Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

Pionts well taken. What a theory is and then how to test it are the basis of science no matter the subject. My post seemed to be as complex as the subject as it turns out, hehe.As far as getting students in over their heads, I think it is a real possibility. Even though I undestand the workings of the cell now (after a bachelors and working in the field) in my high school days it was still a mystery. Critical thought and logic are things that need training, IMO, and without them complex issues dealing with evidence and inferrence can become cloudy or even incomprehensible. Maybe I'm not giving our teens today the props they deserve, who knows.

Reminders DO seem to be in order.NN said-

quote:

---

Once the tentative nature of it and what a theory is is explained I don't think you have to keep on reminding students of that.

---

WHILE Carl Zimmer in (note NO CAPITAL !"E"!) "evolution The Triumph Of An Idea" 2001 wrote WITH()IN!! "What about God?" "Paying the Price" "The result of these conflicts is not a new generation of creationists, but a generation of students who don't understand evolution. This is a bad state of affairs, and not simply because the theory of evolution stands as one of the greatest scientific acomplishments of the past 200 years. Many careers that students might want to pursue actually depend on a solid understanding of evolution." concluding the section without cost, "Biotechnology will keep speeding ahead, and it will keep relying on evolution as its central organizing principle. And it wont wait for people who didnt understand how life evolves because someone else decided they didn't need to."Carl apparently lied because he did not understand 'stewardship'. I know Carl and he knows me. Carl tried to assert causality where there is only a FINACIAL issue of funding of different kinds of graduate students. I overheard a conversation between two graduate students at Cornell on my way back home about THIS difference between a student in Ecology,Evolution and Systematics and Genetics and Development which indeed finds agreement with Carl's conclusion as to what speeds ahead no matter the amount of understanding on the students part as to evolution but this is not a RESULT of a "conflict" with creationists but only an ambiguous...I'll say later. Carl was Hunterdon Central's BEST ENGLSIH student and like Gould he apparently let the psychological reality overtake his pen. Actually Gould simply thinks things divided that biologists take on their plate instead. Carl simply tried to turn an observation into a perception but he missed the captial importance of the silence in the voice of the genetists OVER the tone of the naturalist who talks way too much.I am following the career of the Zero Atom Unit impulsion by impression instead of neglecting direct imposition for the bottom line. Matchette made it very clear that one needs to SEPERATE what is is from what created is....(look I only put in a DOT!!!!).

Sorry I missed this one. But if it's not too late, allow me to add this: If you are a University Prof. who teaches and does experimental work in evolutionary biology, I am astounded...no, I am absolutely stunned, floored, flabergasted, and amazed...that you would make such a statement?But then you go on to say this: Which pretty much puts to rest the possibility that you might actually understand evolutionary theory.

"Kids are cyring out to understand what scientists think is wrong with creation and vice versa.""I don't know what the schools are like in America, but in my experience of Scottish schools the majority of students know that the Bible stories are taken as a belief and NOT as an attempt to accurately describe real events." BrianBible stories are taken, at least from most Christians I know as not only a belief but as History. And, if Genises wasn't trying to accurately describe real events, please tell me what it was.
Thank You

Hi,Genesis is clearly etiological.Cheers.Brian

I disagree that we need to teach creationism along with evolution. Why waste time and resources teaching a theory that is widely regarded as nonsense. They wont thank you for it. Teach kids something practical with real word value.

Still. It is not a waste of time to show kids varying ideas (no matter what you believe). Kids need to know that the *TRUTH* that alot of them were raised with is not yet PROVEN wrong. Few things can be proven 100% impossible, Creation is NOT one of them. It is not a waste of time to spend a day or so on a subject stressing that is is a theory. It can't be taught in a religous class because that would be telling the kids this isn't a scientific option (ONLY a hypothosis). FreckledTit - tell me how it is nonsence to believe in a single being who has always existed, then it created earth - as opposed to the earth creating itself. No matter how scientific you try to be about matter creating itself you can't make it totally make sence. Everything comes from something. Unless your planning on giving kids a 100% complete view of creation using a view that leaves out room for God, I believe God's theory (truth) should also be included.[This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-18-2004]

Can you cite someone who claims the earth created itself? A link or a reference to a text book? Sure, that does sound like it's nonsense, but it doesn't have anything to do with the matter at hand.And which god's theory would you have taught? Suppose that Hinduism was the dominant religion in the US and that your kid's teachers were taching the Hindu version of creationism, which does accept that the earth is millions of years old. Would you be so sanguine about it?Gesocentrism is another theory that has never been proved 100% wrong, and there are people who accept this as God's theory. Are you advocating yet another change in the science curriculum?It is not a waste of time to show kids varying ideas, I agree, but there are ideas that are such nonsense that is is a waste of time to dwell on them for any lenght of time. Except when the nonsense idea has a relatively powerful lobby, then I agree that time should be spent in showing why the idea is nonsense and why the lobby is wrong.

Ok, it doesn't quite say that Earth created itself, but that's basically what it boils down to. And I will say it again, and again until you read it, the locally dominant religions who are pursuing having their views taught. I would not care a bit if my kids learned the Hindu views. Why should I? - Especially if they are just, as I said earlier, "taking a day or two on it." I do not agree the Earth is even a million years old, but I "would be so sanguine about it."
I believe classes, especially, in High school, should spend more time on teaching the origin of life. I don't really care which views they put in schools, as long as it includes the locally dominant religous ones. --> mabey a handfull of non-religous views, then a couple of religous views- Yes I am advocating another change in the science corriculum, to smooth things over, and make things fair. Also allow kids to make up their own minds instead of being taught all of their school lives that the only theories possible are ones that don't involve God. Like I said earlier, a few extra days. Even you agree it should be taught, you just think the kids would see "why the idea is nonsence." No on the contrary, If they provided all of the kids with all of the evidence for both sides I believe they would choose that things that have been made have a maker.
Chiroptera, off-subject - How long will it say I am a Junior-Member?

I'd open a topic on this if you want to discuss it. It is of course, a silly statement. Since it is as circular a statement as one can make.Of course things that have been "made" have a maker if you define things as being made if and only if they have a maker. That is what it sounds like you are saying. If you are saying something more interesting please open a thread on the topic.

---

Common sense isn't

Not at all. It boils down to "natural processes created the Earth in a manner that we understand almost completely and see going on today". Why only the locally dominant relitions? Does local dominance ensure truth? Oh we could probably do that."The Bible says God did it. That's the evidence for Christian creationism and a young Earth and universe. Now we'll spend the rest of the term giving you a very condensed version of the evidence for an old Earth and Universe and evolution. It will take many years of study before you will comprehend the totality of the evidence for the mainstream scientific view."

Notice I sayed IF we could show them all the evidence. I realize classes are already crammed with state and distric teaching requirements as well as activities. which is why I said we should spend a day or two teaching religous alternatives.O yeah, it dosn't matter to me which religous views we teach, as long as the world's major religions are taught. I don't even care if we get into any detain about any. We should just suggest the possiblity to students that a higher being could have done it.[This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-18-2004]

Hi, But they are taught in schools, I have taught seven creation myths in the last 4 years at high school. These have been in Religious Studies classes of course but this is where they belong. You cannot teach creation in science class because it is not falsifiable.Brian.

Ok, ONCE again ! I said we should mention them in science class because otherwise it would be like telling the kids "this is just a religous belief, if you want truth - listen in science class!"
We should not close young people's minds to supernatural possiblities.
We don't have to teach the bible- but we should att least mention the possibility of a Creator. please stop moving this debate in circles

Hi,OK, let us go with your thinking, I will be happy to allow creation myths into science classes if you can tell me how a science teacher can verify or falsify the Hindu creation myth.In about five minutes (or less) time you will realise why they are taught in Religious Studies class. (hopefully)Cheers.Brian.