Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Larniavc]

What specific piece can you remove from a mousetrap and it still catch mice?

But that has nothing to do with irresponsible complexity.

Something is irreplaceably complex when it does not have a precursor function rather than not having the same function in all of it's precursors.

 

[Larniavc]

How am I funny?

Don't feed the troll.

There: I said what we are all thinking.

 

[CLAVDIVS]

Hi AV1611VET

Perhaps you missed my post.

You must mean something different by the word "old" when you say the world is millions of years old.

If you don't mean old = how long since it first existed ...
then old = how long since ........ what?

 

[Skreeper]

-- then --Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

Embedded Age is: maturity without history.

Without history ≠ false history.

In your 3,000,000 post history have you actually ever made an argument that was not fallacious or nonsensical?

 

[Ken Behrens]

Rhetoric.

No, I'm a college math professor. I know what real teaching of science is.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, I'm a college math professor. I know what real teaching of science is.

Teachings maths is no the same as teaching science.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Teachings maths is no the same as teaching science.

But we set up the system to make teaching science possible, therefore, we must understand it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But we set up the system to make teaching science possible, therefore, we must understand it.

Mmmm... yes and no. You can know the system FOR teaching science if you can teach maths, but just because you teach maths does not necessarily mean that you know how to teach science.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Mmmm... yes and no. You can know the system FOR teaching science if you can teach maths, but just because you teach maths does not necessarily mean that you know how to teach science.

Okay, let's state the argument from basics.

Science serves two purposes, to know how to engineer the world to get it to do what we wish to do, and to help us gain new understanding of the world.

Evolution or creationism, or for that matter, any statement of what happened thousands of years, serves no purpose in helping us engineer the world today. Whether God created the world, or the big bang did, and whether it was a billion years ago, or six thousand years ago, means nothing if we know how the world works today. So, this part of science must be to help us gain understanding of the world.

What we have is several competing theories, normally summarized by two extremes, called creation and evolution. If we are to use them to teach people to gain new understanding of the world, then learning the supposed facts of either theory is irrelevant, until we learn to take these assertions and prove them out one way or the other.

And that is what my first post claimed. Either theory can give us something to prove or disprove.

 

[VirOptimus]

Okay, let's state the argument from basics.

Science serves two purposes, to know how to engineer the world to get it to do what we wish to do, and to help us gain new understanding of the world.

Evolution or creationism, or for that matter, any statement of what happened thousands of years, serves no purpose in helping us engineer the world today. Whether God created the world, or the big bang did, and whether it was a billion years ago, or six thousand years ago, means nothing if we know how the world works today. So, this part of science must be to help us gain understanding of the world.

What we have is several competing theories, normally summarized by two extremes, called creation and evolution. If we are to use them to teach people to gain new understanding of the world, then learning the supposed facts of either theory is irrelevant, until we learn to take these assertions and prove them out one way or the other.

And that is what my first post claimed. Either theory can give us something to prove or disprove.

Oh my, no just no.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is not a theory, its a religious belief. They are in no way equal.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Okay, let's state the argument from basics.

Science serves two purposes, to know how to engineer the world to get it to do what we wish to do, and to help us gain new understanding of the world.

Evolution or creationism, or for that matter, any statement of what happened thousands of years, serves no purpose in helping us engineer the world today. Whether God created the world, or the big bang did, and whether it was a billion years ago, or six thousand years ago, means nothing if we know how the world works today. So, this part of science must be to help us gain understanding of the world.

What we have is several competing theories, normally summarized by two extremes, called creation and evolution. If we are to use them to teach people to gain new understanding of the world, then learning the supposed facts of either theory is irrelevant, until we learn to take these assertions and prove them out one way or the other.

And that is what my first post claimed. Either theory can give us something to prove or disprove.

But evolution does serve a purpose. It helps understand the genetic makeup of beings to see which diseases humans are more susceptible to, to find out which series of antibiotics works best against this years strain of flu.

Creationism is not a theory nor is it a hypothesis. It's basically someone looking at modern day science and going "Now how can I cram all of that in to the Bible?".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not by the same person with the same numbers . Which is more probable than abiogenesis or the DNA, cell structure and function of an "alleged simple"living single cell occurring on it's own ..

Since it is currently not known how life came about, by definition one cannot calculate the probability of it happening.

 

[Speedwell]

What about the curriculum? In the high school I attended (and many others, I believe) biology class was the "pass" science for kids not going on to college and taught by a PE coach as a side job. Even where it is taken more seriously, the teacher is unlikely to have done undergraduate work specifically in biology and the amount of time allotted to the teaching of evolution will not be more than a couple of weeks, if that.

Consequently, the curriculum content for a Creationism unit is going to have to be short, specific and not rely on any subject-matter expertise on the part of the teacher.

So what's it going to be?

 

[4x4toy]

Since it is currently not known how life came about, by definition one cannot calculate the probability of it happening.

Oh really , that's why billions of years are continually added to attempt to cover the improbability , maybe Ken knows the mathematical theory that states when a thing becomes so statistically improbable it becomes impossible ..

 

[Skreeper]

Oh really , that's why billions of years are continually added to attempt to cover the improbability , maybe Ken knows the mathematical theory that states when a thing becomes so statistically improbable it becomes impossible ..

Please show us your calculations that show this impossibility.

 

[4x4toy]

Please show us your calculations that show this impossibility.

Sorry Skreep. I've seen it explained but I don't remember the name, that is why I thought Ken may know it..

 

[Skreeper]

Sorry Skreep. I've seen it explained but I don't remember the name, that is why I thought Ken may know it..

Then you will excuse me when I dismiss your claim as unsupported.

 

[4x4toy]

Then you will excuse me when I dismiss your claim as unsupported.

You're excused, no problem bud

 

[Strathos]

Guys: Stop talking about evolution. For the purposes of this hypothetical, it's already been defeated. You've won. You get to teach an alternative. So what do you teach, and how do you get the entire creationist movement to agree on it?

 

[4x4toy]

Guys: Stop talking about evolution. For the purposes of this hypothetical, it's already been defeated. You've won. You get to teach an alternative. So what do you teach, and how do you get the entire creationist movement to agree on it?

ID