It's a Sad Day For the Future Of American Children.

Hi gene90G:
Yes there are. However teaching things other than evolution does not lower the standards, it simply give the students more things to learn. The problem is if they decided to completely replace or omit evolution. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they would like to but that's not what their decision does.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
M:
Of course it lowers science standards gene. If kids are taught that anon-scientific premise i.e. untestable hypothesis is the way that science works then the kids will be handicapped if they attempt to become scientists. Creationism is not science and should not be taught as such. Otherwise kids are not learning science or the scientific method and hence the standards are lowered. It is not merely more stuff to learn...otherwse why not teach alchemy in chemistry class, flat earth theories in geography, or astrology in astronomy classes?
G:
If that 'nonsense' includes religiously driven theories I agree. However you are forgetting that these are 'public' schools...therefore the public has a right to influence what is taught. The only constaint is that from the US Constitution, which precludes teaching religion. Theoretically though they have a right to teach whatever else they want--alchemy, astrology, whatever. It is wrong, but they have a right to be wrong.M: However, the establishment clause separating church and state prevents teaching religion in publicly funded schools and creationism is a religious doctrine.G:
Incorrect. As far as I can tell, Hoyle's (silly) panspermia model is an alternative to evolution and is not religiously inspired. Whether or not it is a pseudoscience is a tough call and I'm not venturing an opinion there.M: However, panspermia has been falsified so there would be no reason to teach it though it may not be religously inspired any more than there is a reason to teach Aristotle's theories of nature as up to date science.Science is not a feel good democratic method where people agree by majority decision how theories should work. Saying that people should have an influence on what science says is not particularly helpful i.e. what if 51% of people would like 2+2 to equal 7? Should that then be accepted as a national standard in math classes?I agree with nos482...let private schools teach whatever they want but public schools should abide by teaching the results of the scientific method...not the result of lobby politics.cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:

quote:

---

gene90
... teaching things other than evolution does not lower the standards, it simply give the students more things to learn. .

---

​

quote:

---

mammuthus
panspermia has been falsified so there would be no reason to teach it ... any more than there is a reason to teach Aristotle's theories of nature as up to date science.

---

​

I studied a California accredited course in biology at a Christian college, but theories of Aristotle which are pertinent to the "science" of Genesis were not brought forward.

​

The Book of Genesis predates Aristotle by a few hundred years and reveals theories which were already out of date when the oral traditions were committed to writing.

​

It was not until I understood ancient ideas of Origin, including those of Aristotle, that I came to see how the Book of Genesis, although certainly outdated now, was at one time quite nicely aligned with the standard "science" of the ancient world.

​

I suspect that if people were aware of the similarities, there might be less conflict between science and religion. Or is this naieve of me?

​

db

​

---

*******************Hi db,
I don't think it is naive of you but what you are suggesting would be better taught in a history of science class rather than in a biology lecture per se. I learned about Galileo's conflict with the church in a history class not in an astronomy lecture. Also, what the creationists are trying to subvert in the classroom is not evolution per se but the entire teaching of science and the scientific method by equating pseudoscience and untestable hypothesis with actual science.A good grounding in the history and development of science would be great but I would not hold my breathe waiting for that to become a national standard.cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

Wrong. Dr. Berlinski is a Creationist -- a fellow of the Discovery Institute, an ID think-tank.

​

Discovery Institute | Public policy think tank advancing a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation.

​

He also has his PhD in math, not science. I wouldn't place a lot of "faith" in his opinions on matters biological.

---

​

ID is not creationism. Gene, how could you make that mistake?

---

************************************
ID is creationism but merely avoids naming who they think the creator is.
ID shares another important feature with creationism...neither is based on science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
I'll agree with that definition. It is debateable whether ID is creationism or not.

​

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-21-2002]

---

*****************************ID posits an intelligent designer that engineers all biological life on the assumption that what we observe is too complex to have arisen naturally. This requires that said designer is responsible for the creation of all life, operates outside observable natural laws, and hence it is creationism. This does not necessarily mean it is Christian creationism. However, it posits an intelligent designer that created all life. It is not science because it is 1) an assumption based on an inability to comprehend natural phenomenon as observed 2) presents no testable hypothesis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
No problem. I'll just change it from (neither Christian or creationist) to (non-Christian IDist).

​

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-21-2002]

---

******************But then you would be excluding the Christian IDists..

TB:
Your proclamation that ID is not science is crucially flawed Mamuthus:M: You will have to demonstrate this TB.My original quote:
You said:

quote:

---

It is not science because it is 1) an assumption based on an inability to comprehend natural phenomenon as observed 2) presents no testable hypothesis.

---

TB:
Clearly your claim of our 'inability to comprehend natural phenomenon as observed' presumes that they are natural before they are proven to be that! You have not proven the origin of genomes. Of course they now work naturally and are submitted to evolutionary processes but you have not proved how the genomes arrived.M: Yet again, TB, you demonstrate another fault in your understanding of science. You do not "prove the origin of genomes"...how many time have you been told this? In any case, I stand by my point. Your and Behe et al. inability to understand complexity is hardly supporting evidence for creation. It is merely supporting evidence for your lack comprehension. And I was careful in my wording "inability to comprehend natural phenomenon as OBSERVED". An example of this was your claim that hemoglobin popped out of thin air because you could not imagine bacteria developing such a gene yet there it is in bacteria. Arguements from disbelief are hardly supportive evidence for your own ideas.TB:
Your second point is also plain incorrect. Both detailed ID and YECism provide testable predicitions. IDers predict that it will not be possible to find plausible paths between major novelties.M: My second point is fatal to ID. Your comment above states that ID is based on the prediction of the inability to find something. However, plausible paths between major novelties is common. Experiments, particularly with Drosophila, also demonstrate the types of mechanisms involved. Since "plausible paths" are constantly studied i.e. hox genes that kills your proposition regarding a prediction of ID. But the real issue is what is the testable hypothesis of ID? What are the observations and experiments that can be done to demonstrate 1. a designer 2. its intelligence?Please provide a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID.
1. ID would be falsified if?
2. supporting data for ID?
3. testable predictions based on ID?TB:
YECs make numerous predictions that the flood will ultimatley explain the fossil record or that ancient DNA will be shown to be only thousands of years old for example. But I agree that these theories are not as clear in their predicitons as gavitation.M: Because none of them are theories. None of your "predictions" is a hypothesis of YEC. You are merely claiming that ultimately the flood will explain the fossil record. The second issue of aDNA is your wish but not a testable hypothesis of YEC. Neither of your statements shave been supported nor would they lead to supporting data for YEC. If all aDNA studies turned out to be wrong...why would that "prove creationism"? And you already gave an example of an aDNA study that is incorrect i.e. your 250 MYA bacteria As with ID.
1. what is the testable hypothesis of YEC
2.How do you falsify YEC?
3. What testable predictions (not your wish list) can you make based on YEC?
4. Where is the supporting data?TB:
Just imagine the sceanrio of aliens turning up on our doorstep saying: "We designed those genomes you guys! The creationists almost had it right." And you'll say 'but it was unscientific'. And they'll accuse you of assuming something before it was proven. And they'll label you as unscientific.M: Good job TB! You use science fiction to justify non-scientific ideas ...or maybe the aliens come and say "Hey, there is no god, have a nice day".YEC/ID is not science....it is barely good fictioncheers,
M