Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
577 online now:
frako, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 574 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,902 Year: 21,938/19,786 Month: 501/1,834 Week: 1/500 Day: 1/96 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help in teaching 11-12 Year olds (RE (Religious Education) in the UK)
Peg
Member (Idle past 3267 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 31 of 126 (538543)
12-07-2009 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Huntard
12-07-2009 6:47 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
or perhaps they would be laughed out of the lab if they proclaimed belief in creation?

their goes their credentials!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Huntard, posted 12-07-2009 6:47 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Huntard, posted 12-07-2009 6:59 PM Peg has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 632 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 32 of 126 (538545)
12-07-2009 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Peg
12-07-2009 6:51 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Peg writes:

or perhaps they would be laughed out of the lab if they proclaimed belief in creation?


Yes, since there's nothing scientific about creation.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 6:51 PM Peg has not yet responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 33 of 126 (538546)
12-07-2009 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Peg
12-07-2009 6:40 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
why dont scientists present a Theory of Creation???

Is it because they refuse to believe that a God could exist???

No, it's because of their tiresome dedication to presenting what reality teaches.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 6:40 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 7:26 PM Dr Jack has responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 34 of 126 (538547)
12-07-2009 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Peg
12-07-2009 6:40 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
the issue of creation IS a religious topic.

And for kids to be informed of the difference between the ToE and creation, then the only place they'll hear the difference is in their religious class because science refuses to present creation as an alternative. IOW in science, there is no choice.

This is a valid issue. Children should not only be taught about the difference between Creation and Evolution in an (obviously biased) religious setting.

Yet Creationism is not scientific. That's why it has no place in the classroom in the first place.

I think the solution is, in fact, to draw the distinction in the classroom. Teach the Theory of Evolution as accurately as possible (which already requires extreme remediation for most American teachers at the High School level and below). Don't teach Creation as an "alternative" because scientifically, it's nothing of the sort. But you can use Creationism as a useful tool to draw into contrast what is and is not a scientific theory.

You'd have to be careful - you cannot call a specific religion's teachings outright false for all the same reasons we don't allow religious teaching in public classrooms. But you can show that faith-based topics like Creationism are different from science, and do not use the scientific method.

I remember back in my Junior year of High School, we spent a significant amount of time at the beginning of the year learning about what science actually is. About how science is never the search for truth, but rather a never-ending quest for ever-increasing accuracy in understanding and modeling the natural world around us.

The Theory of Evolution has been rigorously tested for a very long time, and has been changed over the years such that it is now extremely accurate when compared to observational data and in predicting what we should find when new species (extant or fossilized) are discovered (among other things).

This can be contrasted with religious views by simply stating that sacred texts like Genesis could be true, but there is no way to test their accuracy. That science requires being able to test your hypotheses against observed evidence to determine accuracy, while religious stories simply claim to be true, full stop.

I think an effective contrast can be made without saying that Creationism (regardless of which creation myth we're talking about) is actually false, and stressing to children that while individually we all are only able to believe what we find to be a convincing argument, science can only accept that which has tested accuracy, and does not concern itself with the truth or falsehood of that which it cannot test in the first place.

why dont scientists present a Theory of Creation???

There is no such theory. It's rather difficult to put a theory that doesn't exist through the peer review process. "Creation scientists" have never even managed to publish such a theory, except in the popular media where they needn't concern themselves with the peer review process. Quite simply, someone has to do the legwork and come up with an actual model for Creationism - how, specifically it occurred, the mechanisms that drove it, what evidence supports such an explanation above others, and how such a hypothesis might be tested through experiment or predictions. "Goddidit" is not an explanation or mechanism, is untestable, and involves no evidence.

As soon as a Creation Scientist comes up with an actual, fully-formed hypothesis with evidenciary support and potential falsification, I assure you that other scientists will look at it.

Is it because they refuse to believe that a God could exist???

How absurd. Peg, you know full well that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in some deity or another. You've just suggested that scientists who happen to also be Christians refuse to believe that God exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 6:40 PM Peg has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3267 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 35 of 126 (538548)
12-07-2009 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Jack
12-07-2009 7:03 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
MrJack writes:

it's because of their tiresome dedication to presenting what reality teaches.

ok, so if we look at what evolutionists teach, it should be able to be tested and varified like gravity can. Gravity can be demonstrated, tested, and proved in the lab and elsewhere.

so tell me, does the evidence support the evolution of life from inanimate chemicals? Has that be tested in a lab and has it been proved that inanimate chemicals can make the leap from non living to living matter?

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2009 7:03 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2009 10:17 PM Peg has responded
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2009 10:20 PM Peg has responded
 Message 49 by Dr Jack, posted 12-08-2009 5:55 PM Peg has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 126 (538558)
12-07-2009 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Peg
12-07-2009 6:40 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
the issue of creation IS a religious topic.

Yes. And for that reason alone it has no business in public schools.

And for kids to be informed of the difference between the ToE and creation, then the only place they'll hear the difference is in their religious class because science refuses to present creation as an alternative. IOW in science, there is no choice.

No! In science the "choices" are based on scientific evidence. Various non-scientific beliefs, for which there is no empirical evidence, have no place at all in science.

why dont scientists present a Theory of Creation???

See above.

Is it because they refuse to believe that a God could exist???

It is because there is no empirical evidence for gods and demons, yours or anyone else's.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 6:40 PM Peg has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 37 of 126 (538560)
12-07-2009 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Peg
12-07-2009 7:26 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
so tell me, does the evidence support the evolution of life from inanimate chemicals? Has that be tested in a lab and has it been proved that inanimate chemicals can make the leap from non living to living matter?


One more time: the theory of evolution does not deal with origins.

The theory of evolution would work equally well whether the first life was created by some deity, dropped in from outer space, or came about chemically.

Why are you unable to separate origins from evolution?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 7:26 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 10:44 PM Coyote has responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 38 of 126 (538562)
12-07-2009 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Peg
12-07-2009 7:26 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
so tell me, does the evidence support the evolution of life from inanimate chemicals?

What do you think exactly is being taught?

My memory of being taught this stuff in the UK was quite simple. We spent a tiny amount of time on evolution and adaptation and there was a footnote to the effect of 'Scientists believe the origin of life started in a sort of organic soup...' etc. And yes - there is evidence of this claim, the consensus of scientists do think the origin of life started in what might be simply termed 'organic soup'.

has it been proved that inanimate chemicals can make the leap from non living to living matter?

Could you explain the difference between 'living' and 'non living' matter? It sounds like you think there might be some 'vital force' or something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 7:26 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 10:49 PM Modulous has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3267 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 39 of 126 (538567)
12-07-2009 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coyote
12-07-2009 10:17 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Coyote writes:

Why are you unable to separate origins from evolution?

I guess its because evolution implies that life 'evolved' - the definition of which is "To develop or achieve gradually"

no intervention needed apparently...no designer, no creator

And besides that, when evolution was first presented, it was said to be the answer to where the human race came from. So according to evolution, we were not created by God in our current form.

And to prove that we were not created in our current form, you need to be able to show that life can evolve from chemical reactions into living matter.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2009 10:17 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2009 11:12 PM Peg has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3267 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 40 of 126 (538568)
12-07-2009 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Modulous
12-07-2009 10:20 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Modulous writes:

And yes - there is evidence of this claim, the consensus of scientists do think the origin of life started in what might be simply termed 'organic soup'.

thats exactly what i'm talking about. There was no life, then in this soup of 'goup', life evolved

something caused the nonliving matter to change into living matter and from there all the species on earth sprang

If that were true, then surely scientists would be able to reproduce it in the lab. We have all the chemicals here, all the building blocks of life are right here, so you would expect that they could reproduce this amazing thing called 'life'

have they?

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2009 10:20 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 12-08-2009 10:10 AM Peg has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 41 of 126 (538570)
12-07-2009 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Peg
12-07-2009 10:44 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
And to prove that we were not created in our current form, you need to be able to show that life can evolve from chemical reactions into living matter.

No!

What we need to show is that life forms can evolve. Origins makes no difference at all! That is an entirely different question.

Didn't you see the section in my previous post that I put in yellow, bold, and larger type? Go back and reread that post.

I believe what is happening is that you don't like those answers (e.g., origins and evolution are distinct) so you are ignoring them. If this is the case it would be helpful for all of us for you to admit that and then we could move on. Otherwise we're repeating the same explanation time after time, thread after thread, and that's not good for a productive discussion. It just leads to frustration.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 10:44 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 11:50 PM Coyote has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3267 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 42 of 126 (538573)
12-07-2009 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Coyote
12-07-2009 11:12 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Coyote writes:

What we need to show is that life forms can evolve.

well lets be realistic here...genetics dictates evolution becuase its genetics that creates variety and change

Coyote writes:

I believe what is happening is that you don't like those answers (e.g., origins and evolution are distinct) so you are ignoring them.

the are not disctinct because logically, you cannot have evolution without first having origins

What you and others are saying is tantamount to me saying, God and the supernatural are completely separate issues.

Coyote writes:

Otherwise we're repeating the same explanation time after time, thread after thread, and that's not good for a productive discussion. It just leads to frustration.

I can understand your frustration. Perhaps you can try to understand mine. Evolution is only 1/2 of the picture. For evolution to be true, it requires the 'origins' to be true....this is not something that scientists can test or prove by any amount of scientific manipulation. If they could prove that life can come from an organic 'soup', then the picture would be complete.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2009 11:12 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Coyote, posted 12-08-2009 1:51 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Huntard, posted 12-08-2009 1:53 AM Peg has responded
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 12-08-2009 1:59 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Vacate, posted 12-08-2009 5:11 AM Peg has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 43 of 126 (538577)
12-08-2009 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Peg
12-07-2009 11:50 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
I can understand your frustration. Perhaps you can try to understand mine. Evolution is only 1/2 of the picture. For evolution to be true, it requires the 'origins' to be true....this is not something that scientists can test or prove by any amount of scientific manipulation. If they could prove that life can come from an organic 'soup', then the picture would be complete.

NO!

No!

Still No.!

Any origin works fine with evolution.

Space aliens seeding life works.

Spores from outer space work.

Old Man Coyote, or Eagle, or the deity of your choice work.

And the warm pond works.

If you don't accept this for religious reasons try this test: explain the differences that are necessary from that first origin for these four different possibilities, and explain why any one must be favored over any other in order for the theory of evolution to be an accurate explanation for the data we have.

Use only scientific evidence in your explanation. Religious belief, without any supporting empirical evidence, should be reserved for elsewhere for now.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 11:50 PM Peg has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 632 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 44 of 126 (538578)
12-08-2009 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Peg
12-07-2009 11:50 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Peg writes:

well lets be realistic here...genetics dictates evolution becuase its genetics that creates variety and change.


Natural Selection is also needed.

the are not disctinct because logically, you cannot have evolution without first having origins.

Again: The origin of life is irrelevant to the question of how lifeforms develop (ie evolve). What part of the word irrelevant don't you understand?

What you and others are saying is tantamount to me saying, God and the supernatural are completely separate issues.

No it isn't. Since god is supernatural. yeyt evolution isn't origins.

I can understand your frustration.

The why not take in the simple fact that origins are completely irrelevant to Evolution?

Perhaps you can try to understand mine. Evolution is only 1/2 of the picture. For evolution to be true, it requires the 'origins' to be true...

Yes, but how they came about is, repeat after me, irrelevant.

this is not something that scientists can test or prove by any amount of scientific manipulation.

Not yet, no.

If they could prove that life can come from an organic 'soup', then the picture would be complete.

For the origins yes. The picture of evolution has long since been "complete" (well, you know, as complete as something can be in science).

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 11:50 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 5:27 AM Huntard has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15629
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 45 of 126 (538580)
12-08-2009 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Peg
12-07-2009 11:50 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
quote:

the are not disctinct because logically, you cannot have evolution without first having origins

Only insofar as you cannot have evolution without something capable of evolving. i.e. all we need to know is THAT life exists, not how it came to exist. Newton - and earlier astronomers - didn't need to know how the planets came to exist to study their motions, or even to come to the conclusion that they orbit the sun. The same logic applies.

quote:

What you and others are saying is tantamount to me saying, God and the supernatural are completely separate issues.

Of course that isn't really true. God is a special case of the supernatural (a particular supernatural entity) while the origin of life is not a special case of evolution (because the pre-replicator stages - which is what is under discussion - CANNOT involve evolution at all).

quote:

I can understand your frustration. Perhaps you can try to understand mine. Evolution is only 1/2 of the picture. For evolution to be true, it requires the 'origins' to be true....

But that is obviously false. It doesn't matter to evolution whether current ideas of the origin of life are true or false. Evolution isn't based on them. In fact the flow of knowledge is more likely to be the other way around - our knowledge of evolution will contribute to our understanding of the origin of life. Just as our understanding of the heliocentric solar system has fed into our understanding of how it may have come to exist, rather than vice cersa.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 11:50 PM Peg has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019