Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 249 of 308 (336148)
07-28-2006 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by The Tiger
07-28-2006 5:45 PM


Explain to me why science and creation are mutually exlusive?
Hi. They aren't. By "Creationism", we generally mean fiat creation of species (or, nowadays "kinds", whatever they are). It does not usually mean the question of whether there is a creator God per se.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by The Tiger, posted 07-28-2006 5:45 PM The Tiger has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 254 of 308 (338309)
08-06-2006 8:20 PM


The question which always puzzles me is what is to be taught, if Creationism is to be taught.
Most of Creationist rhetoric depends on getting the theory of evolution wrong, after all. (Can anyone show me a creationist website which states it accurately?)
So one day the teacher would have to be reciting Creationist nonsense about how "evolutionists say that everything happened by pure chance", and the next day she's explaining that the theory of evolution explains evolution by means of the laws of genetics and the law of natural selection. What's she meant to say?
"Well, there are two theories about what the theory of evolution says. Creation theory says that the theory of evolution says one thing, and the theory of evolution says that the theory of evolution says another thing. And I'm obliged by law to teach them as though they were equal."
One day she must lie and tell them that the word "theory" means something unsubstantiated, and the next day she will have to set them right. (After all, do we want to persuade them that gravity is a myth?)
One day she is obliged to rave Creationist nonsense about atheism and materialism, the next day, when she's teaching evolution, and little Timmy raises his hand and asks when she's going to prove that there's no God ...
"I'm not."
"But you said yesterday that this was the foundation of evolution!"
"Well, there are two theories about what the theory of evolution says. Creation theory says that the theory of evolution says one thing, and the theory of evolution says that the theory of evolution says another thing. Yesterday I was teaching what Creation theory says that the theory of evolution says, and now I'm telling you what the theory of evolution says that the theory of evolution says."
"Oh, it's like that again, is it?"
So even if you found a science teacher willing to teach what she knows to be nonsense, she would also be painfully aware that the children would spot that she was talking nonsense.
Again, there's the list of things that "scientists have no explanation for". It's astonishing how many of these were actually explained specifically in the Origin of Species. So one day she's telling them that there's no explanation, the next day she gives the explanation.
"But you said ... ?"
Or, again, here's a Creationist on intermediate forms: "The links are missing. Nearly all the fossils are just our present animals, and the links between them are just not there. Few scientists today are still looking for fossil links between the major vertebrate or invertebrate groups. They have given up! The links just do not exist and have never existed."
And the next day, a quotation from a scientist: "Elephants, turtles, whales, birds often have been cited as species where transitional species have not been identified. This is no longer true. We have gained more in the fossil record in the last ten years than in almost the entire previous history of science."
Well, little Timmy has his hand up again. "You said they'd given up looking for intermediate forms!"
"Well, there are two theories. Creationists say that paleontologists have given up looking for intermediate forms, and paleontologists say that paleontologists haven't given up looking for intermediate forms. And also that they keep finding them. Now, hush up while I tell you about the intemediate forms that I told you yesterday didn't exist. It's going to take us more than one lesson just to go through the sequence from fish to amphibians, and remember, I'm only allowed to speak the truth on alternate days."
Need I labor the point? One day, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the theory of evolution is impossible.
Hand goes up.
"So, one or the other of them must be wrong?"
(Why Creationists never notice this point is beyond me, but I suppose there'd be at least one bright child in the class.)
And the next day she teaches them what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is.
Busted!
"So, when you told us yesterday that the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that evolution is impossible ... this is formally equivalent to claiming that if evolution was possible, I could build a fridge without a power source?"
"Er ... yes. But that was when I was teaching what Creationists say that the theory of thermodynamics says. Now I'm teaching what the theory of thermodynamics says that the theory of thermodynamics says."
I repeat: you might find a science teacher willing to teach what she knows to be false. But where will you find one who will do this when she knows that she's going to be found out?
The only honest way to "teach Creationism", is to teach from the get-go that it is wrong: to deliberately, not covertly, hold it up next to real science and point out the differences. I am not sure that this can be done within the constraints of "equal time", however. It takes mere seconds to mouth balderdash like "the laws of thermodynamics say that evolution is impossible". It takes quite a while to learn thermodynamics, which is the cure for this delusion. Real science simply takes more time and effort to learn than pseudoscience --- hence the popularity of pseudoscience --- and so demands for "equal time" favor those with nothing of substance to say.

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2006 1:08 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 259 of 308 (338664)
08-09-2006 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by The Tiger
08-08-2006 3:25 PM


What fossil aevidence? You mean a complete lack of transition forms?
I'm afraid someone has been lying to you. There are many examples of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Here are some examples of intermediate forms between vertebrate classes
And this is exactly the point I'm making. You can't expect a teacher to stand up and lie to the children and say "there are no intermediate forms", when the next day she's going to have to teach about them. You can say that with a clear conscience, 'cos you don't know that you're wrong. But someone with actual knowledge of the subject could not.
How aqbout the fact that all but one or two of the "primitive man" fossils were proven to be frauds.
Again, someone has been lying to you.
One supposed fossil, "Piltdown Man" was proven to be a hoax.
No other hominid fossil, and there are many, has been found to be the result of fraud, and I know of only one case where a fossil was found to be accidentally misidentified as hominid.
Again, you make my point beautifully. A teacher cannot be expected to recite this lie about "all but one or two of the "primitive man" fossils were proven to be frauds" and then the next day show the children dozens of non-fraudulent hominids. You can, 'cos you have no actual knowledge of hominid fossils. But a science teacher would.
I pretty much believe in evolution within a species but not from one to another. There is no hard evidence that I know of, for that, htough correct me if I'm wrong. There are also no observed example's of that sort of evolution happening in real time.
WE know macro evolution just doesn't account for it without divine guidence, and micro evolution is pretty weak theory. Again correct me if I'm wrong.
Again, you have been misinformed.
No only are there many such examples, but as you will see in the link, some creationist groups such as AiG admit it.
Now, do you begin to see why it would have been a good idea if you had spent more time learning about science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by The Tiger, posted 08-08-2006 3:25 PM The Tiger has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 267 of 308 (341313)
08-19-2006 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Nighttrain
08-19-2006 12:47 AM


Re: Atheism religion
Woohoo, now we can apply to teach atheism/secular humanism and its kissing cousin,TOE, in theology classes.
Hey, when you manage to fool a judge with your fatuous pretence that the theory of evolution has religious content, let us know. The fact that you have managed to fool yourself impresses no-one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Nighttrain, posted 08-19-2006 12:47 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Nighttrain, posted 08-19-2006 7:25 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 269 of 308 (341320)
08-19-2006 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Nighttrain
08-19-2006 7:25 AM


It looks like creationist rhetoric 101. If your intention was to be ironic, fair 'nough. Perspicacious I may be, but even I can't tell the difference between parodies of fundamentalism and the real thing. Remember --- we live in a world containing Kent Hovind. Need I say more?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Nighttrain, posted 08-19-2006 7:25 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Nighttrain, posted 08-19-2006 8:38 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 296 of 308 (388145)
03-04-2007 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by fooj
03-04-2007 6:40 PM


The method for decoding DNA comes with genes, thus I disagree that genetics is based upon Darwin's Theory of evolution. While it is true that most geologists have the premise of an old earth, a young earth geology fits in well with Gold's theory of a hot biosphere. Secondly, astronomy borders on psuedoscience by giving us theories of light years and black holes. I subscribe to the nuclear plasmologist's theory of astronomy. There was no big bang, the universe gave no indication of when it began but life on earth began suddenly.
Lastly, while the theory of Gold's and the nuclear plasmologist are technically discoveries made by two evolutionists, they fit in well with a young earth creationist model. No light years, no fossil fuels, no black holes. C has always been about the max speed of an electron. (I believe photons are much faster than 186K-miles/sec.)
There will never be overwhelming proof of an old earth at this rate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 6:40 PM fooj has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 298 of 308 (388147)
03-04-2007 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by fooj
03-04-2007 6:56 PM


I meant a nuclear plasmologist's theory. I wish I knew the guy's name. He discovered galaxies, "gas clouds", stars all exhibit plasma matter like behavior.
There's no such thing as a nuclear plasmologist.
There's no such thing as a plasmologist, either.
You guys just make this stuff up as you go along, don't you?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 6:56 PM fooj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 9:04 PM Dr Adequate 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