ogon writes:
One boy literally took his shoes and socks off and wiped his feet. Afterall isn’t that what I told him to do.
Kids can be funny can't they? But this raises a significant point: Telling a young person X is true is what happens in creationism. This is not so for science. A child is told 'X is most likely because.....'
The young person can review the evidence and make up their own mind, drawing their own conclusions. Science does not start with a conclusion: creationism does. This means creationism seeks to interpret the fact in a way congruent with the conclusion.
If anything science thrives on (and careers are made from) paradigm shifts. This is not the case in creationism. Kids and young people are told the answer from the outset in creationism. 'The world was created! Now, youngsters go and find the facts that are congruent with this assertation and lampoon the facts that do not fit (e.g. scientificly attained conclusions via the scientific methodology).
ogon writes:
I would expect the children to understand the nature of evolution and all that that entails. If I were to teach a lesson about creation I would expect the children to do the same. The children will come to some conclusion as to where they stand on both issues if they have a responsible teacher.
Not so: you would have a teacher describing two contradictory concepts. One has evidence to support it, one requires faith. Kids and ypung people can't be expected to
choose which one they like best.
As I said science is not a democacy.
ogon writes:
Children not only base what they believe on facts delivered by the teacher, but they also base them on their own personal life experiences.
My professional experience shows me that it is our personal beliefs and experiences that create most of our distorted cognitions and erroneous beliefs. The scientific methodology does a very good job of bypassing personal bias when it comes to evaluating evidence. There is a whole brance of science devoted to just this issue (statistics).
ogon writes:
Teaching about the creation of life on Earth, in my opinion, doesn’t have to be taught from a Christian point of view specifically.
So you either mean aliens or supernatural entities?
ogon writes:
Yes creation, but then evolution.
Thats great, but to teach it as an option to evidenced research is no diferent to Last Thursdayism.
ogon writes:
Or are they not really scientists?
When they do (or teach) science they are scientists. If they espouse anything other than science they are not being scientist but doing (or teaching) anything else (not science).
ogon writes:
Why does creation have to be boxed with religion when it is obvious that many non religious cultures, and many non religious individuals, hold the belief in creation?
Obvious tho whom?
ogon writes:
Or are you saying that to believe in creation means you belong to a particular religious faith?
It means you believe in magic or aliens.
™ Version 4.2