Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

I would also like to see some time available to teach some real details of the so-called scientific creationism. However, there is not an unlimited amount of time in the classroom. What would we leave out?Additionally, I certainly wouldn't teach it for the reasons given.1) Teaching how science is done.
Other than a quick overview of the history this isn't a good reason for actually treaching creationism. Since science discards theories that are falsified creationism was thrown out. To teach it as an alternative theory that explains the facts would be wrong.(a small side note, perhaps you could start a thread on the
"A good example is that natural selection predicts that functional features of organisms will conform to engineering design principles--but this is the same prediction of intelligent design!" comment. I disagree. )2)I think the time could be better spent teaching the ToE better. You note that things are taught as "disconnected facts". I agree that the present education isn't always all it could be. Would taking time out for a focus on one religious view not distract from teaching evolutionary biology correctly?3) This one I agree with. A bit of the history is a useful context in any of the sciences. With my views, I would want to take a bit of time at this point to attack creationism head on. I do think that there could be a lot of political problems in some parts of the states if this was done.4)As others have asked. What is there to "scientific creationism" that could be taught under the criteria you give here?

quote:

---

So you think it is a simple thing.Please explain to us how you can tell that the Earth is a sphere by observing the sun and the moon?

---

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it would be impossible for the sun, moon and earth, all to be disk circles and for the sun to light both the moon and the earth at the same time. Why? Because for both the sun and the moon to appear as perfect circle disks at any one time both would have to be exactly parallel to the earth. Otherwise one or the other or both would have to be egg shaped. It would be impossible for the moon to be lighted, appearing from earth as a circle disk if both the sun and the moon were parallel to the earth.

quote:

---

It doesn't say disk either, does it. Both a disk and a sphere are circular, so here we are back at square one.

---

I would never describe a three-dimensional object like a sphere as a circle, but the boundary of a disk is exactly a circle.

quote:

---

This belief would require a sphere so as for the flood to occur, especially for people of the Bible who believed it was worldwide, killing all

---

Did the Hebrews actually believe in a literal flood? Maybe they accepted the story as a metaphor.

quote:

---

Even if a world flood were somehow possible on a disk, Noah's ark would be in great danger of falling off the edge along with the overflowing water which would not be able to be confined to a disk.

---

Most of the descriptions of a flat earth describe the boundary being very tall mountains which would keep the seas in. Alternatively, this may not have occurred to the people who wrote the story.

quote:

---

Humans were able to observe that different parts of the moon were visible in different positions so as to know it was a sphere.

---

Did the people, at the time the story was composed, in the area in which it was compose, actually make this observation?

quote:

---

...it would be impossible for the sun, moon and earth, all to be disk circles and for the sun to light both the moon and the earth at the same time.

---

Didn't ancient people think the moon produced its own light? In Genesis chp 1 both the sun and the moon were created to be lights in the sky (Genesis 1:16).

buzsaw
To which I say the moon gives off its own light as any fool can plainly see.

NosyNed,
As Long as there are scientists "out there" (Wolfram) who think that NS was oversold in order to get beyond creationism there will be quesions in students mind provided any questioning scientists philosphy when not scientific hypothesis had/have not been disproven. Creationism can be a better part of "questioning" the hypothesis rather than testing for errors part of a curriculum which provides the student with critical skills in discrimination. I dont think it is hard to find creationist literature where testeable hypotheses are debated and tested rather you wondered how much time? Well when Wolfram spoke at Cornell and a studnet asked a rather elementary question that begged to take time away from others (and Wolfram WANTED to answer this student's question) the Harvard Graduated Cornell Math Prof said in public said student was in essence "stupid" which is THE WRONG thing to do. Same goes for students trying to sort out the background of creation and evolution. Some mount of time for questioning really does need an allowance and permitannce.And for the science itself in tis forground as long as biologists still fail to come to agreement about if or if and when other levels of selection can be modeled with the current understanding of evolutionary theory the student WILL be confused even if philosophically the differences can be handled on an advanced metaphysical level.Putting both togther frustrates me no end because economics WILL NEVER solve the PSYCHOLOGY that is what ought to be more properly available to the student before untold damages accrue. There is NO question that I have learned how to have an EXPANDED pallete of higher classification categories thanks to Creationism and Croizat's challenge to do away with ALL of Darwinism will never see the univerity student if this is not dealt with first or rather directly taught to the student who will be forced to make up some kind of confident esssay . For instance the following is a footnote of Croizat's I am presently working on which I can approach becasue I am aware of both "sides" even if IT is not duplicit.(Principia Botanica p 1476 #2 "Oligocene/Miocene is a conservative estimate. If one follows the history of science during the last century he readily learns that estimates of time which seemed at first extraordinary or incredible have in progression of learning been exceeded by far. Of course, there will be an end also to this growth, and the end may in a sense by now be in sight. However, most biologists are still inclined to think of ESSENTIAL TIME in adherence to standards which are by now PASSE. If I were to be pointedly asked after not only a few years spent in thinking about these and like matters what is my ultimate idea of time and space in nature I should answer that INFINITY comes first, its subdivisions by far second. Life is essentially immanent. It is droll in my understanding that facing "something" of this kind many biologists tend to turn to "mysticism" as their ultimate expression of it. There is no need for it: Rigorous laws of the most "mechanical" in their principles and operations are quite "mystical" in their ultimate raison d`etre; and he who pursues them in his quests finds prayer, poetry, and mathematics as one. Did CAUSA CAUSARUM create infinity, or is infinity itself CAUSA CAUSARUM? I could not answer, nor do I feel the need for answering. IT is essentially immanenet, and I am but part of IT."The jury is still out on ID in terms of this particular CC. I hope this helps.

David - Welcome! I think that's a wonderful idea, assuming we can get more biology teachers that know a little biology, and aren't just off-season football coaches. Giving the boys at the Discovery Institute what they are asking for would likely force them all to look for real jobs. Buz - do we have to get Rrhain out here to give you the Hebrew words for "circle" and "sphere" again?

I might comment, as an aside, that the rest of your first paragraph doesn't add much to the debate under this thread. Sometimes less is more.The quoted statement is a bit mysterious but it seems to suggest "testable hypotheses" in the creationist area? Could you start a thread on these if you feel like defending that point?

So it SEEMS but what modern science has not accepted from Croizat is that he provides a METHOD not simply a book of statements/truisms. It seems that only Creationists are becomeing familiar with DOING this kind of statement. But because it only "seems" Croizat's work was generally rejected and so indeed I could start another thread somewhere else on it but the point of a creationist in me is that DOING panbiogeography ENTAILS doing creationism which in part DOES include rejecting some aspects of/in creationist thought. You are assuming only the less wide ground of the scientist and not the philosopher in that like Holmes I tend not to goolge for data anyone can find. The point that the curriculum would not be science at the end of the statement and more theology instead should be obvious as more rather than the less it was. This is a part of a discipline of non-Darwinin biology that includes part of creation science, part of Wolfram's simple program approach, and Mendelism
but just like subjecting you to the full me is rather more than less, the reejction of the student asking Wolfram the qeustion, or the "lunatic fringe that Simpson labled Croizat's vicarince etc with, the high school student needs rather the simple google results and not the full debatable argument even if you might still fail to pass the parameter (in). I made the argeument OPPOSITE to the point that the stuff is not science. It can be taught as part of "Critical thinking" at least. In that we should find agreement if it is not already so.What I said exactly goes to the point that is missing in that creation DOES need time to be taught BECAUSE the scientists and not the philosophers ARE IN REALITY too shallow this that to give *them* the power and authority to decide even what needs to go would be wrong. I was long because I also happen to believe and think that philosphers also ought not have the same ability on the college level. I dont know how one decides at the high school level as I have been away from that for years execpt to have curricula available to the local school board but what happens is that scietinsts fear that if students are given an open eneded elemetary education that like having to teach rich kids simple biology in college so they can be expensive doctors the profs will have ostentacious etc students newly up and coming they will loby the partents otherwise (it is my thought) creating FUTURE problems at the uni level THIS IS NOT THE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS' problem.I feel even we at EVC take this self-same "problem" out on them (randomly). Better teaching is always necessary. I know I could teach high school biology better if I had free chocie to FOLLOW what the students brought up rather than confine myself to the current neo-Darwinism. Teching TWO DIFFERENT sociolgies however WILL ALSO confuse the sudent in addtion to evey thing else I have already said in this thread and so THIS CONFLICT and not one of EVIDENCE VS SCIETISTS is what is STILL happening. That much we have gotten beyond here at EvC at least as to navigating posts. My guess is that instead of a philosphical difference (with me) you are trying to START your pedagogic point from the different CULTURAL differences. And as I said there are reasons scienfitically to question this but that is the more. Besides I would not use some general multicultural approach at the high school level but rather tailor the philossophy, science,and evidence to the needs and particular students in the class. This is however to ask the high school teacher to do a better job than the university prof which is obviously to ask too much.I hope this is clear to you. It is sound.Again I am long becuase even admitting the point, you miss, the origin it seemed to me. Maybe I was wrong. Prently however-- NOT!

Hi BuzThe problem you have is that there is no Hebrew word for 'Sphere', unless you know of one. So, which Hebrew word is used by Isaiah for 'sphere' in your opinion?Brian.

I'm sorry I asked. :S

Dont be then, but I didnt start another thread now did I?What's wrong with teaching the two model approach but keeping it in prespective? ??????

I think all this circle/sphere discussion is very much off-topic. Let us drop that line, in this topic.That said, I must make one minnemooseus comment.Buz said:

quote:

---

3. Humans were able to observe that different parts of the moon were visible in different positions so as to know it was a sphere.

---

The same side of the moon always faces the earth.Oddly enough, this discussion is happening on a day/night that a lunar eclipse happened.Adminnemooseus (w/ a little minnemooseus)

quote:

---

The problem you have is that there is no Hebrew word for 'Sphere', unless you know of one. So, which Hebrew word is used by Isaiah for 'sphere' in your opinion?

---

We're getting into a new subtopic here, so I don't want to keep straying off, but there's no need imo, for the text to say sphere, plus your post actually inforces my argument, for if there's no word for sphere in Hebrew, the writer would of necessity need to use the word circle to describe either a disk or a sphere..This is relative to the topic in that my argument enforces the validity of the creation Biblical account being taught in school and refutes the negative statement in the opening post of the thread concerning flat earth creationists.

buzsawNot being an expert I am probably way off but there is a hebrew word for ball is there not?