Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
46 online now:
WookieeB (1 member, 45 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,607 Year: 3,253/14,102 Month: 194/724 Week: 43/93 Day: 3/5 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4608
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.4


(3)
Message 271 of 1960 (737885)
10-01-2014 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by ringo
09-30-2014 12:17 PM


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 are absolutely correct! And we have a real-world case which shows that you are absolutely correct: Thwaites and Awbrey's two-model class at San Diego State University.

You may recall that Bill Thwaites and the late Frank Awbrey wrote many articles for the National Center for Science Education's two publications, the journal Creation/Evolution and the Creation/Evolution Newsletter, which were later combined into NCSE Reports. They also spent 15 years debating the leading creationists*.

In the 1980's, they created and ran a truly honest two-model class at San Diego State University. They taught half the classes and creationists from the then-nearby Institute for Creation Research (ICR, formerly headquartered in Santee, CA; just down the street was a stone mason who probably gave them a group discount on millstones) taught the other half. Basically, each pair of lectures would be Thwaites and Awbrey presenting the actual science and the creationists presenting their story, though there appeared to also have been some instances of the opposing side being able to ask questions of the speaker. For example, after Dr. Duane Gish made his infamous "Bomby" claim that the chemicals used by the bombardier beetle explode spontaneously when mixed together (and therefore generations of that beetle would have blown themselves up before being able to evolve an inhibitor chemical), Thwaites and Awbrey performed an experiment in class with Gish present in which they mixed those two chemicals together. No explosion. Gish hemmed and hawed and finally had to admit publicly in front of the class that that claim was wrong, but blamed his source for having mistranslated the source article, which was in German. Of course, that didn't stop him from continuing to make the same claim outside of class (when has honesty and integrity ever been a creationist trait?), though as the story spread he had to modify it -- I told a creationist at work about Bomby vs Gish and when we attended a debate later, he was visibly disturbed and embarrassed by all the books the creationists were selling about Bomby.

At the end the semester, a vote would be taken in which the students would choose which side they accepted; I think that the same vote was taken at the beginning of the semester for comparision with the end vote and for keeping statistics. Creationism lost that vote every time.

So here was a class that the creationists kept telling the public that they were trying to implement, one in which both sides are presented and the students are left to decide for themselves. So what happened to it? It got cancelled because the Christian clubs on-campus kept protesting it and pressuring the university administration to shut it down. So finally the administration did just that.

Exactly what you said would happen:

If creationism was taught alongside evolution factually, the creationists would be the ones opposing it.


{ * FOOTNOTE:
In 1993, Thwaites and Awbrey wrote this article (in a PDF of that issue of Creation/Evolution), Our last debate; our very last, to announce their quitting the debate circuit and to summarize their 15-year run. They had entered into the debates with the hope and expectation that:

quote:
... a creationist would dig up a real biological paradox, one that would prove to be an interesting brain-teaser for the scientific community. We hoped that we could use the creationists to ferret out biological enigmas much as DEA agents use dogs to seek out contraband. ... While we had discovered that every creationist claim so far could easily be disproved, we still had hope that there was a genuine quandary in there somewhere. We just hadn't found it yet.

What they did discover after those 15 years was that none of the creationists ever presented any real paradoxes or genuine quandaries. The creationists had no actual case to present.

In 1985 I attended a debate featuring Thwaites and Awbrey vs Gish and H. Morris. That was the debate also attended by a creationist co-worker who was very disturbed seeing the piles of books based on the proven-false bombadier beetle claim. It was at that debate that I heard Henry Morris use the ICR's moondust claim, basing it on a "1976" NASA document, "written well into the space age" and after we had landed on the moon. I wrote to him for more information and Gish responded with a copy of a letter by Harold Slusher which referenced that "1976" NASA document and showed his calculations "based" on that document. Then in the university library while looking for another document I found the one that Slusher had referenced. The front cover prominently showed 1965 as when the papers in it had been presented and the publication page clearly showed it was printed in 1967, before we had landed on the moon. When I wrote back to Gish to inform him of my findings, he denied it even with the xerox'd front cover and publication page in front of him, then when I responded with both xeroxes and pointing to them explicitly in my letter, he did not respond -- later I saw him speak as advertised in the ICR newsletter, so I asked him about the moondust claim to which he feigned ignorance and asked for my name and address so that he could respond to me, at which time my subscription to their newsletter was abruptly cancelled (even Dr. Eugenie Scott of the NCSE was shocked by that). Later I learned that two astronomers had made the same discovery and were trying to correspond with Henry Morris and got the same treatment. Then a few years later the ICR quietly stopped using the moondust claim, though decades later their books still present it unchanged, spreading that refuted and "denounced" lie to every new generation of creationists. See my page, MOON DUST, for the full story.

But I think that I might have seen Frank Awbrey before. In 1981 when I was first starting to study creation science and before I knew any of the names and faces in the "debate", one night on Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) on a show that would show videos of various debates, there was one in which an "evolutionist" was debating a creationist; trying to remember back what they looked like, it could have been Frank Awbrey and Henry Morris. What I saw told me everything I ever needed to know about creationists and their denial of reality. From my page, Why I Oppose Creation Science:

quote:
My interest in creationism was renewed at the turn of the decade (c. 1979) by sporadic reports that would filter in to North Dakota (where I was stationed), by a debate at UND (which I could not attend -- the debate, that is), and by an article in Science 81. Since they were obviously still around, I was curious to see if there was anything to their claims, i.e. what their evidence is. After nine years of looking, I have found their evidence to be non-existent.

I first saw creationists in action one night in 1982 on CBN. A Tennessean host would run various debates (I believe it was David Ankerberg). This particular night, a creationist was debating a scientist (kind of looked like Drs. Morris and Awbrey, though I cannot be sure since I didn't know of either of them at the time). I remember that the scientist showed several slides of hominid fossils, such as knee joints (to show evidence of developing bi-pedalism). Then he showed slides of a human pelvis and chimpanzee pelvis side-by-side. First from the side, then from the top, he pointed out two sets of characteristics that clearly distinguish the one from the other (i.e. whether viewed from the side or from the top, the pelvis could be positively identified as human or chimpanzee). Next he showed both views of a hominid pelvis. From one view it was definitely ape, from the other it was definitely human; thus demonstrating it to be a intermediate form. The creationist then proclaimed the hominid pelvis to be 100% ape and not the least bit human by completely ignoring the human characteristic (even when reminded of it repeatedly by his opponent) and concentrating solely on the view that displayed the ape characteristic. Of course, the host declared this to be a creationist victory and threw in the standard gross misinterpretation of punctuated equilibrium for good [?] measure.

This event made a lasting impression on me. The creationist's steadfast ignoring of the blatantly obvious evidence that was repeatedly pointed out to him is a selective blindness that I have found to pervade much of the creationist literature. Now I've begun to suspect that this is but one of many manifestations of the Dark Side of the Farce.


}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ringo, posted 09-30-2014 12:17 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 1960 (737897)
10-01-2014 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by jar
10-01-2014 1:22 PM


duplicate

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by jar, posted 10-01-2014 1:22 PM jar has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 1960 (737898)
10-01-2014 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by jar
10-01-2014 1:22 PM


Of course and it is even vaguely possible that there might be a Creationist who is simply ignorant and delusional and not a liar; but that is totally unrelated to what I said.

While what I posted was related to what you said, it was not intended as any kind of rebuttal. Perhaps you are a bit paranoid?

School teachers probably are not allowed to tell students that their pastors are lying to them even if that is indeed the reality.

Can you read?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by jar, posted 10-01-2014 1:22 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by jar, posted 10-01-2014 7:08 PM NoNukes has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 274 of 1960 (737901)
10-01-2014 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by NoNukes
10-01-2014 5:30 PM


It's clear that you can not or more likely will not read.

What you posted is unrelated to anything I said and I never suggested teachers should say the pastors are liars.

Go back and learn to actually read what was written.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by NoNukes, posted 10-01-2014 5:30 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2014 12:57 AM jar has responded
 Message 278 by dwise1, posted 10-02-2014 10:40 AM jar has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 1960 (737905)
10-02-2014 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by jar
10-01-2014 7:08 PM


What you posted is unrelated to anything I said and I never suggested teachers should say the pastors are liars.

The teacher is not going to be able to call any Christian a liar for expressing a belief. Period.

Here is the original exchange.

Jar writes:

The teacher should then go on to point out that scientists supporting creationism are all liars.

NoNukes writes:

It's almost inevitable that some teachers would do this. But actually taking that last step would probably cross a constitutional line. It would get really awkward if the kids reached the conclusion themselves and challenged the teacher with it.

Note that my response is directly to your point. It is your follow o response that makes no sense.

Jar writes:

I doubt the kids would be claiming to be scientists.

Where did I make such a claim? I discussed what what happen if the students concluded that the scientists were liars rather than hearing it from the teacher. Your reading is complete nonsense.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by jar, posted 10-01-2014 7:08 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by jar, posted 10-02-2014 9:10 AM NoNukes has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 276 of 1960 (737919)
10-02-2014 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by NoNukes
10-02-2014 12:57 AM


Where did I make such a claim? I discussed what what happen if the students concluded that the scientists were liars rather than hearing it from the teacher. Your reading is complete nonsense.

Finally a glimmer of evidence that you MIGHT be able to read.

You finally included the word scientist in your response.

That is key to you beginning to understand what I am saying.

Creationists may not be lying, they may be brain washed, willfully ignorant, delusional, even just plain wrong.

However a Creationist who claims to be a scientist is by definition a liar.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2014 12:57 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2014 10:04 AM jar has responded
 Message 282 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2014 7:50 PM jar has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 277 of 1960 (737928)
10-02-2014 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by jar
10-02-2014 9:10 AM


Why are you being such a dick?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by jar, posted 10-02-2014 9:10 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by jar, posted 10-02-2014 12:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 281 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2014 7:48 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4608
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 278 of 1960 (737930)
10-02-2014 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by jar
10-01-2014 7:08 PM


I have no intention of stepping into the middle of a pissing match (especially without foul weather gear), but I'll use your post to springboard off of to make a comment about something mentioned, even though you never suggested it :

... teachers should say the pastors are liars.

In keeping with the standard creationist call for "balanced treatment", an honest teacher should never have to say that. An honest teacher would only need to present all the facts. Show what the science actually is. Show what the creationists claim, pointing out how that conflicts directly with the actual facts. Show the lies that creationists have used and why they are not true or were dishonest. An example of this from the c. 1980 debate turn-around was when Gish's opponent presented a series of overheads: on the one side of the screen he show what Gish had claimed a source to have said and on the other side was what the source actually said -- the audience, mostly creationists and sympathizers, were appalled at Gish's lies. Show the students the facts about creationist claims that their pastors repeat from the pulpit and let the students decide for themselves whether their pastors are liars.

Just a thought.

Even if exposing creationists for what they are is not the goal, a good and honest teacher forced into a "balanced treatment" situation could do no less than to present the facts and to show the students what's wrong with the creationist claims. Which is obviously not in line with the creationists' goals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by jar, posted 10-01-2014 7:08 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Stile, posted 10-02-2014 11:19 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4041
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 279 of 1960 (737937)
10-02-2014 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by dwise1
10-02-2014 10:40 AM


Can't beat reality
dwise1 writes:

Even if exposing creationists for what they are is not the goal, a good and honest teacher forced into a "balanced treatment" situation could do no less than to present the facts and to show the students what's wrong with the creationist claims.

Right.

Take, for example, the beetle you mentioned earlier and the mixing of their chemicals.
Before the experiment, you (basically) only have Creationist's word vs. Science's word. At this point (if we're being naively fair) it's an even match.

The next honest thing to do, then, is to do the actual experiment to see what happens.

"Oh, look at that... they did not explode." Is all the teacher has to say. Or, really, they can even say nothing at all


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by dwise1, posted 10-02-2014 10:40 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 280 of 1960 (737939)
10-02-2014 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by New Cat's Eye
10-02-2014 10:04 AM


Me being a dick?
When folk continue to misrepresent what I say I try to help them correct their errors.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2014 10:04 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 1960 (737952)
10-02-2014 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by New Cat's Eye
10-02-2014 10:04 AM


Why are you being such a dick?

It's okay. I can take it. As I see it, my initial comment was ambiguous and jar chose to interpret it in a stupid way. My fault for not being clear.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2014 10:04 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 1960 (737953)
10-02-2014 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by jar
10-02-2014 9:10 AM


However a Creationist who claims to be a scientist is by definition a liar.

1) No they are not.
2) A teacher who announces such a thing is on thin constitutional ice.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by jar, posted 10-02-2014 9:10 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by jar, posted 10-02-2014 7:53 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 283 of 1960 (737954)
10-02-2014 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by NoNukes
10-02-2014 7:50 PM


Of course they are and it has nothing to do with religion and so the Constitution has no bearing.

Try thinking.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2014 7:50 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
djufo
Member (Idle past 2348 days)
Posts: 55
From: FL
Joined: 10-02-2014


Message 284 of 1960 (737963)
10-02-2014 8:23 PM


Both should be mentioned as theories. Although the theory of human evolution is a ridiculous science fiction story, religion was invented by men in their convenience. Education system should be based on true evidence and history.

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Coyote, posted 10-02-2014 9:06 PM djufo has not yet responded
 Message 286 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2014 9:07 PM djufo has not yet responded
 Message 287 by ringo, posted 10-03-2014 12:02 PM djufo has not yet responded
 Message 288 by dwise1, posted 10-03-2014 3:20 PM djufo has not yet responded
 Message 289 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2014 7:49 PM djufo has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1000 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 285 of 1960 (737968)
10-02-2014 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by djufo
10-02-2014 8:23 PM


Both should be mentioned as theories. Although the theory of human evolution is a ridiculous science fiction story, religion was invented by men in their convenience. Education system should be based on true evidence and history.

Religion is not a scientific theory, it is a belief--i.e., it is based on dogma and belief, not evidence.

The theory of evolution is based on evidence and successful predictions. It explains all the relevant evidence and is not contradicted by any relevant evidence.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by djufo, posted 10-02-2014 8:23 PM djufo has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021