|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mram10 writes:
By all means, let's teach ID and/or creationism as failed hypotheses, just like we teach alchemy and astrology as failed hypotheses. A theory is basically what you have left after you throw out all of the failed hypotheses. ID and creationism have failed every test, so all we have left is evolution, which has passed every test.
As for ID or creationism, if it has a valid description of origins, then people should be made aware of the differing theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mram10 writes:
Thomas didn't need faith to see the nail prints in Jesus' hands. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Since we do see evolution - and even creationists admit that - it requires no faith. QED.
Evolution requires faith, which those that are entrenched will not admit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mram writes:
One piece of knowledge that we don't have is that any potential "designer" exists. Intelligent Design makes no more sense than Unicorn Design or Bigfoot Design. You cannot argue logically that ID should not be listed as a valid option, since we have very little knowledge of our universe. What we do know is that living things are made of simple chemicals. There's no logical reason to think, "you can't get here from there."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mram10 writes:
You seem to have that opinion of a lot of people here. Are you the only one with a dirty brain?
It is obvious you are a brainwashed individual that is not interested in science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mram10 writes:
I'm saying we don't know; we have no reason to think they ever did.
Are you saying unicorns never existed? mram10 writes:
I wouldn't teach in schools that unicorns "might have" designed the universe based on legends about unicorns.
You discount any historical documents mentioning their existence? mram10 writes:
Are you suggesting that we should teach in schools that unicorns "might have" designed the universe and then became extinct? If we're going to teach every possibility that remote, we'll have to extend the school year.
You discount that the mass number of extinct species did not include them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tali_Zorah writes:
I'd say wrong. If creationism was taught alongside evolution factually, the creationists would be the ones opposing it. They don't want their half-truths exposed. They want to discredit science.
You know those two don't have to be conflicted right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
djufo writes:
All theories should be mentioned. In the case of "the origin of species" there is only one theory - evolution. Both should be mentioned as theories. Creationism is at best a failed hypothesis. It has failed every test concerning the age of the earth, the relatedness of species, etc. (Note that the age of the earth is not directly related to evolution but it is a creationist obsession.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
djufo writes:
Did your school mention what a theory is? Because you don't seem to understand the concept. By the way, evolution of humans should be just mentioned in schools as a theory. A theory is built by testing hypotheses. Does creationism even have a testable hypothesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
It's a cute saying that "learning should be an adventure" but it isn'r really practical for an education system. Given the option, most children would do most of their adventuring on the playground instead of in the classroom, so a certain amount of "force feeding" is necessary. Learning is not an adventure if someone is force feeding. The problem with being "self-educated' is that there is no discipline. There is nobody to "force" you to look at the things you need to know instead of just the things you want to know. That's why people who are "self-educated" tend to fall for nonsense like creationism - they've chosen to look at only one side. A proper education system "forces" students to look at all sides. In the case of creationism, if it is presented honestly, the students will see for themselves that there is nothing to it. There is, indeed, nothing to teach.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Colbard writes:
Show them under the microscope the tiny creatures that make up chalk. Then show them how high the white cliffs of Dover are and let them do the math. The millions of years will be pretty obvious.
... leave it up to the students to work out whether it was millions of years or something which happens in our world on a generational basis, and remarkably quickly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
We could definitely have the children investigate that possibility. First, take them outside to look at the leaves on the ground (since school conveniently begins in fall). Would they expect all of the leaves to come from one gigantic tree or from the many ordinary-sized trees that they see around them? Or they could have been lumped together in a global flood? Then have them think about whether organisms that are killed by a flood are likely to have been killed by one gigantic flood or by many ordinary-sized floods that they see on the news. I think you'll find that letting children make up their own minds is the last thing that creationists want.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Colbard writes:
Well, you suggested that the children should be taught by allowing them to make up their own minds. I've been pointing out in the last couple of posts that if children do make up their own minds, they're quite likely to reject creationism (which is quite frankly, stupid). In either case the answer to the thread Q is more about method of educating rather than what should be taught, don't you think? If you want creationism to survive the education process, the only method that will work is hiding the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Colbard writes:
So you haven't done the math but you already have The Answer™? Is that what you want to teach children in school? Come up with The Answer™ first and then use confirmation bias to back it up?
jar writes:
I don't know I would have to visit the place and do the research. What flood model can account for the layers found at Dover sorted by species?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
I happen to know that my house was built in 1957. I have lived in this neighbourhood myself since 1962, so I know there has been no major construction on this block since then. If a book claimed that my house was built in 1989, what should I conclude? That the observational evidence is wrong and the book is right? While I am sure of a global flood, I don't know how these deposits took place. We know that the Dover cliffs are much, much older than 6000 years. We also know that many other formations are much, much older than 6000 years. Some of them, such as the cliffs, simply could not have formed in 6000 years, according to the laws of physics. So we know that the earth is more than 6000 years old. We also know, according to the laws of physics, that the Dover Cliffs could not have formed during a one-year flood. It may be possible to maintain a belief in a 6000-year-old earth and a one-year Flood despite the facts, but that belief has no more place in our schools than a belief in flying pigs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
The point is that the house must be at least as old as its oldest part. If the concrete foundation takes several days to cure, you can't reasonably conclude that the basement was dug this morning. It could have been dug last month or twenty years ago or a thousand years ago. It can be older than the oldest (known) part but not younger. But you would also disagree with a book that claimed your house was a million times older, and that it took that long to build. That's why a young earth is a non-starter. It would be a disservice to our children to teach them otherwise.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024