Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 181 of 609 (606257)
02-24-2011 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by jar
02-23-2011 7:54 PM


Re: really? really?
jar writes;
It is dogma and so it cannot be taught.
It really is that simple.
I think your statement is too dogmatic.
Science teaches dogma doesn't it? For example Crick's "central dogma of molecular biology."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 02-23-2011 7:54 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 02-24-2011 1:38 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 184 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2011 1:50 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2011 2:29 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 182 of 609 (606258)
02-24-2011 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by shadow71
02-24-2011 1:35 PM


Re: really? really?
shadow71 writes:
jar writes;
It is dogma and so it cannot be taught.
It really is that simple.
I think your statement is too dogmatic.
Science teaches dogma doesn't it? For example Crick's "central dogma of molecular biology."
Nope. Even that is subject to challenge and question.
Nor is it dogma in the same sense as religious dogma.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by shadow71, posted 02-24-2011 1:35 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 183 of 609 (606261)
02-24-2011 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Granny Magda
02-23-2011 8:41 PM


Granny Magda writes;
I do believe that both the Genesis creation myth and the modern Theory of Evolution have their place in the classroom. I just prefer that the religion go in a religious education classroom and that the science go in a science classroom. Any other set up is just going to give fundamentalist Christian teachers an opportunity to preach Biblical literalist/inerrantist rubbish in their classes and that's unacceptable.
I have no problem with that policy except for the "myth" interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Granny Magda, posted 02-23-2011 8:41 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by NoNukes, posted 02-24-2011 3:25 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 188 by Granny Magda, posted 02-24-2011 3:37 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 184 of 609 (606262)
02-24-2011 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by shadow71
02-24-2011 1:35 PM


Re: really? really?
Hi, Shadow71.
shadow71 writes:
Science teaches dogma doesn't it? For example Crick's "central dogma of molecular biology."
That's not really a dogma. Here are some quotes from Crick about the term, appearing on a Wiki page.
It was just stupid terminology by Crick: it was really a scientific law (a consistent pattern that emerges in natural phenomena without a real mechanistic explanation).
Edited by Bluejay, : Corrected "it's" to "it was," because it obviously is no longer thought to be (as Dr A pointed out).

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by shadow71, posted 02-24-2011 1:35 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 185 of 609 (606272)
02-24-2011 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by shadow71
02-24-2011 1:35 PM


Re: really? really?
Science teaches dogma doesn't it? For example Crick's "central dogma of molecular biology."
No. Crick, having heard the word "dogma" in Enlish usage thought that it meant "something for which there is no evidence and may very well be false". Which is actually a good description of any religious dogma.
That's why he used the word "dogma" to describe what he himself knew was no more than a tentative hypothesis.
Finally, science does not teach this "dogma" because all scientists including Crick know it to be false, since retroviruses exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by shadow71, posted 02-24-2011 1:35 PM shadow71 has seen this message but 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

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


Message 187 of 609 (606290)
02-24-2011 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by shadow71
02-24-2011 1:30 PM


shadow71 writes:
subbie writes;
A brilliantly executed "god of the gaps" argument. Well done.
In science class rooms, they are supposed to teach science. If there is in fact no plausible explanation for the beginning of life (a question I will not look to creationists to answer), then we should teach that there is no plausible explanation, but here are the lines of research that show some promise. What we absolutely shouldn't do is say, we don't know, so goddidit.
That is a policy I could live with in the schools. I just do not agree that there should be a negative response to Creation. For example to teach the students that the origin of life must be from natural causes, would be a derogation of religious teaching.
Too bad.
Science is the search for natural explanations for what we see in the real world. Science doesn't teach that the origin of life must be from natural causes, but it only searches for natural causes. If you don't want science to teach in derogation of religious teaching, then religious teaching needs to stop saying things about the natural world that science shows are not so.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by shadow71, posted 02-24-2011 1:30 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 188 of 609 (606291)
02-24-2011 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by shadow71
02-24-2011 1:47 PM


You take umbrage too quick at my use of the word myth. I was using it in this sense of the term;
myth
n.
1. a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
The creation myth provided in Genesis 1 and the further myth provided in Gen 2 fit the bill perfectly. They are undeniably mythic.
I did not mean to simply say that the story was untrue, although if you like, I will say that.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

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

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 190 of 609 (606319)
02-24-2011 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by NoNukes
02-24-2011 3:40 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
Shadow 71 wrote;
That's all I meant. I have mixed feelings as to whether this should be taught in a Science class, but do object to telling the students that Creation must be naturally caused.
There is no proof of that, as their is no empirical proof of Creation as the origin of life except for the Scriptures, and as for myself, Roman Catholic theology.
NoNukes posts;
object to telling the students that Creation must be naturally caused.
NoNukes further writes;
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.
I don't know what your trying to say in this post. You have taken my comments completely out of context.
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.
Science cannot prove those 2 points, they are inferred by scientists, not proven. You cannot show by experiement "natural selection". You cannot show "random mutation for fitness" but merely extrapolate it from findings.
I really don't care what you think what you speculate I object to.
Don't put words into my mouth. I know what I am saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by NoNukes, posted 02-24-2011 3:40 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by subbie, posted 02-24-2011 7:42 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 196 by NoNukes, posted 02-24-2011 10:22 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 198 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 1:27 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 191 of 609 (606322)
02-24-2011 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by shadow71
02-24-2011 7:12 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
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.
Science cannot prove those 2 points, they are inferred by scientists, not proven. You cannot show by experiement "natural selection". You cannot show "random mutation for fitness" but merely extrapolate it from findings.
Science never proves anything. Anything. Ever. Science isn't about proof.
Science is about the best explanation for the evidence we have to date. As such, the ToE and natural selection are among the most successful scientific theories ever devised in the history of science. I have no idea what you mean by "random mutation for fitness" so I can't speak to that.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by shadow71, posted 02-24-2011 7:12 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 02-24-2011 7:48 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2011 8:18 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied
 Message 197 by NoNukes, posted 02-25-2011 1:06 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 1:31 AM subbie has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 192 of 609 (606324)
02-24-2011 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by subbie
02-24-2011 7:42 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
subbie 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.
Science cannot prove those 2 points, they are inferred by scientists, not proven. You cannot show by experiement "natural selection". You cannot show "random mutation for fitness" but merely extrapolate it from findings.
Science never proves anything. Anything. Ever. Science isn't about proof.
Science is about the best explanation for the evidence we have to date. As such, the ToE and natural selection are among the most successful scientific theories ever devised in the history of science. I have no idea what you mean by "random mutation for fitness" so I can't speak to that.
Science can at times disprove things to a very, very high confidence level.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 193 of 609 (606326)
02-24-2011 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Rahvin
02-23-2011 12:33 PM


Comparative religion tried in California
Hi Rahvin
Essentially, the government (including publicly run schools) must remain completely neutral on the matter of religion.
A non-science comparative religious class is permitted. It was tried in California, but too many Christian parents objected to their kids being taught about the other world religions.
Sad.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Rahvin, posted 02-23-2011 12:33 PM Rahvin has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 194 of 609 (606329)
02-24-2011 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by subbie
02-24-2011 7:42 PM


Re: Shadow71s Objection
Hi subbie, I hope to get back to our GD thread tomorrow
i've been having computer probs and I get low on energy at end of day, so only have time for quickies.
Science cannot prove those 2 points, they are inferred by scientists, not proven. You cannot show by experiement "natural selection". You cannot show "random mutation for fitness" but merely extrapolate it from findings.
Science never proves anything. Anything. Ever. Science isn't about proof.
Actually both mutation and natural selection have been demonstrated to occur in labs and in the wild. These are FACTS that are known to be true.
How? Mutations are demonstrated by changes in hereditary traits in following generations that did not exist in earlier generations and DNA analysis. Random selection is demonstrated by the change in frequency of hereditary traits that led to better adaptation.
Google "e. coli long-term experiment" and you will see a population of bacteria grown from a single cell that over many many generations develop an ability to consume citrate that was not present in the parent population/s. Further analysis demonstrates at which generation two different mutations occurred that led to this feature.
Google Peppered moths and Galapagos finches and you will see examples of natural selection in the wild. You can also see Peppered Moths and Natural Selection for a thread discussing this point.
What is not proven is theory, here the theory that evolution - mutation AND selection - can explain all the diversity of life as we know it.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : add ecoli

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 195 of 609 (606336)
02-24-2011 9:36 PM


If we are to teach theories with little or no scientific proof then we should include Scientology...right?? or how about all the worlds religious views on creation....lets keep the field level and let our children decide??? I vote for science...it always leaves the door open to changes in our level of knowledge. It is not so rigid as to be one way or wrong in the way it expains things...it lends itself to questions....not blind faith.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024