Could bio-design and rapid geo-column be introduced in science courses?

Significant viewpoints should be represented in science classrooms to the extent they're represented in the technical literature. While we could argue about what level of representation is a sufficient threshold, certainly we could agree that any viewpoint having little or no representation in that literature merits no attention in science class. Since the views you've been presenting here have no presence in the primary literature they merit the same level of representation in science class.Beyond that, they are constitutionally excluded from public school science classrooms here in the states for their obvious religious origins.When any origins related topic comes up in science class there is probably little possibility of avoiding notice of the obvious contradictions with conservative Christian thinking, so why not discuss it in science class? I see no problem in discussing it, probably be one of the most fun days. I only see a problem in teaching it.I am happy to see you posted to wmscott's thread.--Percy

Don't you want to provide an attribution to Dr. Snelling (Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research), whose choice of words seems remarkably similar to your own? --Percy

You began this thread with the argument that your views deserved representation in science class because "the data calls for this", but now you issue a religious appeal:

Tranquility Base writes:

---

I generally agree with you but this is a somewhat special case. Whether you like it or not these areas of science are related to religion via the origin of life issue. Hence we strongly believe, and can argue it, that mainstream science is atheistically biased so that even the most obvious arguements for either design or the flood are treated as automatically naive.

---

You're proposing that we present religious views in science class, views not even shared by your fellow Creationists and not represented in the primary literature. You need to stay focused on views that are supported by evidence.Instead of stating over and over and over again that (sic) "a small group of PhD scientists see a global flood in the data," you should ask yourself why everyone thinks your evidence does not support your conclusions, including your fellow Creationists. If you can't even sway them, how can you expect to persuade us?By the way, about the "atheistically biased" statement, you couldn't be more wrong. Many of us so-called evolutionists believe in God.--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

My 'religious appeal' was nothing of the sort.

---

Really? I don't see too many scientific appeals saying things like "these areas of science are related to religion" and "mainstream science is atheistically biased."

---

We're talking about the orign of life here, not cloud formation!

---

Actually, you mentioned the GC and a biological argument from design, but even if we add the origin of life to your list you still need evidence to qualify as science.

---

Many publishing scientists would say that molecular, cellular and/or organismal data, whether completely conclusive or not, suggests design

---

Many publishing scientists believe in God, double-entry bookkeeping and that a good defense will always beat a good offense, but we don't teach these in science class.You seem to want your views to be held to a lower standard than the rest of science. Why is that? Don't you think the handiwork of God himself is deserving of the most glorious and unambiguous evidence man has ever seen? If there was really a world wide flood a few thousand years ago then you'll find evidence for it.--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Science is not as cut and dry as you think Percy - and I think you know this.

---

I never said science was cut and dried. What's cut and dried is that your conclusions are unsupported by evidence. This is not forced naturalism but just the expected difficulty from trying to shove the square peg of religion into the round hole of science.Science is focused on that for which we have evidence. Where you go wrong is to believe there must be scientific evidence for that which you accept on faith. If faith-based approaches to science had any validity then they would lead Creationists to similar conclusions instead of 4.5 billion year discrepancies. You should set a goal of convincing your own before trying to convince others.

---

Many scientists admit that the complexity of the cell argues for some sort of design in Nature. A significant proportion expect that some intelligent agent was responsible...etc...

---

Just addressing this paragraph, if the context were scientist's religious beliefs then I think you're right that a fair number might go along with this. Though I wouldn't phrase it this way, it's certainly compatible with my own religious stance. But the context is science, and the vast proportion of scientists would reject this as blatantly unscientific because it's unsupported by any evidence.

---

In particular, scientists who believe the data argues for 'Intelligent Design' (ID) have noted that most of life's systems are 'Irreducibly Complex'...

---

The only place Behe has been able to make his ID/IC designs fly is in religious circles. At heart this is an argument from lack of evidence, simply an updated "God of the gaps" approach.--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Obviously one possibility for that is God and that should be stateable in the literature!

---

Science is an evidence-based inductive exercise guided by the scientific method. If through this process you can arrive at the conclusion that "God-did-it" then by all means include it in the primary literature.You have embarcked upon an odd process that requires either people to convert before they can become convinced, or science to change its very nature to include theories not based upon evidence.

---

Can you imagine how bizaree your POV is if God really did create?

---

I already believe "God really did create." I just don't believe any information about how he did it is recorded in any religion's mythic literature. We're going to have to figure that out for ourselves.If a religious approach to understanding science were really valid then it would not lead to the widely conflicting views that reside under the Creationist umbrella. Add to this the origins myths of other religions and you have an extremely broad range of opinion with, for example, the age of the universe ranging from 6000 years to 6 trillion. Evidence from the natural world is all that the various world religions have in common, and it's the only way they'll arrive at consistent answers. We call following the evidence science.--Percy