Why teach creationism in public school science classes?

[AV1611VET]

Bots can't make "mistakes". Yeah, sure. You AV either really don't know what computers can do, or you are playing fool to make others believe you.

-- What?

 

[driewerf]

the idea that there are other theories and thoughts should be presented but not any faith specific education, no. My teacher (against the law btw) taught creation, creational evolution and evolution to us and stated "this is your choice, this is what science teaches, I will not present a biased view, either for or against any of these ideas". I loved it. It was great.

Then your teacher did a bad job.
First, neither creationism nor creational evolution aren't sciences. Second, science isn't a matter of choice. You have to evaluate the evidence, but presented that way it's very poorly formulated.

 

[Upisoft]

-- What?

My point indeed.

 

[driewerf]

So you'll learn to respect my position?

Do you accept 95% of 'my' theology, and hold the Bible up to an equally High Standard?

No.

 

[Hespera]

Holding up the bible and christianity for ridicule with stuff about flood water going to neptune and dinosaurs in the angels coal bins is not exactly high standards.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I got one or two that follow me around and make comments.

Just like Paul in the book of Acts, when he went into a city -- it wasn't long before his stalkers showed up to undermine everything he said; then he would have to write a letter (epistle) to the church there and undo the damage they had caused.

Paul had knowledge, talent, and things to say worth listening to -- and thus the comparison fails.

 

[Tomatoman]

I got one or two that follow me around and make comments.

Just like Paul in the book of Acts, when he went into a city -- it wasn't long before his stalkers showed up to undermine everything he said; then he would have to write a letter (epistle) to the church there and undo the damage they had caused.

Comparing yourself to Paul now?

 

[Goodbook]

Science is basically experimenting, observing and testing the evidence against the laws of nature, that God created.
So things like chemistry, physics and biology and geology would be science. This would be chemical equations and reactions, molecular makeup, looking at chromosomes and traits, calculating forces, observing the movements and interactions of earth and sea. All things God who is the prime mover originally created and puts into action.

theories however would be things like evolution, psychology, relativity, big bang, alchemy, uniformatism overarching attempts at explaining the processes and trying to make a STORY to explain them without God, since God cannot be seen, or measured, or tested in anyway, scientists deliberately ignore Him and leave him out of the equation.

Now Christians believe since God created these laws he also is free to break them, (actually in essence, speed them up) hence, miracles. He also is outside of time, so He can do this. God is Spirit. Science ignores spirit, so ignores God. That is where science falls down, and why science can never come to the truth. It is always seeking, but never finding. If there is a new finding it will always lead to more questions. Like the atom once found, scientists looked into smaller and smaller parts of it. Or the universe, scientists will continue looking further and further into space. Or geology, digging deeper and deeper into earth. Or classifying animals and plants, species will always be looked for. It is a never ending quest, an all consuming hobby. You might decide to count all the grains of sand. One day you may think yes I've counted them all! You may present your figures to the world and pat yourself on the back. Finally! But the next day you'll find you missed some.

There is nothing wrong with teaching biblical creationism as history. People are free to believe what they like about history. We can't all trust that all history is true, but we trust what is documented, and the Bible is as well documented and preserved as any other written document . If you have something against the Bible, then that is your problem, with the content, not the actually history of it. Other creation histories are not as well doscumented or as influential as the Genesis account. If one doesn't have the knowledge of Genesis then it will be difficult to teach the rest of history because much of Western civlisation is grounded in this belief, and it is also good so you can see WHY there is a controversy between evolution and creationism. If you only teach evolution, or worse, present it as fact, then your students won't be able to grasp why Darwin's ideas were so controversial, or why nobody ever thought of evolution before Darwin. If evolution was so obvious, it would be apparent to us.

It's not hard to teach creationism - just have your students read the first few chapters of Genesis. Don't be so up in arms about people reading (gasp!) the Bible. Those who can learn from it, will, and the truth will be revealed to them. Those who don't, won't.

 

[Tomatoman]

Goodbook:

and it is also good so you can see WHY there is a controversy between evolution and creationism.

There is no controversy between evolution and creationism except in certain backward parts of america. Everywhere that matters accepts evolution. There is no dispute. The argument ended over a hundred years ago. The reason a lot of us post here is out of sheer astonishment that there are parts of the world so ignorant that they still think there is a controversy.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Science is basically experimenting, observing and testing the evidence against the laws of nature, that God created.
So things like chemistry, physics and biology and geology would be science. This would be chemical equations and reactions, molecular makeup, looking at chromosomes and traits, calculating forces, observing the movements and interactions of earth and sea. All things God who is the prime mover originally created and puts into action.

Allegedly. Science doesn't start from the a priori position that God exists and that God set these things up. It only seeks to describe them, to acquire knowledge - whether they're from God or not is an unanswered question, and is potentially unanswerable.

theories however would be things like evolution, psychology, relativity, big bang, alchemy, uniformatism overarching attempts at explaining the processes and trying to make a STORY to explain them without God, since God cannot be seen, or measured, or tested in anyway, scientists deliberately ignore Him and leave him out of the equation.

Not really - science settles on the most parsimonious, most well-evidenced explanation for phenomena. There's nothing to prevent God from being that explanation - it's just that he isn't. There's no phenomenon in the known universe that is best explained by God.

Thunder is best explained as static discharge, not 'God's wrath'.
Tides are best explained as the Moon's gravitational pull, not 'Posiden's breathing'.
The sheer fact that these things are best explained by wholly natural phenomena just reflects the fact that they are wholly natural phenomena. It's not a comment on a giant scientific conspiracy to hush up religious explanations; rather, there's simply no religious or divine explanation that has the level of substantiation that natural counterparts do.

Evolution, psychology, general relativity, and the Big Bang theory, are established scientific fields and phenomena. Uniformitarianism and alchemy are discredited ideas of the past.

Now Christians believe since God created these laws he also is free to break them, (actually in essence, speed them up) hence, miracles. He also is outside of time, so He can do this. God is Spirit.

Agreed, that is indeed what a lot of Christians believe.

Science ignores spirit, so ignores God. That is where science falls down, and why science can never come to the truth. It is always seeking, but never finding. If there is a new finding it will always lead to more questions. Like the atom once found, scientists looked into smaller and smaller parts of it. Or the universe, scientists will continue looking further and further into space. Or geology, digging deeper and deeper into earth. Or classifying animals and plants, species will always be looked for. It is a never ending quest, an all consuming hobby. You might decide to count all the grains of sand. One day you may think yes I've counted them all! You may present your figures to the world and pat yourself on the back. Finally! But the next day you'll find you missed some.

Yes! And that is the wonder of science: there is always more to learn, always new things to discover and new information to be acquired.

Science makes no explicit exclusion of supernatural or spiritual things. It's simply that there's no evidence whatsoever that things like spirits or souls or ghosts or goblins actually exist. And if there's no evidence, then even if they do exist, why should we concern ourselves with them? They evidently don't affect the real world in any way.

There is nothing wrong with teaching biblical creationism as history. People are free to believe what they like about history. We can't all trust that all history is true, but we trust what is documented, and the Bible is as well documented and preserved as any other written document . If you have something against the Bible, then that is your problem, with the content, not the actually history of it. Other creation histories are not as well doscumented or as influential as the Genesis account.

And that is a claim which is not supported by the experts and scholars of history. And there very much is something wrong with teaching Biblical Creationism in the history classroom - it's not history. The established consensus in science and history is that the literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong. Why, then, should we teach it as if it's not?

If one doesn't have the knowledge of Genesis then it will be difficult to teach the rest of history because much of Western civlisation is grounded in this belief, and it is also good so you can see WHY there is a controversy between evolution and creationism. If you only teach evolution, or worse, present it as fact, then your students won't be able to grasp why Darwin's ideas were so controversial, or why nobody ever thought of evolution before Darwin. If evolution was so obvious, it would be apparent to us.

Evolution isn't obvious, and the evidence could only be accrued in sufficient amounts with the advent of the scientific and industrial revolution. Evolution is an established scientific fact and theory, and should be taught as such in science. It is a gross waste of time to teach every alternative to evolution in the science classroom.

It's not hard to teach creationism - just have your students read the first few chapters of Genesis. Don't be so up in arms about people reading (gasp!) the Bible. Those who can learn from it, will, and the truth will be revealed to them. Those who don't, won't.

Tell me, would you be up in arms if people taught the Qu'ran as a literal, historical account? Would you be up in arms if public schools preached from the Vedic texts of Hinduism, instructing students to honour and respect cows and to eschew meat? Of course you were, for exactly the same reason we'd be up in arms if teachers started preaching from the Bible.

 

[Cabal]

Science is basically experimenting, observing and testing the evidence against the laws of nature, that God created.
So things like chemistry, physics and biology and geology would be science. This would be chemical equations and reactions, molecular makeup, looking at chromosomes and traits, calculating forces, observing the movements and interactions of earth and sea. All things God who is the prime mover originally created and puts into action.

As already pointed out, science does not operate on the assumption that God or any supernatural agent is involved. The fact that it's managed to explain so much more than religion, which appeals to supernatural agents at every opportunity, speaks volumes.

theories however would be things like evolution, psychology, relativity, big bang, alchemy, uniformatism overarching attempts at explaining the processes and trying to make a STORY to explain them without God, since God cannot be seen, or measured, or tested in anyway, scientists deliberately ignore Him and leave him out of the equation.

"Science is basically experimenting, observing and testing the evidence "

Nope, all of the above (with the possible exception of alchemy, although modern chemistry did grow out of it) are science according to your definition - there have been plenty of experiments involving the above and the evidence checks out.

Now Christians believe since God created these laws he also is free to break them, (actually in essence, speed them up) hence, miracles. He also is outside of time, so He can do this. God is Spirit. Science ignores spirit, so ignores God. That is where science falls down, and why science can never come to the truth. It is always seeking, but never finding.

Well you just said that God cannot be seen, or measured, or tested, so it's hardly "ignoring" God if he doesn't want to be seen, now is it? It's more like that God is ignoring us - but then Yahweh does come across as not being that serious on the whole wanting to save people thing.

That said, if you think God can engage with the laws to perform miracles, then that IS something that would be observable scientifically - you can't have both miracles and a God that can't be tested.

If there is a new finding it will always lead to more questions. Like the atom once found, scientists looked into smaller and smaller parts of it. Or the universe, scientists will continue looking further and further into space. Or geology, digging deeper and deeper into earth. Or classifying animals and plants, species will always be looked for. It is a never ending quest, an all consuming hobby. You might decide to count all the grains of sand. One day you may think yes I've counted them all! You may present your figures to the world and pat yourself on the back. Finally! But the next day you'll find you missed some.

I love this one. More questions does not mean your level of knowledge has decreased, it means that your knowledge of your level of knowledge has changed.

There is nothing wrong with teaching biblical creationism as history.

Except that it isn't?

People are free to believe what they like about history. We can't all trust that all history is true, but we trust what is documented, and the Bible is as well documented and preserved as any other written document .

If you trust what is documented, then why don't you worship the Greek pantheon, as documented by Hesiod in the Theogony?

If you have something against the Bible, then that is your problem, with the content, not the actually history of it.

Er....its content is a claim ABOUT history - so having a problem with the content IMPLIES having a problem with the history too.

Logic 101, honey.

Other creation histories are not as well doscumented or as influential as the Genesis account.

Neither of which are compelling arguments for believing in it.

If one doesn't have the knowledge of Genesis then it will be difficult to teach the rest of history because much of Western civlisation is grounded in this belief, and it is also good so you can see WHY there is a controversy between evolution and creationism.

That's nice.

Keeping slaves was also a pretty big part of Western civilisation - so what? What has that got to do with scientific fact?

If you only teach evolution, or worse, present it as fact, then your students won't be able to grasp why Darwin's ideas were so controversial, or why nobody ever thought of evolution before Darwin. If evolution was so obvious, it would be apparent to us.

You keep appealing to these incredibly naive arguments. Scientific theories are nearly always presented with evidence. What's not to grasp? People's response to a theory is irrelevant to its validity, as is when it was discovered. Hindsight is 20:20, as they say.

It's not hard to teach creationism - just have your students read the first few chapters of Genesis. Don't be so up in arms about people reading (gasp!) the Bible.

That's essentially preaching, so people will get up in arms about it.

And if you do this in the public schools, then every believers of every creation myth will want their story to be heard - Muslims, Hindus, Satanists etc.Creationists need to be careful what they wish for.

Those who can learn from it, will, and the truth will be revealed to them. Those who don't, won't.

Those who can think will ignore it, in other words.

 

[Greg1234]

As already pointed out, science does not operate on the assumption that God or any supernatural agent is involved. The fact that it's managed to explain so much more than religion, which appeals to supernatural agents at every opportunity, speaks volumes.

If it's repeatable and observable through testing, then by definition it is science. Science speaks on its own. Theres no reason for a molecular biologist (who appeals to molecules) ask a telescopic astronomer for permission to make protein synthesis science. Science doesn't start with a priori or assumption as science doesn't think. It is unbiased and objective and "if it fits, it ships". You are mistaking materialistic integration for pure science and believing that overcoming the bias instilled in physical scientists is a requirement.

"Science is basically experimenting, observing and testing the evidence "

Nope, all of the above (with the possible exception of alchemy, although modern chemistry did grow out of it) are science according to your definition - there have been plenty of experiments involving the above and the evidence checks out.



Well you just said that God cannot be seen, or measured, or tested, so it's hardly "ignoring" God if he doesn't want to be seen, now is it? It's more like that God is ignoring us - but then Yahweh does come across as not being that serious on the whole wanting to save people thing.

That said, if you think God can engage with the laws to perform miracles, then that IS something that would be observable scientifically - you can't have both miracles and a God that can't be tested.



I love this one. More questions does not mean your level of knowledge has decreased, it means that your knowledge of your level of knowledge has changed.



Except that it isn't?

If you trust what is documented, then why don't you worship the Greek pantheon, as documented by Hesiod in the Theogony?

By the by you would first need to explain your point of view of the gods and why you think refinement means exclusion.

Er....its content is a claim ABOUT history - so having a problem with the content IMPLIES having a problem with the history too.

Logic 101, honey.



Neither of which are compelling arguments for believing in it.



That's nice.

Keeping slaves was also a pretty big part of Western civilisation - so what? What has that got to do with scientific fact?



You keep appealing to these incredibly naive arguments. Scientific theories are nearly always presented with evidence. What's not to grasp? People's response to a theory is irrelevant to its validity, as is when it was discovered. Hindsight is 20:20, as they say.



That's essentially preaching, so people will get up in arms about it.

And if you do this in the public schools, then every believers of every creation myth will want their story to be heard - Muslims, Hindus, Satanists etc.Creationists need to be careful what they wish for.



Those who can think will ignore it, in other words.

 

[Cabal]

If it's repeatable and observable through testing, then by definition it is science. Science speaks on its own.

You're forgetting something important, a hypothesis and a logical analysis of what is observed. Observation and repetition are part of the package, but not all of it.

Science doesn't start with a priori or assumption as science doesn't think. It is unbiased and objective and "if it fits, it ships".

Right, like I said, it doesn't operate on an assumption, which is what the insertion of deities always ends up being.

You are mistaking materialistic integration for pure science and believing that overcoming the bias instilled in physical scientists is a requirement.

Not at all, I am against bias, which is why I disagree with IDists and YECists insisting that their deity be arbitrarily inserted into the mix.

By the by you would first need to explain your point of view of the gods and why you think refinement means exclusion.

Not at all - I'm just responding to a rather blanket statement that "documented=trustworthy" when very obviously the person I was responding doesn't think all documentation is trustworthy - she's a believer in one ancient text-only religion, to the exclusion of all others.

 

[Greg1234]

You're forgetting something important, a hypothesis and a logical analysis of what is observed. Observation and repetition are part of the package, but not all of it.

Logical analysis is a loaded term.

Right, like I said, it doesn't operate on an assumption, which is what the insertion of deities always ends up being.

We don't insert anything. It is objectively there. If you think that it's different then try providing evidence for magnetic fields without assuming that magnetic fields are there.

 

[Cabal]

Logical analysis is a loaded term.

Not hardly - it's a system that everyone uses - and I don't for one second believe that YECists and IDists don't abide by it for the most part, otherwise they wouldn't be able to dress themselves in the morning.

We don't insert anything. It is objectively there.

Rubbish. Even if it were, there is no way of determining the action of one deity acting from another.

If you think that it's different then try providing evidence for magnetic fields without assuming that magnetic fields are there.

In other quarters of the internet, asking how magnets work is a surefire sign of trolling.....

There's an observable force on charged objects in the presence of certain sources, with a different magnitude at every point in space - this fits the classic definition of a force field (hence the name).

Simple. Any other questions from the back of the class?

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

LOL pwned.

Quick Greg compare logical analysis to a fan becoming a F1 car!

 

[Greg1234]

Not hardly - it's a system that everyone uses - and I don't for one second believe that YECists and IDists don't abide by it for the most part, otherwise they wouldn't be able to dress themselves in the morning.

Of course everyone uses it. By that's just the thing. You've heard it before under "same evidence, different interpretations" or "same science, different logical analyses".

Rubbish. Even if it were, there is no way of determining the action of one deity acting from another.

There's no need.

In other quarters of the internet, asking how magnets work is a surefire sign of trolling.....

No, we're actually doing this.

There's an observable force on charged objects in the presence of certain sources, with a different magnitude at every point in space - this fits the classic definition of a force field (hence the name).

Yes, the effect of that force is observable, but you are assuming that there is an invisible force in the first place. Do you believe in fairies too? This is simply a future visible process.

 

[Cabal]

Of course everyone uses it. By that's just the thing. You've heard it before under "same evidence, different interpretations" or "same science, different logical analyses".

One interpretation or analysis ends up being the illogical one - always the one where Yahweh is inserted in.

There's no need.

There is if you want people to actually think it's your God doing the business as you obviously do.

No, we're actually doing this.

You're actually trolling? I can believe that.

Yes, the effect of that force is observable, but you are assuming that there is a force in the first place.

If you can see a mass accelerating, diddums, there's a force - that's what a force is defined as - it's defined entirely through observables, no assumption required. Go back to school and rejoin the conversation when you know the basics of what you think you know better than.

Do you believe in fairies too? This is simply a future visible process.

No, I don't believe in fairies - there is as little evidence for them as there is for your God, i.e. none.

 

[mzungu]

Science is basically experimenting, observing and testing the evidence against the laws of nature, that God created.
So things like chemistry, physics and biology and geology would be science. This would be chemical equations and reactions, molecular makeup, looking at chromosomes and traits, calculating forces, observing the movements and interactions of earth and sea. All things God who is the prime mover originally created and puts into action.

theories however would be things like evolution, psychology, relativity, big bang, alchemy, uniformatism overarching attempts at explaining the processes and trying to make a STORY to explain them without God, since God cannot be seen, or measured, or tested in anyway, scientists deliberately ignore Him and leave him out of the equation.

You really have no idea what the word THEORY in science means!

The Atomic theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution are not speculation. The word "Theory" in science means that Theory is the explanation of the facts. A theory explains what the evidences mean.

Without ToE; Biology makes absolutely no sense. Without Chemistry, Biology is not possible. Without the atomic theory chemistry makes no sense.

If you want to make things up and call them science then all I can say is that what you say is as close to science as Cartoon physics is to real physics.




scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"big bang theory, big-bang theory - (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature
nebular hypothesis - (cosmology) the theory that the solar system evolved from a hot gaseous nebula
planetesimal hypothesis - (cosmology) the theory that the solar system was formed by the gravitational accumulation of planetesimals
continuous creation theory, steady state theory - (cosmology) the theory that the universe maintains a constant average density with matter created to fill the void left by galaxies that are receding from each other; "the steady state theory has been abandoned in favor of the big bang theory"
theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
gravitational theory, Newton's theory of gravitation, theory of gravitation, theory of gravity - (physics) the theory that any two particles of matter attract one another with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them
organicism - theory that the total organization of an organism rather than the functioning of individual organs is the determinant of life processes
science, scientific discipline - a particular branch of scientific knowledge; "the science of genetics"
atomic theory - a theory of the structure of the atom
cell doctrine, cell theory - (biology) the theory that cells form the fundamental structural and functional units of all living organisms; proposed in 1838 by Matthias Schleiden and by Theodor Schwann
undulatory theory, wave theory, wave theory of light - (physics) the theory that light is transmitted as waves
corpuscular theory, corpuscular theory of light - (physics) the theory that light is transmitted as a stream of particles
kinetic theory, kinetic theory of gases - (physics) a theory that gases consist of small particles in random motion
Einstein's theory of relativity, relativity, relativity theory, theory of relativity - (physics) the theory that space and time are relative concepts rather than absolute concepts
supersymmetry - (physics) a theory that tries to link the four fundamental forces; "according to supersymmetry each force emerged separately during the big bang"
quantum theory - (physics) a physical theory that certain properties occur only in discrete amounts (quanta)
indeterminacy principle, uncertainty principle - (quantum theory) the theory that it is impossible to measure both energy and time (or position and momentum) completely accurately at the same time
germ theory - (medicine) the theory that all contagious diseases are caused by microorganisms
information theory - (computer science) a statistical theory dealing with the limits and efficiency of information processing
Arrhenius theory of dissociation, theory of dissociation, theory of electrolytic dissociation - (chemistry) theory that describes aqueous solutions in terms of acids (which dissociate to give hydrogen ions) and bases (which dissociate to give hydroxyl ions); the product of an acid and a base is a salt and water
evolutionism, theory of evolution, theory of organic evolution - (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals
Ostwald's theory of indicators, theory of indicators - (chemistry) the theory that all indicators are either weak acids or weak bases in which the color of the ionized form is different from the color before dissociation
theory of inheritance - (biology) a theory of how characteristics of one generation are derived from earlier generations
association theory, associationism - (psychology) a theory that association is the basic principle of mental activity
atomism - (psychology) a theory that reduces all mental phenomena to simple elements (sensations and feelings) that form complex ideas by association
functionalism - a psychology based on the assumption that all mental process are useful to an organism in adapting to the environment
configurationism, Gestalt psychology - (psychology) a theory of psychology that emphasizes the importance of configurational properties

 

[Greg1234]

One interpretation or analysis ends up being the illogical one -

Right now you're so far from science it's ridiculous. But that was the point

If you can see a mass accelerating, diddums, there's a force - that's what a force is defined as - it's defined entirely through observables, no assumption required.

So you used the effect to define the cause? Is that what you're saying? Don't we first have to discover magnetic fields before we include them in science as a cause?

No, I don't believe in fairies - there is as little evidence for them as there is for your God, i.e. none.

Don't forget your magnetic fields. You and your future visible processes.