If you want kids to learn creation science, show how you'd teach it.

[LightHorseman]

If there really was a subject called Creation Science, how would you teach it?

This OP?

I'm afraid I can't answer it, because I'm stil waiting for someone to show me an example of creation science that qualifies as science. I ask and I ask, but instead of

"take a sterile petri dish with a growth medium and leave in a dark cupboard with a camera trained on it, after 6 days, a flash will occur and God will create microbes..."

I get

"I was walking down an Alley and a stranger saved me from a gang"

For the life of me... I just can't see how the stranger saving gang story can fit into a science sylabus.

 

[AV1611VET]

For the life of me... I just can't see how the stranger saving gang story can fit into a science sylabus.

If you'll look back, you'll see I asked for an example for clarification, which I didn't get.

 

[TuxThePenguin]

It's full of examples like:

• I was walking down an alley.
• Some gang started following me.
• A huge man showed up and they ran off.
• I turned around to thank the man, and he was gone.

It's based on a lot of testimonies supporting Hebrews 13:2.

[bible]Hebrews 13:2[/bible]

Seems similar to.

http://www.snopes.com/glurge/rapestop.asp

Without peer review it is worthless hearsay.

edit: spelling

 

[LightHorseman]

If you'll look back, you'll see I asked for an example for clarification, which I didn't get.

Sorry, clarification? Be so good as to drag and click, cos I think I'm missing someything *dumb grin*

 

[LightHorseman]

Tux... yes, it did rather remind me of Snopes glurge, but I'm not dismissing anything out of hand, if there is support for anything, I'm open to it... just dont seem to get much follow through when I ask for it

 

[TuxThePenguin]

Tux... yes, it did rather remind me of Snopes glurge, but I'm not dismissing anything out of hand, if there is support for anything, I'm open to it... just dont seem to get much follow through when I ask for it

It was the vague nature of AV1611VET's example which did it for me. Maybe the original article(s) contained some facts which would allow further investigation but the bulletpoint delivery offers nothing to investigate.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, clarification? Be so good as to drag and click, cos I think I'm missing someything *dumb grin*

.

You want what?

Give me an example of "non-biblical evidence of theistic intervention".

Guidepost Magazine is full of examples.

 

[LightHorseman]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET
You want what?

Give me an example of "non-biblical evidence of theistic intervention".

Guidepost Magazine is full of examples.

Um... so what part of this do you need clarifying? I also asked you to provide an example... and that means an actual example... like one that would stand up in a court of law, say, rather than just "and my friend knew this guy who had a mysterious stranger protect im from a gang" type stuff.

Come on, real theistic intervention in a creation setting, thats what the thread is supposed to be about. You reckon you believe in it, so give me some examples of it that I can see for myself! Thats what science is all about, repeatable experiments or observation.

 

[AngryWomble]

Perhaps then, you would like to answer the OP?

Critiques are a dime-a-dozen, aren't they?

Firstly since i'm going to be a science teacher and find the whole concept of creation science laughable i'd not want to see it anywhere near my classroom. So why would i knock out a syllabus and the like?

And what's wrong in me venturing my opinions on your 'syllabus'? I'm not qualified yet but it doesn't mean to say that i can't spot something that wouldn't cut it.

 

[TuxThePenguin]

AV1611VET you have not shown an example.

It is like me when asked for evidence of evolution saying "well science magazine has lots of articles on it" ( http://www.sciencemag.org/)
It hardly consitutes proof or an example

 

[AV1611VET]

Come on, real theistic intervention in a creation setting, thats what the thread is supposed to be about. You reckon you believe in it, so give me some examples of it that I can see for myself! Thats what science is all about, repeatable experiments or observation.

Well, then I guess I still don't know what you want.

You want me to give you an example of a theistic intervention (a time when God intervened somewhere), in a creation setting (one of the 6 days of Creation?)?

I'm lost.

 

[AV1611VET]

Firstly since i'm going to be a science teacher and find the whole concept of creation science laughable i'd not want to see it anywhere near my classroom. So why would i knock out a syllabus and the like?

Then what does this thread (of all threads) have to offer you?

And what's wrong in me venturing my opinions on your 'syllabus'? I'm not qualified yet but it doesn't mean to say that i can't spot something that wouldn't cut it.

Your opinion is not a problem --- however, if you came to my class with that attitude --- and stuck to it demonstrably --- I'd fail you in a heartbeat.

If fact, you'd probably last about two days tops.

I couldn't care less if you agreed with what I taught --- just learn it --- and learn it quietly --- or pack out.

 

[Jase]

Your opinion is not a problem --- however, if you came to my class with that attitude --- and stuck to it demonstrably --- I'd fail you in a heartbeat.

If fact, you'd probably last about two days tops.

I couldn't care less if you agreed with what I taught --- just learn it --- and learn it quietly --- or pack out.

And you would have a job lasting about 2 days tops acting like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you would have a job lasting about 2 days tops acting like that.

Not hardly --- I've seen it done before. It would be for the benefit of the other students who are there to genuinely learn --- and for the benefit of the disrupter, as well.

 

[Chalnoth]

Oh, and AV, you still haven't explained why your course should be considered science.

Well?

 

[Jase]

Not hardly --- I've seen it done before. It would be for the benefit of the other students who are there to genuinely learn --- and for the benefit of the disrupter, as well.

No student would ever take your class. No one wants to be fed lies by a teacher who knows less than the students.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well?

It's not science, per se --- it's religion.

IOW, it's not science with religion embedded; its religion with science embedded.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not hardly --- I've seen it done before. It would be for the benefit of the other students who are there to genuinely learn --- and for the benefit of the disrupter, as well.

Genuinely learn what?

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's not science, per se --- it's religion.

IOW, it's not science with religion embedded; its religion with science embedded.

What would be the value of embedding science into religion?

 

[Chalnoth]

It's not science, per se --- it's religion.

IOW, it's not science with religion embedded; its religion with science embedded.

These two statements don't make sense to one another. And the thread title is, "If you want kids to learn creation science, show how you'd teach it."

So how is this science?