Schools that teach creationism in the science class.

[Subduction Zone]

OK. So is it an acceptable part of science class for students to pose their own hypotheses? Or is science class just about learning the peer-reviewed theories of others?

What level of science class? Students first need a thorough grounding in science before they can make reasonable hypotheses. But it might be interesting if people that wanted to support creationism were taught how to form hypotheses and why testing of them is so important. If you cannot form a reasonable test for your idea you cannot form a hypothesis. What would be a reasonable test for creationism? In other word what test that creationism could fail and is reasonable is there? I have not seen one yet that does not show creationism failing. Not that I want it to fail, just that that is all I have ever seen.

 

[Loudmouth]

It depends on when he thought Zeus reigned.

If he thinks Zeus causes thunderstorms today, his problem may be a theological one, not a mental one.

So why would I hire a scientist who thinks science is wrong simply because the science conflicts with his religious views?

 

[Resha Caner]

I wouldn't want to hire a meteorologist who thought that Zeus caused thunderstorms, and that science didn't know how weather really worked.

Shrug. As long as his predictions are accurate, I don't care what his model is. Frankly, I haven't found modern meterology that accurate. We just had an incident last week at work where people looking out the windows saw a tornado and notified security to sound the alarm. Security didn't do it because the National Weather Service was not reporting tornados in the area.

 

[Resha Caner]

What level of science class? Students first need a thorough grounding in science before they can make reasonable hypotheses.

Agreed.

But it might be interesting if people that wanted to support creationism were taught how to form hypotheses and why testing of them is so important. If you cannot form a reasonable test for your idea you cannot form a hypothesis. What would be a reasonable test for creationism? In other word what test that creationism could fail and is reasonable is there?

Bingo. So now you'll allow the discussion?

 

[Loudmouth]

Shrug. As long as his predictions are accurate, I don't care what his model is.

Why would a different model produce the same predictions?

Frankly, I haven't found modern meterology that accurate. We just had an incident last week at work where people looking out the windows saw a tornado and notified security to sound the alarm. Security didn't do it because the National Weather Service was not reporting tornados in the area.

Therefore, natural processes don't cause tornados?

 

[AV1611VET]

So why would I hire a scientist who thinks science is wrong simply because the science conflicts with his religious views?

QV please:

How do you know he is "incompetent," until you hire him?

Trial run

I've said this many times before, and it bears repeating here:

Name one button or one lever a YEC can't push or pull on the job, that an evolutionist can.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure. I never said evolution shouldn't be taught, if that's what you're getting at. To extend your analogy, should we stop teaching about Columbus because he thought he found the East Indies even when he didn't?

[edit] When I took physics we learned about Ptolemy. And, technically, the sun-centered cosmologies of Kepler don't fit current thinking in physics, which posits no center at all.

In engineering classes they use Galileo's equation for gravity, not Newton's, not Einstein's. When will the insanity end?

Actually Columbus should be taught about, and we do the same in science. Creationists always complain that Haeckle's embryos can still be found in text books. If you read the text you will see that these are not used as evidence for evolution, rather that they were used as evidence for evolution. Haeckle got some things right and some things wrong. In a more advanced class you will go into what he did wrong. But to deny that he was part of the development of the theory of evolution would be on the order of denying the various discoveries of people like Columbus who found something for the "wrong" reason.

By the way, scientists were right and Columbus was wrong. The scientists at that time knew how large the world was. Columbus thought that it was much smaller. His crew was almost ready to mutiny when he "discovered" the West Indies. He was only a small fraction of the way to India itself. If there was no New World to speak who knows if they would have even made it back alive. He was not equipped to make the long trek necessary.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why would a different model produce the same predictions?

Uh. Didn't Galileo, Newton, and Einstein all predict the apple would fall to the earth?

Therefore, natural processes don't cause tornados?

I never said that. Maybe the director of the National Weather Service is dressing up like Zeus and playing god to this weatherman of yours.

 

[Loudmouth]

Uh. Didn't Galileo, Newton, and Einstein all predict the apple would fall to the earth?

They didn't all predict that light would travel a curved path around massive objects.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed.



Bingo. So now you'll allow the discussion?

Here? Of course.

In public schools where many teachers are incompetent or have false beliefs? Not at this time. There are too many teachers that try to sneak creationism into classes as it is. High school students are not at the level where they can do such work. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but most are still learning the basics. You are asking people learning the ABC's to write a novel and that is an unreasonable request.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They didn't all predict that light would travel a curved path around massive objects.

Or even the inverse distance squared relationship between two objects.

Resha pointed out that engineering students use Galilean gravity. Galilean gravity is on the order of "microevolution". When people do not like my comparison of the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity I point out that they are using "microgravity", and obviously I mean this in a different sense than is used on the ISS. Newtonian gravity is no more observed by looking at a falling rock than "macro-evolution" is observed by seeing how animals change on a human time scale. Yet we can still observe both. Newtonian gravity by observing the planets and their rotation around the Sun, let's leave Mercury out for right now, and evolution by observing the fossil record. Theories explain those observations.

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, scientists were right and Columbus was wrong. The scientists at that time knew how large the world was. Columbus thought that it was much smaller. His crew was almost ready to mutiny when he "discovered" the West Indies. He was only a small fraction of the way to India itself. If there was no New World to speak who knows if they would have even made it back alive. He was not equipped to make the long trek necessary.

As I understand it, Columbus' motivation was Isaiah 49.

QV please:

Columbus and his Creator

 

[Resha Caner]

They didn't all predict that light would travel a curved path around massive objects.

Indeed they didn't.

Here? Of course.

In public schools where many teachers are incompetent or have false beliefs? Not at this time. There are too many teachers that try to sneak creationism into classes as it is. High school students are not at the level where they can do such work. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but most are still learning the basics. You are asking people learning the ABC's to write a novel and that is an unreasonable request.

Don't buy it. We were forming hypotheses in my elementary school science classes. Yes, the discussion needs to be age appropriate, but that doesn't mean it can't be discussed at all.

You can't have your cake and eat it too: yes, we'll allow students to form hypotheses as long as they draw the "correct" conclusion about those hypotheses. No hypothesizing until you've drunk the kool-aid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Indeed they didn't.



Don't buy it. We were forming hypotheses in my elementary school science classes. Yes, the discussion needs to be age appropriate, but that doesn't mean it can't be discussed at all.

You can't have your cake and eat it too: yes, we'll allow students to form hypotheses as long as they draw the "correct" conclusion about those hypotheses. No hypothesizing until you've drunk the kool-aid.

Then why can't any of the creationists here form a hypothesis of creation? I see that Loudmouth made just such a thread here and I did not see any valid hypotheses in it. And no, the rule is not "no hypotheses until you draw the correct solution". The rule is no hypotheses until you can say how you would test your hypothesis. You want school kids to attempt to do what no creationist has ever been able to do. That is why your request is unreasonable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I understand it, Columbus' motivation was Isaiah 49.

QV please:

Columbus and his Creator

ICR is a pure garbage site. Can you find a valid site that makes such a claim?

 

[SpyderByte]

Why was that source not reliable? If you follow the links it gives you will see how they are skirting the law. For example in Louisiana it is not advocated on a state or even local level, but if a teacher wants to sneak creationism into the classroom they can by taking advantage of this law that was written specifically so that they could do so:

http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/aflegislation/08_la_sb733-amend.pdf

By trying to call it "critical thinking" they pretend to be offering alternative, though there is no scientific alternative to evolution. And the few scientists that believe in creation know that.

Wow!

Yet let a creationist make a passing reference to evidence being ignored and the evolutionauts lose their minds!

 

[AV1611VET]

ICR is a pure garbage site.

Then pretend you're the city dump.

 

[Resha Caner]

You want school kids to attempt to do what no creationist has ever been able to do. That is why your request is unreasonable.

So they shouldn't even try? Hmm.

Then why can't any of the creationists here form a hypothesis of creation? I see that Loudmouth made just such a thread here and I did not see any valid hypotheses in it. And no, the rule is not "no hypotheses until you draw the correct solution". The rule is no hypotheses until you can say how you would test your hypothesis.

It is indeed a difficult challenge. It requires breaking some paradigms - but kids probably have fewer paradigms than adults.

We've had various threads discussing what would go into developing an alternative. Maybe you missed those discussions. It seems one is starting up again here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7863160/#post67372057

 

[Subduction Zone]

So they shouldn't even try? Hmm.

On this topic since there are so many teachers that try to inject their own religion I would have to say yes.

It is indeed a difficult challenge. It requires breaking some paradigms - but kids probably have fewer paradigms than adults.

We've had various threads discussing what would go into developing an alternative. Maybe you missed those discussions. It seems one is starting up again here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7863160/#post67372057

That was the thread that I was referring to. Once again, creationists here can't even do so. How would a student that is still under excessive pressure from the student's teacher, classmates, and even parents make such a testable hypothesis?

I am reasonable. Suggest a hypothesis that could be made and tested by a student and you will have convinced me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow!

Yet let a creationist make a passing reference to evidence being ignored and the evolutionauts lose their minds!

When have people on my side ever ignored evidence? I know that you cannot claim the same.