Intellectually arguing the origin of man

[TwinCrier]

While I respect that many people hold many different beliefs on the origin of man, I am stumped as to the hostility towards allowing discussion of creation in the education forum. As I’m sure most evolutionists feel confident in their education and proofs of evolution, there is extreme hostility towards the idea of presenting creation as an equally valid theory. Just as many of you don’t like having your position misrepresented, you can imagine the resentment one may feel at having their viewpoint totally shut out. Would you be opposed to the theory of YEC being presented as a possibility for mans beginning?

 

[pgp_protector]

Your Poll is worded strange.

Question You you be opposed to XXXX

Yes, I oppose any mention of the false teaching of literal creation.
The Above sounds like there agreeing with Evolution by calling Creation a False Teaching

No, Evolution can stand on it's own merits.
But then there not Opposing YEC being presented as a possibility for mans origin

So it either Yes, Creation is A False Teaching or No, Evolution can scand on it's own Merits, Or Other....

Guess Ill choose Other.

 

[Dark_Lite]

There is a difference between creationism and evolution.

Evolution is a valid scientific theory. It is not a religion, it does not have its roots in Satanism or other pagan religions, it is a completely agnostic and secular theory developed by scientists based on observable phenomena.

Now take creationism. It starts out with the conclusion that the Earth must be young. This is gotten from a religious textbook. That's bad science.

 

[TwinCrier]

Then it should be easily refuted and poses no threat, yes? No?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Then it should be easily refuted and poses no threat, yes? No?

It IS easily refuted. The YEC theory was destroyed eons ago. There are just people who like to play a little game and use pseudoscience to continue believing it. It's the same with the flat earthers and geocentrists.

 

[herev]

I have no problem teaching many theories--why not--as long as all are taught in the context in which they are written

 

[Vance]

Creationism should be taught in a comparative religion class, evolution in a science class. Would you teach the Native American beliefs about the origin of the universe in science or comparative religion? How about the numerous other culture's beliefs about origins?

The reason for this is very simple. Creationism is not scientifically supportable, it is purely based on theology, more particularly a literal reading of certain passages of Scripture. While the "Creation Scientists" have tried to seek out scientific-sounding arguments to support a young earth and a global flood, they have all been entirely falsfied by science and rests solely on theology. All that YEC has left is its attack on the details of the evolutionary theory, and they are even retreating on that every year.

I am not even sure what science they would teach as part of Creationism if you left out the theology part of it.

If they wanted to add Creationism to the public school curriculum, they would also have to add in geocentrism as an alternative to heliocentrism since there are some who still believe in that, and there are even still some flat-earthers out there.

On a side note, I find it interesting that the Geocentrists believe that the YEC's are compromising Christians that have let the claims of modern science regarding the Earth revolving around the Sun inform their interpretation of Scripture. Basically they say everything about the YEC's that the YEC's say about TE's.

 

[gluadys]

While I respect that many people hold many different beliefs on the origin of man, I am stumped as to the hostility towards allowing discussion of creation in the education forum. As I’m sure most evolutionists feel confident in their education and proofs of evolution, there is extreme hostility towards the idea of presenting creation as an equally valid theory. Just as many of you don’t like having your position misrepresented, you can imagine the resentment one may feel at having their viewpoint totally shut out. Would you be opposed to the theory of YEC being presented as a possibility for mans beginning?

At first I was pulled between option 1 and option 3 as I am not strictly opposed to mentioning literalist creation views.

But, as twin crier notes, I am definitely opposed to presenting creationism as an equally valid theory.

Why? Because it is simply not an equally valid theory and should not be presented as such.

It is not that I doubt that evolution can stand on its own merits. I think we see here again and again that it does just that. But the proper role of a science teacher is to teach science, good science, and to teach students how to recognize and how to do good science. Especially in the earlier grades, we should not muddy the waters by presenting controversies instead of science.

There may be a place, there should be a place, for teaching students about controversies including the creation-evolution controversy. I think students need to be educated in debate, in good debate form, in recognizing proper and improper argumentation. And they need to be encouraged to do some thinking of their own, not just on this question, but other social and political controversies as well: abortion, capital punishment, going to war, etc. etc.

But that place is not the science classroom. It can be the history, English, communications or philosophy class. But not the science class, because creationism is simply not science. Period.

 

[Vance]

Yes, that is another point. One of the primary goals in a science class is teaching the students how to procedurally do good science. The Creationist movement does not do science correctly from the very first step. Creation "Science" is simply starting with a conclusion (the earth is young, evolution doesn't work) and then either:

1. going out and finding bits and pieces of evidence that sound as if they support that position, even if it means taking specific findings out of context and twisting their meaning around to make it fit your starting theory.

2. coming up with concepts that match up with your theologically-based notions about the creation process, regardless of how little they are supported by the overall evidence.

Science, on the other hand, is about viewing the evidence objectively and reaching the conclusion that most closely fits the evidence. And, when you do develop hypotheses, your first job is to attempt to falsify it. And then you let your peers attempt to falsify it. If it passes all these tests, it is still considered tentative until it has withstood the test of time and the development of more evidence and remains unfalsified. Absolutely none of this is done by Creationism, so it would be a horrible model to present to students as "science".

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I am opposed to presenting creationism as a valid theory in science classes for the same reasons as I am opposed to presenting geocentrism, phlogiston theory, Lamarckian heredity or the existence of the aether.

They are all long falsified models. Science does not progress by holding on to what it knows isn't true.