Debate (Re: A young Earth/old Earth classroom debate)

Why wouldn't it be fair? There would probably be a way to structure a discussion - or a series of discussions for that matter - between your class + teacher and the folks on this website. After all, at the very least the folks here can open the basic literature of science to you - and even explain some of it. It doesn't have to be all that confrontational. Think about it.

Again, wow. I see what you mean, but you don't understand exactly what is taught in this class ( and it isn't possible for you to with just the small amount of information given) so I will try to explain further. If it seems that I'm contradicting what I've already said I'm sorry, I'm just being more thorough. Here goes: The class is just a Christian perspective on biology, it doesn't necessarily try to teach specific viewpoints on topics such as this. The class is a normal biology class (except in that it teaches creationism)and there was a section on topics such as this. You say this one of the most upsetting posts you have ever read on this forum. It's usually upsetting when someone believes differently than you. While I am in school, however, I try to keep an open mind about things so I can make my own decisions based on facts. In time I may turn to more theistic beliefs. If you want to really critique the class, feel free to come down here to southern California and sit in on a class, unless that would upset you too much.------------------
"You can never go wrong in underestimating the intelligence of the American public" -Mark Twain

Thank you all very much for taking your time to help me out, I appreciate it a lot. I don't have any time to participate in a big debate right now (although I would like some practice a little later). I'm especially thankful to Nosy ned and Rei-some of that stuff is perfect. Right now I have some Algebra 2 homework, so I hope you guys will excuse me. Any more help anyone has is welcome.

I would have said you would be lucky to get the old earth draw in that debate. But it's clear that your opponents are unlikely to be prepared to defend old earth so you should beat them easily anyway.If, however, you do get old earth, then it is easy to stump them with the material you have been pointed to. The material has been available, in many cases, for years. And there is no clear, honest, reasoned rebuttal that I've had any one point out.About all you might get away with is a discussion of intelligent design. However, that assumes (in most or all cases) an old earth and lots and lots of "normal" evolution so it wouldn't help much.

Hmmmmm. I think I still don't get what your class is exactly.

quote:

---

The class is just a Christian perspective on biology, it doesn't necessarily try to teach specific viewpoints on topics such as this.

---

If the class is Xian perspectives on biology, then at least debates make sense... though it is still true that OE vs YE is not truly biology, it is only one support for one particular theory in biology.

quote:

---

The class is a normal biology class (except in that it teaches creationism)and there was a section on topics such as this.

---

This seems to be contrary to the statement above. A "normal" biology class should be teaching science, particularly biology. This means debates are clean out of the picture, and OE vs YE are totally misplaced.You also mentioned that your teacher taught YE biology. There is no such thing as this in legitimate (or accepted) science. Even the majority of creationist scientists admit that YE has little to no evidence supporting it, compared to the overwhelming evidence that supports OE.Again, it might be slightly understandable if the teacher introduced creationist or even YEC ideas as some sort of alternative theories, but to teach from that point of view and expose you to OE evo only as part of "getting to know the other side" is something which is not appropriate.And this is why I said your post was the most upsetting I had ever read. Not because you or someone else might believe something different than I do... look at where we are after all... it was that a teacher is clearly teaching science poorly.I hope I am simply not understanding what your class is, but if you are having debates on OE vs YE in a class that is supposed to be teaching you biological science, then there is no mistake... your teacher is serving you poorly.Having taught science I'd be happy to come in and critique the class, though it would be more profitable (and less time consuming for the students) to just talk to the teacher outside of class. Unfortunately there is little chance I will get to CA anytime soon. I'd be happy to look over a syllabus and write your teacher.You should understand this is extra disturbing to me because there is a movement supported by the current president to allow tax dollars to go to private schools like the kind you are attending. If public money were to go to support such classes (where YEC is taught as legitimate biological science), then science itself is in for some rough patches as consistent methods and models will be actively undermined.------------------
holmes

Wow, you write very well for a 10th grader. Obviously your school is quite adept at teaching English.

I am on ninjas team in debating the YE v. OE debate. What we need to have completed by fri. is an opening statement for both sides of the debate. We are not being graded so much on winning as much as comeing prepared. So basically we need to have at least 5 min. worth of arguement for both sides. If we could get some help that would be greatly appreciated. Thanx

Let me see if I can explain our class. Basically we go to class have a little devotional then go over the textbook. We then go over anything anyone does not get. Then comes lab. We have gone briefly over goelogy, and I believe that we are doing this just to have debating experience, and since we have just finished reading about evolution and dating methods she picked this topic.

Ned,I really cannot find a decent argument for a young earth at all! If you are having problems finding one then don't waste time on it if you have something more worthwhile to do.How on earth can anyone possibly believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old?The only possible reason is that they are working from Ussher's Biblical chronology, although this date is not necessarily supported by the text and other interpretations of the text give different dates. Then there is the added problem of different versions of the bible giving different time periods for different events.What does disturb me is that young kids are being indoctrinated by this nonsense, and it appears to be a particularly American phenomenon.

That's what happens when you learn real science, Brian. To understand Creationism, you need to throw out everything you've learned, as well as logic and common sense. Oh yeah, you have to close your eyes, too.

Here's the problem, if it is supposed to be a science class then there should be no debates being held. To be a scientist, lab skills are good, reasoning skills are good, and for geology and biology field experience is good.This gets one used to collecting and understanding the nature of evidence, and first hand learn how science uses evidence (and experiments) to create and check our models od natural phenomena.Debates are for people who have written a book and/or are collecting honorariums, rather than doing research. Debates do not contribute to science at all, as they are simply rehashing of evidence and experiment.Your friend ninja said your teacher taught YE (young earth) biology. I am curious as to how this could possibly be taught and since you say you have been taught geology, how such a thing could be taught? If you have learned geology and dating methods then your class should be well aware that there is no such thing as YE geology. YE geology is at best a collection of criticisms of dating methods, which yield no coherent or consistent model for understanding the nature of existing strata.I suppose this is to say it succeeds only in the realm of theoretical debate, where many debaters (incorrectly) believe they can win a case without a coherent model, if they throw enough (logically possible though not probable) doubt on the opposing side.I would love for you to have your teacher come to this board and explain the class better so that I can understand what (s)he is doing. From where I am sitting, it is looking like you are receiving very bad teaching. And remember I am not saying this because it is Xian or that it is even creationist. You can find plenty of Xians and creationists that understand scientific method. What you don't seem to be getting taught is good science.My next post will be more helpful for you guys on your debate.------------------
holmes

Here's a link to a site I found where you can just buy the book.Page not found - Learning StreamsIt's only $33, and would give you a clearer picture of what's being taught. You might even learn something new....

Is that the textbook which contains the premise:For the Christian, earth science is a study of God's creation. As such, it is subject to God's infallible Word, the Bible. The final authority of the Christian is not man's observation but God's revelation.If you start with your conclusion and rule out observation which contradicts it, what you're practicing is not science. Also note how the book portrays all of Christianity as being biblical literalist, despite the fact that most Christians in the world are not biblical literalists.It is perfectly acceptable to hold a view that "This is the truth, and I don't care about evidence" or to hold a "I refuse to look at evidence" viewpoint. But to selectively omit evidence to students under the guise of teaching them about a subject is immoral, and to refuse to look at evidence is not science.Anyway, when you have time (I know you're busy - I remember high school!), please come back here, and mention what you feel is the strongest evidence toward a young Earth so that we can discuss it. After all if what you feel is true is in fact the truth, it should stand up under scrutiny, should it not?[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-09-2003]

Rei:I don't know if the book that was linked to is the one you're thinking of, but here's from the advertising blurb about the book:

quote:

---

Biology for Christian Schools is a high school textbook for Bible-believing Christians. Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God might find many points in this book puzzling. This course is written with the perspective that there are no contradictions between true science (those things that can be accurately observed and measured) and the Bible because the same God who inspired the writings of the Bible also created all the things that scientists can observe. Men, however, can make mistakes in their observations, or they may reach faulty conclusions from what they observe.

​

See science in modern life as your students study an introduction to cellular biology, genetics, taxonomy, microbiology, botany, zoology, and human anatomy. The biology materials uphold the sanctity and wonder of life as God has created it. These materials discuss Christian positions on eugenics, drugs, abortion, diseases, miracles, evolution, euthanasia, homosexuality, ecology, genetic engineering, AIDS, and animal rights.

​

Science and Christianity

​

Cellular physiolgy

​

Taxonomy of plant and animal kingdoms

​

Human anatomy and physiology

---

I think I'm beginning to see part of the problem, here. It is a YEC textbook, designed to be used by biblical inerrantists. I'd be interested (not to the tune of $30, unfortunately) in gettting a peek at some of the chapters.

If you click on the picture of the book you get the following synopsis:---------------
Biology for Christian Schools is a high school textbook for Bible-believing Christians. Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God might find many points in this book puzzling. This course is written with the perspective that there are no contradictions between true science (those things that can be accurately observed and measured) and the Bible because the same God who inspired the writings of the Bible also created all the things that scientists can observe. Men, however, can make mistakes in their observations, or they may reach faulty conclusions from what they observe.See science in modern life as your students study an introduction to cellular biology, genetics, taxonomy, microbiology, botany, zoology, and human anatomy. The biology materials uphold the sanctity and wonder of life as God has created it. These materials discuss Christian positions on eugenics, drugs, abortion, diseases, miracles, evolution, euthanasia, homosexuality, ecology, genetic engineering, AIDS, and animal rights.
----------------------The stance taken by the author (see above) is why many of us are upset. The fact that the Bible is understood to be literally inerrant is taken as an assumption without any evidence to back it up. From this assumption, evidence can be subjectively thrown out without any objective reason. This is the problem that many of us have (some of which actually are scientists). Secondly, topics such as euthanasia, abortion, eugenics, homosexuality, etc. have no place in the science classroom. Please don't take this personally, but the fact that "Biology" is plastered on the front of this book makes me a little ill. Evil things have happen when objectivity is taken out of science and data is bent to fit political agendas. You may not have a choice about the class text, but you may want to think for yourself when social issues are brought into a biological discussion.PS: In the synopsis states "Men, however, can make mistakes in their observations, or they may reach faulty conclusions from what they observe." This is the basis of objective scientific research, we know we can make mistakes and therefore spend as much time trying to prove ourselves wrong as we do proving ourselves right. This is also why a peer review system (other people looking over your data and methodology before publication) is such an important process. Oops, kind of long for a PS, sorry.