Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

quote:

---

Precisly what part of creationism would we introduce that would help teach how science is done? I think that lots of generalized discussion has gone by now. How about some specific details.

---

For equal time, the same as evolution -------all of it. Creationism implys the supernatural. Creationist curriculum would involve interpreting what is found/observed with the supernatural sudden appearance of things full grown or of age like Adam, the original Animals, some rocks, minerals, crystals such as diamonds, other precious stones, etc.Imo, according to Genesis one, there is no need to teach a young earth, because it doesn't necessarily say the earth was created on day one. It simply says when the heavens and the earth were created, God did it.

USE BARIMINOLOGY TO TEACH WHEN VICARIISM IS ALL Taxonomic. Why do you guys refuse to acknowledge this? Is everyone so split on the issues that they cant see the eyes of a taxonomist of any kind?Introduce microevolutionDiscuss New SystematicsShow the differnce of Disperal and Geographic Distribution with a primer on BiometryBring up mutation and rates of changeIntroduce biogeographic vicarism by the acutal cases done in the literatureShow the controversy with cladistics on phylogenetics that didnt settle phenetic developments as to computer input and demonstrate creationist kind classifications of the same data is not thisCreate hypotheticals for BOTH baramins and age of speces vs age of species' formation (USE GEOLOGY for pricipaled orientation).Show how to exclude cases where all the information comes from taxonmy when trying to figure out wich way locomotion, migration, dispersal WENT to the particulars of the general distributions discussed earlier in theory bringing up Wright's notion of drift and the philosophy of biology if the students can handle it. One does not need to solve every techinical issue in writing computer programs for the testing of hypotheses.The key to teaching this is to use taxa where there are acutally different sets of characters that include all of a group and also that exclude a group of the same lineage.This actually USES more evolution than I did to come up with it.

Huh?
Most of that is gibberish to me. Perhaps you can start a thread and added posts for each of those points. Explaining them as you wouild in an average high school class.In that case, you would use only simple English terms and use them to explain any jargon that needs to be used.Separately you might want to, in simple words, explain microevolution and how it is different from macroevolution and where the boundary is.Here is the thread for that:
http://EvC Forum: 'Micro' evolution vs 'macro' evolution -->EvC Forum: 'Micro' evolution vs 'macro' evolution

Uh Brad, with all due respect, for grade and high school, you'd first have to expand their vocabulary immensly before ever embarking on your curricula. An astounding number of these kids can't even read and write simple stuff efficiently when they enter high school.

Well there's nothing in context that points to it meaning sphere, the Hebrews did have a word for a ball (the word used DOES mean circle), and if God had WANTED something in the bible that clearly stated that the Earth was spherical He could have managed it. There is no such reference - not even in the New Testament which was written after the spherical shape of the Earth had been discovered and was quite widely known - among the *educated*.The facts are that you claimed that it was a reference to the sphericity of the Earth but you cannot back that up in any way which does not rely on assuming that it does mean that. Not much of an argument.

I see Ned and I agree on something as we posted simultaneous responses.

Then you dont understand evolutionary theory. I am sorry to be this crass but I have tried time and time again to have it explained and all you keep doing is suggest something else.I had assumed that as this is Creatiion versus evolutin people who posted as often as you had some idea of the subject but I guess your physics background gives you more authority on the evolution of the universe than that of biological change by natural selection or not etc. Wolram's functionary on his new web site maintains some kind of similar ignorance, if I may use that word, but in his case he is speaking for a third party (wolfram (whose ideas are already in the public domain)) but you speak for yourself I thought. That's OK as I said before when I have real physics question I will ask you. The use of setting up a spin off of this thread (from my perspective) is only once one finds that by extending the example from any life to the physics and chemistry of THIS PARTICULAR living thing that one may question physical notions of space-time and or cybernitc priciples of clocks topologically and other things I guess you could rightly write you may or would not understand if I was to put a period on it, this list however is necessary if you are to do any good biology in my opninion. The studnets need to have someone who can uderstand this to start with. I NEVER said there was a difference of micro and macro evolution that was Goldschmidt who introduced that idea. The issue with that notion has to do with RATES of transformisms etc but by using the physics difference of speed vs acceleration this is not a material differnce in the teaching only a formal one. Sure one can split those hairs on a more advanced level but I dont think that is needed to be taught but perhaps in a gifted and talented class etc.If you are really posting to me like Randy and I went back and forth for a while I will choose not to talk to you. You have everything a entering freshman needs to read to understand. YOU did not repsond to my earlier link to ICR's two model approach so instead I gave you mine. It is not fair to get all of this and then simply hit a delete key etc. There is no purpose to this web site or any others like it then but I know I have gotten beyond this on others.

Not really. It would be more accurate to say that "creationism assumes the supernatural."As a result, before you can introduce creationism in the classroom, you have to cover "Does god even exist?" I mean, if I were a student and the teacher was trying to show that such-and-such a thing was evidence of creationism, I know I'd ask "how can creationism be true if there's no such thing as god?"Why do you have such an objection to having only testable propositions in the science classroom?

well now I now you guys are realy all a little more dense than I had give you all credit for. That still doesnt mean someone else will pop up since I last came back but I am really out of here Mike. YOU PEOPLE REALLY need a chat forum and not discussion formum Percy. I'm done good bye.

quote:

---

The facts are that you claimed that it was a reference to the sphericity of the Earth but you cannot back that up in any way which does not rely on assuming that it does mean that. Not much of an argument.

---

Ok, and nor did anyone prove Isaiah was referring to it as a disk or flat, so yes not much of an argument for either side as to sphere. At any rate Isaiah's statement was scientifically correct, in view of the Hebrew word he had to work with.Bottom line is that David Fitch's last paragraph of his opening post should not be taken seriously so far as teaching Creationism in PS.

Well nobody even showed that it was a reference to the actual shape of the Earth !And it seems that you have not read the final point of the opening post. What exactly do you have against it and what does your invocation of Isaiah have to do with it ? (I suggest you go back and reread it carefully before answering)

I'm still waiting for someone to say what we should be teaching. My grade 9 son's socials text is discussing evolution and has a paragraph on creationism (basically some people believe that God created everything all at once). It also has a paragraph pointing out that the bible isn't a science text.If anyone needs the exact words just ask.Meanwhile, what more could we teach than the above couple of paragraphs. They make up maybe 10 % of the text discussing evolution so it seems to me to be too much time given what is worth teaching.

David, there seems to be some uncertainty as to what you are advocating. Do you believe that creationism is a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution, or are saying that creationism should be taught in order to expose it for the pseudoscience that it is?

Hi David,I find it fascinating to read your ideas on science teaching, especially coming from a professor and experimenter in evolutionary biology. Although I agree completely with your first sentence here, I'm finding it hard to reconcile this with the subsequent one. Modern scientific methodology does not require the elaboration of multiple hypotheses. Multiple explanations may be developed to deal with specific observations or suites of observations, but it certainly isn't a requirement. For example, as was discussed in a previous thread, there was an observation made that end-Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions in North America appeared temporally correlated with the arrival of humans on that continent. There were three basic hypotheses developed by three independent groups to explain the observation. However, there was no requirement that any single group develop more than one. It was only when one of the hypotheses didn't appear to fully explain the available data that an alternate (in fact, two) was proposed. This is another odd statement. NS most assuredly does NOT predict this. Could you perhaps show, by use of specific references, where any evo bio text predicts this? The opposite is closer to the mark: NS predicts that functional features of organisms will be more on the lines of "good enough" for their environment, with constraints applied by the natural history of the particular organism. IOW, there are more examples of sloppy design, cooption, or making do than there are of engineering. If they were designed, it was done very poorly (possibly by a committee? ) Really? Have you seen this in university classes you teach on evolutionary biology? It's been quite a while since I took undergrad biology - "back in the day" there didn't seem to be much outcry for creationism. Anecdotally, all I can say is my 12-year-old daughter is becoming highly frustrated at the LACK of evolution being taught in her current public school system. Of course, she's a science junkie, so might be a bit unusual (now if I could just get her math up to the same level...I don't think pop gen is going to be her forte. Maybe she'll follow in Daddy's footsteps and go into ecology...). I completely agree. However, it should be remembered that at secondary school level (with the exception of programs like IB Biology, etc), the main goal is to provide students with fundamentals - IOW, the scientific concensus. Even at the first year college level, we're still dealing with basics mostly. I totally agree that more emphasis needs to be placed on the critical thinking skills which are the heart of the scientific method. It doesn't follow for me that teaching "creationism" as an alternative to the concensus scientific opinion on how the diversity of life arose contributes to this. I vaguely remember a freshman (?) biology course that included a section on the history of science as it pertained to biology which mentioned special creation, Lamarckism, Goldschmitt's saltationism, etc. I don't remember that the text did a very good job of explaining why these were discredited (except Lamarckism), leaving it up to the student mostly. However, that was a college course providing an introduction to the science - and much more detail was provided in later upper level courses. It wouldn't be unrealistic to provide a similar overview in High School, IMO. Somehow I don't think that's what you're advocating here, however. Actually, this isn't entirely correct the way you have presented it. We bring up Lamarckism, spontaneous generation, etc, in science classes as examples of theories or ideas that have been discredited due to the accumulation of new data and the action of new instruments. We can also discuss creationism, catastrophism, and even Young Earth etc, in the same vein. I imagine ID could be treated the same way. They are NOT presented as current alternative hypotheses because there is absolutely ZERO positive evidence available for either special creation OR ID. There is no data, there is no observation, there is no consistent hypothesis, and there is no experiment for either of them that can be used as a basis for proclaiming them equivalent theories to the ToE that should be given "balanced treatment" in a science classroom. If such should ever present itself, then the question can be re-evaluated. I think others have asked you this question, but succinctly: what would be a testable creationist hypothesis? Or a testable ID hypothesis for that matter?

Quite true. Just about all the university-level books I own (as opposed to the 'pop science ones ) -- things like Bob Carroll's Patterns and Processes, Gilbert's Developmental Biology, Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, etc -- frequently stress the historical constraint aspect of 'design'. Natural selection does not predict perfection -- as if we might know what that might be! -- though we should not be surprised if it does produce very good 'designs'. All it does predict is 'good enough', because (1) of contingency, the history of the lineage, nothing is starting from scratch; and (2) because that's all anything needs to be: better than its current rivals. It's the old thing about the two blokes pursued by a bear; one stops to pull on his running shoes, and when the other asks why, they won't help him outrun the bear, he says 'no, but they'll help me outrun you. Well, I'm not sure there are more examples, but there are more than enough to show that the designer, if there were one, was anything but intelligent.TTFN, DT (Oolon)