Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 31 of 245 (65256)
11-08-2003 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by David Fitch
11-08-2003 2:27 PM


quote:
(1) Science should be taught in a manner consistent to how good science is done. Modern scientific method requires the proposition of alternative hypotheses that make predictions about observable phenomena.
I didn't know this. Why are alternative hypotheses required? I also thought that modern science discarded theories that were previously shown to be erroneous...
quote:
It is not enough to present ONE hypothesis because data that are consistent with this hypothesis could well be consistent with other hypotheses as well. (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! Thus, conformity to design principles cannot be used to discriminate between evolution and creation.)
Sure, if you disregard the fossil record. It seems to me that you leave out certain facts in order to rationalize ID, for instance, to reality. And then of course you really should identify your designer...
quote:
A major goal of our educational system should be to provide our students with the intellectual tools to solve real problems; the scientific method is just such a powerful tool. (Also, Darwin himself used this method in the Origin, presenting predictions from special creation and Lamarckian transformism that could be distinguished from predictions from descent with modification. Being true to Darwin's presentation thus requires that we talk about special creation as a hypothesis.)
If you know of such evidence or predictions for creationism and the flood, I'd love to hear it.
quote:
(2) Kids are cyring out to understand what scientists think is wrong with creation and vice versa. Why can't we, as educators, help to satisfy this curiosity?
Most are not qualified to handle the 'crying out' by students indoctrinated by YEC websites. This is unfortunate. Having said that, I really don't see the 'crying out for understanding.' The evidence is probably clear to most students.
quote:
Isn't that what education is all about? Or do we just stifle this natural curiosity and stuff our students with information?
There are plenty of places where students can get this information. We see it here all the time.
quote:
Unfortunately, most science classes (like those I suffered throughout school) are just dogmatic littanies of disconnected facts. When students get to graduate school, they are shocked to learn they have to think for themselves. Promoting active discussion and learning in the classroom should be a major goal of education.
As I said, it is unfortunate that most teachers and professors may not be qualified in this area.
quote:
(3) Creation is not just some kooky untestable hypothesis cooked up by some bible-thumping radical, it was the major scientific dogma until about 100 years ago.
Just my point. Why would we go back 100 years in scientific progress?
quote:
As long as creation is allowed to produce at least some testable hypotheses, ...
Such as?
quote:
...it deserves treatment as a hypothesis that can be talked about in a science classroom. For some reason, we are free to bring up Lamarckian transformism as an alternative hypothesis to Darwinian evolution, but shy away from treating intelligent design or special creation as alternative hypotheses.
I never heard of Lamarckism in any classes and neither has my son. Perhaps we shy away from alternatvie hypotheses because the fall short of explaining the totality of the evidence arrayed across several fields of science.
quote:
We bring up spontaneous generation as an alternative to Mendelian heredity and terra-centric hypotheses as alternatives to heliocentric hypotheses.
Did your professors spend time discussing terracentrism? I never even had it brought up in a single geology class. I suppose I should feel deprived...
quote:
Just for the sake of completeness in the history of science that we present to students, we should emphasize the importance of creationist theory in biology.
Oh, as a simply historical item? Sure. However, since it did not arise from scientific empricism I hardly think of it as important in biological theory.
quote:
Otherwise it is a biased treatment.
Ah! Another unbiased person. I admit to bias in life, myself. I have a strong preference for evidence and logic.
quote:
(4) By advocating "balanced" presentation, I am NOT advocating "equal time". It would be silly to spend equal time on flat-earth hypotheses as on round-earth ones. But students are crying out for "some time" to be spent on creation,...
And assertion. Do you actually have data on this?
quote:
...and this is completely OK, as long as we stick to creationist hypotheses that are testable.
Once again, I'd love to know what these are.
quote:
Creationist (as well as adaptationist) hypotheses that are not testable should be left out of the science classroom and perhaps discussed in other kinds of classes (e.g., theological philosophy?).
These are only a few arguments for balanced curricula. Does anyone have additional arguments?
There are plenty of places for students to learn about YECism if they really want to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by David Fitch, posted 11-08-2003 2:27 PM David Fitch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 11-08-2003 11:20 PM edge has not replied
 Message 69 by nator, posted 11-11-2003 7:21 PM edge has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 32 of 245 (65258)
11-08-2003 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by edge
11-08-2003 11:03 PM


What do we need EC websites for? then?? If I understood you correctly you took all that space to simply say "it does not." did you not? For instance alternatives are needed in biological change because the basis for rigorous use of the 1st law of therm IS NOT the probablism used in the 2nd law generating a heterogenity in genetic algebras of populations should small diffusive effects in neutral evolution claims be needed adjudication once assertins of molecular clocks substitute for nonalternative hypothesis of non-Darwiinan closeness of life and earth changing together but I guess you would have not known that this is then would you not rather think it just a random word generation? It is not!!
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-08-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by edge, posted 11-08-2003 11:03 PM edge has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 33 of 245 (65300)
11-09-2003 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
11-08-2003 6:20 PM


It was educated people who discovered the spherical shape of the Earth and measured it - pagan Greeks.
And no we are not back at "square one", because you have already retreated and admitted that your argument depends on assuming that Isaiah meant a sphere - which reduces it to circularity. However, circle is a flat two-dimensional figure. A disc could be called a circle but a sphere cannot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 11-08-2003 6:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 34 of 245 (65318)
11-09-2003 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by David Fitch
11-08-2003 2:27 PM


argument from inductive biogeography
Let's not let the tautological sayers be labeled as mockers and scoffers which this thread so far seems to have demonstrated.
There was less substative engagement of my question so instead I will myself answer it.
Baraminology can be taught to high school students in the excercise in critical thinking that shows cases of where vicariism is wholly TAXONOMIC. To use creationism as science in this classs will sort out the disagreements over a scientists time as to the issue of proper fidelity in general print that Croizat questioned if others (Nelson etc) were using his term vicariate in fidelity to the his (Croizat's) actual methodic use case and in particular in correspondence to Craw in New Zeland Croizat told Craw that EITHER chance dispersal or vicariance is to go. Because baraminology is a broader role for classfication than all phylogenetics, phenetics and cladistics combined THE STUDENT (even if the prof/teacher can not believe the implications) will be able to see beyond the cultural plurarlity because of polymorphism NOT polyphleticism (to which Croizat has been abused of using in the professional literature). This taxonmic strech can then be used to discuss vairous causalites allways now with an alternative keeping the less likely in a more deeper perspective to speak in short vulgarly. My contributions have not been followed up on in you nice thread head I guess because my respondents have not known first and foremost when not apriori how to deal with Croizat's "if for no better reason because the essential processes of nature long antedate man and his formal classification." which I can only explain if they only read this univocally in favor of evolution BEFORE the fact for as the thread with Randy showed because of dispersal vs distribtion we could not spot out the issue of polymorphism which here in the clearly teachable case shows up in age of species vs age of process of species formation but yet IN THE ACTUAL BIOLOGICAL LITERATURE it is not cleared up as to "In sum:Vicariism is not necessarily always taxonomic and geographic. It may only be taxonomic," p1485 Principia Botanica and thus instead it was asserted that EVOLUTION and NOT BIOLOGY OR TAXONOMY was a fact BUT AFTER THE TEACHING POINT FACT. We ARE back to basics and square one on the science and to assert otherwise is to put biogeography behind when it is acually in front of the disscussion on creation and evolution.
For this unresolved scientific issue that IS possible to present in a currenly balanced form Croizat may presently sound as ifp1485 "Question 6 What you preach is clearcut "parallelism" in form-making, Is this not tantamount to "sperate creation"?...."Would "seperate creation" of the sort void of its meaning and basic process of form-making and translation in space which we have analysed in the answer to Question 5 to turn it only into a wilful act of God? I should leave it to the others to debate the answer."
Croizat has left the c/e generation this "debate". Perhaps others would have been amazed instead of the creationist future implications the ones relative to Charles Darwin for in the same assorted pagination Croizat wrote, p1480"As, such (pan)biogeography os clearly here to stay, and its counterfeits are doomed already. The sooner we get rid of them, the better, even if this does mean throwing overboard virtually the whole of "darwinism" to retain evolution as a doctrine which has with Darwin and his work but a historical association. In its (pan)biogeographic formulation, evolution may be conveniently referred to the expression:...".
We all have not lost our bark and bite. This balance comes out of nature not science of the sort p.1484 "So far for the TAXONOMY which we face. DISPERSAL IS HOWEVER NOT TAXONOMY; AND WHATEVER DISPERSAL IS EVENTUALLY TO CONCLUDE IS ESSENTIALLY TO BE FORMULATED IN FULL FREEDOM FROM TAXONOMY."
Without the balance we SELL the tuition and public education lunch on the basis of the couterfeit!!!!!!please take note! The concepts are not imposible to provide in a sylabus. We need someone with a broad enough c-e background to write it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by David Fitch, posted 11-08-2003 2:27 PM David Fitch has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 245 (65321)
11-09-2003 12:58 PM


One final short comment on this circle controversy: The text does not say the earth is a circle, perse. It says "circle (i.e. curvature) of the earth." (which is a sphere).

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 11-09-2003 3:33 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 245 (65322)
11-09-2003 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
11-08-2003 2:35 PM


quote:
If you take out the untestable hypotheses of creationism, exactly what do you think is left?
The tested and unproven hypotheses of evolution which totally dominates education in America.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2003 2:35 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 11-09-2003 1:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 37 of 245 (65329)
11-09-2003 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
11-09-2003 1:09 PM


Precisely correct Buz! Excellent!
When you take out the untestable (unscientific) part of creationism you are left with exactly nothing. All you have left is the ToE. And it is far beyond an "hypothesis" just because it has been tested a lot and not falsified.
What we were asking for was what would be taught in science class about creationism. You have just (even if you didn't realize it) agreed that there is nothing to teach. rofl.
Care to try again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2003 1:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 38 of 245 (65365)
11-09-2003 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Buzsaw
11-09-2003 12:58 PM


So you admit that you were wrong. Isaiha does NOT say that the Earth is spherical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2003 12:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2003 6:02 PM PaulK has replied

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 245 (65389)
11-09-2003 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
11-08-2003 2:40 PM


Re: yes, teach it
It seems to me the only way that biology teachers will be able to teach well is if they themselves have received good biology training. Part of their biology training should involve understanding (1) how science works by testing predictions (surprisingly few understand this) and (2) what the specific predictions and data are regarding evolution/creation/transformism. Again, that means we have to introduce creation back into the classroom (including the classrooms in which teachers are taught).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 11-08-2003 2:40 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2003 4:44 PM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 41 by Brian, posted 11-09-2003 4:52 PM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 11-09-2003 5:48 PM David Fitch has not replied
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 11-09-2003 8:53 PM David Fitch has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 245 (65397)
11-09-2003 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by David Fitch
11-09-2003 4:37 PM


Again, that means we have to introduce creation back into the classroom (including the classrooms in which teachers are taught).
I still don't understand what part of "God did it" you think is testable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by David Fitch, posted 11-09-2003 4:37 PM David Fitch has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 41 of 245 (65402)
11-09-2003 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by David Fitch
11-09-2003 4:37 PM


Why step back into the Dark Ages?
Again, that means we have to introduce creation back into the classroom (including the classrooms in which teachers are taught).
However, creationism is a belief, it is taken on faith, studying creationism is pointless. All you are going to do is to take a massive step backwards, you will be wanting to teach kids how to walk on water next.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by David Fitch, posted 11-09-2003 4:37 PM David Fitch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Brad McFall, posted 11-09-2003 5:11 PM Brian has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 42 of 245 (65410)
11-09-2003 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Brian
11-09-2003 4:52 PM


Re: Why step back into the Dark Ages?
Why did you avoid my point then? Do I need to give you chapter and verse, in this case taxa and geography, before you will see the point that can not only be meant but not forced. In the Croizat exemplar which devolves onto the difference of Iguanida and Agamidae Croizat had suggested that reproductive isolation gives a species the means when not also the ends to CONTINUE to change and not only to become extinct. If ONLY creationism can make this aspect of the evolution of life and earth available to the student then why not re-introduce it? A tradition of studying creationism CAN provide this lexic linguistics that MAY NOT be available to the evolutionist preciself because the best current scholarship tends to WRITE to this point of isolation and extinction rather than some physico-chemistry between the CONCEPT of dispersal vs distribution and age of a species vs age of species' formation. The difference of Gould and Dawkins falls "WITHIIN" this and yet this board shows there IS some "outside" to it all. By analogy then, I heard Shledon Glasgow lecture at Cornell "precisely" on Danjuns point of a table within the quark table to no known end and yet Crash didnt want to get it for his own particular idea on strings. There ARE physicists who doubt the threads but I dont know enough physics to judge Glasgow but I do know the difference between biogeography and biology and why isnt it "obvious" to NOW that studying creation DOES have a purpose which for the only legal reason here in the united states to preventing its re-introduction is that it must advance all of science is not an issue as I have showed short working out Croizat's lizards from the lounge it still drinks in for me that there IS advance if one only knows of the difference of chromsomals vs chromnemals even if the plant of animal will be IDd by tommarow.
This is a step forward not back!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Brian, posted 11-09-2003 4:52 PM Brian has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 43 of 245 (65422)
11-09-2003 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by David Fitch
11-09-2003 4:37 PM


Re: yes, teach it
Precisly what part of creationism would we introduce that would help teach how science is done? I think that lots of generalized discussion has gone by now. How about some specific details.
Also what is "transformism".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by David Fitch, posted 11-09-2003 4:37 PM David Fitch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2003 6:12 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 47 by Brad McFall, posted 11-09-2003 6:12 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 245 (65430)
11-09-2003 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by PaulK
11-09-2003 3:33 PM


quote:
So you admit that you were wrong. Isaiha does NOT say that the Earth is spherical.
The Hebrew has far fewer words than the English or Greek. The rendering the words is determined by the context. Actually, since there is not word "sphere" in Hebrew, he could be either saying:
1. The sphere of the world.
or
2. The curvature (circle) of the world. (which is a sphere)
People all the time refer to the world as circular or round. In fact if you will note the opening statement of this thread, David Fitch, the poster who initiated the thread spoke of the "round" earth in reference to a sphere.
I'd like to get off this. Nobody's gona convince anybody, it appears.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 11-09-2003 3:33 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by NosyNed, posted 11-09-2003 6:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 11-09-2003 6:27 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 70 by nator, posted 11-11-2003 7:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 45 of 245 (65433)
11-09-2003 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
11-09-2003 6:02 PM


Off topic. I think this was all thrashed out elsewhere but I can't find it.
Perhaps you could start another thread on the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2003 6:02 PM Buzsaw 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