Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Queller]

In moving however far he moved, there was a point at which he only had to move 5 feet.

And moving those five feet would not have caused a noticeable shift in the crossing.

Distance has nothing to do with angles.

Really? If I'm standing almost directly between two trees 8 feet apart, the angle created between the trees and me is almost 180 degrees.

If I'm 500 ft from those same trees, the angle thus created is only a few degrees.

 

[The Gregorian]

Late to the conversation, so this may be off the current topic, but I wanted to throw my opinion in for the original post-

Science should be taught in science classes... it's not a place for unverifiable dogma. But, this includes the big bang theory and abiogenesis and universal common ancestry. Some people may put their faith in such ideas... but they are exactly no more observable, verifiable, or falsifiable than any given story of creation.

If I were to teach a science class covering these topics, I would present the actual measurable observations we can document and suggest that "some people attribute this to one of a few processes (singularities exploding, other universes forming a new, expanding "universe bubble", etc.), while others attribute the results of these observations to the act of a creator." Period.

Don't dogmatically claim one possible interpretation to be "unquestionable fact" and the rest to be "wrong answers" because that is not the purpose of science. Good science doesn't inherently discredit ideas that make people uncomfortable or give blanket acceptance to ideas that fit our preconceptions. A proper scientist will admit "we can not get conclusive evidence for what happened. Here are possible theories."

 

[Queller]

This shows indeed that the original study has not been duplicated. However, it also suggests at the end that homogenization may be bad for another reason.

I told you I was guessing.

Could you please answer the question?

Who is paying scientists to say that there is no real benefit to non-homogenized milk and why?

 

[Queller]

Long before the internet age. And I was busy doing other things.

Uh huh. The JREF prize originally started in 1964.

Got a link to those results?

 

[The Gregorian]

The problem comes from "teachers" saying "here is my personal opinion. It is fact, and if you think differently, you're wrong and will flunk my class and ruin your future."

 

[Queller]

The problem comes from "teachers" saying "here is my personal opinion. It is fact, and if you think differently, you're wrong and will flunk my class and ruin your future."

Which is precisely why, especially in science class, we should be teaching the science that has the strongest support, consensus, and evidence. We don't teach the Luminiferous aether theory. Why should we teach YECism?

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem comes from "teachers" saying "here is my personal opinion. It is fact, and if you think differently, you're wrong and will flunk my class and ruin your future."

Creationism belongs in history class, not science class.

 

[Queller]

Late to the conversation, so this may be off the current topic, but I wanted to throw my opinion in for the original post-

Science should be taught in science classes... it's not a place for unverifiable dogma. But, this includes the big bang theory and abiogenesis and universal common ancestry. Some people may put their faith in such ideas... but they are exactly no more observable, verifiable, or falsifiable than any given story of creation.

This isn't even remotely true. The idea of a worldwide flood 4004 years ago has been falsified. The evidence comes from geology, archeology, history, even genetics.

If I were to teach a science class covering these topics, I would present the actual measurable observations we can document and suggest that "some people attribute this to one of a few processes (singularities exploding, other universes forming a new, expanding "universe bubble", etc.), while others attribute the results of these observations to the act of a creator." Period.

Don't dogmatically claim one possible interpretation to be "unquestionable fact" and the rest to be "wrong answers" because that is not the purpose of science. Good science doesn't inherently discredit ideas that make people uncomfortable or give blanket acceptance to ideas that fit our preconceptions.

Maybe, but we should be teaching the ideas that have the greatest amount of positive evidence, regardless of whether that idea makes some people uncomfortable.

A proper scientist will admit "we can not get conclusive evidence for what happened. Here are possible theories."

Should we really be discussing "theories" that have, for example, no positive evidence of their own but exist solely on the claimed negative evidence for something else?

 

[Albion]

The point of this thread is to ask those who want creationism taught in schools how they would go about doing it, and which version they would choose.

Very well, and since you ask, I wouldn't be in favor of teaching the general point behind creationism--and no particular slant on that subject--but not without teaching evolution as well.

Taking religion out of the issue, we simply do not know which is the correct answer, so teaching both( or the pros and cons of both) makes as much sense as teaching the varied motives of the warring nations during some war or the meaning of Liberalism and Conservatism and Socialism in a political science class.

 

[The Gregorian]

1- GOSH this new site format is hard to avoid all the pop up ads...

2- Why would science teach YEC? The concept that "some creator could have played some role in the process" does not mandate that the earth be created in 6 literal 24 hour periods. I've been "a bit involved" in the church for quite a while and I don't know a single person who is a YEC.

 

[The Gregorian]

This isn't even remotely true. The idea of a worldwide flood 4004 years ago has been falsified. The evidence comes from geology, archeology, history, even genetics.

Maybe, but we should be teaching the ideas that have the greatest amount of positive evidence, regardless of whether that idea makes some people uncomfortable.

Should we really be discussing "theories" that have, for example, no positive evidence of their own but exist solely on the claimed negative evidence for something else?

1-The whole bible (such as the flood) doesn't necessarily have to be taught in order to acknowledge the possibility of an intelligent designer of some sort.

2- i agree that ideas with 0 positive evidence should not be in our science classes. This includes the big bang theory (which is physically impossible as a universal singularity would have infinite mass and therefore no amount of force could allow anything with mass to escape it), abiogenesis, and the concept of a universal common ancestor.

I'm down with macroevolution... dog breeding totally exists. But to suggest dogs and roses come from the same ancestor requires a bit more proof than the atheist version of "goddidit" ("well, we don't know HOW, but it could have happened somehow over billions and billions of years" no evidence required)

 

[AV1611VET]

1- GOSH this new site format is hard to avoid all the pop up ads...

No, it isn't.

Just become a site supporter and no more ads!

CHEAP as it says on the cover of MAD MAGAZINE!

If you'd like, I'll give you some blessings and you can use them to become a supporter for a month.

No more ads; no more delay between posts!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

2- i agree that ideas with 0 positive evidence should not be in our science classes. This includes the big bang theory (which is physically impossible as a universal singularity would have infinite mass and therefore no amount of force could allow anything with mass to escape it)

The universe definitely expanded from a much smaller state, it had that beginning. So the big bang theory needs to be taught. It is true nobody knows why the big bang got started.

abiogenesis, and the concept of a universal common ancestor.

Nested hierarchy is evidence enough for universal common ancestor. Creationist deniers of evolution deny so much more than just universal common ancestor . . . how about merely accepting a common ancestor of all the primates? Since there is rock solid evidence for a common primate ancestry, people who go ahead and accept that evidence are not to be blamed for going ahead and accepting universal common ancestry . . . its not any more in conflict with the creationist position after all.

I'm down with macroevolution... dog breeding totally exists. But to suggest dogs and roses come from the same ancestor requires a bit more proof than the atheist version of "goddidit" ("well, we don't know HOW, but it could have happened somehow over billions and billions of years" no evidence required)

Actually, you won't catch any evolutionist saying about evolution "we don't know how". We've got a great evolution theory that explains "how". Please be careful about not putting words into an evolutionist's mouth that he would never say.

 

[Queller]

1-The whole bible (such as the flood) doesn't necessarily have to be taught in order to acknowledge the possibility of an intelligent designer of some sort.

What would be the positive evidence for a designer?

(and please don't say it looks designed therefore there must be a designer)

2- i agree that ideas with 0 positive evidence should not be in our science classes. This includes the big bang theory (which is physically impossible as a universal singularity would have infinite mass and therefore no amount of force could allow anything with mass to escape it),

And yet there is positive evidence for the Big Bang. CMB and differences between early galaxies and older ones are just two examples.

abiogenesis, and the concept of a universal common ancestor.

I'm down with macroevolution... dog breeding totally exists.

Dog breeding is an example of micro evolution, not macro evolution. But since you brought it up, if 1+1=2, what prevents 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10?

Also, dog breeding is an example of artificial selection, not natural selection.

But to suggest dogs and roses come from the same ancestor requires a bit more proof than the atheist version of "goddidit" ("well, we don't know HOW, but it could have happened somehow over billions and billions of years" no evidence required)

You do realize that the last universal common ancestor for dogs and roses was likely a single-celled organism that lived 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago, right? It wasn't a rose with fur or a dog with leaves for ears, right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The trouble with this entire argument, is that there are different ways to view reality.

When they talk about scientific experiments, then I expect the experiments to be scientific. In order for them to be scientific, I expect them to be subject to scientific criteria.

If they are indeed scientific, then there should be scientific papers published in scientific journals detailing the setup, the premises, the data and the conclusion.

Without the science, an experiment is not a scientific experiment.

 

[Astrophile]

There may have been 2. I don't l know. I am certain of the year because it stopped the building of First Presbyterian Church of Rome NY, which was built by 1812 or so.

All my books about volcanoes say that the eruption of Tambora was in 1815 and the 'year without a summer' was 1816. What is your source for the building of the First Presbyterian Church of Rome NY?

 

[Astrophile]

And moving those five feet would not have caused a noticeable shift in the crossing.

Really? If I'm standing almost directly between two trees 8 feet apart, the angle created between the trees and me is almost 180 degrees.

If I'm 500 ft from those same trees, the angle thus created is only a few degrees.

In fact the angle is about 0.9°. You do it by 2×pi×r. The circumference of a circle with a radius of 500 ft is 3142 ft, so the length of a degree on the circumference is 3142 ft/360 = 8.7 ft; therefore the angle made by 8 feet is 8/8.7 ~ 0.9°. However, your essential point is correct; distance does make a great difference to the angle.

 

[Ken Behrens]

All this stuff is, to me, woo.

The "to me" part is why we are approaching 1000 posts.

 

[Ken Behrens]

All my books about volcanoes say that the eruption of Tambora was in 1815 and the 'year without a summer' was 1816. What is your source for the building of the First Presbyterian Church of Rome NY?

The records of the church, and the newspapers of the era.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Am I supposed to just pull your research out of thin air or would you care to give me a link or two?

On what do you base these claims?

http://kenbehrens.com/Ancient Technology.pdf
On the wikipedia article. It says so.