Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[AV1611VET]

Getting back to the OP, here's an oldie-but-goodie of mine:

Creationism does not belong in science class, it belongs in history class; but to answer your question as you wrote it, I offer the following guidelines:

1. Teach the difference between creatio ex materia and creatio ex nihilo. At the end of the course, the student should be able to relate which came ex materia and which came ex nihilo.

2. Teach the order of the creation events. At the end of the course, the student should be able to put a jumbled list of objects in Genesis 1 in chronological order.

3. Teach the Law of Conservation of Mass & Energy. At the end of the course, the student should be able to demonstrate how the level of mass/energy in the universe started out at zero, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days. He should also be able to demonstrate when it was locked in place, and explain why it hasn't been violated since then and never will be.

4. Teach Genesis 1 geography. At the end of the course, the student should be able to draw an outline of Eden (Pangaea), and include the seven continents within Eden's borders. (Show which country the Garden of Eden was in for extra credit.)

5. Teach the difference between ELOHIM and JEHOVAH. At the end of the course, the student should know at least seven major compound names of God, and their meanings and applications in Scripture.

6. Teach stellar soteriology. At the end of the course, the student should be able to list the twelve signs of the Mazzaroth (Zodiac) in order of appearance and include at least one of their decans, link each one of them to the Gospel message, and name at least one major star in each one and explain the significance of its name.

7. Teach embedded age. At the end of the course, the student should know the difference between physical age and existential age, and be able to give the proper definition of Embedded Age Creation and contrast it with Last Thursdayism and Young Earth Creationism.

8. Teach the difference between miracles and magic.

 

[quatona]

QV please:

Ah, the one that goes "the state of being old" - with "old" being defined as "Having lived or existed for a relatively long time; far advanced in years or life." by the same dictionary.
Fine with me - just throws your case out the window.

 

[bhsmte]

If faith is not based on evidence, what claim does it present to make it valid? And by what logic was that claim, without evidence, allowed?

Someone to claim to have evidence, but it is not verifiable objective evidence that the faith believe is supported with the same. People claim to have personal experience evidence all the time and that's cool, but personal experiences are just that, personal.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

1. Agreed both are supposition. That is my point.
2. No one can verify what happened a million years ago. All we can do is verify what is here today that suggests something specific happened a million years ago. What someone wrote can be sued to verify that at least someone else had a different way of interpreting some observation.
3. The observations are more or less proven (pending proper verification in some cases). The theories are not.
4. That is what we call the layer, that is true. But that reflects the theory. We could call the layers red, yellow blue, or ABC, and get the same net result for the purpose of locating uranium.
5. Yes, that is the length of time necessary to get that fossil fuel if done today.
6. I am not ignorant that ice core samples are quite valuable for studying climate variation in ancient times. Actually, so is archeological research into things like Viking settlements. What I am not aware of is why climate prior to 1000AD matters to today.
7. If a singularity is far from any matter, the only tell tale sign will be the slowing of light that comes near it. And that is what I propose we allow for - that the light we are saying is old is passing through such a singularity.

1. Oh, so I misspoke here... I meant to say "It isn't any more supposition that the physical constants have'nt changed than it is that our sun is doing exactly the same thing here and now as they were doing there and then billions of light years ago that far away from us." - Even this is a little too loose because it allows you to suggest your idea is comparable, when it just isn't. The thing is, we have no reason to believe that there was some different state past. A singularity that causes some undetectable rift in time/space, wouldn't be a singularity, it'd be our universe, and paradoxically, we'd be able to detect that. Again, Black Holes are detectable.

2. So detectives can't solve murders? We can't learn ancient languages that haven't been spoken in over a millennia? We can't observe ERV's in our genome that shows our heritage with all living things on this planet using the exact same technology that proves paternity between humans? You stand on your own when you declare that. Written accounts aren't any more reliable than an eyewitness testimony. When people stand up in court and swear on the bible to tell the truth, whole truth, etc. we don't assume they're accurate in this testimony, because we know for a fact that people remember things incorrectly, if they're even honest to start with! You'd be hard pressed to find any court case that doesn't have conflicting testimony from witnesses - they're just plain unreliable as a source of information! This is a Fact (the Dover trial immediately comes to mind...)! Since you say this though, tell me who the authors are that wrote the bible? Where witnesses are mentioned, who were these witnesses? where are their signed declarations under oath for each of these witnesses?

3. Correct, Theories must incorporate all of these facts, laws and observations though. If it doesn't (i.e. an observation or evidence is discordant to the theory), then the theory would be discarded, not the observations & evidence. A Theory in science is the highest graduation that an idea can have. It is the best explanation of all of the evidence available, and contradicted by none. Out of curiosity, why do you want to hold onto ideas that have no evidence in their favour and have demonstrable evidence against them?

4. We can date these layers though. We can (and of course have) researched many methods for dating, and all of them are concordant, leading to the same reliable results. Some involve radiometric dating & some not. We know of the K/T boundary, and the other four major extinction events prior to that during this planet's lifetime, where we can see these extinction events for most of life, and a rapid expansion of new life forms in their wake. We can see for example, dried saltwater lakes that have been preserved and buried, something that is literally impossible in a global flood model (salt is 100% water soluble), and volcanic rock that permeates the geologic column all over the world is another piece of evidence disproving a young earth & global flood model. the type of rock that forms from a volcanic eruption in water is identifiably different to the rock that forms in its absence. We can see the differences between a solidifying magma cooling into rock underground, and above ground too.

5. and there's no reason to think anything different given all the evidence we have.

6. Scientists, eh? They want to know Everything! Why can't they just play dumb & stop digging up all this evidence that invalidates YEC assertions, right?

7. What you're proposing though is a singularity that is literally universe permeating. We would notice this if we could live through it in the first place.

 

[Queller]

1. Yes, and the tests are designed by the experimental evidence obtained today, which may or may not be the same as way back then.

Tests to determine if physical forces were different in the past are designed based on the evidence today? How is it possible to design a test based on the evidence of today when you are looking for evidence of something different in the past?

2. 3122BC. Writing begins with numbers in 3500, and sentences are provable from 3100BC.

Exactly. And the Flood is claimed to have happened around 2000 BC. There's no gap in, for example, Egyptian history in 2000 BC.

Not to mention that if the Egyptians were wiped out by the Flood around 4000BC, why do we have ANY Egyptian culture that dates after the Flood? Why would one of Noah's descendants come along and restart Egyptian culture exactly the way it was prior to the Flood?

And don't even get me started on how there could be a population of millions of Egyptians and millions of Jews only 500-600 years after the Flood.

3. I do not need it in heaven.

We're not talking about heaven. We're talking about right here on Earth, in the present time. You know, real life.

4. Well, let's see - in police training, in teacher training, in psychology, I can't remember all the places. Anyway, here's a little link to get you started: Does the Brain Filter out a Wider Awareness? | The Huffington Post
5. And those are also the people who decide what "actual scientific tests" are,

Well yes, there is a consensus as to what constitutes scientific evidence. Why would you expect otherwise?

and thus who can be part of them.

Anyone who follows the science rules. You can't claim to be doing science but claim that an unknown entity is influencing all your results. That's not science.

Just like pastors don't let just anyone lead theological discussions, you have to follow the rules.

Seems to me, that ignores the observations of the 99% of humanity who are not part of the club.

Didn't you just claim above that we only see a percentage of what is there, and our brain fills in the details from its past experience?

Why should anyone trust that when it comes to science?

 

[Queller]

I can tell how different they are in the last thousand years, and that makes sense to me. But why does 10,000 years ago matter?

Because it can give us insight into how and why things may be changing today and how and why it might change in the future.

Prospecting, mining, bacteria, again all come down to what is there today, or maybe in the last couple centuries. Why is anything else relevant scientifically?

Knowledge about the past can give information about today and insight into the future.

 

[Queller]

Yep. The benefits of non-homogenized milk only being published once in America and once in England comes to mind. The FDA (in the USA) and flu vaccine. The sudden new theory that DNA came to earth from space. I can't think of them all right now, but I see a lot of them.

I asked for evidence, not claims.

BTW, I googled "benefits of non-homogenized milk". There's apparently A LOT of scientists being paid to say that there is no real benefit to non-homogenized milk. Who's paying them to say that and why?

 

[Queller]

In order to compute the distance to a star, we begin with the distance across the earth's orbit, take two measurements and triangulate. Then, using this number, we calibrate ancient light. But just suppose both are wrong.

In case you missed my second attempt to get a response to this question, I'm bumping it as I am still anxiously awaiting a response;

Shouldn't we have a reasonable basis to suppose both are wrong?

A simple yes or no response (with support) is requested.

 

[Queller]

They choose what is relevant to observe. Perhaps the rest of us wish a different choice.

If you are examining radioactive decay, what other thing would you choose to measure other than decay rates and why?

 

[Queller]

Scientists choose what to observe. And in my experience, it never includes the desire of humans to be part of forming hthe world by their use of faith.

OK, I'll bite. how would we test that? How would we scientifically test the hypothesis that humans can change the world by the use of faith alone?

How would we test whether human faith can alter the speed of light in a vacuum?

 

[Queller]

But science can only observe what has already been selected by faith.

That's not even remotely true. Some of the first evidence against a global flood 4,000 years ago was discovered by men seeking to PROVE that a global flood happened 4,000 years ago.

 

[Queller]

2. I'd love to write a murder mystery where the bad guy bombarded the lab with radiation on that day, so the laws inside would change.

Why would being bombarded with radiation change the laws of physics?

4. My beliefs are based on tests of reality I have done.

Such as?

 

[Queller]

You keep saying that. I say I do, and will present it when I have time. The more posts I have to keep answering, the less time I have.

That's pretty convenient for you, isn't it?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Let's say that the courts rule that Christian creationism is a valid subject to teach in science classes in public schools, in addition to (or in place of) the ToE. (With the current administration, such a possibility isn't so far-fetched anymore).

The big question then, of course, will be what version of creationism? If it's going to be taught as a scientific subject, the course material has to be standardized. So what should schools teach?

Young Earth Creationism?
Old Earth Creationism?
Day-Age Creationism?
Gap Theory Creationism?
Progressive Creationism?
'Embedded Age' Creationism?
'Past State' Creationism?
Intelligent Design Creationism?
Theistic Evolution (which, as certain people are fond of pointing out, is technically a form of creationism)?
Another alternative?

In all the time I've been on these forums, I've rarely seen two people agree on a single creation model. But if you want to teach it in public schools, you're going to have to. And how can you be so sure that your particular flavor of creationism will end up being the one chosen?

I've decided that this is a hypothetical I could get into - I believe I'd throw my support behind Bobby Henderson, demanding that the FSM be included as a legitimate science topic. For brevity (because Bobby hits on some excellent points), I've included a link to his original letter to the State Education Board of Kansas while holding a hearing about including Intelligent Design in their science curriculum (Open Letter To Kansas School Board « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), I am including it here in full:

Open Letter To Kansas School Board
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

​

 

[VirOptimus]

I'd get a better dictionary then.

The "problem" is not on my end. I know how to use terms properly.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know how to use terms properly.

Then why are you treating "age" as if there's only one definition: your definition, when actually there are some four different definitions?

 

[4x4toy]

I've decided that this is a hypothetical I could get into - I believe I'd throw my support behind Bobby Henderson, demanding that the FSM be included as a legitimate science topic. For brevity (because Bobby hits on some excellent points), I've included a link to his original letter to the State Education Board of Kansas while holding a hearing about including Intelligent Design in their science curriculum (Open Letter To Kansas School Board « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), I am including it here in full:

Open Letter To Kansas School Board
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

​

Start about 4:40 and duck

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why are you treating "age" as if there's only one definition: your definition, when actually there are some four different definitions?

There really arent, you are playing semantics to try to hide the fact that your position regarding age is omphalos and YEC.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why are you treating "age" as if there's only one definition: your definition, when actually there are some four different definitions?

There really arent,

You're right.

My mistake.

There are fourteen:

noun

1. The length of time during which a being or thing has existed; length of life or existence to the time spoken of or referred to: trees of unknown age; His age is 20 years.

2. A period of human life, measured by years from birth, usually marked by a certain stage or degree of mental or physical development and involving legal responsibility and capacity: the age of discretion; the age of consent; The state raised the drinking age from 18 to 21 years.

3. The particular period of life at which a person becomes naturally or conventionally qualified or disqualified for anything: He was over age for military duty.

4. One of the periods or stages of human life: a person of middle age.

5. Advanced years; old age: His eyes were dim with age.

6. A particular period of history, as distinguished from others; a historical epoch: the age of Pericles; the Stone Age; the age of electronic communications.

7. The period of history contemporary with the span of an individual's life: He was the most famous architect of the age.

8. A generation or a series of generations: ages yet unborn.

9. A great length of time: I haven't seen you for an age. He's been gone for ages.

10. The average life expectancy of an individual or of the individuals of a class or species: The age of a horse is from 25 to 30 years.

11. Psychology. the level of mental, emotional, or educational development of a person, especially a child, as determined by various tests and based on a comparison of the individual's score with the average score for persons of the same chronological age.

12. Geology.

1. a period of the history of the earth distinguished by some special feature:
   the Ice Age.
2. a unit of geological time, shorter than an epoch, during which the rocks comprising a stage were formed.

13. Any of the successive periods in human history divided, according to Hesiod, into the golden, silver, bronze, heroic, and iron ages.

14. Cards.

1. Poker. the first player at the dealer's left.
   Compare edge (def 10a).
2. eldest hand.

 

[VirOptimus]

You're right.

My mistake.

There are fourteen:

noun

1. The length of time during which a being or thing has existed; length of life or existence to the time spoken of or referred to: trees of unknown age; His age is 20 years.

2. A period of human life, measured by years from birth, usually marked by a certain stage or degree of mental or physical development and involving legal responsibility and capacity: the age of discretion; the age of consent; The state raised the drinking age from 18 to 21 years.

3. The particular period of life at which a person becomes naturally or conventionally qualified or disqualified for anything: He was over age for military duty.

4. One of the periods or stages of human life: a person of middle age.

5. Advanced years; old age: His eyes were dim with age.

6. A particular period of history, as distinguished from others; a historical epoch: the age of Pericles; the Stone Age; the age of electronic communications.

7. The period of history contemporary with the span of an individual's life: He was the most famous architect of the age.

8. A generation or a series of generations: ages yet unborn.

9. A great length of time: I haven't seen you for an age. He's been gone for ages.

10. The average life expectancy of an individual or of the individuals of a class or species: The age of a horse is from 25 to 30 years.

11. Psychology. the level of mental, emotional, or educational development of a person, especially a child, as determined by various tests and based on a comparison of the individual's score with the average score for persons of the same chronological age.

12. Geology.

1. a period of the history of the earth distinguished by some special feature:
   the Ice Age.
2. a unit of geological time, shorter than an epoch, during which the rocks comprising a stage were formed.

13. Any of the successive periods in human history divided, according to Hesiod, into the golden, silver, bronze, heroic, and iron ages.

14. Cards.

1. Poker. the first player at the dealer's left.
   Compare edge (def 10a).
2. eldest hand.

Why are you delibaretly obtuse?