I am in the process of bringing my site back up after having been taken down a few years ago by my provider suddenly going out of the business. I am now bringing it back up at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/.
On my index page, I am endeavoring to summarize my position. Part of that is the question of why creationists persist in keeping themselves ignorant of evolution and the associated sciences. I will prsent here what I have posted and open it up to discussion and criticism. I am particularly concerned with my assessment #2, pertaining to the goals of creationist/fundamentalist education.
Your assessment #2 is about "education", and "what learning entails", and that is not a scientific subject, any more than is math, history, etc. It doesn’t make much sense to criticize someone (or group) for disagreeing with you on something that is a completely different subject than what you are criticizing them for.
2. Another possible explanation may lie in their misunderstanding of what learning entails. According to the 1990 Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten through Grade Twelve:
So a small committee of people, at one time and in one place (California), determine for themselves and their state what they believe learning entails, and you accept it without question 21 years later, for all 50 states, or the whole world? Do you also assume that the entire scientific community in the other 49 states or the rest of the world accept it without question?
quote:We repeat here the fundamental conviction of this framework: Education does not compel belief; it seeks to encourage understanding. Nothing in science, or in any other field, should be taught dogmatically. But teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth. In science, there is no truth. There is only knowledge that tests itself and build on itself constantly. This is the message that students should take away with them.
Is everyone supposed to accept this paragraph without question? Suppose someone at NASA, or the medical profession, took exception to the statement “In science, there is no truth”. Suppose they cited some accomplishments in their field, built on truths that were learned in science. Would they be wrong?
“Teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth”? Really? Students are supposed to understand that as they’re taught math, history etc, that it may not actually be true, but they have to learn it anyway? That’s what education is – to learn things that may be false?
What does a discussion about these things have to do with evolution?
Is my assessment of conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist/extreme-sectarian Christian education accurate?
Must be, you’ve inspired a 4 page creationist bashing thread. And now I’ve probably prolonged it by at least another 4 pages.