Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
103 online now:
Faith, frako, PaulK (3 members, 100 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,039 Year: 2,787/23,288 Month: 978/1,809 Week: 97/313 Day: 14/39 Hour: 0/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Coyote
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 7 of 609 (481621)
09-11-2008 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Syamsu
09-11-2008 8:08 PM


Creation "science" in classrooms
So simply present the best possible evidence for creation you can think of.

Creation is a religious belief, not something that can be addressed through science. It is based on belief, not on evidence.

What you are advocating is that science kowtow to your religious beliefs; kind of like an affirmative action program, eh?

That brings up the question: just what religious beliefs qualify for this affirmative action program? Just yours? Or all of the approximately 4,300 extant world religions? Or if we limit it to Christianity, you do realize that there are some 43,000 different branches of Christianity, don't you? Do you want to teach them all, or just yours?

I think it would be a better idea for you to deal with religion in churches and the like, and let science deal with scientific matters in other venues.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Syamsu, posted 09-11-2008 8:08 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Syamsu, posted 09-12-2008 6:41 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 10 of 609 (481635)
09-11-2008 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by johnfolton
09-11-2008 11:22 PM


Teaching lies creation "science"
What you are advocating teaching is a pack of creationist misinformation, distortion, omission, quote mining and outright lies.

Every point you make has been refuted by science, and the evidence is overwhelmingly against a young earth. Your carbon 14 dating claims are of particular interest to me as I deal with that field a lot. Your claims are outright distortions and deliberate misrepresentations of the data. Every one has been refuted, but YECers of course refuse to believe the evidence because YEC beliefs are not evidence based!

Why should such distortions and lies be taught in science class just because some fringe group believes them?

It would seem to be a more suitable subject for an abnormal psychology class.

(The Enlightenment happened; get used to it!)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by johnfolton, posted 09-11-2008 11:22 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2008 12:14 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 12 by XX, posted 09-12-2008 12:19 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 14 of 609 (481653)
09-12-2008 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
09-11-2008 5:37 PM


On teaching creationism in science class
Ultimately, the topic of debate then is, whether abject refusal to discuss that other people have other ideas is ultimately worse than accepting that other ideas exist, acknowledging them, and then explaining the scientific ideas. What are people's opinions on mentioning teleology as a way of leading to explaining natural selection as a design-argument-buster? On providing historical context on the various beliefs and ideas that preceded Darwinism (not just the religious ones)? And how some of those ideas remain in popular belief?

Each way of handling the situation has its own pitfalls, so which is ultimately better?

In spite of some of the comments on this thread, creationism is a religious belief, and it, along with associated ideas such as a young earth, have no scientific evidence to support them.

Creationists apparently want their beliefs considered, respected, and, most importantly, not refuted in science classes so that those students who hold those beliefs are not made to feel bad or to doubt their religious beliefs.

Sorry, science is not in the "feel good" game. Science can't teach students that those religious beliefs are supported by scientific evidence because they are not. Science can't avoid confronting the subject because to avoid the evolutionary sciences, biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, and all methods of dating would essentially gut the scientific curriculum.

And science can't avoid drawing conclusions from data. Someone on this thread suggested teaching just the data and avoiding the conclusions. That won't work. Science is facts and theories. As Heinlein has noted, "Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness. A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts."

So the problem comes down to whether you teach science in science classes and let feelings be hurt on occasion, or whether you censor science for all students in order to protect a small number of students from learning what has been discovered by mainstream science.

Since the Enlightenment, we no longer have to kowtow to religious authority and science is free to go where the data leads. The answer then is obvious--teach science in science classes.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 09-11-2008 5:37 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by XX, posted 09-12-2008 1:39 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 18 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2008 6:49 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Syamsu, posted 09-12-2008 7:09 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2008 1:07 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 26 of 609 (481805)
09-12-2008 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Syamsu
09-12-2008 5:02 PM


Re: On teaching creationism in science class
The problems science has with creationism, is the same problem it has with free will.

Anyway what specifically would be taught.

Creationism would have to be taught as "Some folks believe... but science has found no evidence to support that belief."

This would amount to an affirmative action program initiated only because creationists have more votes on a school board somewhere, or bigger lawyers, rather than being a legitimate part of science. And everyone would know it.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Syamsu, posted 09-12-2008 5:02 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 609 (481895)
09-13-2008 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Modulous
09-13-2008 11:43 AM


Critical analysis?
I don't propose we should teach creation myths: I propose that X should be more like 'the world was created by something like God' or that Y might be 'the world had existed forever'.

Will this creation idea be subjected to the "critical analysis" that science excels at (and that creationists want applied to the theory of evolution but not to their own beliefs)?

A science class can teach that creationism is a belief held by some number of people, but any details of those beliefs should be subject to critical analysis.

"Critical analysis" is how science distinguishes between different ideas. To give religious beliefs equal time in science classes, without applying that critical analysis, amounts to affirmative action for ideas that don't belong in science or in science education.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2008 11:43 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2008 2:12 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 56 of 609 (482013)
09-13-2008 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by johnfolton
09-13-2008 11:26 PM


Re: Creation "Science"
You are your creation "science" talking points -- you're getting to be a one-trick pony.

And all those points have been rebutted by mainstream science, but you keep posting the same nonsense as though it was real science.

Reminds me of Heinlein's line:

Belief gets in the way of learning.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

Why don't you start a thread just on the carbon 14 nonsense you are so fond of quoting? A refutation here would be off topic, but if you have the ability to do just one focused point, such as carbon 14 dating, we could get into it in some detail in a dedicated thread.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by johnfolton, posted 09-13-2008 11:26 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 72 of 609 (482133)
09-14-2008 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by johnfolton
09-14-2008 10:07 PM


Attitude !!!!!!! counts for squat. It is evidence that counts.
The evolutionists have an attitude of bullying teachers but against the professionals that are not under their authority they shun because they would lose against the young earth folk!

The creationists like Brown simply challenges any professional scientists to a debate on the sciences where attitude simply will not be tolerated.

The debate is long since over. Your side lost.

These issues are not decided in a public debate in front of an audience, as the creationists prefer. In that venue debating techniques and slick presentation can be important.

Rather the debate has already been held in the scientific journals and your side lost long ago. In fact, the issue of a young earth was conceded by about 1818 by the early geologists who were trying to prove genesis and the flood.

That is why creation "science" is not welcome in schools. It is all creation and no science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by johnfolton, posted 09-14-2008 10:07 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 118 of 609 (524319)
09-15-2009 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Infy
09-15-2009 7:20 PM


Welcome
Welcome, and good post.

I wish more schools did as well.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Infy, posted 09-15-2009 7:20 PM Infy has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 122 of 609 (547300)
02-17-2010 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by achristian1985
02-17-2010 11:22 PM


Re: Genesis is an evolutionary account
I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system.

Agreed.

In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality...

Sorry, that has not been established. "Spiritual reality" is a null term.

... and Biblical truth

Sorry, in many instances "biblical truth" has been disproved.

...and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race.

According to who? And which god(s)? Please provide some empirical evidence for this/these.

Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.

The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.

You will have to demonstrate this.

Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.

Scientists have for scientific reasons, based on data and theory, disproved a variety of religious beliefs. Young earth and special creation (kinds) are but two.

Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.
For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.
Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139
To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?

Religious based arguments ignored for lack of evidence.

There are six specific categories of life formed in the six?day account: 1. Plants in the sea, 2. Vegetation (plants and trees) on the
land, 3. Life (fish) in the sea, 4. Birds over the earth, 5. Life (cattle, etc.) on the earth, 6. Man.
The order of their listing in the six?day account is in the same specific chronological order of appearance determined by scientifically derived (evolutionary) evidence:
O1. Sea-plants: Pre?Cambrian 531 million B.C.
2. Land vegetation: Mid?Silurian 365?380 million B.C.
3. Aquatic life: Devonian 255?316 million B.C.
4. Birds: Jurassic 131 million B.C.
5. Land life: Paleocene Epoch 50?60 million B.C.
6. Man: Late Tertiary Period 1?3 million B.C.

I think you may need to rethink some of this. Forget the bible and concentrate on the science and see what you end up with.

Do you really believe that this is coincidental? How did Moses know the correct order when he wrote Genesis thousands of years ago, long before the rise of the scientific methods that have objectively verified the Genesis account? The mathematical odds against this being coincidental are 720 to 1; in other words, 720 to 1 that this account is divinely inspired, since divine inspiration is the only alternative to coincidence. Truly the Bible is the inspired Word of God!

This reminds me of a poster a few years back on another website who insisted, in spite of all that we told him, that the odds against evolution were 1720.

In other words, numbers only mean something when they are attached to something concrete, and are arrived at correctly.

Your whole post appears to be an attempt to couch biblical beliefs in scientific terms in the hope of convincing (fooling) someone. In order to bring this into the realm of science you will have to start documenting these claims and not just rely on "spiritual truth" or some such.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by achristian1985, posted 02-17-2010 11:22 PM achristian1985 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by achristian1985, posted 02-18-2010 12:06 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 125 by achristian1985, posted 02-18-2010 12:11 AM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 126 of 609 (547308)
02-18-2010 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by achristian1985
02-18-2010 12:11 AM


Re: bark goodbye
Quantity does not demonstrate quality.

You seem to be proof of that.

And spam is never appreciated. I guess you can't defend your claims and have to run away before you can face the challenges we'll present.

By the way, if you haven't already, go over to www.DarwinCentral.org and see how long you last there. You'll end up in the Zoo in 15 minutes or less if any mods are awake.

{Content hidden, suspension considered. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by achristian1985, posted 02-18-2010 12:11 AM achristian1985 has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 132 of 609 (605964)
02-22-2011 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Robert Byers
02-22-2011 8:58 PM


Creationist nonsense solidly refuted
The argument for American schools i always prevail with is simple.
The founding Yankee and Southern Puritan/Protestant people did not in any way put in their constitution anything to ban God or Genesis as truth or option for truth on origins in public institutions where the issue comes up.
Therefore there is no law against creationism in biology class etc.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees. See their Edwards decision.

One can simply say the state is not everything the state pays for. Schools are not the state and so unrelated to ideas of separation of religion and government.

See above.

One could also say the present law of censorship by addressing conclusions about origins to kids and then banning creationism(s) and teaching opposite ideas that deny creationism is in fact brwaking the very law it invokes for the censorship.

Nonsense. Some ideas are grounded in science and others are grounded in unsupported ancient tribal myths.

Creationism is on soldi ground for all freedoms in schools on these issues and simply needs people to push the matter in politics and in court cases.

One word: Dover.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Robert Byers, posted 02-22-2011 8:58 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 157 of 609 (606111)
02-23-2011 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by shadow71
02-23-2011 8:04 PM


That pesky evidence thing again
In the class room evolution and creation can be discussed by intelligent instructors.

And the evidence for creation is????

Evolution is based on evidence, so what is the evidence for creation?

Or should teachers just say "There is no credible evidence yet known for creation" and move on to the next subject?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 8:04 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 8:23 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 171 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-24-2011 12:53 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 161 of 609 (606118)
02-23-2011 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by shadow71
02-23-2011 8:23 PM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
shadow71 writes:

Perhaps the instructor could tell them that science has no scientifically agreeed theory of the orgin of life, and the Bible does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life.

To this day we cannot say with certainity whether either or both are correct. That will be for you to read about and decide. After all they are students.

Below is an example of another tribal myth. Do you want to have that taught also? Or do you want us to just accept your tribal myths?

The Creation of Men and Women

When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was chief of the animals. He saw that the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but he grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. "It is impossible," he said, "that he should be left alone; he must have a mate." So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.

The man opened his eyes and stared at the woman. "What does this mean?" he asked. "I thought I was alone!" Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied the man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together."

California Indian creation story

Do you have some empirical method for examining these various myths and evaluating their potential accuracy?

And what criteria would you apply to them?

Remember, any criteria you apply has to apply equally to all.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 8:23 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

Coyote
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 167 of 609 (606134)
02-23-2011 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by NoNukes
02-23-2011 8:54 PM


Re: Dogma
Science classes are not 'philosophy of thinking' classes. In a science class we should expect students to actually practice the empirical scientific method and to follow the evidence whereever it leads.

That's what the creationists are so afraid of.

When students are exposed to the scientific method and empirical evidence many tend to dismiss dogma and unsupported beliefs.

Why else do you think creationists are so anxious to get their beliefs back into classrooms. And if they ever succeed, do you think they will allow challenges based on empirical evidence and the scientific method?

Empirical evidence and the scientific method are not what creation "science" and intelligent design are all about. More like the exact opposite.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2011 8:54 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Coyote
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 211 of 609 (606598)
02-26-2011 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by shadow71
02-26-2011 7:32 PM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
There is more to life than scientific theory. Students should be taught that science does not have all the answers, and that there are religious revelations more than 10,000 years old that propose that creation may not be a completely natural phenomen.

So we need to teach any and all religious revelations that folks bring forth, eh?

How about those that are clearly wrong: the global flood about 4,350 years ago and young earth, for example? Those ideas have gone the way of Thor's hammer and the chariot of the sun in Egypt.

I don't think that information will undermine their scientific careers and I think it will broaden their horizons .

If those religious ideas are taught along side the evidence that shows they are incorrect, I agree that it will broaden their horizons. But I don't suppose that's what you want, eh? You just want them all taught as if they were correct and verifiable.

Better start coming up with some evidence then. That's the way it is done in science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:32 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020