Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[Shane Roach]

Not what I said.
Discussing why certain things aren't science does belong in science class. It should be one of the first topics taught. It is the things that aren't science that shouldn't be allowed in science class.

For example,
Last tuesdayism. The class can talk about why last tuesdayism isn't science in their opening to what science is. But when the age of the earth comes around, Last tuesdayism should not be taught, as it is not a scientific alternative.

An honest discussion of the issues would involve all aspects.

 

[ZACTAK]

I didn't say we arnt equal, I am quite fermiliar with the fact that i am just as much a sinner as they, what I'm saying is that God doesn't want his name on our actions... sure he'll forgive us if we go to him.. but we arnt.. are we.. we're rejecting him instead.

The majority of the United States is Christian, and God knows that we all sin, he has forgiven us for the sins who have commited before we even apologize and repent them. Why would God not want us to glorify him through the pledge, or through our coins?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

An honest discussion of the issues would involve all aspects.

Yes, it should. Science classes should include a brief survey of such things as mesmerism, creationism, phrenology, etc., and information as to why they're not science. Then the class could go on to actually study science. This would be very useful in helping people tell pseudoscience from science.

 

[Shane Roach]

Yes, it should. Science classes should include a brief survey of such things as mesmerism, creationism, phrenology, etc., and information as to why they're not science. Then the class could go on to actually study science. This would be very useful in helping people tell pseudoscience from science.

Phrenology might be relevant. I wouldn't think mesmerism would be unless you know something about it I don't. I'm trying hard not to assume you were being sarcastic.

Most importantly though, there needs to be a discussion of the philosophy of knowledge, including its mathematical, material, and cognative roots. I don't see any particular reason to exclude religion from this discussion.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Phrenology might be relevant. I wouldn't think mesmerism would be unless you know something about it I don't. I'm trying hard not to assume you were being sarcastic.

I wasn't. Telling science from pseudoscience is an important skill, particularly nowadays when there are so many pseudosciences around. Education them about pseudosciences such as phrenology, mesmerism and creationism, and why they're not sciences, would be very valuable.

Most importantly though, there needs to be a discussion of the philosophy of knowledge, including its mathematical, material, and cognative roots. I don't see any particular reason to exclude religion from this discussion.

And that should be done in a philosophy class, not a science class. Science class is about teaching science, not the philosophy of knowledge.

 

[Shane Roach]

I wasn't. Telling science from pseudoscience is an important skill, particularly nowadays when there are so many pseudosciences around. Education them about pseudosciences such as phrenology, mesmerism and creationism, and why they're not sciences, would be very valuable.


And that should be done in a philosophy class, not a science class. Science class is about teaching science, not the philosophy of knowledge.

Science is a product of the philosopies of how things are known, and to discuss science without discussing underlying assumptions is to discuss something in ignorance.

This is the point at which the atheist's argument is most clearly shown to be about politics and not about education. The very idea that something should be taught without a fundamental understanding of what it is is absurd.

 

[aca_rev55]

The way I look at it, not saying it's right or anything so don't bite my head off, creation isn't science, it's a belief in a religious aspect. They teach it in Christian private schools, as well as other specific religiously specific schools. I have no problem with that, since they are private schools and all that. But religion is separated from state, and therefore anything religious just should not be taught in schools. Creation is the belief of a god, that's religious, doesn't matter which god... it's still religion, and schools are still government business which is entirely separated from religion.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Science is a product of the philosopies of how things are known, and to discuss science without discussing underlying assumptions is to discuss something in ignorance.

EVERYTHING is the product of philosophies of how things are known. By your logic, we shouldn't teach anything to anyone until they've passed a course in philosophy, dealing with the philosophy of knowledge. That's plainly ridiculous. Apart from anything else, the philosophy of knowledge is a difficult subject. There is a great deal children can learn long before they are capable of understanding the philosophy of knowledge.

This is the point at which the atheist's argument is most clearly shown to be about politics and not about education. The very idea that something should be taught without a fundamental understanding of what it is is absurd.

Sorry, but this is nonsensical. A fundamental understanding of what science is can easily be taught without going into the philosophy of knowledge. I can give it to you in one sentence - science is the study of the natural world around us. There. That wasn't hard. Of course, more information can be given, depending on the intelligence/age of the students, such as why science limits itself to the natural and (as previously discussed) why various pseudosciences aren't science.

It SHOULD be taught, as the first introduction to science, which I doubt any atheist would disagree with.

So...nice try to slur atheism, but failed. Give it another go.

 

[Shane Roach]

EVERYTHING is the product of philosophies of how things are known. By your logic, we shouldn't teach anything to anyone until they've passed a course in philosophy, dealing with the philosophy of knowledge. That's plainly ridiculous. Apart from anything else, the philosophy of knowledge is a difficult subject. There is a great deal children can learn long before they are capable of understanding the philosophy of knowledge.


Sorry, but this is nonsensical. A fundamental understanding of what science is can easily be taught without going into the philosophy of knowledge. I can give it to you in one sentence - science is the study of the natural world around us. There. That wasn't hard. Of course, more information can be given, depending on the intelligence/age of the students, such as why science limits itself to the natural and (as previously discussed) why various pseudosciences aren't science.

It SHOULD be taught, as the first introduction to science, which I doubt any atheist would disagree with.

So...nice try to slur atheism, but failed. Give it another go.

It should be taught at any point where it is relavent, and it does not take long as you so aptly pointed out. I would add it should probably be taught without all the jibberish about pseudoscience.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

It should be taught at any point where it is relavent, and it does not take long as you so aptly pointed out. I would add it should probably be taught without all the jibberish about pseudoscience.

It's "jibberish" to teach people about pseudoscience?

 

[Shane Roach]

It's "jibberish" to teach people about pseudoscience?

I believe that in the curriculum itself better terminology could be found than I have seen posted by you here, yes.

 

[aca_rev55]

So how would they teach creation in schools without it relating to any one god, which pertains to religion, while the schools are goverment... and religion is SUPPOSED to be separated from state? You can't say "there is also a theory that god created the earth and everything in it roughly 6 thousand years ago, turn in your Bibles to the book of Genesis..." It just wouldn't work, it isn't science to me... it's religion, and religion is separated from state in the Constitution or whatever, something like that (I tend to sleep in Am. Gov't... shh don't tell my parents).

Ta.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I believe that in the curriculum itself better terminology could be found than I have seen posted by you here, yes.

Let me guess...you want to teach children that which conforms to YOUR religious faith, right? lol...rather predictable.

 

[Shane Roach]

So how would they teach creation in schools without it relating to any one god, which pertains to religion, while the schools are goverment... and religion is SUPPOSED to be separated from state? You can't say "there is also a theory that god created the earth and everything in it roughly 6 thousand years ago, turn in your Bibles to the book of Genesis..." It just wouldn't work, it isn't science to me... it's religion, and religion is separated from state in the Constitution or whatever, something like that (I tend to sleep in Am. Gov't... shh don't tell my parents).

Ta.

I tend to believe that the concept can be put across with a brief discussion of things like free will, consciousness, and the limitations of science without getting into anything deeply. Here I am afraid I betray any hard core creationists, but as I have said here and there, I am not a hard core creationist. My concern is the misrepresentation of the mechanistic as the only legitimate way to look at the world and that children are not being given the information they need to make an informed decision of their own about such matters.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I tend to believe that the concept can be put across with a brief discussion of things like free will, consciousness, and the limitations of science without getting into anything deeply. Here I am afraid I betray any hard core creationists, but as I have said here and there, I am not a hard core creationist. My concern is the misrepresentation of the mechanistic as the only legitimate way to look at the world and that children are not being given the information they need to make an informed decision of their own about such matters.

And, again, you're fighting a strawman, because science does NOT say that the mechanistic is the only legitimate way to look at the world.

 

[Shane Roach]

That's precisely the point. You continually talk about the limitations of science, but when it comes to actually talking openly about them in the context if this issue you insist that "it's not science."

Thats because certain things are outside the limits of science, thus they aren't science.

This is the very thread, Sceptic. Perhaps you can convince Arikay that mentioning consciousness, will and religion in the context of explaining the limitations of science regarding this issue is acceptable in a science class.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

This is the very thread, Sceptic. Perhaps you can convince Arikay that mentioning consciousness, will and religion in the context of explaining the limitations of science regarding this issue is acceptable in a science class.

He doesn't need me to do so. He knows as well as I do what is science and what is not. He (I'm sure) has no problem at all in explaining why science does not deal with matters (literally) immaterial, nor has anything he's posted that I've been able to find indicated differently.

 

[Shane Roach]

Not what I said.
Discussing why certain things aren't science does belong in science class. It should be one of the first topics taught. It is the things that aren't science that shouldn't be allowed in science class.

For example,
Last tuesdayism. The class can talk about why last tuesdayism isn't science in their opening to what science is. But when the age of the earth comes around, Last tuesdayism should not be taught, as it is not a scientific alternative.

This appears to be a roundabout way of saying that when the age of the earth is discussed, that people should not discuss or refresh the memory of students regarding why these things do not overlap with religion or any ideas that might have to do with intervening changes in the past that we would have no way of knowing about. It represents precisely the sort of denial I am concerned with.

 

[joebudda]

This appears to be a roundabout way of saying that when the age of the earth is discussed, that people should not discuss or refresh the memory of students regarding why these things do not overlap with religion or any ideas that might have to do with intervening changes in the past that we would have no way of knowing about. It represents precisely the sort of denial I am concerned with.

Well we do have many different means of measure to determine age. This is what science uses for calculating age. This can be repeated.

Religion tends to be a claim with no means of measure or anyway to verify. This goes for all creation beliefs in every religion that believes in their own form of creation.

 

[Shane Roach]

Well we do have many different means of measure to determine age. This is what science uses for calculating age. This can be repeated.

Religion tends to be a claim with no means of measure or anyway to verify. This goes for all creation beliefs in every religion that believes in their own form of creation.

Indeed. Something that would not take long to discuss and would go far in rebuilding the faith of many religious folk in the integrity of the school system, helping them not to fear their children are recieving some sort of indoctrination rather than an education.

The trick is to express this reality in a way that doesn't come across as snide and dismissive. Since in reality there are observable things that appear to have no observable cause, such as our will operating on our bodies, passing off religion as somehow trite and not to be discussed in the same breath as a mechanistic theory of origins is not honest.