Creationism in science classes

[vegitagojita]

they certainly are not equal fields. In many cases science contradicts religion so you can see how there are alot of people who have a problem accepting both. Some people are committed to their faith and they will not accept these contradictions and will side with their religion. Having an educator tell their young student that we decended from apes when they don't belive that is wrong. All I am saying here is that their approach is all wrong.

They never say things like "Many scientists believe..." or "Theoretically...". They say things like "Man is a decendent of an ape." I don't have a problem with kids being tested on "popular scientific ideas" because they should be known. There is a big difference between fact and theory.

 

[hideway]

Why should the state, which is (or at least should be by law) separated from religious influence, introduce religious preaching in public schools? Schools are meant to teach our children about our history and how to be productive on society. It shouldn't be a place for indoctrination.

@alantin: If you wish to believe that God created the world, you are free to, but you are NOT free to indoctrination children on that believe. Religion and science both serve different ends, and different in nature and ranges. Also, science is not a matter of faith, science is merely the analysis and interpretation of facts. Religion is often the interpretation and following of a book written long time ago. They are NOT the same. I can't understand why people could even possibly consider them to be close, let alone the same.

@vegitagojita: A teacher should teach what the education education ministry (government) tells him/her to. If one does not agree with the teachings, that one should quit and find another area or job.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Athiests believe that science is god.

Wrong. There are at least three kinds of atheist, but even if you mean only strong atheists, an atheist is just someone who has come to the conclusion that god does not exist. Although I guess a lot of atheists have a particular respect for Science, it's definitely possible to be even a strong atheist without having any special knowledge of or interest in Science. My father-in-law is a professed atheist who wouldn't know Science if it bit him on the arse. He has other reasons for reaching the conclusion that god doesn't exist.

Athiests proclaim that all of these poeple (most of the world) are all idiots who are ignorant to science and believe absurd things like creation.

This is a generalisation. I don't think Mycernius specifically forbid those in his guidelines for this forum, but I'll certainly suggest he adds it.

I was taught however that evolution is a THEORY. The problem with your argument is that you want all public schools to teach athiesm. They don't teach theories like evolution to be THEORIES. They say that it is fact and that is the way the world is.

It is requested in the guidelines for this forum that all posters should get their facts right and back them up with evidence. If you'd done that, you'd know that Evolution is a scientific theory, which is not the same thing as the way you've used the word 'theory' in your post.

As many of us have already pointed out countless times in this forum, when used scientifically, the word 'theory' has a particular technical meaning that is quite different from its everyday meaning:

Scientific theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Everyday use: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Definitions from Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions

As you can see, these two meanings are quite different. In the everyday sense, the word theory refers to an assumption based on limited information. In science, something like this would be called a hypothesis, and would be the basis for further testing. A scientific theory is quite the opposite: it is based on observation, experimentation and rational examination, resulting in so much evidence that it can be used to make predictions.

Here are a couple of articles on why it's incorrect to say evolution is 'just a theory':
mbdojo.com - mbdojo Resources and Information.
Definition of Scientific Theory

They never say things like "Many scientists believe..." or "Theoretically...". They say things like "Man is a decendent of an ape." I don't have a problem with kids being tested on "popular scientific ideas" because they should be known. There is a big difference between fact and theory.

Again, a scientific theory isn't something that 'many scientists believe'. It has nothing to do with belief. If it must be qualified, the correct phrase would be something like, 'overwhelming evidence exists in support of...' or 'many centuries of observation, experimentation and reasoning by hundreds of scientists has led to the conclusion that...'.

You're correct that there's a difference between fact and theory. A fact is just a statement that is known to be true by observation, such as 'humans share over 90% of their genes with chimpanzees'. A theory is an explanation of why certain facts are true, for example, 'humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor'.

This article has a quote from Stephen Jay Gould that explains it particularly well: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

It may be a bit pedantic, but I would be a bit disappointed if a science teacher really did say, "Man is a descendant of apes". Strictly speaking, it would be more correct to say that humans and apes share a common ancestor. But if you want to be really pedantic, humans actually are apes; humans, gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutan all belong to the family hominidae.

In conclusion Vegitagojita, I respectfully request that you read the guidelines for this forum before posting again Debates and discussions in this forum.

 

[alantin]

@alantin: If you wish to believe that God created the world, you are free to, but you are NOT free to indoctrination children on that believe. Religion and science both serve different ends, and different in nature and ranges.


I might say to you that if you wish to believe that world just came to be by itself, you are free to, but you are NOT free to indoctrinate children on that believe.

Just messing with you! Please, don't take offence!



There are things that science can not tell us and both opinnions are based on belief. As with the question of if there was a higher power involved in the beginning of the universe or not.
Find me evidence that there wasn't and I'll find you evidence that there was!


If you read my post again, you'll notice that I didn't say anything about indoctrination and hope people weren't in such a hurry to make assumption of what others think..
Please, ask for further explanation if in doubt of what the other person means!

Back in state school in religion classes I was thaught who Luther was and how he influenced the church, how Lutheran church was born, what the Catholic church is, what buddhism is, and who hindus are. Who Muhammad and muslims are. etc. etc.
I even had to make a presentation of Hare Krishna!

Do you think these things should not be thaugh in school?

I have been under the impression that you just misunderstood what I was trying to say but if you really think so, I must strongly disagree and ask; exactly how does ignorance of various ethnic and religious groups in the word contribute to the society?

School is for kids to learn how to get along in the world and to present them with information about various subjects. History, chemistry, math, religions, languages, social subjects, etc.

"This theory says this", "these people think this way", "research shows this", etc.
People should be let decide for themselves instead of telling them what to think and this is IMO also one function of the school. To help people grow in their thinking and reasoning.

 

[Annubis]

agency

I wasn't going to say anything because this kind of thread is not of my taste any longer.. .always going in circles... But vegitagojita inspired me.

recently I've been pondering string theory's 11th dimension and M-theory. I wonder if the membrane of m-theory could possibly be the membrane of a single cell on God's body.

In any case. In my highschool... it was a highschool which one must have had to audition so in which to study.. well... the funding was available to have various courses which ordinary highschools could not afford, like chaos and fractals theory and basic religion and mythologies classes. At that time unfortunately, I was focusing on other things like getting out of highschool and going to university, so I didn't take them all. I kinda regret it... But at least it was an option and my friends took those courses.

I think that putting all of the issues of science and riligion in one class is a bit difficult on a teacher, let alone the students... there is plainly too much to teach that vital information will be omitted.

In my opinion, it is due to lack of funding that the two subjects cannot be taught separately. If not, then it is another situation, where the rights and agency of humanity are taken away.

 

[alantin]

Wrong. There are at least three kinds of atheist, but even if you mean only strong atheists, an atheist is just someone who has come to the conclusion that god does not exist.

Well.. Atleast here, when someone gets obsessed about something (money, a girl, coffee), it is somewhat common to say that it has become a 'god' for him..

I don't think a figure of speach can be wrong..

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Well.. Atleast here, when someone gets obsessed about something (money, a girl, coffee), it is somewhat common to say that it has become a 'god' for him..

I don't think a figure of speach can be wrong..

Even if Vegitagojita meant it as a figure of speech, and I'm not sure that he did, it's still not the case that all atheists are obsessed with Science. I guess I fall into the category of atheists who came to that conclusion at least in part because of the evidence of Science, but I'm certainly not obsessed with Science. There are too many Russian novels still to read for me to be obsessed with Science

Anyway, sorry for getting off topic there Mycernius

In my opinion, it is due to lack of funding that the two subjects cannot be taught separately. If not, then it is another situation, where the rights and agency of humanity are taken away.

Dunno, they do a pretty good job of it in British schools at the moment. Science and Religious Studies are both mandatory subjects in the National Curriculum.

 

[alantin]

Even if Vegitagojita meant it as a figure of speech, and I'm not sure that he did, it's still not the case that all atheists are obsessed with Science.

Light generalisation!

 

[Glenski]

I feel like I must comment because I don't agree with alot of the things posted on this thread.

That is your prerogative and nobody should knock you for agreeing or disagreeing.
However...

Maybe it is because there are alot of athiests posting. Athiests believe that science is god.

No, they don't. They merely refuse to believe in the existence of God. Some atheists have nothing to do with science whatsoever.

Christians believe that that the God of Abraham is God, as do Muslims. There are alot of different people in the world that share a creationist view because of their faith.

Are you saying that all Christians believe in creationism? They don't. How about Muslims?

Who the hell do you all think you are to say that your view of the universe is the only correct one.

Ah, now, be careful with statements like that! They have started many a religious war (and if memory serves, haven't religious wars outnumbered and killed more people than any other sort of war?).
Some atheists seek scientific proof of things like the creation of the universe. Some don't give a rip or are totally ignorant of science.

I was taught however that evolution is a THEORY.

Good, because any good scientist today will STILL tell you that is what it is. However, it is the most commonly accepted theory. Therein lies the rub.

The problem with your argument is that you want all public schools to teach athiesm.

You can't teach disbelief in God. It's a personal thing. People don't want to teach such a thing anyway. They merely want religion out of the schools, as it has been dictated for many years. Know why?
To prevent religious wars, for one. Even minor ones like those representing differences of opinion.

They don't teach theories like evolution to be THEORIES. They say that it is fact and that is the way the world is.

Then why is it always referred to as the "theory of evolution"? You can't use the word theory in every sentence when you study it in school. It's mentioned right up front. Don't have such a thing in your school? Politely request it.
The problem comes when you have the Kansas BOE involved. Sheesh! Talk about saying something is fact and that is the way the world it!

Our world is better because of science but let's not step any anybodys toes here and tell people of faith (any faith) that they are idiots because they believe something different.

Just where would you draw the line at eliminating (read: censoring) what schools teach regarding genetics and evolution? I'm really curious about this one.

In many cases science contradicts religion so you can see how there are alot of people who have a problem accepting both.

And, then there are people like Einstein...

 

[Revenant]

I thought Einstein simply referred to the laws of the universe as God. I know he felt Buddhism was the one religion that he felt could mesh well with science.

As to the beginning of the universe, it is true that there's no way of knowing with much certainty how it all began, however the question arises, why should we start hypothosizinf supernatural beings creating the world when A, we have no evidence of a supernatural being, and B, natural explanations provide some viable hypothosises as to how we came about.

And then we might as well ask which of the thousands of gods available created the world, or if perhaps we haven't got the right god yet.

Dunno, seems much easier to accept the natural hypothosises for how we came about. Not romantic, but then science doesn't have romance as it's goals.

 

[Mycernius]

I feel like I must comment because I don't agree with alot of the things posted on this thread.

Another point of view is always refreshing

Maybe it is because there are alot of athiests posting.

I don't know about that. I have stated I am and Tsuyoiko has as well, as for the others they could be deists, pantheists, believe in a Spinoza god, so do not instantly jump to such conclusions.

Athiests believe that science is god.

Incorrect, science is science and is neutral on the subject. It is merely a tool for observing the world around us.

Christians believe that that the God of Abraham is God, as do Muslims. There are alot of different people in the world that share a creationist view because of their faith.

A generalisation. Could be classed a mixture between a Circumstantial Ad Hominem and a Hasty Generalisation

Athiests proclaim that all of these poeple (most of the world) are all idiots who are ignorant to science and believe absurd things like creation. Who the hell do you all think you are to say that your view of the universe is the only correct one.

Some might, but then again when you have people like Kent Hovind and Mike Haggard saying that they are speaking for all christians is it any wonder that some think that all christians are ignorant? Again you are generalising.
I should also point out that some of the discoveries of the nature of the universe came from religious people. Newton was a firm believer. Georges Lemaître was a Roman Catholic priest and he came up with the idea of the Big Bang.

I was NOT taught creationism in my science class because, just as many of you have stated, it is not science.

True and good for your school for doing so.

I was taught however that evolution is a THEORY.

Do not get scientific theory confused with the general term theory. Many a theist has tried to make that claim and fallen very hard. Tsuyoiko explained it very well with her link.

The problem with your argument is that you want all public schools to teach athiesm.

What do you want them to teach? How do you "teach" atheism, it isn't even a fixed system? Richard Dawkins once said that trying to organise atheists is like trying to herd cats.
I would like schools to teach religious tolerance, for children to be able to weigh the pros and cons of various religions and come to their own conclusions. Perhaps I am believing in a fantasy if that ever happens

They don't teach theories like evolution to be THEORIES. They say that it is fact and that is the way the world is.

Again see what a scientific theory is.

Our world is better because of science but let's not step any anybodys toes here and tell people of faith (any faith) that they are idiots because they believe something different.

No, we live that to the Fred Phelphs' of the world.

 

[alantin]

While it is true that lots of pretty bad atrocities have been commited in the name of religion, I would like to point out that the underlying motivations often seem to be much more down to earth.. Plain old greed for one!
Let's imagine a world where there was no religion. People would still wage war. They would just have other excuses for it and there are plenty.. That's what we have been doing throughout the history!

What confuses me here is that the subject is supposed to be "Creationism in science classes" but some people here seem to be wanting religion as a subject out of school alltogether..

It has become like a math teacher telling history teacher that history is out dated and only math should be teached in schools because it helps you solve mathemathical problems and history doesn't..

We have strayed from the subject a lot within the last 15 or so posts.. Probably due to my participation..

Off-topic forever!


Maybe it's just that people have too different standpoints about the subject.
I pretty much only have experience in how they teach in Finland.


Anyway. My opinnion on this:
Why not just teach math in math class and history in history class and be about it!


Addition:
Yes. Generalisations usually aren't helpful and having all kinds of nutjobs "representing" larger groups is good only for creating more conflicts..


@Mycernius

I would like schools to teach religious tolerance, for children to be able to weigh the pros and cons of various religions and come to their own conclusions. Perhaps I am believing in a fantasy if that ever happens

I'm with you in that fantasy world!

Our world is better because of science but let's not step any anybodys toes here and tell people of faith (any faith) that they are idiots because they believe something different.

No, we live that to the Fred Phelphs' of the world.

Or to most atheists I have met..
Just what I said about nutjobs!

You are a refreshing exeption in that list!

 

[Mycernius]

While it is true that lots of pretty bad atrocities have been commited in the name of religion, I would like to point out that the underlying motivations often seem to be much more down to earth.. Plain old greed for one!
Let's imagine a world where there was no religion. People would still wage war. They would just have other excuses for it and there are plenty.. That's what we have been doing throughout the history!

I agree, but it has been one of the prime motavations for getting people to do nasty things. We are a violent species after all.

We have strayed from the subject a lot within the last 15 or so posts.. Probably due to my participation..

Off-topic forever!

Naughty boy. Don't do it again

 

[Anohito]

[snip] Naughty boy. Don't do it again

In my considered opinion, that was far too bland a response to one of the posters who has been doing his/her worst to prove, as I said earlier, that it is probably impossible to have a serious discussion about Creationism/Intelligent design. The usual suspects have made this thread a farce, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Glenski]

We have strayed from the subject a lot within the last 15 or so posts

Anyway. My opinnion on this:
Why not just teach math in math class and history in history class and be about it!

Probably because some creationists see what they purport as a scientific means to explaining things...their religion.

 

[Half-n-Half]

They never say things like "Many scientists believe..."

It is more appropriately "most" scientists, something like 99.9 some odd % of scientists do.

or "Theoretically...". They say things like "Man is a decendent of an ape."

If you tell a high school student "theoretically" they will think it is just some unproven idea; nifty, but untested. Like many have posted before, the word "theory" in science is vastly different than its every-day usage. For example, you wouldn't deny the Theory of Gravity or the Cell Theory, would you? But they are "theories" nonetheless.

I don't have a problem with kids being tested on "popular scientific ideas" because they should be known. There is a big difference between fact and theory.

Evolution is hardly a "popular scientific idea." It is an observable intrinsic characteristic of life. Without evolution nothing in biology, medicine, etc. makes sense.

 

[vegitagojita]

I would like schools to teach religious tolerance, for children to be able to weigh the pros and cons of various religions and come to their own conclusions. Perhaps I am believing in a fantasy if that ever happens

I whole heartedly agree with you. All I want is for people do be able to decide for themselves. In America there is no State or federally mandated curriculum devoted to theology or religious studies. Thank you ACLU! You might be Jewish but could seriously see some truths in the Quran. You could be a Christian and learn a few things about inner peace from Buddhism. They might talk about other religions in history class but not their belief structure. To truly be a citizen of the world we need to stop living in a bubble.

 

[Glenski]

But, veg, you seem to espouse the bubble. You want people to believe in creationism, or at least to have it taught.

Can't do that and praise the ACLU at the same time.

 

[vegitagojita]

all I really want is for there to be other views presented. Creationism shouldn't be taught in science class because it is not science. I believe I already said this in a previous post. Maybe they should be presented in a "world religions" class or something.

I was being sarcastic when I said, "Thank you ACLU." because the ACLU is always telling people what they can and can't do.

 

[alantin]

In my considered opinion, that was far too bland a response to one of the posters who has been doing his/her worst to prove, as I said earlier, that it is probably impossible to have a serious discussion about Creationism/Intelligent design. The usual suspects have made this thread a farce, as far as I'm concerned.

Excuse me..

After your one post in the beginning of the thread about how impossible it is to have a serious discussion about Creationism/Intelligent Design because religious zealots come in, you call me "someone who has been doing his/her worst to prove what you said said earlier"..

What I have been saying is that science and religion should be kept in different class rooms and as different subjects.

You really haven't said anything on the subject so is your response to be understood the way that you disagree with me?



About forum posting, I would like to refer you to the excellent forum guidelines given by Mycernius.

You also should read about the fallacies in the Nizcor Projects pages.
The link is also found in Mycernius's guidelines. The parts about "appeal to redicule" and "personal attack" should be eye-opening for you..

Thank you!

 

[Anohito]

Excuse me..

After your one post in the beginning of the thread about how impossible it is to have a serious discussion about Creationism/Intelligent Design because religious zealots come in, you call me "someone who has been doing his/her worst to prove what you said said earlier"..

What I have been saying is that science and religion should be kept in different class rooms and as different subjects.

[snip]

My apologies for confusing you with one of the Creationists. In my defense, this thread itself has become a confused mish-mash.

My major point is that is simply not possible to have a "serious discussion" about Creationism/Intelligent Design, mainly because of the aggressive dishonesty of the religious zealots and their apologists. Consider their repeated use of the "Evolution is just a theory" charge. As far as I'm concerned, only a handful of religious hysterics would fail to realize how dishonest that charge is, and yet Creationists and their apologist persistently use it. Too many people seem unwilling to call the resolute dishonesty of the Creationists and their apologists exactly what it is. If that makes a a "bad person" in the eyes of "nice people", then so be it.

 

[Gackt21]

The bible claims there is one thruth and it is found in God not Science. I am a strict Christian who has seen the wrongs in Science when it is used to make you look like a sick person.

 

[Mycernius]

The bible claims there is one thruth and it is found in God not Science. I am a strict Christian who has seen the wrongs in Science when it is used to make you look like a sick person.

This isn't a thread about God, but about whether creationism should be taught in science classes. try and stay within the topic of the thread, Thank you.

Incidently Rev Professor Michael Reiss, who made the comment in the OP has been dismissed from his post over his comments.
See Here
I should also point out that it was an argument in the US about whether creationism should be taught in science classes that gave rise to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pasterfarianism.

 

[Revenant]

Gackt21, I'd love to hear your views, but this isn't the thread for it. Post a new thread would you?

 

[alantin]

@Anohito
Thanks for straightening it out!

Incidently Rev Professor Michael Reiss, who made the comment in the OP has been dismissed from his post over his comments.
See Here

Thanks for the article!

It seems that the whole thing was a result of a misinterpration..

He (Professor Reiss) claimed just "banging on" about natural selection would not lead devout Christian or Muslim children to change their beliefs, and said creationism should be treated as a "world view" rather than a misconception.

Ultimately, Reiss said, such children were unlikely to change their minds, but at least could be encouraged to view evolution as one way of understanding the universe.

Can't argue with this!

Prof Reiss insisted his comments, made at the British Association Festival of Science, had been misinterpreted and that he did not want creationism to be taught as a science, just discussed if pupils raised it.

Can definately agree to this! IMO it should be possible to discuss anything when a question arises!


I wonder if the actions of the Royal Society were very sound..
It is a great illustration of what preconseptions can do.

Anyway the man had to step down.

I liked what this Professor Lord Winston said in the article!