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
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 245 (65138)
11-08-2003 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by David Fitch
11-08-2003 2:27 PM


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?).
If you take out the untestable hypotheses of creationism, exactly what do you think is left?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by David Fitch, posted 11-08-2003 2:27 PM David Fitch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2003 1:09 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 160 by d_yankee, posted 11-24-2004 9:57 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 245 (65397)
11-09-2003 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by David Fitch
11-09-2003 4:37 PM


Again, that means we have to introduce creation back into the classroom (including the classrooms in which teachers are taught).
I still don't understand what part of "God did it" you think is testable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by David Fitch, posted 11-09-2003 4:37 PM David Fitch has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 245 (65446)
11-09-2003 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
11-09-2003 6:12 PM


Creationism implys the supernatural.
Not really. It would be more accurate to say that "creationism assumes the supernatural."
As a result, before you can introduce creationism in the classroom, you have to cover "Does god even exist?" I mean, if I were a student and the teacher was trying to show that such-and-such a thing was evidence of creationism, I know I'd ask "how can creationism be true if there's no such thing as god?"
Why do you have such an objection to having only testable propositions in the science classroom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2003 6:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 92 of 245 (79269)
01-18-2004 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by TruthDetector
01-18-2004 4:24 PM


They don't have to verify/falsify any theory, just teach the idea.
I think that you don't understand what Brian is asking. Falsification is a crucial component of any scientific theory. Even evolution is falsifiable. "Falsifiable" doesn't mean it's false, it means that there's a situation where we could know that the theory is false. For instance if you had a theory that your sister ate all the cookies, a potential falsification for this would be you knowing that it was you who ate the cookies.
But when you say that "God made everything we see in such a way as to fool us into thinking he didn't" that isn't falsifiable. There's no situation where you couldn'tadvance that as a theory.
No falsification = no science. Evolution is falsifiable. Creationism is not. It's a fairy tale that tries to explain everything, and winds up explaining nothing. (For instance you might tell us what technological advances have been made possible as a result of creationist theories.)
but creation should still BE MENTIONED in science class!
Why? It's just not science!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by TruthDetector, posted 01-18-2004 4:24 PM TruthDetector has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by TruthDetector, posted 01-18-2004 4:37 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 94 of 245 (79280)
01-18-2004 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by TruthDetector
01-18-2004 4:37 PM


Then all possibilities should be put in a Origin Theory Class, or something like that.
We've got that, at least at college. It's called "Comparitive World Religions." You'll notice that it's not offered by the Bio department.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by TruthDetector, posted 01-18-2004 4:37 PM TruthDetector has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 113 of 245 (79910)
01-21-2004 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by TruthDetector
01-21-2004 8:07 PM


By putting Creation in a religous class you are implying to the students that Creation is just a myth, a religous story.
What else would you call a hypothesis promulgated soley by those with a religious agenda and supported by no physical evidence? I'd call it both "religious" and a "story." It's no more likely true than the origin story of any other religion, so why set it apart?
And what exactly is wrong with a myth? "Myth" doesn't mean "lie", you know. Myths can - and often are - as meaningful to people as facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by TruthDetector, posted 01-21-2004 8:07 PM TruthDetector has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by biorules, posted 01-21-2004 9:52 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 117 by TruthDetector, posted 01-29-2004 11:04 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 118 of 245 (81588)
01-29-2004 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by TruthDetector
01-29-2004 11:04 PM


Why can't a belief believed for centuries by many cultures be half-taught in schools?
Because there's already organizations that exist for the promulgation of these myths. Maybe you've heard of them - they're called "churches." Christianity isn't going to disappear because it's not being taught in school.
It is more likely to be true than in other religions because other religions haven't made perfect predictions into the future.
I'm afraid you're quite wrong. You'll find that Christianity is no better at verifyable prophecy than any other religion, including "guessing."
On the other hand, scientific models are built to make predicitions. The Theory of Evolution has made many more accurate predicitions than Christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by TruthDetector, posted 01-29-2004 11:04 PM TruthDetector has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by TruthDetector, posted 02-04-2004 8:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 127 of 245 (84145)
02-07-2004 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Tamara
02-07-2004 2:48 AM


Kids need to learn that science is not the truth, and they need to be able to evaluate its claims and weigh criticisms leveled against current theories.
Well, I think a lot more people would be on board if it weren't for the creationists.
Kids need to know the thin parts in the Theory of Evolution, not because they suggest that the theory is bogus, but because they suggest promising areas of research. Nobody's gonna want to be a biologist if they think the field is all wrapped up.
But in addition to the people who think we should "teach the controversy", there's people who think we should throw out the ToE and teach kids religion instead. There's no reasoning with that position, and it puts pro-science supporters on the defensive - they're not keen to do anything that makes the theory look "weak" under that circumstance, because it looks like a concession.
By all means, teach the stuff that evolution doesn't fully have a good explanation for. Teach the stuff physics doesn't have a good explanation for, and chemistry and mathematics, too. Let's teach all the stuff that we don't know about. But let's make it clear that, just like we don't throw out all of mathematics because nobody's solved the "P = NP" problem, thin parts in the ToE aren't contradictions.
Kids need to stop thinking that science is something they consume - a one-way stream of knowledge from books into their heads. Let's teach the controversy everywhere. (Though given that about half of a students time is spent taking standardized tests, who the hell knows where they're going to find the time for it?)
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-07-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Tamara, posted 02-07-2004 2:48 AM Tamara has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 143 of 245 (153405)
10-27-2004 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by David Fitch
10-27-2004 1:50 AM


And if you think all the mechanisms underlying evolution are "explained", then please tell me precisely how mutation occurs.
As DNA polymerase proceeds along the leading strand in the stream direction of the helicase, occasionally it "slips back" and a slippage loop occurs:
The incorrection annealed DNA is repaired by an enzyme (is that AP endonuclease?) which snips the leading strand (not the looped strand created by the polymerase) and "repairs" it, using the expanded loop as the template. The DNA is then ligated back together. That results in the duplication of some number of base sequences.
Other slippage might result in the deletion of base sequences. There's nothing mysterious about how mutation occurs; almost any kind of damage has the potential to hydrolyze the bond between the base and the sugar backbone. That would result in the loss of one base, or possibly a substitution, if the damage is not repaired.
And why do biases occur in the frequencies of particular transitions and transversions?
Because the four different nucleotides have slightly different chemical properties.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by David Fitch, posted 10-27-2004 1:50 AM David Fitch has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 162 of 245 (163058)
11-24-2004 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by d_yankee
11-24-2004 9:57 PM


How do you figure untestable? Clarify what you are saying.
What concievable test could exist that would tell the difference between, say, two organisms of shared ancestry and two organisms created to appear that way, in every concievable fashion, by the Almighty?
That's what I mean, untestable. The basic tenants of creationism are beyond scientific inquiry, on purpose.
Creation and evolution are both hypothesises of observations of nature and the cosmos.
Neither creation nor evolution are hypotheses. Creationism is not a hypothesis because it is not science. Evolution is not a hypothesis because it enjoys the weight of enough evidence to be considered a model; another word for that is "theory."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by d_yankee, posted 11-24-2004 9:57 PM d_yankee has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 163 of 245 (163059)
11-24-2004 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by d_yankee
11-24-2004 10:08 PM


That's exactly what creationism is. Science.
No, it's not. The positions of creationism are arrived at not by the scientific method, but by looking up the "answers" in the Bible.
Science means knowledge.
Not quite. Science is that body of knowledge developed by the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and reporting. Since the conclusions of creationism are not developed by this method, but rather through theology and Biblical analysis, creationism cannot be considered a science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by d_yankee, posted 11-24-2004 10:08 PM d_yankee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Dynamo321, posted 11-24-2004 11:51 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 199 of 245 (164245)
12-01-2004 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by d_yankee
11-30-2004 10:52 PM


The way that the Flood is described in the Bible explains to the TEE, the fossils
Actually, the Flud explanation doesn't explain anything about fossils, most particularly why they're so well-sorted. For instance it doesn't explain why grass pollen is never found in dinosaur layers, or why you never find a T Rex next to its last meal of cattle.
It doesn't explain how human civilizations could exist before, during, and after the purported flood time yet not have noticed they were all drowning. It doesn't explain why there are coral reefs far older than the flood - even though no coral reef could have survived the flood. It doesn't explain why there's any life at all on Earth - there's no way that all of the current species could be decended from the scant number of animals that could have fit on the Ark, and even if they could, there's no way that an Ark full of animals could have survived the thermodymaic conditions of the Flooded Earth, which would have raised atmospheric temperatures to well over 200 degrees.
When you get right down to it, the flood explains nothing. Because it explains nothing, it belongs in a mythology book, not a science classroom.

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 200 by AdminNosy, posted 12-01-2004 2:26 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 212 by d_yankee, posted 12-01-2004 8:27 PM crashfrog 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