What if creationism did get into the science class

The essence of my intent for this topic, is to propose that "creation science" be killed off by giving it the exposure it apparently desires. This could be in the classroom, or in some other prominent public forum. I think that, given this great exposure, "creation science" will be exposed as the scientificly empty concept it is.I am also posting relevent material in the "What is a scientific theory of creation" topic, at:
http://EvC Forum: what is a scientific theory of creation -->EvC Forum: what is a scientific theory of creationMoose2/7/04 edit - Corrected bad link - Fortunately I had Adminnemooseus handy, to open the topic for me - Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-30-2002][This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 02-07-2004]

Extracted from message 13266 of the Yahoo Group site:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionversuscreationism/message/13266thesower9 said:

quote:

---

Perhaps I am wrong here, but I would like to see creationism given
time in a science class. In my mind, this issue will not go away
until creation science is confronted head on in the science class.
This would force the CS movement to develop a theory of their own, no
more sitting on the sidelines and lobbing assaults against our gaps
in evolutionary knowledge. They must then provide the positive
supporting evidence and potential falsifications.

​

Since we know they cannot do any of the above, they will have to tuck
tail and run. But the key here, is that they will have to admit to
their followers and the rest of the world, that they failed. Up to
now, science has been on the defensive with claims of bias, atheism,
etc. So my solution is to say loud and clear, COME ON DOWN!

​

I know Lenny feels we should not give these people a forum, and I
agree that the debate forums are worthless, but I think by saying NO
outright (which is the logical answer to this) we need to force them
to confront the issues, rather than allowing them to be martyr's for
their cause. Being martyrs only enhances their authority with the
faithful. I remember being in South Carolina in 1983, and watching
Jim Baker claim the government was coming to shut down his ministry
and remove his god from America. Rev. Jim the martyr for Jesus! The
faithful, fearing the worst, would send in millions to save their
god. By exposing Baker as a fraud, most of the faithful and their
dollars disappeared.

---

Extracted from the reply (message 13267):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionversuscreationism/message/13267Suttkus said:

quote:

---

In a perfect world, it would. In this world, it would just open the
door to the many creationist teachers to start their lectures on
evolution with "Evolution violates 2LoT so is impossible, while
anything's possible for God. All the evidence points to
creationism. If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"
followed by the standard list of ICR and AIG accepted "evidence" like
fossil fingers and squashed trillobites.

​

Most public school science teachers, I'm sorry to say, just don't
know enough about what they're teaching. I had a few well read
science teachers in school, but most of them really didn't have a
clue. I simply don't feel that the man who told me that compasses
point backwards in the southern hemisphere and that "nobody knows how
the constellations formed" is going to be able to explain what's
wrong with creationism in a classroom.

---

Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Merely as a preliminary consideration?? The "ground" rules, and I am not mocking any one/thing here, then do not call or allow for some discovery (fact finding) only presentation of "mature" science as is?I was going to suggest a different outcome but looking at some of the rules in the second instance it appears that my approach (such as law of Nature's GOd and "stations" on Earth (networked) in the Declaration of Independence may be included in 1) prior and hence may not be leveraged in this "mock" trial to future science (only past and present) if I understand you correctly MOOSE?

"Firstly, please understand I was only using you as an example - not picking on you particularly."
--That's good to know, No worries, no problem. "I'm not so sure. Here's a pair of wee quotes from you:My standpoint on Evolution is that it is possible, but not a plausible enough explination, my explination on the other hand, seems much more feasibly correct."
--My thoughts seem to have evolved, this quote is a bit old, though I do make my point when it comes to plausibility and possibility."... however, if you can show that this can actually happen in plausable conditions ... assume that it takes a flood for this decent to happen, this shows that these conditions are needed for this to happen in a given period of time."
--I agree with this recent statement."My objection to this approach is that much of the philosophy of science is concerned with exactly these issues - how does one determine the best hypotheses, and which method of inference is best suited to the hypotheses being considered."
--Some would take occams razor (or the law of parsimony), though I would differ slightly, of course this may have been highly and scientifically acceptable. Even in its success for over 700 years, it still now seems reasonable to the human mind and its capacity to observe our surroundings. However, in all scientific reality, it is simply no more than a philosophical concept. How something should be considered the 'right' one, is some-what difficult. I do think that it is reasonable to say that if something can be explained fully and be reasoned as plausible than it simply may come down to a personal level of belief until new data can be obtained. To decide plausibility could be based on what the sequence of events may have been. For instance, something plausible may be from something that has been evidently shown could have occurred and that this cause could produce effect that may also be observed. However something implausible may be that this effect does not produce a chain-reaction and simply is resorted to a 'wishful thinking', trying to shove evidence different direction and put them all on the same page rather than showing that they belong on the same page. Over time I'll have to critique myself and sharpen my thoughts on this."My impression is that you spend a lot of time researching the observations and experimental results secondhand, often in impressive detail, but relatively little time considering how they support a particular position - for example, what inductive methods are appropriate to the nature of the evidence?"
--I think my above statement may be considered, in my arguments I should carry out this reasoning to find just how 'plausible' my interpretation/explanation may be and go from there."It's a common enough problem. After all, we naturally assume we have a basic grasp of the methods of reasoning - are we not all reasonable people?"
--Evidently so."I don't understand. Can you elaborate? Thanks TC."
--No problem. Well you had stated that 'It's even sadder that they are being encourage into inadequate doctrinaire science by inadequate doctrinaire theology'. So my response was to mean that this is not what I am encouraged by, I am simply encouraged by my desire to have knowledge, to know and observe exactly what it is that makes everything work, and the history behind it. Whether or not it complies with the bible is irrelevant to this thinking. Besides, if my belief is true, I should not be worried in the least because these observations should have the ability to cooperate and cope with the observable, experimental, and testable sciences.------------------

"TC: While you're considering your response to Moose, please consider that you constantly harp on creation science being scientific. You have also stated in post #5 "In my opinion, there would be some reasons it would go down quick, but it would also depend on whether your going to stick religion in there along with the science of creationism." (emphasis added)."
--Yes, I have stated this and will still agree with it."TC, creation science is by definition religious. It has several a priori religious/supernatural assumptions that must be accepted for creation science to exist in the first place:"
--What definition might that be? Because according to how mine works, it has nothing at all to do with religion or faith."1. A creator of some type exists."
--According to mine, creation science has nothing to do with a creator, and so the name itself is misleading."In creationism, this is generally some form of diety."
--Certainly, 'Creationism' is where it all comes together, you smack the bible with creation science (synonymous to 'science') and see what you get, is it going to be a Kent Hovind, or something else?"Creation "scientists" often try and obfuscate the identity of the creator by calling it a Designer, or whatever."
--And I would be to disagree with many of their belief or personal attachments they put in with it."There is no semantic difference between the two concepts. Even arguing the LGM hypothesis ("little green man") leads to a problem of reduction: who created the LGM? and so on. Ultimately, the creator MUST be supernatural for creationism and its child creation science to exist."
--See above, the term 'creation science', is misleading, this is another reason why I had stated 'Good or Bad, I must be the first of my kind' earlier."2. After accepting the unprovable assumption of the existence of a supernatural creator, creation "science" requires acceptance of the premise that this creator intervenes (or did so at least once) regularly in its creation for reasons of its own - again with no mechanism or evidence to back the claim."
--See above."Since science, by definition, cannot comment on supernatural phenomena, creation science is an oxymoron."
--If you ask Kent Hovind, might as well start slapping around that version of 'creation science' all over the place for setting foot in the science classroom."Teaching it in any other venue other than a philosophy course would be anathema. Giving it equal billing with evolutionary biology, or even high school biology, is granting it more legitimacy than it has earned. By all means teach controversies and point up the gaps in scientific knowledge, but don't permit religous dogma or the supernatural to intrude into science class."
--I agree.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"TC, creation science is by definition religious. It has several a priori religious/supernatural assumptions that must be accepted for creation science to exist in the first place:"
--What definition might that be? Because according to how mine works, it has nothing at all to do with religion or faith.

​

---

You might want to have a little think about the above.'Creation Science' is what it is called.Show me ONE theory/suggestion/hypothesis which is considered to
fall within Creation Science that does not, as its root postulate,
have a story from the bible.e.g. The suggestion that the geologic column and fossil record
were laid down by the Great Flood only exists because the bible
says there WAS a great flood. The idea is rooted in the bible,
and thereby in religion.If you still disagree that creation science is inherently
religous, please provide a definition of creation science
so that we know what you are talking about.

Let Hovind's people go -0-

I believe Creation should be taught in a different way- more like ID. Students should be presented with evidence for and against evolution, as well as evidence for and against ID. ID does not favor a certain religion, so it is perfectly legal (and even encouraged) under the law to be included in science curriculum. Also, the public supports offering Creation as an alternative in the science classroom.Does that sound reasonable to everybody?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I believe Creation should be taught in a different way- more like ID. Students should be presented with evidence for and against evolution, as well as evidence for and against ID. ID does not favor a certain religion, so it is perfectly legal (and even encouraged) under the law to be included in science curriculum. Also, the public supports offering Creation as an alternative in the science classroom.

​

Does that sound reasonable to everybody?

---

Two things:Are you serious?What would you use as evidence for ID?And another question:In order to have diversity in the classroom and allow students to make up their own minds, would you allow holocaust denial to be taught?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Let Hovind's people go -0-

---

Brad: We are, for the first, and possibly only, time in history in complete agreement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I believe Creation should be taught in a different way- more like ID. Students should be presented with evidence for and against evolution, as well as evidence for and against ID. ID does not favor a certain religion, so it is perfectly legal (and even encouraged) under the law to be included in science curriculum. Also, the public supports offering Creation as an alternative in the science classroom.

​

Does that sound reasonable to everybody?

---

Hey Cobra!No form of Creation should be taught in a science classroom - including the current forms of ID. No matter how you dress it up, ID as pushed by the likes of Dembski, Behe, and others of that ilk, is nothing more than biblical literalism hidden away in pseudo-scientific jargon to confuse the gullible.I will grant that if (and this is a mighty big if) ID EVER comes up with anything resembling evidence for design or a designer beyond the usual god-of-the-gaps or argument from incredulity, then MAYBE it could be considered for inclusion in a science curriculum. As it stands, they have NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. ZIP. I don't particularly care how many scientific illiterates want ID treated on equal footing with evolution. Argumentum ad populum is just another fallacy - and since that's the best ID can come up with...BTW: I'd love to see your "evidence against evolution" that should be taught in science class. What "evidence" do you think you've got?

Moose, after reading this months ICR A&F it seems clear to me that this is NOT the direction that any c/e pedagogy will go. What can happen is that if Cornell does not make the graduate study deal me personally go to court over the undergraudate taught taxogeny the curriculum at ICR precedent type universities could include the development (Wright's "d^2) that was excluded at CU and I see that comptuers facilite its introduction of. But the plan needs a little more work. This would not being battle line into the high school but rather the choice of higher education.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal but revised by Philip playing the Devil-ution's advocate:

No form of mutant monster theories should be taught in a science classroom - including the current forms of punctuated equilibria. No matter how you dress it up, punctuated equilibria as pushed by the likes of neo-Darwinists, is nothing more than monstrous mutations hidden away in pseudo-scientific jargon to confuse the gullible.

​

I will grant that if (and this is a mighty big if) MUTATIONALISTS come up with anything resembling evidence for significant gross mutation or incremental mutants beyond the usual punctuated equilibria logic or argument from incredulity, then MAYBE it could be considered for inclusion in a science curriculum. As it stands, they have NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. ZIP. I don't particularly care how many scientific illiterates want mega-mutants treated on equal footing with evolution. Argumentum ad populum is just another fallacy - and since that's the best mutationalists can come up with...

​

BTW: I'd love to see your "evidence against ID" that should be taught in science class. What "evidence" do you think you've got?

---

(--Sorry Quetzel, I couldn’t resist your rhetoric. This wall of science fraud and fallacy must come down.)

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-31-2002]

Very cute. Now do you have anything substantive to add? For example, at least ONE piece of verifiable data or ONE single observation that can be better explained by ID than by ToE? God-of-the-gaps, argument from incredulity, argument from authority, and argumentum ad populum do NOT constitute evidence.Also, please provide YOUR particular version of punk-eq. It appears you have erected some kind of saltationist strawman, but you haven't really provided any details on the model you claim to argue against.Final note: I don't need to provide evidence against ID. ID needs to provide positive evidence for their theory. I (and others) have presented you multiple converging lines of evidence for evolution. The least you could do is return the favor.this post[/URL] would be especially welcome.

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 05-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Very cute. Now do you have anything substantive to add? For example, at least ONE piece of verifiable data or ONE single observation that can be better explained by ID than by ToE? God-of-the-gaps, argument from incredulity, argument from authority, and argumentum ad populum do NOT constitute evidence.

​

Also, please provide YOUR particular version of punk-eq. It appears you have erected some kind of saltationist strawman, but you haven't really provided any details on the model you claim to argue against

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 05-31-2002]

---

--Quetzal, please see rebuttal under thread Questions Evos can’t or won’t answer [#48] which has little to no satire (which I admit I suck at), which contains scientific rebuttals of mutationalism (without going into ID).--I support no version of punk-eq on scientific grounds at present, not even special creation (at this time). All punk-eq models require too much delusion for my non-mutationalist logic.--I hate forcing religion more than anyone; especially in science class. ID is a broad term that may include UFOs, right? You know that’s fair argument. Anti-ID is highly suspicious scientifically, humanistically, and ethically (I did not say religiously)

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-31-2002]