Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 245 (65137)
11-08-2003 2:27 PM


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:
(1) Science should be taught in a manner consistent to how good science is done. Modern scientific method requires the proposition of alternative hypotheses that make predictions about observable phenomena. It is not enough to present ONE hypothesis because data that are consistent with this hypothesis could well be consistent with other hypotheses as well. (A good example is that natural selection predicts that functional features of organisms will conform to engineering design principles--but this is the same prediction of intelligent design! Thus, conformity to design principles cannot be used to discriminate between evolution and creation.) A major goal of our educational system should be to provide our students with the intellectual tools to solve real problems; the scientific method is just such a powerful tool. (Also, Darwin himself used this method in the Origin, presenting predictions from special creation and Lamarckian transformism that could be distinguished from predictions from descent with modification. Being true to Darwin's presentation thus requires that we talk about special creation as a hypothesis.)
(2) Kids are cyring out to understand what scientists think is wrong with creation and vice versa. Why can't we, as educators, help to satisfy this curiosity? Isn't that what education is all about? Or do we just stifle this natural curiosity and stuff our students with information? Unfortunately, most science classes (like those I suffered throughout school) are just dogmatic littanies of disconnected facts. When students get to graduate school, they are shocked to learn they have to think for themselves. Promoting active discussion and learning in the classroom should be a major goal of education.
(3) Creation is not just some kooky untestable hypothesis cooked up by some bible-thumping radical, it was the major scientific dogma until about 100 years ago. As long as creation is allowed to produce at least some testable hypotheses, it deserves treatment as a hypothesis that can be talked about in a science classroom. For some reason, we are free to bring up Lamarckian transformism as an alternative hypothesis to Darwinian evolution, but shy away from treating intelligent design or special creation as alternative hypotheses. We bring up spontaneous generation as an alternative to Mendelian heredity and terra-centric hypotheses as alternatives to heliocentric hypotheses. Just for the sake of completeness in the history of science that we present to students, we should emphasize the importance of creationist theory in biology. Otherwise it is a biased treatment.
(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. Creationist (as well as adaptationist) hypotheses that are not testable should be left out of the science classroom and perhaps discussed in other kinds of classes (e.g., theological philosophy?).
These are only a few arguments for balanced curricula. Does anyone have additional arguments?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2003 2:35 PM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 11-08-2003 2:40 PM David Fitch has replied
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 11-08-2003 3:27 PM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 11-08-2003 4:09 PM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 11-08-2003 6:33 PM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 22 by Coragyps, posted 11-08-2003 7:10 PM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 31 by edge, posted 11-08-2003 11:03 PM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 11-09-2003 12:12 PM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 59 by Quetzal, posted 11-10-2003 11:09 AM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 11-11-2003 10:19 AM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 78 by FliesOnly, posted 12-18-2003 3:06 PM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 101 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-19-2004 2:48 PM David Fitch has replied

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 245 (65389)
11-09-2003 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
11-08-2003 2:40 PM


Re: yes, teach it
It seems to me the only way that biology teachers will be able to teach well is if they themselves have received good biology training. Part of their biology training should involve understanding (1) how science works by testing predictions (surprisingly few understand this) and (2) what the specific predictions and data are regarding evolution/creation/transformism. Again, that means we have to introduce creation back into the classroom (including the classrooms in which teachers are taught).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 11-08-2003 2:40 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2003 4:44 PM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 41 by Brian, posted 11-09-2003 4:52 PM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 11-09-2003 5:48 PM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 11-09-2003 8:53 PM David Fitch has not replied

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 245 (153268)
10-27-2004 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-19-2004 2:48 PM


Re: Pearls before swine
Hi Stephen,
Of course schools are worse than apprenticeships for learning. That's why graduate school (as well as research mentoring of undergrads) in the sciences is set up mainly as an apprenticeship in a very family-like setting. And just like a family, there is sadness when the kids (students) fly the nest (graduate with a degree and move on). And just like a family, there is opportunity for love and hate, support and abuse.
You have identified the very problem I suggest needs to be solved: the method whereby science is taught. I merely suggest that science should be taught in the same way science is done, and the way apprentices learn their trade--by doing, not just sponging and regurgitating.
Many (not all) creationists (especially Intelligent Designists like Behe) propose that scientific investigation can prove their hypotheses. All evolutionists say so too. Why not bring these (and other) hypotheses into the classroom and let the students themselves learn--in practice--how to use the scientific method to come to their own conclusions.
The role of the teacher in this inquiry-centered approach is to ask questions and spark curiosity, not rant dogma.
As you imply, students these days, particularly in traditional science courses, are not guided or even allowed to think for themselves. So they generally don't know how, and as a result often have very warped views about what science is and is not, what science can and cannot do.
Here's my challenge to you: if you believe that creation or intelligent design is supported by material data that can be collected and analyzed, then (1) what is the theory and what are some testable hypotheses derived from that theory? (2) what are the predictions about collectable data from this theory? (3) what data have you collected that is not only consistent with this theory, but inconsistent with other theories, particularly evolutionary theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-19-2004 2:48 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 245 (153272)
10-27-2004 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Lucifer
10-26-2004 11:41 PM


You are right that many creationist ideas are not testable scientific hypotheses. But there are some creation theories that are testable, not because they propose detailed mechanisms for the process of creation, but because they make clear and testable predictions.
Intelligent Design is one of these latter theories. It is almost identical to the kind of creationist theories upheld by Cuvier, Owen, Geoffroy, and other preDarwinian scientists. It makes clear predictions about the kinds of patterns one expects to see with respect to biogeographic distributions of species, the fossil record, classification, embryology, and comparative morphology (even molecular similarity). Darwin used such predictions to demonstrate that creation was inconsistent with the data. This was much more powerful and convincing than merely showing that decent with modification was consistent with the data.
Other evolutionary hypotheses have been falsified by the same approach, even though a mechanistic basis was not specified. Lamarckian transformism had no material mechanism (just some kind of inner drive, a kind of directed mutational force, but with no underlying mechanism specified). Nevertheless, this hypothesis makes very specific, testable predictions about collectable data.
And if you think all the mechanisms underlying evolution are "explained", then please tell me precisely how mutation occurs. How is a "polymerase error" actually effected? And why do biases occur in the frequencies of particular transitions and transversions? Certainly, the greatest new synthesis in evolutionary biology today is about figuring out the "black box" of translating the genotype into the phenotype via development. If someone knows all the mechanisms of this, please tell me so I can retire!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Lucifer, posted 10-26-2004 11:41 PM Lucifer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-27-2004 3:12 AM David Fitch has replied
 Message 140 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2004 3:29 AM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 143 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2004 2:11 PM David Fitch has not replied

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 245 (153274)
10-27-2004 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by TruthDetector
01-16-2004 9:14 PM


You are confusing bible stories with the creationist movement in America. The Intelligent Designists propose that their theory is scientifically validated. In fact, they use rhetoric to confuse students into thinking that the data support creation.
My point is that students need to understand what constitutes scientific validation with respect to evolution and creation theories so they can use the scientific method to inquire independently. If we cannot bring alternative hypotheses into the classroom, there is no way to demonstrate how the data are actually inconsistent with Intelligent Design, Lamarckism, or other hypotheses that are the alternatives to evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by TruthDetector, posted 01-16-2004 9:14 PM TruthDetector has not replied

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 245 (153275)
10-27-2004 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
11-08-2003 2:40 PM


Re: yes, teach it
Thanks Chiroptera. Sorry to get back a year later! But yes, you are right, and you have identified the main problem.
Nevertheless, the solution must be better education about how science actually works. I can think of no better way to do this than to teach science by involving students directly in the process of science.
A good teachers' guide could also help.
Hopefully, the good teachers can help proliferate the good science and more good teachers. But we gotta start somewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 11-08-2003 2:40 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 245 (153353)
10-27-2004 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Minnemooseus
10-27-2004 3:12 AM


Re: Need a new ID topic?
Has no one in this forum actually read Darwin's "Origin"? I'm surprised that people think ID makes no predictions about patterns of variation. Maybe we do need a new forum on that topic!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-27-2004 3:12 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-24-2004 8:40 PM David Fitch has replied

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 245 (163119)
11-25-2004 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Lithodid-Man
11-24-2004 8:40 PM


Darwin's ID predictions
Dear Lithodid-Man,
I like your logic. You are right with regard to Darwin's explanation of how Natural Selection works, and I apologize for any insults that might have been inferred about people not reading their Darwin. However, I was referring more to Darwin's predictions about patterns of variation that would be predicted given (1) special creation (applicable to ID) or (2) descent with modification (DwM). For example, ID would predict that the most similar environments should harbor the most similar species, regardless of how distant are those environments, whereas DwM predicts that there should be a correlation between proximity and similarity due to common ancestry and migration. It is true that Old World and New World deserts harbor plants with superficially similar adaptations, but cacti are specifically NW and euphorbs are OW, and these are fundamentally very different groups. As another example, Darwin allows that creation would not predict a hierarchical classification, but rather one that groups organisms in constellations. (I think this prediction could be debated, but it is a positive prediction.) There are many such predictions in the last few chapters of the Origin.
Of course, different brands of creationism may not allow any such predictions, arguing that nobody can predict the mind of God. In such cases, the "hypothesis" of creation is untestable and must be disregarded by science. But brands of creationism like "scientific creationism" do allow that predictions can be made about patterns in nature.
Students need to understand how scientific hypothesis-testing works (and why it requires multiple, competing hypotheses to work) AND why some hypotheses are untestable and thus are not considered by science. It is simply my experience that students want to understand these things, that they do not get any chance (in American schools) to think like scientists (too busy taking multiple-guess exams), and that they want to discuss why creationism is inadequate. For these reasons, bringing a discussion of creationism into classrooms is imperative. Ignoring it only adds to ignorance.
Yes, I'm the nematode guy. Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-24-2004 8:40 PM Lithodid-Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by AdminNosy, posted 11-25-2004 3:19 PM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 183 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-26-2004 7:22 PM David Fitch has replied

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 245 (163336)
11-26-2004 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by arachnophilia
11-26-2004 4:24 AM


Let's try to keep on topic!
Could we please try to keep on the topic of the thread instead of exchanging barbs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by arachnophilia, posted 11-26-2004 4:24 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 245 (163487)
11-27-2004 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Lithodid-Man
11-26-2004 7:22 PM


Re: Darwin's ID predictions
Hi Lithodid Man,
Yes to the former. That is, DwM is the only tenable hypothesis when compared to any other hypothesis (including other evolutionary hypotheses, like Lamarckism).
It is not sufficient to show that the data conform to just one hypothesis. The data have to distinguish between alternative hypotheses. If the data turn out to conform to more than one hypothesis, you can't say that the data "support" one hypothesis over the others.
What is missing from many science classrooms is the realization that science does not progress as much by "supporting" hypotheses as by "refuting" them. If you find data that are inconsistent with a hypothesis, you know something about your world. But just finding a datum to "support" one hypothesis says little because there could be other hypotheses not yet tested that are just as consistent with that datum. Thus, experimental (or observational) tests of hypotheses are those that compare data to the different predictions of different ("alternative") hypotheses, and thus distinguish the hypotheses. So the scientific method really only works in a comparative way, requiring 2 or more alternative hypotheses.
Here's an example: Both ID and NS (natural selection) predict that the forms of organs and organisms will fit their functions. Thus, merely finding a nice fit between organism form and function does not provide a good test of either hypothesis (such data cannot distinguish between the alternative hypotheses). However, ID and DwM (descent with modification) do make very different predictions (explictly or implicitly) about the biogeographic distribution of organismal variation (see my previous post). By the same token, ID and our modern understanding of speciation processes (e.g. Mayr's peripatric speciation coupled with Eldredge/Gould punctuated equilibria) both predict a dearth of obvious intermediates in the fossil record. On the other hand, there are differences in other patterns in the fossil record that are predicted, such as the amount of divergence between recent members of two taxa and ancient members of the same taxa.
I am just advocating that science be taught in classrooms in the same way it is actually done. However, to do this, we need to be allowed to discuss the different hypotheses themselves, how they generate predictions that are testable, what predictions they make (or fail to make), how data must be collected to make these comparative tests, and how to generate new models for further testing and refinement. This is why we need to discuss ID, creationism, and "alternative" evolutionary hypotheses in science classrooms. (I think this also means we educators need to be sensitive and realize what science can and cannot test, and what "meaning" can or cannot be derived from scientific inquiry. An unfortunately large fraction of students--and their parents--are completely confused here.)
Students don't generally get the experience to practice scientific inquiry, particularly Biology students, because they become sponges, sopping up "facts" without thinking about them because they have to choose the "right answer" in high-stakes multiple-guess exams. This is really the reason there is so much misconception about science in the US.
(In a similar vein, I actually think it has been a mistake to take religion classes out of mainstream classrooms. This has led to major misconceptions in the US about religion as well. When I was in school in Europe, we had a religion class every Saturday which encouraged discussion about the world's major religions. By writing comparative essays, we learned a lot about religion and its value for modern society.)
When education couples lectures with guided self-inquiry and discussion/debate, it really works, and is much more effective than the interminable high-stakes multiple-guess testing by authoritarian lecturers that is dominating US "education" today. By error or by design, US students under the present system will become non-thinking drones herded by religious, political, social, and media authoritarians. As a result, the classical US democratic system (the success of which depends on independent, individualist thinkers) will grind to a crashing halt (or be ground down by a crushing authoritarian regime).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-26-2004 7:22 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 245 (163489)
11-27-2004 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Lithodid-Man
11-26-2004 7:22 PM


Re: nematodes
send me an e-mail about your meiofaunal work--I'd be interested.
Nematodes have lots to say about evolution/creation, of course! And as you say, the creator must have really loved them--maybe even more than beetles, although there is still no reliable estimate for terrestrial or marine nematode biodiversity. Clearly, Adam's work remains largely unfinished with respect to giving names to the nematodes...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-26-2004 7:22 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 245 (164237)
11-30-2004 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by d_yankee
11-30-2004 10:52 PM


Re: World myths
Hi d_yankee,
I have a couple of questions for you. As this thread is about education, I would like to use your answers in my evolution course (in which we also discuss the predictions of creation hypotheses).
1. Why do you assume that evolutionists are atheists? Science itself is actually agnostic, not atheistic (which requires a belief), and scientists (and thus evolutionists) therefore have the freedom to believe in God (and many do).
2. Do you take the biblical events as literal and global explanations for patterns of biological variation in the fossil record? If so...
2a. I would agree that a prolonged seawater flooding could potentially explain why fossil oysters might be found in some areas that are now land. Would you not agree that orogeny (pushing up of mountains that once were undersea sediments) could explain the existence of fossil oysters on mountain tops? (If not, why not?)
2b. Why are there two strikingly different (indeed, conflicting) creation myths in Genesis? Which one do you hold to be the accurate one, and why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by d_yankee, posted 11-30-2004 10:52 PM d_yankee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by d_yankee, posted 12-01-2004 7:50 PM David Fitch has 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

  
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

  
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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024