Creationism in science classes

[Glenski]

all I really want is for there to be other views presented.

Fine, good. Show me another view that isn't based in religion, so we don't have to dissolve the ACLU and rip up the Constitution.

Creationism shouldn't be taught in science class because it is not science.

Then, you mean it to be a religious course, which is automatically prohibited from school. Glad we got that straight.

I believe I already said this in a previous post. Maybe they should be presented in a "world religions" class or something.

Try your local community college or university for such an elective. Or join the divinity school for an interesting course or two on related matters. They must have a real hoot in those!

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.

And, not to stray too far off-topic, but I have seen the wrongs in Christian teachings that have slaughtered millions of scientists for their views.

Tit for tat. Christians are not as innocent as you might want to make their "one truth" out to be. Besides, "one truth"? Ahem, we're back to religious wars again.

Ok, back on topic.

 

[grapefruit]

all I really want is for there to be other views presented.

Fine, good. Show me another view that isn't based in religion, so we don't have to dissolve the ACLU and rip up the Constitution.

Scientists show different views all the time. Indeed, that is the point of science. Without the competition of hypotheses, science does not advance. The purpose of science education is the process, it is not about facts because what are taught as facts will be changed within a decade or so as more new findings disprove the previous "facts."

 

[Half-n-Half]

Scientists show different views all the time. Indeed, that is the point of science. Without the competition of hypotheses, science does not advance. The purpose of science education is the process, it is not about facts because what are taught as facts will be changed within a decade or so as more new findings disprove the previous "facts."

I think what Glenski was trying to say is that any alternative to evolution or other scientific theories could not be grounded in religion. If they did have a strong religious basis then that would violate the separation of church and state.

However, you will be hard pressed to find a scientist who shows an alternative to evolution. The purpose of science education in high school and below (which, by the way, is the arena this argument is based in) is primarily fact learning. Yes, students are taught what the scientific method is, but they are hardly taught about what theories are and peer review. Most forget anyways 'cuz they frankly don't care.

New findings don't necessarily disprove previous facts. They usually build upon them, enhance them, or alter them. Usually a theory is formulated based upon previous "facts" and then is tested.

 

[Glenski]

Science IS about facts. They just happen to be the currently known or agreed upon ones. Science HISTORY is about the changing views in those facts and how we got there.

Science is also about the scientific method, trying to train people to learn how to get those facts.

I love Robert Heinlein's quote (the bold underlined emphasis is mine just for this thread):
"What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars fortell", avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!"

 

[grapefruit]

However, you will be hard pressed to find a scientist who shows an alternative to evolution. The purpose of science education in high school and below (which, by the way, is the arena this argument is based in) is primarily fact learning. Yes, students are taught what the scientific method is, but they are hardly taught about what theories are and peer review. Most forget anyways 'cuz they frankly don't care.
New findings don't necessarily disprove previous facts. They usually build upon them, enhance them, or alter them. Usually a theory is formulated based upon previous "facts" and then is tested.

It is true that science education often falls short of teaching the method. But the ideal is to teach how to make a hypothesis and find evidence that supports or refutes it. It is also true that most advances in science hinge on a collection of theories that have not been disproved. Once in a while though, new findings shatter previous theories like Einstein's relativity, the theory of continental drift, and yes the theory of evolution. But this does not mean that evolution is a fact. It is still a theory. No science teacher should teach it as a fact. It is different from mathematics. If some religious thought points out evidence that disproves evolution, then the theory will be replaced. If that religious thought can undermine what the theory of evolution predicts, then evolution will be reduced to a hypothesis.

 

[grapefruit]

Science IS about facts. They just happen to be the currently known or agreed upon ones. Science HISTORY is about the changing views in those facts and how we got there.

Science is also about the scientific method, trying to train people to learn how to get those facts.

Where did you learn that science is about facts? No scientists would claim that. Currently known or agreed upon ideas do not constitute facts. Science history is about how different ideas have competed.

 

[Glenski]

Where did you learn that science is about facts? No scientists would claim that.

You're talking to one. Ahem!

Currently known or agreed upon ideas do not constitute facts.

Let's not be pedantic here.

It is true that science education often falls short of teaching the method. But the ideal is to teach how to make a hypothesis and find evidence that supports or refutes it. It is also true that most advances in science hinge on a collection of theories that have not been disproved. Once in a while though, new findings shatter previous theories like Einstein's relativity, the theory of continental drift, and yes the theory of evolution. But this does not mean that evolution is a fact. It is still a theory.

Nobody here is saying it is a fact. Who told you it was?

No science teacher should teach it as a fact.

As far as I know, nobody does. Maybe you had a bad teacher, or you just didn't listen properly in class... just a couple of theories, though.

 

[Mycernius]

Once again there is a mistake being made about the word theory. Tsuyoiko put up a definition of Scienctific theory and also a link to the word theory on post #28. Please check before banging on about theories again, mainly because it starts to get repetative if it keeps appearing every one or two pages and someone has to restate the meanings, again.
It might be easier if it happens to come up again to put see post #28 rather than repeat what has already been said.

 

[Kinsao]

I think it's crazy that creationism be taught as science!

As for religion and science... to me, science explains how things work... if there is a god, that doesn't create any problem for me. So what if the earth orbits the sun and gravity causes things to fall downwards and life evolved and p=ixv and everything? Those things prove themselves as facts... or rather they can be proved (not sure I'm saying it the right way). Anyway, if one believes there is such a thing as 'spirit', that doesn't make scientific facts to stop becoming facts. @.@ You can demonstrate these things by x, y and z. And maybe one day it will be able to be proved "This is what is God!" or "This is how life began!" or "This is how the earth was made... and the stuff that existed before the earth!" or "This was the beginning of time!"... and maybe that is what we in our currently primitive state of knowledge think of as knowing god...? like, we will one day achieve that, actually it's what scientists are striving for, people say knowledge like that would 'kill' god, perhaps? I don't know, but I really don't understand what all the fuss is about from the religious perspective @.@ I don't see science as being any kind of 'threat' to spirituality, on the contrary it is great stuff.

 

[Anohito]

Here is another excellent resource for dealing with Creationists and their apologists:

Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution"

Their are many useful sections in the above site.

By the way, over the years I have seen Creationists, et al., repeat the same bogus arguments time after time after time, even in the context of the same (ahem) "discussion". I concluded years ago that they don't really care that their so-called "arguments" do not conform to objective reality. All that matters to them is Theological Correctness/Ideological Soundness.

 

[Glenski]

Excellent site, Anohito!

As for this,

maybe that is what we in our currently primitive state of knowledge think of as knowing god...? like, we will one day achieve that, actually it's what scientists are striving for, people say knowledge like that would 'kill' god, perhaps? I don't know,

...may I tongue-in-cheek direct you to a short story by Arthur C. Clarke called The Nine Billion Names of God?

 

[Half-n-Half]

...may I tongue-in-cheek direct you to a short story by Arthur C. Clarke called The Nine Billion Names of God?

Ooh! Ooh! Another good one to look up is "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov. The Multivac is in it, where I got my title under my name from.

The Last Question -- Isaac Asimov

 

[Kinsao]

Hehe, thanks for recommendations guys!

 

[Amigo]

The Qu'ran is a re-written version of christian and Jewish scripture, with pre-islamic myth thrown in. The Bible OT is Jewish and the NT is a mixture of mainly Pauls opinions and mixed versions of the cult of Mithras, Sol Invictus and a number of other myths. the Jewish scripture is a mixture of pre-jewish myths, Sumerian, Mesopotanian, Babylonian, Egyptian myths.

I couldn't agree more

 

[Revenant]

By the way, over the years I have seen Creationists, et al., repeat the same bogus arguments time after time after time, even in the context of the same (ahem) "discussion". I concluded years ago that they don't really care that their so-called "arguments" do not conform to objective reality. All that matters to them is Theological Correctness/Ideological Soundness.

It was actually getting into apologetics that completely changed my belief system. I was at first an Evangelical Fundamental Christian (raised in a Seventh Day Adventist home), then after some debate I moved from Fundamental to Liberal, and after more debate I became agnostic, but would categorize myself as a Secularist.

I don't think a lot of people here would know how stressful it is losing everything one believed in. I turned over the questions I got on the net trying to find an objective answer to give as apologia. I tried looking at them in different ways, but I finally concluded that my faith couldn't be correct.

I think other Creationists aren't as objective as I am, and perhaps the paradigms Christianity brings them provides so much comfort or security that they would never even consider challenging those beliefs. I argue that people are after all after happiness. Everyone is wired just a bit differently, and part may be our incredible ability to rationalize our beliefs and actions (that's an entire topic unto intself, but 'The Moral Animal' is a great introductory book).

 

[Sasuke17]

Creation vs Science Evolution

Well my thoughts are this:
Science is based on theory. We all know theories are just someone's best guess. Some science's use experiments & tests to prove there theories, but evolution can't be proved. So you will always have people on both sides to argue the point. I don't believe that people who believe in God are radicals or have anything wrong with them. Ask yourself, who other than a God or The God could have put the world in such perfect order? Nature itself is perfect. Each plant using its eviroment to thrive. There is an order to things, that are God given. They cannot be explained. That is the whole beauty of it. You don't have to know all the why's, just that it is.
Also, I want to add, you can never lose all that you have, what you have are things, but they are not you. You will still be who you are without anything at all. This I know from experience, as I was once homeless, and had to make it with the clothes on my back. It can be done. It is extremely hard, but you will find out who you really are in a crisis.

 

[Glenski]

Sasuke,
You have a very poor understanding of what science is about.

"Best guess" is trivializing intelligent research.

Evolution has been proven. Live with that.

You only have to accept/believe on your own merit whether some god started it all, or whether it happened spontaneously. That's your personal religion.

There is an order to things, that are God given. They cannot be explained.

This is the typical cop-out of someone who doesn't really see science for what it is, and who only believes in their religion as the so-called explanation of everything. I write "so-called" because of the ironic way you put it above -- "cannot be explained". You just took yourself out of the debate with that remark. Nice dodge.

But this is off-topic, isn't is, moderators?

 

[Sasuke17]

Evolution

You know what I don't understand is, the hostility I am getting from you.
Why can't someone debate a topic, & have an inteligent exchange of words?
I love science. It has great benefits, but it is not the answer to all the questions. Don't be so close minded & mad. Open your mind to a real debate.
Or do you just want to talk to only those with your opinion?

 

[grapefruit]

Well my thoughts are this:
Science is based on theory. We all know theories are just someone's best guess. Some science's use experiments & tests to prove there theories, but evolution can't be proved. So you will always have people on both sides to argue the point.

I agree. Evolution cannot be tested in strict sense. So are other fields of science such as geology.

Ask yourself, who other than a God or The God could have put the world in such perfect order? Nature itself is perfect.

Well i'm not sure about your word "perfect." It depends on how you see the world and nature. I see lots of imperfect things in the world.

Each plant using its eviroment to thrive.

Or, you could say the plants which fail to use their environments die off.

There is an order to things, that are God given.

There are tons of disorders to things, so those must not be God given.

They cannot be explained. That is the whole beauty of it. You don't have to know all the why's, just that it is.

Isn't it more like "because we cannot explain why, so don't ask why's"?

I love science. It has great benefits, but it is not the answer to all the questions.

Nobody who knows what science is says that science is the answer to all questions.

 

[Ashikaga]

This thread is about "Creationism in Science Classes".

As we have witnessed, there is no end to this so-called "debate" on whether God/s has anything to do with how the world as we know it came to be. Whether you believe it did or you don't. How could there be a debate if one side's answer to any question that cannot be answered by today's science is "If it cannot be explained/proven, it must be God's work."?

I am pretty sure there have been more than one thread dedicated to the issue containing endless exchanges of "Uh huh"s & "Nuh uh"s.

Here, on this thread, we are to discuss if such subject matter should be taught in science classes.

 

[Glenski]

Here, on this thread, we are to discuss if such subject matter should be taught in science classes.

And, in my honest opinion, such a thread will always go nowhere because there will always be the religious types who say yes for no "explained" reasons, vs. the scientific types who say no on scientific merit.

I've been on more than one of these threads on this and other forums. Same result.

At least the scientists have something more practical to say about their side of the debate. Religious types can only say that it should be there because science is bad or wrong, yet they cannot justify their own side other than to say that just because they believe in God, it must be so.

After a mere 3 pages of this thread (which I will not go back and reread), let me just ask those who say yes to the OP, can you give solid reasons why such subject matter should be taught in a science class? None of the above "uh huh" and "nuh uh" nonsense will be acceptable.

 

[Sasuke17]

I enjoyed your reply, and agree with most of it. Yes, I believe in God, but I have never tried to force my beliefs on others. I know there are some people who do, & they give all creationists a bad name. But, I believe the order & disorder of things, are in alignment for where they need to be, in this time. Even when things go bad, there is something to learn from that situation. I'm not saying we shouldn't ask, just that we never have all the answers. But, isn't that one of the things that make life interesting?

 

[Emoni]

As an atheist, and someone who holds science, proof, and a never ending search for knowledge, I am absolutely dumbfounded that creationists seem to believe that just giving a religious belief a new name and calling it science suddenly makes religious blind faith REAL science and fit for education and the classroom.

Intelligent design/creationism is not science, it is not provable, it is not testable, and is not a scientific argument. It is not a competing theory as it isn't even a theory. Theories require testing, proof, and an entire method of reasoning and logic that is explainable behind it. It isn't assuming there is some magic being that created everything "just cuz." Religion is not science and does not belong in the classroom. It is like saying that the existence of Thor or Zeus are competing and reasonable alternatives for why there is lightening.

You can believe what you will, you can believe in possible existence of divine powers and beings. Humans do not know everything, and we can only attempt to learn as much as possible. However, you cannot simply "make crap up" and say that it explains thing if you actually don't have real proof yet.

 

[Sasuke17]

First again, with the hostility. Not sure where this comes from? You can't force your beliefs on others. Also, I never said religion belongs in the classroom. I wouldn't expect it to be there, unless you were in a religious school. I think that science should be taught, it has great benefits. But, doesn't have all the answers, & that is what you are implying.
Theories are what they are, an educated guess, drawing conclusions. I can accept that, why can't we co-exist?
I get when you say you can't believe in a magic being, but for me, in my heart it feels 100% real. So, I have to go with my gut feeling, & you need to go with yours. The miracle of life is magic in itself. I am in awe of how we can even exist. Faith is just that believing in something you can't see. It is real for me, but I don't force my views on others, but love a good debate.

 

[Half-n-Half]

I don't think Emoni was directing any hostility towards you. His post was directly after yours, but I think he was addressing the issue as a whole. I could be wrong, however.

The miracle of life is magic in itself. I am in awe of how we can even exist.

Well, here is where I have to respectfully disagree. While it is true scientists do not know how life started and may never conclusively know, there are explanations for how life could have started, sans magic. It just takes a lot of time and simple chemical processes. After that evolution takes over.