Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

I honestly don't think Dawn is willfully ignorant. I don't think he can help it. He isn't intellectually equipped to understand how stupid he is. But maybe I'm wrong. Ok, arrogant he is.

---

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

Actually, what pisses me off more is that they are calling their BS science. They're trying to appropriate themselves the merit of years of hard work with none of the efforts. If they just said that creationism is true but it's not science, I wouldn't mind much. The problem is that they're trying to steal scientists works to their own ends.

If there were evidence to support the notion of a supreme designer, then scientists would readily accept such a conclusion and investigate it further.Problem:No such evidence exists; you have been asked a bajillion times (along with the other Creos here) to present even a shred of evidence for a designer, and so far, not onenot onepiece of evidence has been put forthabsolutely nothing to support the designer conclusion.If there were evidence for the designer, scientists would be accepting the designer conclusion in droves. If there is a designer, and there is evidence for it, getting scientists to accept the designer conclusion would be so dern easy: just present the designer evidence.Yet, despite how 'true' ID/Creationism is, and despite how 'strong' the evidence is, no Creo anywhere, ever, has even once offered a single shred of evidence to support the designer conclusion; somehow I don't think they ever will.But you're welcome to prove me wrong... scientists like that.JonEdited by Jon, : clarity

---

Love your enemies!

Calling their BS "science" is not their goal, Son, but rather it's their method as necessitated by the legal system.During the big post-WWI (yes, World War One) anti-evolution movement, the anti-evolutionists did exactly what Robert Byers has been advocating: in the early 1920's they made laws to ban the teaching in public schools of scientific ideas that their religion did not agree with. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) talked a PE teacher into violating his state's "monkey law" so that they would have a test case to bring before the US Supreme Court. Although John Scopes was convicted, the appellate court overturned his conviction on a purely technical matter instead of on the merit of the law and it never made it to the US Supreme Court. The "monkey laws" remained in effect until Arkansas teacher Susan Epperson had to file suit against her state over their "monkey law": she was required by her school to teach out of a biology textbook that used evolution as its cornerstone, which would bring her in violation of state law that would require banning her from the teaching profession for life for even mentioning evolution in class. That case did make it to the US Supreme Court and, in 1968, the "monkey laws" were struck down as being unconsitutional.At that point, barred from barring the teaching of evolution for religious reasons, the newly re-vitalized anti-evolution movement created "creation science" as a deliberate deception to circumvent the court system. It was at that point that they started claiming to be opposing evolution for purely scientific reasons and claiming that they had "mountains of scientific evidence" for creation. Even though they had absolutely zero evidence for creation and only offered false and misleading claims solely against evolution and other sciences that contradict their strictly narrow religious beliefs (AKA YEC).And, yes, their goal is to keep students ignorant, since knowledge is their worst enemy.

You tell me. Show me. So far, in every post. You keep making excuses for why you don't have an hypothesis, null hypothesis, and an experiment that tests them. You do it once again in the post I am responding to. You have never done this. You also leave out the null hypothesis.

Your entire argument is based on terms with no relation to reality. You keep speaking of order and law without ever giving us a way to measure it in reality, a way to test for it, nor a way to test to see if order and law are the product of a designer.Physician, heal thyself. You aren't using physical properties. You are using words like order and law. You are not using experiments that test the physical properties for the things you claim. I use phylogenetic algorithms on homologous DNA found in different species to determine common ancestry and selective pressures. How does the same method of examination point towards design? It is your position because you are rejecting Empiricism and replacing it with Rationalism. Look at the title of this thread. It has nothing to do with evolution. It is about ID/Creationism in the science classroom. Either show how the null hypothesis is tested in ID/Creationism or admit that it isn't science.

It's funny how their explanation's of creation evolve,I have even seen some christians using the 2012 predictions of the Mayans as proof that revelations is upon us.When I was 10 or 11 maybe I was in a Sunday school class and asked about dinosaurs. I was told by the leader,cant call him a teacher, that they were fake. I was young I didn't question it further, but I knew from reading National Geographic and what I been taught in school that this couldn't be right.Now they use the KT layer as a flood line. Misrepresenting others hard work as proof of their myth. I always love how they explain iridium found in this layer.I've never been given a good answer about the logistical problems of Noah's ark either.These are a few things that made me question creation and Christianity.Until creation of one flavor or another can be proven with real science then it has no place in a science class.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per aspera

Here's a thought. Maybe it isn't scientists who are confused about what science is. Maybe it's you, the non-scientist who has never done any science.

Blueberries and battleships are the same thing, definitions aside. My front yard and Halley's Comet are the same thing, definitions aside. You and a rational human being are the same this, definitions aside.

---

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

I don't know whether I would call it "evolving", but certainly they keep coming up with more claims, creating a huge self-contractory mess. Creationism and science are entirely different from each other. The overall goal of science is acquiring ever more knowledge and understand of the physical universe and how it works. The overall goal of creationism is to deny science, especially those parts that creationists believe conflict with their religious beliefs.One result of this fundamental difference is that scientific knowledge forms an integral world-view in which everything is interrelated and interdependent. Creationism takes the approach of "disproving" bits and pieces of scientific knowledge -- after all, they only want to eliminate those parts that they believe to conflict with their beliefs, but not other parts because they like the technology it provides them with (Orson Scott Card: "They all like their flush toilets too much."). As they make their piece-meal attacks (eg, claiming that the speed of light has changed, thus caused radiometric dating to be wrong), they run into even worse problems, for if that one "minor" thing were wrong, then that would result in an exponential explosion of other things that would be wrong causing yet other things to be wrong, etc. Thus creationists are constantly faced with mountains of evidence that their claims are wrong, yet another fact that they need to delude themselves about.Another major difference is in how science and creationism approach mysteries. A scientist sees a mystery and he wants to solve it. A creationist sees a mystery as proof of God and therefore wants to keep it a mystery. Thus science seeks to increase our knowledge whereas creationism seeks to preserve our ignorance. This makes creationism the antithesis of science and is yet another reason why it does not belong in the science classroom.Finally, there's the goal of science education, which is that the student know about and understand the scientific method and major scientific ideas. Creationism not only does not promote that goal, but rather it does the exact opposite with its false and misleading claims. Furthermore, science education policy explicitly states that understanding is different from subscribing to ideas and that (from California State Board of Education
Anti-Dogmatism Policy, 1989):

quote:

---

Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.

---

However, when creationism has been allowed in the classroom (eg, Ray Baird's 5th- & 6th-grade class in Livermore, CA, 1980), its goal has consistently been to compel belief, following each presentation of misinformation with appeals for the students to make a choice, right then and there, between the "generic" Creator and "atheistic evolution". In Baird's class, the smartest children chose atheism, a choice that they never should have been forced into, nor would they have if creationism had been kept out of the classroom. See http://ncse.com/...ls-resolutions-court-cases-appear-nationw and http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1159 (Footnote 7 on page 19 -- the Price book mentioned in that footnote is my main source along with the transcript of a 1981 KPBS documentary that covered it).Clearly, creationism does not belong in the science classroom and it would need to undergo an fundamental and extensive transformation to ever have any hope of becoming eligible for inclusion.

Order and not chaos. Continued continuity and not persistent incontinuity. organisms and life that continues to produce a purpose and harmonious function. Oh I dont know simple things like that. Sounds like order to me, unless I want to be completely unreasonableIs it possible this happened soley by itself, possible but not probable. But thats not the point. When dealing w.questions where absolute proof is not available, the logical demonstration of the best answer will have to suffice. Especially when its only one of twoTo demonstrate my point and to show the unecessary nature of your question to begin with, Ill ask you, What are the rules for differententating between that which evolved soley by natural causes and that which was designed to evolve?Tell me what your rules are, C. tell me what your Null H is. Surely if I am required to have a set, you are, correct?Dawn Bertot

Hi dawn,I have read all your post in this topic and can find no proof of anything. You cry foul alot, you challenge what others say but provide no proof to support what you say??If I am wrong then please put your proof together into one statement, cite your sources. At least tell me what msgs you have posted you consider as providing proof that ID is real science.Thanks

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per aspera

You realize this doesn't mean anything don't you?Your "order" is nothing more than a naturally-occurring consequence of mutation and natural selection.

---

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

Can I help it if you are stupid, the way to measure it is to observe its behaviour, note its consistency and accuracy in producing things with a purpose and a function, that function accurately, your brain your eye, etc and a million other thingsthe way to test to it to see if it came from a designer, is to use the same method you used to decide that all of this functioning world is a product of soley natural causes. how did you come to that hard fast conclusion.what is the specific peice of information that all of science can provide to answer that question directly.tell me what your Null H, is in deciding that everything is a product of itself, when you werent there to observe its beginning, or the mechanism of its originationthe point simply is that neither you or I have the direct answer to that question, yet it is a conclusion of the TOE taught in science classroomsID and creationism employ all the same methods, for the answers to these questions, yet it is rejected because it is limited in the exact same way science isHmmmm, wonder why yeah I believe this is called examination and experimentation of physical properties already in existence, big deal. Did this give you an answer as to its ultimatel origination source, well noWe do the samething, with tenative conclusionsbertot writesI see Im required to go by your rules but your not, correct. ill try again, what is your null H for determing absolutely that evo is not the result of a designerOfcourse I believe the rule to be silly in the first place, but lets see if you will go by your standardsSo if you cant provide a Null H, does that mean you are not doing scienceDawn Bertot

I see a lot of words, but no hypothesis, null hypothesis, nor an experiment that would test them. Why don't you tell us, since you have concluded that life is designed. What experiments did you run to differentiate between these?