An example of Creation Science

[juvenissun]

How would a Creationist teach science?

Don't laugh too fast. Here is an example:

It's an armed and dangerous fungus with a hair trigger. The fungus known as Haptoglossa uses high-velocity projectiles fired from automatic cannons built into its body. Thankfully, the fungus's impressive weaponry is aimed at other microscopic creatures.

Haptoglossa lives in ponds and wet soil. Its prey is the microscopic rotifer. Rotifers are so tiny that they can as easily swim in pond water or the water between the grains that saturate moist soil. When the rotifer brushes against one of Haptoglossa's cannon cells, the cannon fires a missile of cellular material into the rotifer. It's thought that the cannon's fire power comes from high pressure fluid at the base of the cell. The fired missile punches a hole through the rotifer's protective covering, preparing the way for a second attack wave.

Next, the fungus extends a hypodermic tube into the rotifer. This tube delivers Haptoglossa's single-celled infection unit into the rotifer. This cell begins to multiply inside the rotifer until the entire rotifer is nothing but fungus cells.

Any objection on this way of teaching science? I am not disclosing the source at this time (definitely not from me). The point is: Creationist teaches science in a way not any different from Evolutionist does, but only better.

 

[gluadys]

How would a Creationist teach science?

Don't laugh too fast. Here is an example:



Any objection on this way of teaching science? I am not disclosing the source at this time (definitely not from me). The point is: Creationist teaches science in a way not any different from Evolutionist does, but only better.

Science is more than describing the Haptoglossa's feeding habits, juvenissun.

How would non-evolutionary creationism help us understand the Haptoglossa? How would it provide a better understanding than evolutionary creationism?

 

[ClearSky]

The point is: Creationist teaches science in a way not any different from Evolutionist does, but only better.

What has this to do with Creationism??

 

[Assyrian]

Juve left out the part where it switches from well researched science and tacks on a creationist homily.

 

[Mallon]

gluadys is right. Science is more than just rhyming off a bunch of facts. Science is about developing robust, coherent theories to explain and relate those facts. This is where neocreationism fails and evolutionary theory wins.
(To wit, it's a fact that when an object is dropped anywhere in the world, it will fall to the ground. But this isn't science. Science involves developing a testable theory to explain HOW it happens. Your example above is missing this kind of context.)

 

[juvenissun]

What has this to do with Creationism??

Assyrian is right, the rest of the story is about a message of Creation. See this link. I like this project very much. I am bad in biology. This program not only teaches me the science of biology, but also let me appreciate how difficult it would be to account for these biological features by evolution. I tried several times to raise question, introduced by this program, to some evolution biologists. Never ONCE I got any type of good explanation according to the theory of evolution.

How would a Creationist teach science? I always said, it is no different from what an Evolutionist would do. We teach observations. We teach analyses. We teach hypotheses and theories. However, unlike Evolutionist, we concludes the teaching with an important remark: God has the answer, we do not. Everything is His creation.

That is the correct way of teaching science.

 

[Mallon]

How would a Creationist teach science? I always said, it is no different from what an Evolutionist would do. We teach observations. We teach analyses. We teach hypotheses and theories. However, unlike Evolutionist, we concludes the teaching with an important remark: God has the answer, we do not. Everything is His creation.

That is the correct way of teaching science.

So what's the point in studying anything, then, if your answer will always be "God knows"?
Seems kinda like the opposite of using the brain God gave you, dontchathink?

 

[gluadys]

Assyrian is right, the rest of the story is about a message of Creation. See this link. I like this project very much. I am bad in biology. This program not only teaches me the science of biology, but also let me appreciate how difficult it would be to account for these biological features by evolution.

I didn't read the whole site, but here is the homily on Haptoglossa:

No matter how small and seemingly unimportant to us, everything God made reflects His creativity and excellent workmanship. Even microscopic creatures are filled with devices and inventions that move us to marvel at the Creator's care for each life form He has made. As Scripture says, "How excellent are His works in all the Earth!"​

Now what I notice is that it adds no new scientific information. It says nothing about evolution, pro or con. Any evolutionary creationist could agree with this.

What does this teach about biology? What does it say about the problems explaining Haptoglossa via evolution?

Nothing at all. It is perfectly consistent with both an evolutionary and a non-evolutionary creationist perspective, because it tells us nothing about biology at all.

I tried several times to raise question, introduced by this program, to some evolution biologists. Never ONCE I got any type of good explanation according to the theory of evolution.

Probably they wanted you to understand the theory of evolution first. It is good to lay a groundwork for understanding. Applying the theory of evolution to something like the Haptoglossa demands a degree of prior knowledge. Are you prepared to take time to learn what you must learn about the basics of evolution before you start trying to apply it to special cases?

How would a Creationist teach science? I always said, it is no different from what an Evolutionist would do. We teach observations. We teach analyses. We teach hypotheses and theories.

No hypotheses or theories in this excerpt. Only observations and praise to the Creator.

However, unlike Evolutionist, we concludes the teaching with an important remark: God has the answer, we do not. Everything is His creation.

Who says that is unlike an evolutionist?

What I see is that an evolutionary creationist understands when we are stepping out of science and into worship. I am not sure non-evolutionary creationists do.

That is the correct way of teaching science.

In a faith-based school, yes. Not in a secular tax-supported school.

 

[juvenissun]

So what's the point in studying anything, then, if your answer will always be "God knows"?
Seems kinda like the opposite of using the brain God gave you, dontchathink?

Noticed that in the creation science education, the attribution of all known and unknown to God's creation is comparable to the part of acknowledgement in an article, which is put after the section of conclusion. It is not put in the introduction, nor at anywhere in the contents. So, in terms of scientific method, it is very appropriate to give credit to God after all the learning.

This attitude of teaching and learning is completely missing in the so called evolution science education.

 

[Mallon]

Noticed that in the creation science education, the attribution of all known and unknown to God's creation is comparable to the part of acknowledgement in an article, which is put after the section of conclusion. It is not put in the introduction, nor at anywhere in the contents. So, in terms of scientific method, it is very appropriate to give credit to God after all the learning.

This attitude of teaching and learning is completely missing in the so called evolution science education.

The reason why you see no attribution to God in the public school textbooks is because the people that founded your country thought it would be best for the government not to promote the teaching of any one religion over another. The metaphysical implications are saved for where they belong: outside the science classroom, in the likes of Sunday school or church.

And out of curiosity, what "creation science education" textbook did you cite as an example above?

 

[vossler]

The reason why you see no attribution to God in the public school textbooks is because the people that founded your country thought it would be best for the government not to promote the teaching of any one religion over another. The metaphysical implications are saved for where they belong: outside the science classroom, in the likes of Sunday school or church.

This is most certainly not the case. The Bible itself or other books that cited the Bible were critical to the teaching in all public schools in America for over two hundred years. A prime example would be the New England Primer, a small textbook replete with biblical references that was used for over a hundred years all over America.

 

[Mallon]

This is most certainly not the case. The Bible itself or other books that cited the Bible were critical to the teaching in all public schools in America for over two hundred years. A prime example would be the New England Primer, a small textbook replete with biblical references that was used for over a hundred years all over America.

So what does the term "separation of church and state" refer to?

 

[juvenissun]

The reason why you see no attribution to God in the public school textbooks is because the people that founded your country thought it would be best for the government not to promote the teaching of any one religion over another. The metaphysical implications are saved for where they belong: outside the science classroom, in the likes of Sunday school or church.

And out of curiosity, what "creation science education" textbook did you cite as an example above?

Don't know. I do not know any college level creation science textbook. You may check ICR on that.

 

[Mallon]

Don't know. I do not know any college level creation science textbook. You may check ICR on that.

So then why are you telling us what "creation science education" teaches -- especially in relation to how it excels above evolutionary science -- if you've never even seen a creation science textbook?

 

[gluadys]

So what does the term "separation of church and state" refer to?

If memory serves correctly, the original "separation of church and state" applied only at the federal level, while education is a state responsibility. Some states continued to have established churches long after Union.

The application of the constitutional neutrality on religion to states as well as the federal government came later.

Of course, as in Canada, the refusal to establish a religion originally meant refusal to establish one particular brand of Christianity.

Extension of non-discriminatory treatment to non-Christian faiths and viewpoints only took hold in the latter part of the 20th century. Mostly in the last quarter-century.

 

[Mallon]

Thanks, gluadys. I'll amend my previous statement to:
The reason why you see no attribution to God in the public school textbooks is because God isn't something science can validate.

 

[juvenissun]

So then why are you telling us what "creation science education" teaches -- especially in relation to how it excels above evolutionary science -- if you've never even seen a creation science textbook?

Why not?

As a matter of the church/state separation thing, I say: ditch it. Let the Church prevail. (again, why shouldn't I say it?)

 

[gluadys]

Why not?

As a matter of the church/state separation thing, I say: ditch it. Let the Church prevail. (again, why shouldn't I say it?)

No one will stop you from saying it. But you might like to get the opinions of Christians who live where Christianity is not the majority religion first.

Separation of church (religious institutions) and state is as much a protection for Christians as it is for non-Christians.

 

[Assyrian]

Why not?

As a matter of the church/state separation thing, I say: ditch it. Let the Church prevail. (again, why shouldn't I say it?)

Which church though? Separation of church and state was first proposed in America by your fellow Baptist Roger Williams tired of being prevailed over by the established Anglican Church.

 

[crawfish]

However, unlike Evolutionist, we concludes the teaching with an important remark: God has the answer, we do not. Everything is His creation.

That is the correct way of teaching science.

The underlying message behind that is "we can't know it, so don't bother trying". It also implies that it lessens God when the "how's" can be discovered and learned.

I tell my kids that EVERYTHING is attributable to God, and whenever we learn something it is simply learning His methods. I tell them that it is our responsibility to discover the nature of His creation so that we can use it in the way He intends.