If you want kids to learn creation science, show how you'd teach it.

[shernren]

This was an interesting question I raised quite a while ago in the Christians-only origins forum, but I'd like to bring it up here again where a number of different creationists seem to be more regular.

If there really was a subject called Creation Science, how would you teach it?

I'd want to see a list of topics and intended learning outcomes. For example, under the field (hehe) of electromagnetism, a common topic is "Coulomb's Law" and the intended outcome is "Students should be able to describe Coulomb's Law and use it to quantitatively compute the force between two charges." So yes. If we wanted to teach kids in school about creationism, how would go about it? And what would you want them to learn at the end?

I think this could be an instructive exercise, if rigorously followed, in why we don't call creationism science, and why suggesting that it be included in school education is not a good idea.

 

[JohnR7]

If there really was a subject called Creation Science, how would you teach it?

I took three teacher training classes at the Bible college. The whole idea is to teach as much of the Bible as you can using any teaching methoid that will get the truth over to people. They showed us how science can be used to teach the truth we find in our Bible. So there are a lot of different way to teach creation to people.

 

[shernren]

I think I wasn't specific enough - I mean that I would want to see a proposed syllabus of some sort. Like when you mention a pre-university physics course, I expect it to cover basic Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, a little thermodynamics, wave phenomena, and some nuclear physics.

So what would you teach as creation science? If you had, say, 16 weeks and 2 hours each week, what would you teach within those weeks and how would you distribute the time? What sort of assignments and lab experiments would you be able to assign?

 

[birdan]

Creation science syllabus, under Expected Outcomes:

Student must be able to politely say "Would you like to supersize your order?".

 

[cobaltburrito]

It's real easy you see. Just teach them to repeat after you,"Goddit."
Once they get that down, their set to become a member of the American majority.

 

[AV1611VET]

If there really was a subject called Creation Science, how would you teach it?

SUBJECT: CREATION SCIENCE

LAYOUT: 6 WEEKS - 2 HOURS EACH WEEK

REQUIREMENTS: 1611 KING JAMES BIBLE

EXPECTATIONS:

• Be able to explain the Six Days of Creation as conveyed to us from God in Genesis 1.
• Be able to explain the difference in the order of God's Creation vis-a-vis the order of Evolution.
• Be able to define and support/refute the major sub-doctrines associated with the Six Days of Creation (Water Canopy, Day-Age Theory, Gap Theory).

LAYOUT:

• Weeks 1 and 2 = What was created and when.
• Weeks 3 and 4 = The difference in the order of appearance.
• Weeks 5 and 6 = Studying applied theories.

CREDITATION: Certificate upon successful completion.

 

[Edx]

Lol

@

Av

 

[Goatboy]

Learn the words to “All Things Bright and Beautiful”.

Extra credit for students who can sing it in tune.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

SUBJECT: CREATION SCIENCE

LAYOUT: 6 WEEKS - 2 HOURS EACH WEEK

REQUIREMENTS: 1611 KING JAMES BIBLE

EXPECTATIONS:

• Be able to explain the Six Days of Creation as conveyed to us from God in Genesis 1.
• Be able to explain the difference in the order of God's Creation vis-a-vis the order of Evolution.
• Be able to define and support/refute the major sub-doctrines associated with the Six Days of Creation (Water Canopy, Day-Age Theory, Gap Theory).

LAYOUT:

• Weeks 1 and 2 = What was created and when.
• Weeks 3 and 4 = The difference in the order of appearance.
• Weeks 5 and 6 = Studying applied theories.

CREDITATION: Certificate upon successful completion.

I propose the Zeroth Law of Poe: Without the use of a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible for a creationist to parody himself without someone mistaking it for the real thing, and vice versa.

 

[moogoob]

Lol.

Teach creation in religion class. Weeks 2-3 of grade 9. Then get on to the more interesting bible books, until grade 11, when you cover the creation myths of the other large world religions.

That's how my education went in a Catholic high school.

 

[corvus_corax]

Be able to explain the Six Days of Creation as conveyed to us from God in Genesis 1.

God created the world and universe in 6 days with humans (Adam and Eve) being created after all the plants and animals

Be able to explain the difference in the order of God's Creation vis-a-vis the order of Evolution.

The Genesis creation account-
Day one- Light was created before the sun exists
Day two- The expanse between the waters was created
Day three- Dry ground appears, seed bearing plants and trees, along with fruit bearing trees are created
Day four- Stars are created, along with the sun and moon.
Day five- Water creatures created, birds created
Day six- Land animals created. Man created.

Compared to nearly all of the sciences, which quite frankly state that the above order did not happen (ie- Genesis is wrong according to nearly all of the sciences)

Be able to define and support/refute the major sub-doctrines associated with the Six Days of Creation (Water Canopy, Day-Age Theory, Gap Theory)

Water canopy refutes itself as it is not directly supported by Scripture or supported by science at all.
Day-Age Theory- This is an interpretation of the Genesis account and thus should be rejected by all Biblical literalists.
GAP Theory- Theory 1- There is a "gap" of time (millions or billions of years) between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Theory 2- There is a "gap" of time between the 7th day of creation and the Fall of Adam and Eve. Again, these are assumptions made and interpretations given to the Creation account, and should be rejected by all literalists.

There you go.
Where's my certificate?

 

[shernren]

SUBJECT: CREATION SCIENCE

LAYOUT: 6 WEEKS - 2 HOURS EACH WEEK

REQUIREMENTS: 1611 KING JAMES BIBLE

EXPECTATIONS:

• Be able to explain the Six Days of Creation as conveyed to us from God in Genesis 1.
• Be able to explain the difference in the order of God's Creation vis-a-vis the order of Evolution.
• Be able to define and support/refute the major sub-doctrines associated with the Six Days of Creation (Water Canopy, Day-Age Theory, Gap Theory).

LAYOUT:

• Weeks 1 and 2 = What was created and when.
• Weeks 3 and 4 = The difference in the order of appearance.
• Weeks 5 and 6 = Studying applied theories.

CREDITATION: Certificate upon successful completion.

I asked about creation science, not creation theology. But never mind. It's weeks 5 and 6 that I'm interested in. Exactly what successful applications of creation science theories have there been?

 

[AV1611VET]

I asked about creation science, not creation theology.

They'd get plenty of Science:

• The 4 Forces that govern the Universe.
• The 3 Laws of Thermodynamics.

But never mind. It's weeks 5 and 6 that I'm interested in. Exactly what successful applications of creation science theories have there been?

Of the three mentioned - the Water Canopy.

[bible]Genesis 1:7[/bible]

Here's how I would [verbally] demonstrate it:

• Take a 55-gallon [glass] drum.
• Put about 2 feet of water in it.
• Place an inflatable [see-through] disk in it, about an inch below the surface.
• Inflate the disk, which goes from edge to edge.

This would be pretty close to what happened. The firmament would be the air inside of the disk. The earth, per se, would be the land inside the disk, between the upper and lower membranes.

Now demonstrate the Flood by simply punching a few holes in the top of the disk, and a couple holes in the bottom of the disk, and observe the water raining down and flowing up.

The example has a couple flaws, but you would get the point.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

From what I've read from Creationists, a "creation science" class is really a religious class. What's the difference in teaching that and how the Muslims think God made the Earth? Or the Mormons? I think "creation science" should be in religious studies, even ironically based on the creationist's reply so far.

 

[Chalnoth]

They'd get plenty of Science:

• The 4 Forces that govern the Universe.
• The 3 Laws of Thermodynamics.

I hope not! Any studying of these that supports creationism is blatantly wrong (in particular, the incorrect use of the 2nd law of thermodynamics to attempt to support creationism is blatantly false). Leave these to the physics teachers, please!

This would be pretty close to what happened. The firmament would be the air inside of the disk. The earth, per se, would be the land inside the disk, between the upper and lower membranes.

Now demonstrate the Flood by simply punching a few holes in the top of the disk, and a couple holes in the bottom of the disk, and observe the water raining down and flowing up.

The example has a couple flaws, but you would get the point.

This isn't science. It isn't even close to science. Science is investigative, not simply descriptive.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I've decided that since my next Sunday School class starts this Sunday that i really ought to get out of the argumentative mood that discussion forums puts me into and begin to move into teacher mode and work towards agreement and not argument, towards unity and not divisiveness.

so to that end.

i will quote AV1611VET

The example has a couple flaws, but you would get the point.


and full heartedly agree with him on this.
thank you for making the transition go so smoothly....

 

[RichardT]

creationism is not exclusively from one religion, I would like to teach only the scientifically testable and potentially falsifiable parts of creationism, and creationist arguments from all religions(even though I don't agree with them).

List of creationist claims : http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Index_to_Creationist_Claims

 

[RichardT]

From what I've read from Creationists, a "creation science" class is really a religious class. What's the difference in teaching that and how the Muslims think God made the Earth? Or the Mormons? I think "creation science" should be in religious studies, even ironically based on the creationist's reply so far.

creation science dosen't have to exclude different religions. All falsifiable claims can be tested.

 

[Kahalachan]

I think the best they could hope for is to talk about the minerals in the human body, since God created man out of dust, and the decomposition of the human body, since we return to dust.

Talk about human cloning from a rib with a chromosome change. Teach cloning, genetics, etc.

Explain the changes in the snake's respiratory system needed to make it talk.

The hallucinatory effects of certain plant material and how it could make one feel shameful of being naked??

Can't think of anything else that would be scientific.

 

[AV1611VET]

[/list]I hope not! Any studying of these that supports creationism is blatantly wrong (in particular, the incorrect use of the 2nd law of thermodynamics to attempt to support creationism is blatantly false). Leave these to the physics teachers, please!

No, thanks. There are some things that scientists "discovered" that are already mentioned in the Bible, albeit in seed form. So while the scientist would like to associate his name with some of these laws, theories, or whatever they'll be called tomorrow, the Bible was way ahead of him.

This isn't science. It isn't even close to science. Science is investigative, not simply descriptive.

Right --- that's why they keep "investigating" --- because if they came up with the answer --- they would have investigated themselves out of a job.

So you scientists keep right on looking - it pays well.