Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 135 of 609 (606027)
02-23-2011 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Robert Byers
02-22-2011 8:58 PM


Not censorship
Robert Byers writes:
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.
Exactly what law of censorship is involved when the state directs one of its employees what curriculum to teach during performance of the employee's duties?
If you've always prevailed using these arguments, you must be restriction your "debates" to groups of like minded people.
Would it also be censorship if the state prevented a teacher from going beyond the allowed curriculum and to actually ridicule Genesis in a biology class?

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

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 609 (606028)
02-23-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Robert Byers
02-22-2011 8:58 PM


Not censorship
oops
Edited by NoNukes, : accidental duplicate

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

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 609 (606071)
02-23-2011 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by shadow71
02-23-2011 5:00 PM


Yes, its dogma
shadow71 writes:
I think it is premature to state that creationism is just a religious dogma.
Even if the fundamentalist, literal interpretation of Genesis were 100% true, at this point that interpretation is solely based on the Bible. There is no independent, extra-Bible support and not all believers in the Bible's truth agree with that interpretation. That means creationism is religious dogma.
quote:
I don't see how you can state that w/certainty when the Origin of life is not known.
Completely irrelevant. The origin of life is not the only disagreement with science.
Edited by NoNukes, : Fix tags

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 5:00 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 7:24 PM NoNukes has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 609 (606102)
02-23-2011 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by shadow71
02-23-2011 7:24 PM


Re: Yes, its dogma
shadow71 writes:
Can you honestly state w/o knowing the origin of life that there could be no creation event?
Is your question relevant to whether any particular origin of life story is dogma? In my opinion your question is irrelevant.
quote:
Have you read the Roman Catholic Church's position on evolution and creation?
Yes I have. Is it your opinion that their position is dogma free?
Edited by NoNukes, : ask question

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 7:24 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by shadow71, posted 02-24-2011 1:20 PM NoNukes has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 609 (606124)
02-23-2011 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by shadow71
02-23-2011 8:04 PM


Dogma
shadow71 writes:
But I don't agree with Dr. Adequate that religious dogma is false and not to be considered.
In the class room evolution and creation can be discussed by intelligent instructors.
I would expect that a proper science class discussing these subjects would inevitably be at least partly dismissive of acceptance of dogma. I wouldn't want my kids to be taught religion in a science class. I'm perfectly okay with taking charge of their religious training outside of school.
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.
Edited by NoNukes, : Corerect misattribution

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 8:04 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Coyote, posted 02-23-2011 9:07 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 609 (606139)
02-23-2011 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by shadow71
02-23-2011 7:24 PM


Re: Yes, its dogma
shadow71 writes:
Nonukes writes:
Completely irrelevant. The origin of life is not the only disagreement with science.
What do you mean by that statement? It is completely incomprehensible.
Yes, my statement is poorly written. The creation story in the Bible disagrees with science on far more than the origin of life. The creation story is incompatible with the scientific evidence for the origin of species, including man.
But I see you're now denying having said that creationism is not dogma. Perhaps I need not have bothered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 7:24 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 609 (606215)
02-24-2011 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Robert Byers
02-24-2011 2:49 AM


Robert Byers writes:
I can answer everyones same points by dealing with this post.
This is why I always prevail.
Nobody said why my post was wrong. Just repeated slogans.
Actually Rahvin explained in detail where your post departs from the actual law in this country. But you are not prepared to even acknowledge any such explanation. You prevail in your own head simply by denying all contrary evidence with mere repetition.
Byers writes:
The important thing of this post is INDEED the state must be neutral on religious matters.
Yet when teaching about origins and 1) banning creationism and 2) teaching ideas against creationism THEN its not neutral on some Christian etc doctrines.
Unfortunately for you, according to the law, teaching science that happends to disagree with religious doctrine is neutral and constitutional. If the science leads to evidence that conflicts with your favorite religious doctrine, teaching the science does not violation the first amendment.
Here's a relevant quote from the Supreme Court decision Edward v. Aguillard regarding a law requiring teaching Genesis based creationism whenever evolution was taught.
quote:
The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose.
Byers writes:
The thirteen colonies DID not put anything in the constitution to ban God or Genesis in schools. Absurdity for such a religious people. The purpose was to stop interference between state and church. Yet teaching about origins crosses the boundaries.
Sorry, but that simply isn't the law, and repeating it like a slogan won't make it so. Most likely the colonists did not want their neighbor's church to dictating to them on religious matters any more than they wanted the state to dictate to their own church.
Keep on prevailing, Mr. Byers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Robert Byers, posted 02-24-2011 2:49 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Robert Byers, posted 02-28-2011 5:27 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 609 (606227)
02-24-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by arachnophilia
02-23-2011 3:31 PM


14th Amendment incorporation nit pick
arachnophillia writes:
this isn't entirely accurate. technically speaking, it only means that federal law making agencies (eg: the congress) can't establish a state religion. the "state" part was secured by the fourteenth amendment, which says in part:
You are correct to point out that portions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states only by way of the fourteenth amendment. But it is incorrect to point to the Privileges and Immunities clause as the mechanism. Instead, incorporation is based on the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment.
That Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment was essentially rendered meaningless by the Supreme Court in Slaughterhouse cases of 1873. Very few court decisions since 1873 have cited the P&I clause of the 14th Amendment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by arachnophilia, posted 02-23-2011 3:31 PM arachnophilia has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 609 (606289)
02-24-2011 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by shadow71
02-24-2011 1:47 PM


Myth
shadow71 writes:
I have no problem with that policy except for the "myth" interpretation.
I suspect that it would be unconstitutional for a science teacher or any other state employee to label Bible stories as myths. But what isn't so clear is what other kinds of things might get forced into the curriculum in a religious education class in a public school in order to make the course pass constitutional muster.
I suspect that the result would be a course in which few fundamentalists would want to enroll their kids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by shadow71, posted 02-24-2011 1:47 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 609 (606293)
02-24-2011 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by shadow71
02-24-2011 1:20 PM


Shadow71s Objection
shadow71 writes:
object to telling the students that Creation must be naturally caused.
This objection wouldn't prevent evolution from being taught, it wouldn't prevent science classes from presenting the meagre evidence available that supports speculating on abiogenesis without mentioning Genesis as an alternative, and it wouldn't prevent an astronomy class from teaching evidenced scientific theories of the history of the universe.
I suspect that you really object to far more than you are saying here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by shadow71, posted 02-24-2011 1:20 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by shadow71, posted 02-24-2011 7:12 PM NoNukes has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 609 (606337)
02-24-2011 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by shadow71
02-24-2011 7:12 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
shadow71 writes:
I never stated that I wanted evolution from being taught. I have stated on many occasions on this forum that I have no problem with evolution, just with the assumption that "random mutation for fitness" and "natural" selection are proven entities.
Sorry, but you are objecting to the teaching of the scientifically accepted theory of evoloution in science classrooms. The evidence that random mutation and natural selection occur in nature and that they are responsible for the diversity of species is overwhelming. Nobody cares all that much that you personally are not convinced.
You can pretend to be on-board with the position of the Catholic Church on evolution, but you aren't anywhere near being able to live with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by shadow71, posted 02-24-2011 7:12 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by shadow71, posted 02-25-2011 2:10 PM NoNukes has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 609 (606346)
02-25-2011 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by subbie
02-24-2011 7:42 PM


"random mutation for fitness"
subbie writes:
I have no idea what you mean by "random mutation for fitness" so I can't speak to that.
Based on other discussions, I'm sure shadow71 does not believe that mutations occur randomly with respect to fitness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by subbie, posted 02-24-2011 7:42 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 609 (606475)
02-25-2011 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by shadow71
02-25-2011 2:10 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
shadow71 writes:
No Nukes writes;
I am basing my position on "natural" selection, and "random" mutation both on my view of creation and James A. Shapiro's Natural Genetic Engilneering papers on 21st centrury evolution that ,in my opinion, provide evidence that both selection and mutation for fitness may not be completely natural and random.
Probably off topic to pursue this too much further. Even if Shapiro's paper did say what you believe it says, and it seems only you hold that opinion, that would still means that you object to the teaching of mainstream science in science classs on fairly paltry evidence.
There is plenty of evidence that mutations are random with respect to fitness; certainly enough evidence to teach the random mutation aspect of the thoery of evolution in a science class. On the other hand, there seems to be scant evidence that mutations are non-random.
quote:
I am completely in agreement with the Catholic's Church"s teaching on biological evolution, which accepts evolution as part of creation and "special creation" in re Man's soul.
Fair enough. I apologize for saying that you were not in agreement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by shadow71, posted 02-25-2011 2:10 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 609 (606611)
02-27-2011 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by shadow71
02-26-2011 7:09 PM


shadow71 writes:
and were not reduced to robotic christian fundamentalists as many posts by scientists on this board propose may happen if we happen to mention that perhaps science does not have all the answers.
Nonsense. Essentially nobody has said this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:09 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 609 (607281)
03-02-2011 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by arachnophilia
03-02-2011 8:29 PM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
arachnophilia writes:
coyote writes:
Creationism is unsupported by evidence. Until it can come up with something better than "evolution is all wet" it doesn't deserve any place in science or in classrooms.
i disagree. if there actually was a problem with evolution, and something pointed it out, that would be very much a legitimate part of the scientific process.
I'm not sure why you disagree. If the pointing out did not include any reference to empirical evidence, then the pointing out should be ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by arachnophilia, posted 03-02-2011 8:29 PM arachnophilia 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