What would the education system look like if we allowed creationism as science?

[Matthewj1985]

So what happens when we "teach the controversy"? What happens when we tell children that saying "then a God stepped in" is a perfectly valid answer?

 

[gluadys]

So what happens when we "teach the controversy"? What happens when we tell children that saying "then a God stepped in" is a perfectly valid answer?

You get really bad literature. Remember when you were first writing stories and got yourself into such a pickle you could only end the story with "...and then I woke up." Roman audiences used to laugh at hack playwrights who did the same thing and called in the deus ex machina to fix everything up at the end.

You also get really bad theology. God-as-the-handy-one-size-fits-all-gap-plugger.

 

[crawfish]

Why bother with science and discovery if we already know there is a supernatural cause, and thus, we won't be able to test for it anyway?

 

[AV1611VET]

What happens when we tell children that saying "then a God stepped in" is a perfectly valid answer?

Then the children would correct you by asking, "You mean, 'then God stepped in'"?

 

[juvenissun]

So what happens when we "teach the controversy"? What happens when we tell children that saying "then a God stepped in" is a perfectly valid answer?

The teacher should be fired.

In science education, creationism or creation is a (background) concept, not a process. All science contents (facts and processes) taught today should be taught as usual. Except the concept of evolution should not be taught.

What would happen if this were done 20 years ago? Simple, Obama won't be elected.

Your question shows that you do not understand what creation science is. However, in higher education, the function of creationism would be very different. I guess you don't have a clue on that, so I won't get to it.

 

[busterdog]

So what happens when we "teach the controversy"? What happens when we tell children that saying "then a God stepped in" is a perfectly valid answer?

What will happen if you dont teach it? Some of the bright kids will realize that the gap is very big and then will ask how could it possibly be filled without something like God. Then teacher will look silly.

Evolution is still a theory, if I am not mistaken. And that is not just being polite. There are still big gaps.

And why exactly is an unfilled gap better than a gap which has been filled with a very vague idea?

Do you really think that science is honestly teaching how big the gap is?

And if you have a gap, why exactly is it better to say that science will necessarily and without qualification fill the gap with something that looks like evolution and that is completely naturalistic?

If you have a gap, how exactly do you exclude ANYTHING from that gap? Isnt it the nature of gaps to admit lots of different possibilities, like, well, God?

How do you know that gap will EVER go away? And if it wont, then what do you have?

My honest accusation, charge, indictment, challenge is this: 1. You want to treat the gap as no gap at all. 2. There is no logic behind excluding, categorically, anything like God from this "gap" -- not on religious ground but by simple logic and ordinary philosophy.

It is not religion to teach that God is a distinct possibility that must be factored into human thinking. It is common sense. Thousands of years of philosophy agree with me.

 

[shernren]

There are still big gaps.

Which gaps? Be specific.

And how would you present them responsibly to a fifteen-year-old?

 

[Mallon]

Some of the bright kids will realize that the gap is very big and then will ask how could it possibly be filled without something like God.

Bright kids don't simply give up and say "goddidit" when faced with difficult questions. They continue to strive for answers, knowing that God will glorify those who "search out a matter" (Heb 25:2).
Besides, simply admitting that God did something tells us nothing about HOW He did it. And knowing HOW God did it is something bright kids want to know.

 

[billwald]

>Evolution is still a theory, if I am not mistaken.

So is gravity, if I am not mistaken. But we know much more about evolution than gravity.

 

[juvenissun]

>Evolution is still a theory, if I am not mistaken.

So is gravity, if I am not mistaken. But we know much more about evolution than gravity.

Not proportionally.

 

[busterdog]

Which gaps? Be specific.

And how would you present them responsibly to a fifteen-year-old?

I think you mean what would be the legal way.

In terms of the scientific method, I think you carry on as usual. In terms of the philosophy of science, you admit problems that are, for the foreseeable future, virtually insoluble. Probably the easiest example is abiogenesis. I understand that models exist. Very simply, something quite beyond us got life over the hump at some point. That being the case, we have no idea what might be moving in other areas of life. If you dont know what it is, and you are going to be responsible in considering the options, you must consider the possibility that indeed God did it.

 

[laptoppop]

True education includes the concept of a worldview -- the filter we use to organize and interpret data. The truest worldview includes God Who is active, loves us, and has given us His Son. He is active in real history, in all truth, and has chosen to communicate with us.

Any education that does not include this and recognize its ramifications in ALL disciplines including science is incomplete and does not match reality.

 

[Mallon]

Science is TOOL. It is a means of investigating the natural world. It is NOT a worldview.
I agree, pop, that one's worldview ought to include God, but the way to develop such a view isn't to pigeonhole God into the gaps in our knowledge. That's dangerous theology. Just look at what bd said above:

Probably the easiest example is abiogenesis. I understand that models exist. Very simply, something quite beyond us got life over the hump at some point. That being the case, we have no idea what might be moving in other areas of life. If you dont know what it is, and you are going to be responsible in considering the options, you must consider the possibility that indeed God did it.

Is the corollary of bd's position that if we are able to validate our models of abiogenesis, God didn't do it? That seems like the obvious conclusion if we take the neocreationist philosophy of science and view God as a variable in nature, rather than as a constant. You may see God as active in the world, but the upshot of making God a variable in science is that sometimes He must be inactive. Is that really the kind of deism you want to push on our children?

 

[shernren]

I think you mean what would be the legal way.

Like how, here in Australia, it's not legal for an under-18 to buy alcohol but it's entirely legal for the kid to scull as much as he wants as long as someone overage buys it for him? Sneaky schoolies.

I don't really know. You may be interested to know that over in Malaysia, we don't actually have evolution in our high-school syllabus. I'm not sure if we have it in our state-run 18-19-year-old pre-university courses but I doubt so, either. Ronald Numbers' The Creationists classified this as a creationist education system and upon hindsight that's not too surprising.

Then again, Malaysia is two-thirds Muslim. Probably not a good model for you white folk.

In terms of the scientific method, I think you carry on as usual. In terms of the philosophy of science, you admit problems that are, for the foreseeable future, virtually insoluble. Probably the easiest example is abiogenesis. I understand that models exist. Very simply, something quite beyond us got life over the hump at some point. That being the case, we have no idea what might be moving in other areas of life. If you dont know what it is, and you are going to be responsible in considering the options, you must consider the possibility that indeed God did it.

"Consider the possibility that indeed God did it"? I know God did it.

As long as this is the way that the issue is posed - "Okay, we can teach kids that science did it or we can teach kids that God did it" - then Christian theism has lost, pure and simple. It may be obvious to the atheist that God is not an option. What is not obvious is that, to the theist, God cannot be an option either.* God is not an option; God is essential.

In practical terms, I think Newtonian mechanics are a good example. There are plenty of gaps in Newtonian mechanics. There's lots of nature that it can't explain. Do we see high-school textbooks mentioning that? When I was learning about Newtonian mechanics in school there was no mention at all of regimes in which it didn't work. Why doesn't anybody want to teach the Newtonian controversy?

Every scientific theory has its limitations, its regime outside which it breaks down. I wonder if there is any point teaching children about where a scientific theory breaks down unless they can be shown what picks it up after that. Of course, that probably reflects my bias as a scientist.

That's all in theory. In educational practice, of course, ID textbooks are rubbish. Enough said.

True education includes the concept of a worldview -- the filter we use to organize and interpret data. The truest worldview includes God Who is active, loves us, and has given us His Son. He is active in real history, in all truth, and has chosen to communicate with us.

Any education that does not include this and recognize its ramifications in ALL disciplines including science is incomplete and does not match reality.

Indeed. But how?

Do we teach kids that "Okay, science knows how A, B, and C happened, but science doesn't know how X, Y, and Z happened - therefore God may have caused X, Y, and Z"?

And if you do so, how do you avoid the conclusion that whatever happens with X, Y, and Z, God didn't have anything to do with A, B, and C?

I don't think that's a God-honoring view.

I'd much rather have the state teach children:

"Science knows how these things happen, and science does not yet know how these other things happened."

And then leave it to Christian parents at home to teach their children that God made the science-known things happen as much as He made the science-unknown things happen. Such lessons simply are too complex and too faith-filled for the classroom.

*this is probably the most misquotable sentence in all of CF.com.

 

[shernren]

Another good article on the issue:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/05/07/evolution-whats-the-real-controversy

Evolution clearly has no shortage of controversies. But none of those controversies involve the basic principles of evolution, and all of them operate within a framework where random mutation and selection play a key role in creating diverse species that are related by common descent. It's clear that the Discovery Institute is trying to introduce controversies that don't exist, while ignoring those that do. That's why the academic freedom bills it's promoting are such dangerous things; while supposedly promoting intellectual analysis, they're actually an attempt to pave the way for misinformation to enter the scientific classroom.
Is there room for the real controversies in the classroom of public schools? Maybe, but I'm not in any way convinced. I would be pleasantly surprised if the average high school student left knowing what horizontal gene transfer is, what the proteasome does, or the significance of the Archaea. Understanding how those things play out within the current scientific understanding of evolution is going to be beyond all but the most advanced students. Teaching even the real controversies may simply be bad pedagogy.

 

[AV1611VET]

And how would our "education" system, if it removed all references to religion, explain how BC / AD came about?

 

[Mallon]

And how would our "education" system, if it removed all references to religion, explain how BC / AD came about?

Most scholars use the terms B.C.E. and C.E. now.
Besides, simply explaining the etymology of B.C. and A.D. is not an endorsement of religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most scholars use the terms B.C.E. and C.E. now.

I don't care what most "scholars" use --- I used "BC / AD".

Besides, simply explaining the etymology of B.C. and A.D. is not an endorsement of religion.

I don't know --- maybe they have a way of explaining it w/o going into etymology.

In any case --- I'm wondering how they'd dance around this.

Anyone want to answer this with respect to the way I asked it?

 

[Mallon]

I don't care what most "scholars" use --- I used "BC / AD".

You ask a question pertaining to the use of 'B.C.' and 'A.D.' in our education system, and when I tell you that most researchers are now using different terms, you say you don't care? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

I don't know --- maybe they have a way of explaining it w/o going into etymology.

How could you possibly explain the meaning of B.C. and A.D. without first addressing their etymology?
Like I said, mention of Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Ra, etc. in the classroom is acceptable, so long as no one of these are promoted religiously. Likewise, use of the word "June" for the sixth month of the year is still acceptable, even though it is named after a Roman goddess.

In any case --- I'm wondering how they'd dance around this.

They don't need to dance around it. Simply explaining the etymology of a word is not the same as religiously promoting its source.

 

[busterdog]

Science is TOOL. It is a means of investigating the natural world. It is NOT a worldview.
I agree, pop, that one's worldview ought to include God, but the way to develop such a view isn't to pigeonhole God into the gaps in our knowledge. That's dangerous theology. Just look at what bd said above:

Is the corollary of bd's position that if we are able to validate our models of abiogenesis, God didn't do it? That seems like the obvious conclusion if we take the neocreationist philosophy of science and view God as a variable in nature, rather than as a constant. You may see God as active in the world, but the upshot of making God a variable in science is that sometimes He must be inactive. Is that really the kind of deism you want to push on our children?

I am confused.

Just because you get half way (or 99% of the way) to understanding how something happened, that doesnt mean that God didnt make it happen. That is, the TE perspective may quantify the naturalist means, but still believes Goddidit. The YEC can simply say, yes, we always knew that when you TEs figured out how it happened, we would all still understand that God did it.

Must the YEC view be that we will never know how something happened and that therefore the only explanation is that "Goddidit?" Well, we all agree that we can understand part of the naturalistic cause by which these events happen (Jesus is touched by the woman with the flow of blood and "power" leaves Jesus -- indicating some partial knowledge, but plenty of "Goddidit.") Microevolution is part miracle, part naturalism.

A number of respected scientists have said that the laws of physics applicable to the 1 second before the Big Bang are virtually unknowable. And, they might as well be at this point. That being said, you are virtually never going to know why matter self-organizes as six sided snowflakes or 23 base pairs of chromosomes. In other words, maybe you figure out 99% of it, but that missing 1% is a necessary cause (and perhaps a sufficient cause) for all of the rest that you can explain.

Goddidit as a method to disavow facts, like meiosis, makes no sense.

Goddidit is a statement of the fact that, at some level, we dont have better explanations for why, is valid. But, it is vague. We just arent always clear to what level the mystery can ever be removed. But, if you look at the mystery of the flagellum, even after Ken Miller, quite a bit of mystery remains. With the example of the singularity, there is again, at least a virtually unknowable quantity.

The notion of self-organization suggests that the capacity to manage rather complex and seemingly unlikely feats somehow inheres in matter. The notion that the property is inherent still suggests an unresolved answer to the question of why things are as they are.

Just because one has no experience of another world in which matter might be rather ordinary and lifeless is no justification for assuming that an inherent tendency to organize in this world has been sufficiently explained. Granted, efforts at figuring the odds may lose much of their meaning, since the basis for comparison is practically absurd. There is no defined data set.

But simply accepting the result of those unknown forces as a given, and therefore inherent in matter is not much of a final explanation. It is merely assumed as an inherent property, but never fully understood because we dont know why it is like it is. How could that problem ever go away? That is about the most basic Sunday School mental exercise that there is. Kids are born trying to figure out what came before everything and why -- as they well should.

With virtually unsolvable questions, I still dont see how Goddidit is inferior to any other explanation for what appears to be virtually impossible to measure and understand. Goddidit doesnt explain much, but it does put the pursuit of science in proper perspective. Relative to the full truth, we are way short of it. How is that a bad thing?