Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1 of 305 (451146)
01-26-2008 2:22 PM


I have been trying to understand what Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents really want.
I just do not understand what vision they have of the future the U.S., if they are successful and their odd view of science education becomes the law of the land. Would science classes end up consisting of the kind of materials that are on display in the various creation/ID so-called “museums” i.e. dinosaurs and humans co-existing? These seem to ignore all the evidence, observations and conclusions that scientists have labored to use to describe the natural world for the past 150 years, so I assume none of that will be included in the science curricula.
So let us try to imagine what America is like 20 years after the creation/ID science curriculum becomes the law of the land.
Admin: I am not sure where this topic fits best.
Edited by Tanypteryx, : Admin request

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 01-26-2008 3:06 PM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 01-27-2008 9:57 AM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 9 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 8:17 PM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 23 by Jazzns, posted 01-28-2008 4:33 PM Tanypteryx has not replied
 Message 26 by Trixie, posted 01-28-2008 4:55 PM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 01-30-2008 3:08 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 3 of 305 (451165)
01-26-2008 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
01-26-2008 3:06 PM


Percy, does this work better? I think I have a pretty good idea what their curriculum is. What I really want to know is how it would change America and why they would want that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 01-26-2008 3:06 PM Admin has not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 7 of 305 (451365)
01-27-2008 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Modulous
01-27-2008 9:57 AM


Re: From the Wedge strategy
modulous writes:
They basically want a religious revival where materialism is rejected and everyone supports christian moral values - notably those regarding sexuality and abortion etc. As they say, they want...
I do not envision this happening, unless they somehow do achieve theocracy, and then can enforce adherence to their rules.....a chilling thought.
It would be a very odd world without scientific inquiry. Curiosity seems to be an inherent trait of humans. I am trying to imagine a society that stifles the need, by so many, to try and understand how everything works, from the universe down to the most basic biological processes.
We can already see the level of frustration in scientists that depend on government funding who cannot carry out research because of an ignorant, uneducated, fundamentalist in the white house. I am glad that he cannot yet stifle privately funded research.
modulous writes:
who wants a non-materialist oil location company that uses the intelligent oil hider theory?
I guess when the lights go out we can all pray for god to design new generators or better yet, to redesign our eyes to see in the dark. Or maybe stop "the sun from going around the earth" and make it daylight everywhere at the same time.....LOL

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 01-27-2008 9:57 AM Modulous has not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 14 of 305 (451493)
01-27-2008 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
01-27-2008 8:17 PM


Re: critical thinking skills
randman writes:
I think the ID camp wants students to develop critical thinking skills and so wants both ID and evo theories to be taught and examined critically. Frankly, I cannot fathom why anyone wanting students to be educated would balk at, for example, teaching criticisms of evo theory.
I agree that students should be taught to think critically, especially when studying scientific theories. Science education in this country clearly is not succeeding in teaching students to understand the difference between science and pseudoscience or the definition of a scientific theory.
I have seen no coherent ID theory put forward that can be critically examined.
I have not seen anyone balk at the critical examination of the Theory of Evolution. Biologists and other scientists critically examine the ToE every time they make observations or conduct experiments.
What we DO balk at, is criticisms of strawman versions of evolution being taught as legitimate scientific inquiry. The idea of teaching students (some of whom may someday become scientists themselves) that science or the ToE is flawed or invalid because it has not yet answered ALL questions is absurd.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 8:17 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 9:15 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 33 of 305 (452512)
01-30-2008 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Trixie
01-28-2008 4:55 PM


Re: Aims determine 20 year destination
Trixie
I think your assessment is right on the mark. This subject would probably make a good sci-fi plot, but I do not think that even the majority of religious parents in our country would allow the public education system to become perverted in this way.
As Jazzns pointed out earlier market forces would drive scientific education and research back toward more productive lines of inquiry.
Randman claims that introducing ID into science classes would lead to students developing better critical thinking skills. If he is right, once they apply those newly gained skills to the silly idea that ID is science, they will reject it completely.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Trixie, posted 01-28-2008 4:55 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Larni, posted 02-03-2008 8:09 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 34 of 305 (452535)
01-30-2008 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Buzsaw
01-30-2008 3:08 PM


Re: Sometime Within 20 Years
Buzsaw:
1. They might discuss/study/debate some of the displays and claims of the creationist museums whereas now they're pretty much ignored or pshawed as bogus.
Most of them have been discussed and debated (here on this forum for example) and they have been refuted by real evidence. We call them PRATTs.
2. Much if not most of the creo museum display is actual observable evidence of something relative to archeological research, excavation etc. This could be studied/debated/discussed relative to both ideologies.
same as above.
3. Likely secularists would finally research the Nuweiba beach/sandbar at Aquaba and the corroborating evidence in the region relative to the Biblical Exodus. That's just one example of things needing more research etc.
Why should secularists do this research? What is stopping IDists from conducting this research right now? If they actually find something significant I would expect archaeologists would be clamoring to study them.
4. The Biblical global flood then being on the table, other perspectives than the conventional would be studied relative to pre-flood atmospheric conditions, terrarium possibilities and what effect a pre-flood atmosphere might have on modern dating methodology, etc.
There is no evidence that a global flood occurred and there is also no evidence that the laws of physics, with regard to dating methodologies, changed after this mythological flood.
5. Things like levitation and such might be discussed relative to claims of the accult as is claimed.
Well, you got me on this one. I had no idea that no one was allowed to research levitation. I would like to know how they do it, too.
6. Phenomena of particles, etc which appear to emerge in and out of existence might be discussed relative to metaphysical phenomena such as unseen powers in view of observed behavior of humans involving good and evil unseen powers/beings we call angels and demons. These have been widely into human cultures from the beginning of recorded history. Are these related to particle phenomena, etc. These might be on the table.
Do you have any methodologies that might be used to study the correlation between particle behavior and angels and demons and how that relates to good and evil?
7. Mathmatical probabilities of abiogenesis, RM and NS might be included in science curriculum. Other math probability studies might be the corroborative multitudes of properties of atmosphere, solar system positions, earth properties, etc needful for life to even exist. These all would be open to study.
They are open to study right now. The IDists should be jumping on this.
8. Funding might be more evenhanded to include some aspects of nonconventional research, archeology and studies.
The various ID/Creationist organizations already have $millions that they are spending on lawyers and campaigns to get their doctrine into science classes. It would be better spent on research. Do you mean they would like to fund conventional, real scientific research?
9. More creo research and study would flush out the false and lend credibility to the factual relative to all aspects of scientific study, archeology and research.
What are they waiting for? They should get started right away.
10. The stigma might be somewhat alleviated relative to creo peer review accessability and employment fairhandedness.
Creos can submit papers to scientific journals right now. There is no box they have to check indicating that they are a creo. If their paper has scientific merit it will be published.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 01-30-2008 3:08 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2008 2:11 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 37 of 305 (452872)
01-31-2008 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Buzsaw
01-31-2008 2:11 PM


Re: Sometime Within 20 Years
Buzsaw writes:
We're not talking discussion here. We're talking out where the rubber meets the road in the educational institutions, the media, more indepth research etc involving the secularist community.
So basically you are saying, after ID/Creationism has succeeded in redefining the science taught in schools, you expect the "old school" secularist scientists to do the actual research into ID/Creo claims?
You seem to be unaware of what motivates people to become scientists. Every scientist I have known became one because of an overwhelming curiosity about how the natural world works. They want to make discoveries about and within their own fields of interest.
The truth is, if ID/Creationism becomes part of the science curriculum there will be no more secular scientists emerging from our educational institutions. The students that come through that educational "bottleneck" will be unable to apply the scientific method to gain an understanding of the natural world and they certainly will still have no tools explain the supernatural, except goddidit.
Buzsaw writes:
Because it's them who pshaw it. Creationists have done the research and all the work so far. Let the naysayers put up or shut up by falsification if they think they can. But no, they refuse to even look at it. All they do is badmouth the research creationists are doing having dug up no evidence to support their allegations.
We have been waiting for their research. Where is it for us to look at? Creationist do not do research. Their only activity seems to be producing endless and repeated straw-man criticisms of evolution.
The scientific evidence accumulated by virtually every branch of science over the past 150 years falsifies Biblical Creationism. We do not have to badmouth "the research creationists", because they do not exist.
Adding ID/Creationism to the science curriculum of our educational institutions will not level the playing field, it will ultimately just leave a big hole where science education used to be.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2008 2:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 6:25 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 43 of 305 (452922)
01-31-2008 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by randman
01-31-2008 6:25 PM


Re: Sometime Within 20 Years
Tanypteryx in Message 37 writes:
The truth is, if ID/Creationism becomes part of the science curriculum there will be no more secular scientists emerging from our educational institutions.
Randman writes:
I have to ask you and don't take it as offensive, please, but do you genuinely believe that? You think if ID and creationism are taught alongside Darwinism that "there will be no more secular scientists emerging"?
No offense taken. The people politically lobbying to include ID and creationism in science classes have made it pretty clear in their "wedge document" that the goal is not to teach it alongside evolution, but to replace evolution. So, yes I do believe what I said above.
I do not think they will ever be able to convince the courts, the science teachers or the scientific community that they have something legitimate to offer, other than as an example of pseudo-science. When we ask the question, "Where's the science?", all we hear is silence.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 6:25 PM randman has not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 54 of 305 (453492)
02-02-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Beretta
02-02-2008 11:44 AM


Re: one thing is clear
Beretta writes:
However, allowing children to see that it is not necessarily categorically proven that macroevolution by random mutation is 'truth'is a very good idea -no matter what you think is true.
Allow them to think rather than rely on materialistic dogma -that's the point.
The point is, that students should not be taught any dogma. In order to learn to think critically they should be taught the definition of a scientific theory and how it is different from an hypothesis. They should be taught that science is always tentative, that in science nothing is ever "categorically proven". They should understand that science is not about dogma or indoctrination, but is about trying to organize observations and evidence in a coherent way that describes the natural world.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Beretta, posted 02-02-2008 11:44 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Beretta, posted 02-03-2008 7:35 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 121 of 305 (454383)
02-06-2008 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Cold Foreign Object
02-06-2008 5:40 PM


CFO in message 117 writes:
Human evolution says apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years. Evolution says mankind descended from apes and was not created by God from the clay-like ground. Human evolution is the most basic claim of Darwinism, you should know that.
CFO in message 118 writes:
Commentary presupposes that genome similarity indicates proof of descent from chimpanzees. The same is an interpretation of said evidence based on the supposition that evolution has occurred, and based on the supposition that Genesis is false. Of course, suppositions are not evidence but filters that interpret evidence.
Ray, you have posted over 3200 times in these forums and by now you have no excuse for not knowing that the 2 statements above are false. The Theory of Evolution does not say that humans evolved from chimpanzees. You are clearly making the point that as a Christian you are willing to lie to get your way. I assume that once the courts rule your way that you will continue to misrepresent science in the classrooms.
It is the same as me insisting that: "Genesis clearly states that Thor created the earth from his toenail clippings. Everyone knows that is what it says."

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-06-2008 5:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-06-2008 7:04 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 128 of 305 (454415)
02-06-2008 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Cold Foreign Object
02-06-2008 7:35 PM


CFO writes:
When the corruption of the Constitution is reversed, science will be restored to the classroom one appoitment at a time.
If the future you envision comes to pass life in America will be pretty grim. While you are at it you better add some new amendments to the constitution, like, "no thinking about evolution allowed", "no reading anything but the bible" in fact, "no thinking at all".
You need not be so paranoid, we are only trying to restore a scientific theory that over half of all adults in America accept as true
You are delusional and your vision scares the hell out of me. You really think that majority should rule when it comes to science. Let's just ignore the truth, the evidence, and vote on it. It was exactly your kind of thinking that Galileo had to face 400 years ago.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-06-2008 7:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-06-2008 10:46 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 165 of 305 (454571)
02-07-2008 5:30 PM


Pointless Rants
I guess we can all imagine the future Ray is praying for. I am glad that he does not represent those that are trying to get their ID/Creationist agenda into the public classrooms. The only way Ray's vision could succeed is if we all went insane and stupid at the same time.
I am still puzzled about what it is that the IDists want to be added to the curriculum. Do they really expect science teachers to say, "Everything we just taught you about biology is a lie and biology is just too complicated understand."?
As far as Ray goes, I think it is pointless to respond further to him. Nothing he says makes any rational sense or adds to the discussion.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 275 of 305 (455791)
02-13-2008 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by CTD
02-13-2008 6:52 PM


CDT writes:
Can we drop this now? It's O.T. and nobody's demonstrating an impressive understanding of how to test the predictive capacity of "Natural Selection" scientifically.
You are right it is off topic, but then, every one of your posts has been off topic.
The topic is ID in the classroom, but all you can talk about is hogwash about evolution. You are not demonstrating an impressive understanding of how to test the predictive capacity of "ID/Creationism" scientifically.
Where's your hypothesis, or theory, or model or curriculum?
No one is going to allow your silly crap in the classroom until you can actually do SCIENCE.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by CTD, posted 02-13-2008 6:52 PM CTD 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