Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 164 (8129 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-01-2014 5:00 PM
79 online now:
Coyote, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ramoss (4 members, 75 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Colbard
Upcoming Birthdays: Omnivorous
Post Volume:
Total: 735,093 Year: 20,934/28,606 Month: 21/1,410 Week: 39/275 Day: 21/18 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Government in the US is Promoting Anti-Creationist Dogma Evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 13122
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1 of 35 (6)
12-30-2000 8:38 PM


I've opened this topic to transition it from the old club to the new, now take it away!

--Percy


  
gene90
Member (Idle past 237 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 2 of 35 (9)
01-01-2001 12:03 PM


Exactly where is this 'anti-creationist dogma' to be found in science curricula? Wouldn't it be unlikely to be taught when science is supposed to be neutral to the existance or non-existance of a supreme being?

Also, what exactly is the meaning of the word "Creationist"? Normally we take this to mean anti-evolutionist, however there are many theistic evolutionists, those people who believe in divine creation by gradual evolution. If these are to be included under Creationists, how can simply teaching evolution be labeled as 'anti-Creationist'?

[This message has been edited by gene90 (edited 01-01-2001).]


corey
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 35 (15)
01-02-2001 10:50 AM


Hope the everyone from yahoo will join up over here soon. It's been several days since I posted anything, and I am sure this has already been said, but just for grins, lets say it again.

There is NO anti-creationism in public school science classrooms. IMO, high school science classrooms are no place to present bad science, even as a demonstration that some people think it happened a certain way. The average student in a high school/junior high biology class doesn't have the background to make the distinction between good and bad science. Additionally, the teachers don't have the time to waste teaching a "theory" that has no supporting evidence and is based on a book whose credentials are questionable when looked at objectively.

This begs the question, is there a place to teach creationism? I say possibly. I personally would like to have taken a class either on creationism or pseudoscience in general in COLLEGE, when I was starting to develop the intellectual fortitude to really look at the issues and in a format where the teacher had time to delve deeper into them.

However, in a public school classroom, it has no place. As I said, aside from the obvious violation of the establishment clause since it is state sanctioning of a religious doctrine, teachers don't have the time to go into it deep enough for the students to get a clear understanding of all the issues involved and the students don't have enough background knowledge to preclude a lengthy lead-in discussion.

Hope to see everyone on here soon.

Corey

------------------
"Physics is like sex, sometimes you get practical results, but that is not why we do it." R.P. Feynma


Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by tgamble, posted 08-10-2001 12:19 PM corey has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Eva, posted 08-11-2001 8:01 PM corey has not yet responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 237 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 4 of 35 (16)
01-02-2001 5:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by corey:
The average student in a high school/junior high biology class doesn't have the background to make the distinction between good and bad science.

For one who has seen a highschool senior confront a teacher for teaching something as outlandish as plate tectonics, that comment has particular weight. In fact, I think a substantial number of people, including adults, in the general population never make that distinction. The popularity of even obviously commercial pseudosciences
today demonstrates that vividly.

By the way, earlier I tried to reply to this string but got a DNS error. One benefit of this format is that after hitting the 'back' button, the browser usually remembers what was typed.


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by bellerophon, posted 07-30-2001 7:29 PM gene90 has not yet responded

bellerophon
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 35 (259)
07-30-2001 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by gene90
01-02-2001 5:09 PM


Hi

I have stumbled upon this site and it looks very interesting (and yes there will be spelling mistakes) It looks like a fun place and I will be going deeper soon, just getting my feet wet.

I would like to speak if I may from the Australian perspective. Up until recently we really have not had the debates in the Australian School systems that have plagued you Americans. Creationism or YEC has not been taught at all, this seems to be changing. Why I do not know, but it is troubling. A previous poster is correct in stating why should it be taught in Science, when there is no Science to back it up?

How did I do lol


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by gene90, posted 01-02-2001 5:09 PM gene90 has not yet responded

tgamble
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 35 (278)
08-10-2001 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by corey
01-02-2001 10:50 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by corey:
[B]There is NO anti-creationism in public school science classrooms.[/QUOTE]

Merely not teaching it and teaching evolution only is considered anti creationism.

quote:
IMO, high school science classrooms are no place to present bad science, even as a demonstration that some people think it happened a certain way.

I think that would be a valuable part of the class.

[QUOTE]The average student in a high school/junior high biology class doesn't have the background to make the distinction between good and bad science.

I doubt they'd have any trouble figuring it out with creationism. It's pretty obvious. In any case, learning to distinguish between the two should be a part of the teaching. If not, the students are going to be vulnerable to creationist dogma and misinformation.

quote:
Additionally, the teachers don't have the time to waste teaching a "theory" that has no supporting evidence and is based on a book whose credentials are questionable when looked at objectively.

True, but there's nothing to teach anyway. Creationism consists of little more than attacking science. Those attacks should be exposed for what they are.

quote:
I personally would like to have taken a class either on creationism or pseudoscience in general in COLLEGE, when I was starting to develop the intellectual fortitude to really look at the issues and in a format where the teacher had time to delve deeper into them.

Good point. Through most of creationism is pretty shallow anyway. Their objections are easilly refuted.

quote:
However, in a public school classroom, it has no place. As I said, aside from the obvious violation of the establishment clause since it is state sanctioning of a religious doctrine,

Countering creationist objections to standard science (ie. radiometric dating is flawed) is not a violation of the 1st amendemnt. There's no reason to mention or involve religion. "The earth is young because the oldest tree is 4000 years old" is not a religious statement, just an ignorant one.

quote:
teachers don't have the time to go into it deep enough for the students to get a clear understanding of all the issues involved and the students don't have enough background knowledge to preclude a lengthy lead-in discussion.

No need for that, just briefly counter creationist objections. "No transitional fossils" can be countered with a discussion of what is meant by one and giving examples. That would be done anyway.

Common ojections against evolution are bound to come up and if they do, they shouldn't be dismissed but addressed with facts and logic.

It's still teaching science. What's more, it's teaching science and critical thinking. That's hardly objectionable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by corey, posted 01-02-2001 10:50 AM corey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 08-11-2001 9:31 AM tgamble has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 13122
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 8 of 35 (301)
08-11-2001 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by tgamble
08-10-2001 12:19 PM


I'm curious how much people still perceive Creationism as a threat to public school science education. It seems as if Creationism, at least as publicly expressed on the Internet, has undergone a seachange away from strict literalism and toward ID.

This may have had the effect of blunting the efforts of organizations like ICR and CRS to promote old-style Creationism through lobbying of school boards. Does it look this way to anyone else?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by tgamble, posted 08-10-2001 12:19 PM tgamble has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 08-11-2001 10:49 AM Percy has responded
 Message 10 by tgamble, posted 08-11-2001 12:26 PM Percy has responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 35 (302)
08-11-2001 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
08-11-2001 9:31 AM


Percipient:
I'm curious how much people still perceive Creationism as a threat to public school science education.

John Paul:
I am sure there are many that do, judging from some of the other discussion boards I have visited. The main problem being "Creationism" is being all lumped into one group. There doesn't seem to be separate theories from the Creationists. YEC is based upon a literal interpretation of Genesis, with the age of the Earth determined by the genealogy contained therein.

But if we look at the Creationists' verison of biological evolution, I posit it is just as scientific as the accepted paradigm. The main differences in the two are the starting points (some unknown population of single celled organisms vs. the "Created Kinds"), the direction (even though the theory of evolution does not speak of a direction, the way it is being applied here implies "simple to complex" vs. variations within the "Kinds) and the extent (unlimited vs. limited). Just as the current theory of evolution doesn't care about abiogenesis or where that first population of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate, came from, the same goes for the Creation version concerning the "Created Kinds". (Baraminology is currently trying to answer the questions pertaining to the Created Kinds.)
Then we have the Creation version of cosmology as peresented by Dr. Russell Humphrys in Starlight and Time which would rival the "big-bang" theory and the solar nebula hypothesis.
I would say there are at least two parts of the Creation account that are at least as "scientific" as there more accepted naturalistic counter-parts.

Percipient:
It seems as if Creationism, at least as publicly expressed on the Internet, has undergone a seachange away from strict literalism and toward ID.

John Paul:
The feeling there is that if schools start teaching ID then teaching the children at home or in church that God is the ID(er) would be much easier. After Watson and Crick made their double-helix discovery circa 1953 the question of ID should have been answered. But here we are some 48 years later still trying to decide whether or not the obvious is "scientific". Go figure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 08-11-2001 9:31 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 08-11-2001 3:10 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 20 by gene90, posted 08-12-2001 10:43 PM John Paul has responded

tgamble
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 35 (304)
08-11-2001 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
08-11-2001 9:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
This may have had the effect of blunting the efforts of organizations like ICR and CRS to promote old-style Creationism through lobbying of school boards. Does it look this way to anyone else?
--Percy

Not really. Witness the kansas incident where they removed a nice chunk of science including evolution and the age of the earth. As well as the Big Bang. Also, more recently in Arkansa a bill was introduced. It was based on the ravings of Kent Hovind and the paranoid delusions of Jack Chick. It would have meant falsely identifying false information and lying to students.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/comic_book_bill.htm

That said, most attempts seem to be in the form of wanting to teach "alternate theories". without mentioning which ones (as if there were any!)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 08-11-2001 9:31 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by John Paul, posted 08-11-2001 1:14 PM tgamble has responded
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 08-11-2001 3:30 PM tgamble has not yet responded

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 35 (305)
08-11-2001 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by tgamble
08-11-2001 12:26 PM


tgamble:
Witness the kansas incident where they removed a nice chunk of science including evolution and the age of the earth. As well as the Big Bang.

John Paul:
The Kansas "incident" was blown out of proportion by the media with help from deceitful evolutionists.

Read this article: Here's the scoop - what's really in the standards!

We should teach our children to be critical thinkers by teaching them there are problemas at the present with the current scientific views of life and the origins thereof. There is more than one possibility of how we got here. To say otherwise would be close-minded and hardly critical.

Soon ID will be in biology textbooks, as it should have been since the 1950s. What will be the complaint then? The old tried and failed "the apparent design is only illusory." bit? Natural selection cannot create or design an original. It can only act on what is already there.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by tgamble, posted 08-11-2001 12:26 PM tgamble has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by tgamble, posted 08-11-2001 5:22 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 24 by lbhandli, posted 08-15-2001 9:53 AM John Paul has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 13122
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 12 of 35 (306)
08-11-2001 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John Paul
08-11-2001 10:49 AM


quote:
John Paul writes:

But if we look at the Creationists' version of biological evolution, I posit it is just as scientific as the accepted paradigm.


What definition of science are you using?

quote:
The main differences in the two are the starting points (...single celled organisms vs. the "Created Kinds"), the direction (..."simple to complex" vs. variations within the "Kinds") and the extent (unlimited vs. limited).

One incorporates revealed knowledge from supernatural sources into theory, the other relies solely upon information gathered from the natural world. Once you open the door to the supernatural don't you have to also admit not only Islam, Hindu and Buddhism, but also ghosts, astrology and pyramid power? What criteria would you apply when deciding which sources of revealed knowledge are acceptable?

--Percy

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-21-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 08-11-2001 10:49 AM John Paul has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 13122
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 13 of 35 (307)
08-11-2001 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by tgamble
08-11-2001 12:26 PM


Kansas is a good example, and I know the YEC movement is still strong. Duane Gish's rolling road show came through a nearby town and few years ago and a local pastor introduced an equal time proposal to their school board. It didn't pass, but what an uproar from the secular side. You'd a thought they were inviting the devil himself into science classrooms.

But what prompted my question is what feels to me like a gradual change in the way Creationism is expressed on the Internet at discussion boards. These used to get a lot of traffic about the depth of lunar dust, the diminishing magnetic field, hydrologic sorting and so forth. You hardly ever see that anymore - it seems to be a pretty heavy ID slant now.

So I'm wondering if all the attention given to ID is having an impact on efforts to move Creationism into public schools. Used to be that conservative school board members had only their own Biblical interpretation to work with, but these days they've likely at least heard of ID, and some may be pretty familiar with it. How receptive would a conservative Christian school board member be to adding YEC to the curriculum when he's at least minimally aware of ID arguments that include an ancient earth and ancienter universe? Same question for state boards of education who formulate textbook standards.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by tgamble, posted 08-11-2001 12:26 PM tgamble has not yet responded

  
tgamble
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 35 (309)
08-11-2001 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by John Paul
08-11-2001 1:14 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b]tgamble:
Witness the kansas incident where they removed a nice chunk of science including evolution and the age of the earth. As well as the Big Bang.

John Paul:
The Kansas "incident" was blown out of proportion by the media with help from deceitful evolutionists. [/QUOTE]

No it wasn't. Evolution, the age of the earth and the Big Bang were eliminated from the science standards.

quote:
Read this article: Here's the scoop - what's really in the standards!

AIG are known for their deception and dishonesty. I couldn't care less what they claim.

http://welcome.to/KansasScienceStandards
The science standars including comparisons.

Read those instead.

quote:
We should teach our children to be critical thinkers by teaching them there are problemas at the present with the current scientific views of life and the origins thereof.

but we shouldn't lie to them. And teaching creationism is lying. Teaching the alleged problems that creationists claim is lying. Legitimate problems should be taught. Imaginary ones should not.

The imaginary problem with the 2nd law is not legit.

The imaginary lack of transitional fossils is not legit.

The alleged problems with dating methods is not legit.

The so called evidence of a young earth is not legit.

when creationism has actual evidence to present, it should be taught. But that isn't going to happen.

quote:
There is more than one possibility of how we got here.

Only one of which is both scientific and supported by evidence. Evolution.

quote:
To say otherwise would be close-minded and hardly critical.

To pretend that religious mythology is equal to science would be dishonest.

quote:
Soon ID will be in biology textbooks, as it should have been since the 1950s.

Not the good ones.

quote:
What will be the complaint then?

The deception of pretending religious dogma and argument from ignorance is science.

quote:
The old tried and failed "the apparent design is only illusory." bit? Natural selection cannot create or design an original. It can only act on what is already there.

Standard creationist claim contrary to direct observation and established fact.

[This message has been edited by tgamble (edited 08-11-2001).]

[This message has been edited by tgamble (edited 08-11-2001).]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by John Paul, posted 08-11-2001 1:14 PM John Paul has not yet responded

Eva
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 35 (311)
08-11-2001 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by corey
01-02-2001 10:50 AM


quote:
Originally posted by corey:

The average student in a high school/junior high biology class doesn't have the background to make the distinction between good and bad science.


I agree; the average student probably doesn't care. The average *person* probably feels s/he has "better" things to worry about. However, one mustn't get one's opinion of all teenagers from MTV. I feel I must defend myself and my fellow involved teenagers. (I debated about whether or not to reveal my youth, fearing that it may be used against me in the future, but I decided to assume the best about everyone here, and I am sure I made the correct decision!)

I, for one, volunteer at a science museum where I help prepare fossils and educate the general public about topics such as evolution. I'd just like people who frequent this board to know that there are teenagers out there who aren't as ignorant as we are usually portrayed. I'm not a scientist but I am generally well-prepared enough to enter into logical debates with creationists and evolutionists alike. And I also am disturbed by people, including teenagers, who believe in direct creation, or anything else, "because."

That said, lovely to meet you all! I look forward to our discussions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by corey, posted 01-02-2001 10:50 AM corey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Redwing, posted 08-14-2001 4:11 PM Eva has not yet responded

Jimmy Higgins
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 35 (313)
08-11-2001 10:02 PM


Evolution v Creation

You know, it is a good point that evolution is taught in public schools and creationism isn't. But are you really sure what that means? When you say that evolution is being taught and not creationism, you really mean evolution is being taught and christian creationism doctrine isn't.

If a public school were to teach christian creationism, wouldn't they be obligated to teach islam creationism, mithra creationism, zorosatristic creationism, buddhist creationism, hindu creationism, far east creationism, etc... I think you get my point. And those are just the ones that exist today.

From a religious point, there are many different stories on creationism. In science, creation seems to have fewer and ultimately evolution is the accepted view.

So please be cautious when you speak. Your language is very misleading. Public schools do not teach religious creationism. However you are only angry because they don't teach your version of creationism.


Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by tgamble, posted 08-11-2001 10:33 PM Jimmy Higgins has not yet responded
 Message 19 by gene90, posted 08-12-2001 10:25 PM Jimmy Higgins has not yet responded

1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014