationism alongside real science is simply one of disruption. Look at what happens here and elsewhere on the WEB. The same exact issues come up time after time after time, and even when they are shot down the proponents usually simply stick their fingers in their ears and sing "La-La-La-La, I can't hear what you're saying".
I don't think that there is anyway that Creationism or ID could ever stand up to a rigorous examination and for that reason I'd love to see them included in all classrooms. Unfortunately, it would simply generate derision. That alone would be extremely disruptive in a junior or senior high classroom setting. When you add in the ever present whatever, Ken, WILLOWTREE or Robert Byers you end up bringing studies to a halt.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2004 9:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2004 9:36 PM jar has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 232 of 245 (167267)
12-11-2004 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by jar
12-11-2004 9:27 PM


Re: Creationist predictions?
oh I agree on that. the problem is that the foundation to understanding is missing -- that is where I go to teaching logic first.
if people do not understand when an argument fails the test of logic there is not much one can do ...
perhaps it is an age\indoctrination thing.
one benefit of the school program though is that they would not have new kids showing up through the year, so you could move on.
I do have trouble with mixing it in to a pure biology class, as this would discriminate against all students that don't believe in creation or don't necessarily have a problem between their beliefs and the science of evolution (most christians?).
perhaps an optional course?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by jar, posted 12-11-2004 9:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by jar, posted 12-11-2004 9:45 PM RAZD has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 233 of 245 (167268)
12-11-2004 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by RAZD
12-11-2004 9:36 PM


Re: Creationist predictions?
one benefit of the school program though is that they would not have new kids showing up through the year, so you could move on.
Depends on the district. In urban schools or those near a military base that's not the case. In those cases turnover and transfers are sporadic all year long.
edited to add spaces between words and an "n"
This message has been edited by jar, 12-11-2004 10:06 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2004 9:36 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2004 11:29 PM jar has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 234 of 245 (167289)
12-11-2004 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by jar
12-11-2004 9:45 PM


Re: Creationist predictions?
yes, but they should also be at a similar level of understanding or they would need to start the class anew.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by jar, posted 12-11-2004 9:45 PM jar has not replied

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 245 (167373)
12-12-2004 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by RAZD
12-11-2004 9:06 PM


Re: Creationist predictions?
Dear RAZD,
you have identified exactly the problem I'm trying to deal with in this forum. And the two points you raise are exactly the questions that need to be addressed in the classroom. Science students need to understand FIRST how science works--what it can and cannot do. You call this "logic", but there is more than just deduction. Students need to be taught about all aspects of critical analysis, where hypotheses might come from, how to derive predictions, data collection and controls, documentation of results, and ethical issues. (We have such a course in our graduate program, but not at the undergraduate level, and I don't know of any high school program that does this.) This needs to happen BEFORE students enter a Biology or Chemistry or Physics or whatever curriculum.
One aspect of the scientific method as it works in real-life research is that multiple hypotheses need to be considered. In fact, one would like ALL possible hypotheses to be distinguishable by predictions that can be tested. Eliminating all hypotheses but one is the best possible "proof" that science has. I am just advocating that the TEACHING of science should be similar to the PROCESS of science. It is more important that students get the problem-solving tools than to sponge "facts" which are likely to be modified in a couple years.
Carrying this philosophy to teaching evolution means to consider how the alternative hypotheses are falsfied--and IF they can be falsified. Obviously, a hypothesis needs to be rejected from scientific consideration if it cannot be falsified (e.g., because it makes no prediction--"we can't know the mind of the creator"--or because it makes predictions that cannot be tested by material evidence--"the soul is refractive to material verification"). But ID theorists maintain that ID creationism is testable by material means, and Darwin also allowed that creationist dogma of his day made predictions about patterns of biological variation. Such predictions ARE testable and have already been well tested and falsified. Exactly because the STUDENTS themselves want to understand, we should be bringing these data and ideas into the classroom.
Of course, we need to be sensitive to the issues you and others have raised: (1) Religion is an important institution that need not be eliminated by evolution (although creationists themselves are the ones who pose this danger). (2) Teachers need to be brought up to speed with respect to science itself; this can only be done through education, as future teachers are students now. I don't expect it to be done overnight. But we do need to start combatting the "Wedge" strategy of the IDists, and it has to begin somewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2004 9:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2004 1:00 PM David Fitch has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 236 of 245 (167380)
12-12-2004 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by David Fitch
12-12-2004 11:53 AM


Re: Creationist predictions?
my biggest concern is that this would seem to be pandering to one religion.
if you open it up to muslim creationism and jewish creationism (which are similar to christian) and to hindu creationism (which is not ... they don't think the scientific age of the universe is old enough ...) and all other faith creationisms even if they don't have a political arm (native american, japanese, heck, even norse) you get a wonderful class on faith in science, but you lose a lot of space for the biological science.
and when you lose time for the science then you lose the opportunity to do the actual learning involved.
therefore it would have to be a generic creationism to work at all .. a GC (or General Creationism). and it would have to be a "what if religion were true" approach ... a boldly stated agnostic position.
and as long as no specific religion was refered to (or no aspect specific to a small group of religions even) in the process then I don't think there would be any constitutional issue.
but one of the biggest problems I have with education is the archaic pattern that has developed of local financing, and this results in many cases in teachers of classes not being educated that well in the subjects they are teaching: history majors teaching science may be good for learning about the history of science, but if the teacher doesn't know the science it is hard to envisage how they could teach it to the kids.
I think there needs to be a change, and that high schools if not middle schools should be run by the state so that they can ensure a state-wide level of competence. Let the localities run the kindergarten and elementary schools and have standards that must be met to go to high school set by the state.
I have also thought that the last two years of high school could be removed from that program and combined into a community college with an associates degree at the end that also serves to eliminate freshman year at the universities (like AP classes can now): let those who want to go to these institutions do so at state cost (free to the student), but don't require it of those who don't want an advanced education (get the deadwood out of the system so the others can learn) and let the colleges focus on different areas of interest.
Combine the remaining years of high school with middle school in a state run program, and you can also have focus schools for different interests (music & arts, engineering & sciences, general humanities, etc)
Michigan is moving towards state control of high schools, but unless it is done whole hog it won't work.
Well, there is another 'lyin leftist liberal' rant ... heh
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by David Fitch, posted 12-12-2004 11:53 AM David Fitch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-14-2004 2:14 PM RAZD has replied

  
PerfectDeath
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 245 (167434)
12-12-2004 4:36 PM


one of the main problems you will find with throwing in creationism into biology is that you are going to have biasis... currently i am in phsycology 11 in my last year of high school and my phsyc teacher biased the crap out of the lessons... for instance when she talked about evolutionary phsycology she just said all they belive in is "food, sex, sleep" and the she goes to say in a comforting tone "now maslow...(describes maslows hiearchy of needs in great detail)"
if that happenes in my prescious biology 12 class i'd go nuts O_o because i live in a small hick town that 80-90% are christian... when evolution comes up they only retain the information long enough to pass the tests rather than see the point. also in phsycology 11 my teacher kept telling the class to be "critical thinkers" and then she doesn't even let room for debate or oppinions... so she's teaching us to be critical thinkers and when you do she doesn't want you to. same would happen with creation in biology.
i see your point and i firmly belive that hypothesis and theories should have opposition... but if you cannot shoot down your opposition then no progress will be made. the theory of evolution can almost become a Law but there are BILLIONS of people in the world who literaly belive in the bible, koran... and other books promoting creationism. and you can't prove their religions wrong because if you do the go "LALALALALALA can't hear you"
if creationism was in my biology class I would have to defend my belifes agains 90% of my class and one of thouse students is a bible thumping radical who has no problem thinking homosexuality is a mutation.
i'd be a friggin nightmare >_< and i would get crusified.

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by David Fitch, posted 12-12-2004 6:39 PM PerfectDeath has replied

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 245 (167476)
12-12-2004 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by PerfectDeath
12-12-2004 4:36 PM


crucifixion
Sounds like they still haven't taught science in your school...i.e., how science works.
Don't feel bad, though. If they crucify you for exercising your freedom to think, you might remind them that they are behaving like the Romans to your Christ.
One thing to derive from Christ's actions might be that we should speak up if something is unjust or not right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by PerfectDeath, posted 12-12-2004 4:36 PM PerfectDeath has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-14-2004 2:17 PM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 242 by PerfectDeath, posted 12-20-2004 3:18 AM David Fitch has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 239 of 245 (168131)
12-14-2004 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by RAZD
12-12-2004 1:00 PM


Re: Creationist predictions?
Hey Razd
I have also thought that the last two years of high school could be removed from that program and combined into a community college with an associates degree at the end that also serves to eliminate freshman year at the universities (like AP classes can now): let those who want to go to these institutions do so at state cost (free to the student), but don't require it of those who don't want an advanced education (get the deadwood out of the system so the others can learn) and let the colleges focus on different areas of interest.
There is a place where this is exactly the way it works. It's called England.
I would estimate that about 50% of students leave school at age 16 while the rest go on into local colleges or stay on at school for an optional two years extra.
During this 2 years they gain the entry requirements for University where there is NO freshman year. Therefore university typically lasts 3 years instead of 4.
Trouble is that in England they still haven't managed to teach students what science actually is. Just like over here.
I definitely agree that kids need to be taught how to think before they are dumped into a class to be bombarded with a load of "facts" which they have to remember just long enough to pass the exams.
I can also see the benefits of comparing creationism to evolution with respect to predictions etc. but you are right in that it would detract from the real science class.
Tricky dilemna
PY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2004 1:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2004 11:11 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 240 of 245 (168133)
12-14-2004 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by David Fitch
12-12-2004 6:39 PM


Re: crucifixion
David Fitch writes:
Sounds like they still haven't taught science in your school...i.e., how science works.
have they taught it in any schools? I haven't come across one yet.
PY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by David Fitch, posted 12-12-2004 6:39 PM David Fitch has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024