Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Education about LIFE? while we can!
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 16 of 33 (403802)
06-05-2007 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ogon
06-05-2007 7:48 AM


Re: teach the facts about creation?
Percy writes:
Can I just say I don't remember saying that we should teach creation in a 'science' class.
But you didn't reply to my Message 6 that explains why that's precisely what you're proposing. If you really think that's not what you're proposing then reply to the message that addresses that issue, not to the message that just assumes it since I already advanced my argument in the earlier message.
Just as I didn't say teach evolution in a religious lesson. What I did say is, why not discuss them side by side, just as we do in this forum, and suggested call the lesson LIFE.
There are two significant problems with this. First, in what part of the curriculum could a "lesson" called LIFE be placed except science? Second, if LIFE somehow isn't part of the science curriculum, that means you're proposing removing evolution from the science curriculum. Removing evolution from the science curriculum is the dream of all creationists. Not going to happen.
What would be reasonable and possible is to teach a course on comparative religions, or on the history of conflicts between science and religion, or some such type of course. I suppose it would go in the history department. I already said this in Message 6, the aforementioned message that you didn't reply to, and others have said pretty much the same thing. As long as evolution stays in science class, creationism stays out, and nothing is taught that is false, then all will be well.
I know you're only one guy against many in this thread, and that you therefore have to pick and choose what messages you're going to reply to, so don't sweat a reply to Message 6 if you don't have the time. But I did want to make clear that I didn't just assume you were advocating teaching creationism in science class.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ogon, posted 06-05-2007 7:48 AM ogon has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 17 of 33 (403808)
06-05-2007 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ogon
06-03-2007 2:04 PM


I see no reason to, and lots of reasons not to.
Is it not so the best way forward when teaching creation and evolution to students in our schools? Give them the facts about creation, give them the facts about evolution, provide them with common answers, sit back and let them come to their own conclusions.
Because the facts about evolution would not only encompass the entire high school biology class, but would extend beyond school leaving to university age. The facts about creation are that various groups have proposed religious creation stories. A fact that is irrelevant to science.
There is very little time given to evolution in the biology class room - that little time is taken up by giving the clearest examples of natural selection, genetics and the conclusions of natural history. It is a small few hours of education time, so the information has to be compressed but clear and easy to understand. Suggestions on a postcard - personally I think that given the tools they are given, it is a miracle that anyone goes into evolutionary biology!
Let's call it a draw shall we!
If the class is about what people believe, then we should certainly discuss what people believe. I took a class about this, they called it 'Religious Studies'. I learned about various different schools of thought in Christianity, the basics of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Sikhism. I was given the facts about what people believed. I was given the facts of what the scientific consensus on evolutionary biology was. I was left to make my own mind up about what I believed.
Could we not have equal time allocated to both and then students can decide later on in their education whether they would want to develop their studies about either, or both? Could we not just call the subject LIFE?
MMmm, the 'study of life' class. Sounds interesting, but we should give it a posh name. Something like biology.
I know what you mean - but what do we teach? Do we have a whole year of classes taken up teaching the myriad of creation concepts humanity has conceived over the millennia? What other classes are we going to cut into to provide this? I don't think there is any practical reason to do it. Most people learn their culture's creation mythology from their parents. They learn the science from their teachers (and sometimes the parents).
Let’s forget the rest of natural life just for now because they have an uncanny way of coming through floods, volcano eruptions, meteorite collisions . . . let’s debate about us, humans, and our future, and let's start in our classrooms.
I studied climatology in physics and in geography (more the latter). We don't need to even address people's creation stories to discuss ways the climate can be affected by man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ogon, posted 06-03-2007 2:04 PM ogon has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 18 of 33 (403814)
06-05-2007 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by ogon
06-05-2007 7:53 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ogon, posted 06-05-2007 7:53 AM ogon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ogon, posted 06-05-2007 10:03 AM Larni has replied

  
ogon
Member (Idle past 6130 days)
Posts: 70
Joined: 05-13-2007


Message 19 of 33 (403821)
06-05-2007 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Larni
06-05-2007 9:19 AM


As Percy rightly says, I’m one person against many. Sorry that I can’t answer everyone’s questions. Half of the time I don’t understand the questions! Lots of words written but only a couple of things being said I think.
Evolution is supported by scientists
Creation is ridiculed by scientists
Evolution is backed up by scientific evidence
Creation has no evidence
Evolution should be taught in schools
Creation should be taught in churches
Evolution and creation can never be compatible
Well you are almost convincing me guys. I’m neither a creationist nor an evolutionist I guess. I can’t prove creation and as a non scientist I couldn’t prove evolution. Does that make me a ”tionist’?
ogon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Larni, posted 06-05-2007 9:19 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Larni, posted 06-05-2007 10:21 AM ogon has not replied
 Message 24 by bluegenes, posted 06-05-2007 2:43 PM ogon has not replied
 Message 28 by Archer Opteryx, posted 06-06-2007 3:01 AM ogon has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 20 of 33 (403827)
06-05-2007 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ogon
06-03-2007 2:04 PM


Which facts about creation would you teach ?
Which version of creation would you teach ?
How would you deal with the question of the creator/s ?
How would you demonstrate these as facts , not opinion ?
Can you seperate creation from ALL religious links ?
How would you teach creation to a class of pupils of mixture of religions and agnsotics and atheists ?
If you site the bible the basis of the infomation on creation , hich version of the bible do you uses ? and are you claiming that the bible is whole true or just the bits on creation ?
How would you objectivly test the pupils understanding of what you had taught ?
How would you deal with all the scientific material that seems to disprove the "facts" of creation ?
At which age group would you site this teaching ?
Given that you are teaching the "fact" of creation how do you then answer the next question why was it all created ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ogon, posted 06-03-2007 2:04 PM ogon has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 21 of 33 (403830)
06-05-2007 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by ogon
06-05-2007 10:03 AM


You've got to come to your own decision, it's true.
I guess it depends on whether one believes in scientific evidence or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ogon, posted 06-05-2007 10:03 AM ogon has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 22 of 33 (403835)
06-05-2007 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
06-04-2007 3:18 PM


Be careful with Math analogies
We know that 1+1=2. But, at the same time, some people think that 1+1+1=1.
1+1+1 = 1 is a true statement in Z/2
I think a better analogy that is more fitting to the actual scenario would be that we know 1+1=2 but at the same time some people believe that 1 = magic pixie dust, 2 = healing crystals and 1 + 1 <= 2.
The biggest difference between evolution and creationism is that creationism introduces fantasy into the equation. If you let in creationism, then you let in the alternative that drunken leprechauns circle jerked over the eternal sunwell.
Your analogy makes it seem like creationism resembles, even in the most minor of ways, things that ARE based in reality.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 06-04-2007 3:18 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by subbie, posted 06-05-2007 2:00 PM Jazzns has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 23 of 33 (403855)
06-05-2007 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Jazzns
06-05-2007 11:25 AM


Re: Be careful with Math analogies
What I was thinking of when I wrote that was the holy trinity; three separate entities, but at the same time just one entity.
Not familair with Z/2, it sounds like the new Mazda model.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Jazzns, posted 06-05-2007 11:25 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Jazzns, posted 06-05-2007 8:11 PM subbie has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 24 of 33 (403862)
06-05-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ogon
06-05-2007 10:03 AM


ogon writes:
As Percy rightly says, I’m one person against many
Sorry if it seems like ganging up, but it's nothing personal! I've noticed that, because your O.P. makes it clear that you're from the U.K., that a lot of Brits have responded, even though the teaching of evolution/creationism has never been such a big issue here as it is in the U.S.
Evolution and creation can never be compatible
Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. Science doesn't actually have any essential conflict with a belief like:
"God created the universe"
Science cannot give an opinion on whether or not such a statement is true, because it is confined to studying the natural universe, and cannot deal with the supernatural, because supernatural propositions like "God" cannot be tested for, proven or disproven.
For all practical purposes, you could regard science as being agnostic on the question of such a God.
However, the confusion comes in with types or interpretations of religions which have their Gods creating imaginary universes, or false realities.
Examples of these are the flat earthers and the young earthers.
The former interpret various verses of the bible as meaning that the earth must be flat (they still exist, religious faith is a powerful force!), and the latter believe that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old, based, again, on interpretations of the bible.
What happens here is that there is an inevitable conflict between evidence based science and these false realities, and therefore, indirectly, with the clearly imaginary Gods that are supposed to have created them.
So, you see, it is possible to be both a believer in a creator God and a supporter of the theory of evolution, but only if your God created reality!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ogon, posted 06-05-2007 10:03 AM ogon has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 25 of 33 (403909)
06-05-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by subbie
06-05-2007 2:00 PM


Re: Be careful with Math analogies
What I was thinking of when I wrote that was the holy trinity; three separate entities, but at the same time just one entity.
Well yea that is fine. The math of deities. That is where you get the fantasy element. 1 = father, 1 = son, 1 = holy spirit, 1+1+1=1 God
It just wasn't explicit. It made it look more reasonable than it really is.
Not familair with Z/2, it sounds like the new Mazda model.
Z is the positive integers. I should have really said Z%2. Z%2 is the group {0,1} which all positive integers modulo 2.
So (1+1+1)%2 = (3)%2 = 1
It is pretty much the first group you learn about in abstract algebra.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by subbie, posted 06-05-2007 2:00 PM subbie has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 26 of 33 (403916)
06-05-2007 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ogon
06-03-2007 2:04 PM


quote:
Give them the facts about creation
What facts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ogon, posted 06-03-2007 2:04 PM ogon has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 33 (403919)
06-05-2007 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ogon
06-05-2007 7:48 AM


Re: teach the facts about creation?
quote:
Can I just say I don't remember saying that we should teach creation in a 'science' class. Just as I didn't say teach evolution in a religious lesson. What I did say is, why not discuss them side by side, just as we do in this forum, and suggested call the lesson LIFE.
Which creation story should be used?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ogon, posted 06-05-2007 7:48 AM ogon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-06-2007 10:09 AM nator has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 28 of 33 (403965)
06-06-2007 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by ogon
06-05-2007 10:03 AM


Class Act
You could offer a class called DISEASE, ogon, and put demon stories, shamanic practices, and modern medicine side by side. But what would be the point? You'd be presenting various slices of folklore alongside one slice of science while ignoring the fundamental distinction in the sources and methodologies of each. That only misrepresents the character of all of it.
Education exists to inform, not obscure. Each of these things is best understood in its proper context.
Evolution is supported by scientists
Creation is ridiculed by scientists
The second statement is not accurate.
First, you appear to be talking here about creationism rather than creation itself as a phenomenon.
(The latter represents the core of all study in art.)
Second, it's not true that scientists in general 'ridicule' the idea of the supernatural. Some do, some don't.
The point is that creationism as a concept enjoys no support from scientists as valid science.
Evolution is backed up by scientific evidence
Creation has no evidence
Evolutionary theory is based on scientific evidence.
Creationism is based on ancient literature.
Evolution should be taught in schools
Creation should be taught in churches
All of it belongs in schools.
Evolution should be taught in school science classes.
Creation stories should be taught in school humanities classes.
Creationism as a social phenomenon should be taught in school history or sociology classes.
Just an aside: Why do so many people talk as if science is the only class schools offer?
A judge rules ID unconstitutional and the next day preachers thunder about how the ruling 'shuts God out of our schools.'
As if an art student couldn't sculpt Buddhas or paint crucifixion scenes all day long. As if a creative writing student had been prevented from composing Hindu psalms.
Silly.
_____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ogon, posted 06-05-2007 10:03 AM ogon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-06-2007 9:57 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 33 (404003)
06-06-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Archer Opteryx
06-06-2007 3:01 AM


Re: Class Act
You could offer a class called DISEASE, ogon, and put demon stories, shamanic practices, and modern medicine side by side.
Ooh, you could, you could!
* claps hands *
And you could explain to them how the germ theory of disease is "just a theory", which means that it's not a fact, which means that belief in germs can only be sustained by blind faith, and that no-one has ever seen a germ, and that when germists say they've seen germs through a microscope, that's just a germist interpretation of what they saw based on their germist dogma, and that the laws of optics are just a germist assumption, and you could selectively quote from the handful of scientists who think HIV doesn't cause AIDS as though they were denying that infections cause disease tout court, and you could recycle arguments from 19th century tracts against smallpox vaccination without bothering to find out that it was in fact successful, and you could say that the immune system contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, and you could tell them that all germists are atheists and will burn in Hell.
And then you'd be doing something akin to teaching Creationism alongside real science.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Archer Opteryx, posted 06-06-2007 3:01 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 30 of 33 (404009)
06-06-2007 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by nator
06-05-2007 9:31 PM


Re: teach the facts about creation?
Which creation story should be used?
A fair sample.
Do they each get equal time with evolution, I wonder?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 06-05-2007 9:31 PM nator 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