EvilForce said: "How do you teach about a higher power or God and not make it religious???
This is why creationism should be taught in church not science class."
That is a good point EvilForce, and I do not discount it entirely in the debate of what should be taught. Schools should not be used to proselytize for one competing philosophy over another (as the materialists are doing now). Rather, students should be made aware that the materialist view is but one view and that their is a competing view. They should also be aware that the evidence for on the subject is not as one-sided as they are now being taught. That can be taught without advancing a particular religion. Certainly honesty would require it , would it not?
Endless debate over teaching of Creationism in schools resolves issue
by Abaddon 59 Replies latest members adult
-
Forscher
-
drwtsn32
Evolution is a theory and it's taught as fact in school: at least it was in my schools.
Evolution is a theory, yes, but there are countless "facts" to back it up. Theory doesn't mean "guess." A scientific theory is a way to explain facts. Did you know gravity is also a scientific theory?
-
EvilForce
For...
It's a false argument. I have seen a school system try and "add" an alternative teaching to evolutionism. They tried to present the "creationist" side as balanced as they could. Guess what.... 6 or so church groups then started pushing to what NEEDED to be added to the creationism side. They bickered and fought and the entire thing got thrown out, and wait for it.... wait.... YES they blamed each other for the failure. Just like their stand on not teaching about condoms in sex ed class. Puleeze.... teach morality in church. Teach FACTS in school. -
Forscher
drwts32 said:
"Evolution is a theory, yes, but there are countless "facts" to back it up. Theory doesn't mean "guess." A scientific theory is a way to explain facts. Did you know gravity is also a scientific theory?"
Gravity is more than a theory, it is a force that we defy at our own risk. However, the explanations for it are in the realm of theory. I will not agrue that scientific theory is a way to explain facts. That does not mke it absolute truth! I remember a chemistry professor pointing out in class that the theories of stoichiometry that he explained to us were useful models that fit the observed phenomena, but that didn't mean that they were the absolute truth and end of the matter. And they were scientific models at that!
The dishonesty comes from saying that Darwinism is the ONLY scientific theory which fits the facts. It wasn't that long ago in the sceme of time that the earth-centric theory of the universe was considered the only scientifically acceptable theory. Those with differing views found themselves ridiculed and even persecuted. Have we learned so little in the intervening years that it is now acceptable to proclaim evolution as an unassailable truth and not allow any other theory to be considered? True, the RC church was behind the acceptance of the earth-centric view and the persecution of scientists who disagreed. But can it be said that the modern scientific community with its current leaders insistence on CONFORMITY of view, despite evidence to the contrary, is being any more enlightened than the scientific community of those times? Not from where I am sitting! -
EvilForce
Yes, because the church has been such a bastion of scientific study and research? From the Catholics to the Dubs they have railed against "ungodly" science spreading their demonic ways and their falsehoods. Yet they have had to tuck tail when the research overwhelmingly proved them wrong. The Dub's stand against vaccines for crying out loud. Just like the church now is railing against cloning.... 20 years from now they will see it as God's gift being able to use stem cells to grow new livers. Western religion has never had a history of enlightened research, so let's not delude ourselves on this. If it was up to the church we would still be thinking the universe revolved around the Earth, and that it was flat. If Western Religion got a grade in science class it would be an " F ".
-
drwtsn32
Gravity is more than a theory, it is a force that we defy at our own risk. However, the explanations for it are in the realm of theory.
Yes, gravity is something no one denies. It was used primarily as an example that people shouldn't interpret the scientific word "theory" for "guess."
I will not agrue that scientific theory is a way to explain facts. That does not mke it absolute truth!
I couldn't agree more. In fact are there *any* absolute truths in science? I doubt it. Evidence could later be found that doesn't fit with a current theory. The theory will have to be adjusted to fit the new evidence (and all prior evidence).
The dishonesty comes from saying that Darwinism is the ONLY scientific theory which fits the facts.
Other theories about the diversity of life have been analyzed and dismissed. Darwin's theory of natural selection fits beautifully with the evidence around us.
It wasn't that long ago in the sceme of time that the earth-centric theory of the universe was considered the only scientifically acceptable theory. Those with differing views found themselves ridiculed and even persecuted.
A geocentric universe would make sense to primitive man. The earth seems to be stationary and everything else is moving. But when science progressed to the point of making it obvious that we are not in a geocentric universe, religion interfered.
Have we learned so little in the intervening years that it is now acceptable to proclaim evolution as an unassailable truth and not allow any other theory to be considered?
No one says evolution is unassailable. In fact *NO* scientific theory can be unassailable. To be a valid theory it must be falsifiable, testable. That's exactly why creationism is not a valid scientific theory. It cannot be disproven, unlike evolution.
-
Abaddon
Ah... is humour covered by that website Forscher?
I mean, granted you can define ad hom, straw man, excluded middle, slippery slope, arguments from authority, etc. But does it also cover irony, satire, farce, sarcasm, facetiousness, etc?
Ask yourself, do I really think that Creationist disavowal of contemporary science is proof they are descended from monkeys?
No. For a start, evolutionists and Creationists alike are not descended from monkeys. They are both descended from apes. Important difference. There is clear evidence for this.
Please note I use the big C to specify doctrines that deny modern dating methods and material evidence; creationist small c would be someone who validates modern dating techniques et. al. but feels god was behind it all, albeit through naturalistic means such as we have a record of. Such a position is unfalsifiable, and is therefore not worthy of the scorn that can be applied to the modern world's equivalent of flat-earthers, with their falsifiable theories of creation in recent times.
And you may have not noted I was making a simple inversion of a rather old Creationist joke about Evolutionists. Sorry if you missed that; if there's any particular aspect of evolutionary theory you would like to discuss, please let me know.
flyinghighnow
don't understand why everyone freaks out over creationism being taught as long as they don't make it religious
This is impossible. As there is no direct evidence for an intelligent designer, such theories are based upon unsubstantiated belief with presuppostitions. Religions are unsubstantiated beliefs. Therefore, even if you completely bowdlerise Intelligent Design of any faith specific doctrine or referential, because ID is based on an unsubstantiatable belief with presuppositions, it still functions as a form of religious belief.
or just say that this is what some think
Oh, I'm all for teaching kids about flat-earthers/holocaust revisionists/Creationists and other people pushing falsifiable theory as fact. It will serve to protect them from such mind-warping philosophies. Please note above big C small c definition.
Evolution is a theory and it's taught as fact in school: at least it was in my schools.
Yes, well one of the worst failing of the teaching of evolution is that some people completely fail to appreciate the fact evolution is a fact AND a theory.
In brief, the fact of evolution is attested to by the fossil record. This exists, the dating is reliable, it is falsifiable but has never been falsified. Things changed into things, unless one wants to throw out reliable chronology or assert each variation in itself was a creation.
The theories of evolution are about HOW this change occurred. Natural selection and sexual selection being two example.
So, at school you should have been taught there is an irrefutable record of life stretching back over millions of years, and that scientists think 'this' is how the life changed over time.
doogie
the vast majority of americans misunderstand what evolution is and what it is not.
As you see, I agree.
i don't know how we compare to europeans as far as scientific literacy in general, but i think americans are extremely uneducated especially with regards to science.
Well, in American schools I was quite impressed with the quality of High School science classes for students going on to college. They really were quite good, AND it was Kansas . But they equalled or exceeded the standards, for example, of the equivalent ('A' level science). And I didn't see many less advanced classes OR sit in on any lessons involving EvoBio, so it's anecdotal to the extreme.
I can find this;
... but it's not comprehensive.
The there is this;
... which is an important consideration. Someone can be quite smart but not have the lietracy level to follow a scientifically stated argument. The US ranks at 68th on the world literacy tables http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_lit_tot_pop&int=-1 , with over three times as many illiterates as most European countries, ranking with, for example, American Somoa, rather than any countries it is fairly comparable with.
Now before all you literate creationists and Creationists get your tail feathers ruffled, might I point out you, rather obviously, are an individual, not a statistic, and obviously don't fit in with that last one, as you are reading this...
But if we are looking for a reason WHY this is an issue in the USA and not in Europe, differences between countries with broadly similar educational and income levels is important in finding any quantifiable reason, and literacy is one area America differs from Europe. That isn't to say it is a causal link, I'm just browsing for stats as I type and seeing where I end up with this...
These;
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_sci_app_gra_12&int=-1
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_sci_lit&int=-1
... give mixed results. The US is quite low (mid teens) on the tables (on scientific apptitude and science literacy), with many European countries above it, but there are some below it too. Not a clear trend, but a surprisingly poor result for the richest country in the world with the greatest average number of years in education (per person) of any country in the world.
Then of course we have this;
There are few European countries close to the level of US church attendence.
But as fun as stats might be, they miss the difference.
In Europe religion is common, and accepted. The old traditons are not seen as immovable; indeed, many members of one world religion that had a recent change of CEO would want more movement. There are common values - human rights - which people from a variety of beliefs or a lack of them can embrace, as it assures fairness to all. It might mean that more tolerance is required; to accept people who live lawful lives in ways you could not condone have every right to do so. So religion becomes less about the specificity of belief, but about A belief. And scientific secularism is accepted alomost Universally. There was no Global Flood, the Great Pyramid was built before the date the Bible said it happened, for example. Stories are seen as metaphors and allegories, a more primative societies movement towards a peaceful, just society. And THAT is how religious belief is seen to have an impact, by changing the NOW, not some future reward. Many people have a formless belief in 'god', many believe in no god, many don't have a fixed opinion or just don't know or even care.
In the USA, all you have to do to see the effect of religion on the society is to look at the politics. And the religious charcter is different. It is more traditonal. More literal. More rooted in a solution in our times (over 25% believe in the going-up-to-heaven-in-their-bodies thing, what-do-you-call-it?). AND it is more often practised.
Whereas the mutable character of European religious sensibilities allows the fixed text to be seen as a metaphor when science shows the fixed text to be in error, in the USA the more fixed religious sensibilities demand that SCIENCE change to fit a particular interpretation of fixed text. The belief is literalistic, and it therefore follows if it ain't literally true, then it is wrong. This is why they fight so hard. It is all built on literal interpretations, if they are wrong, everything on top comes tumbling down.
In Europe the fact the Bible et.al. ARE demonstrably wrong on any number of levels is not seen as something which renders it of no worth. The wisdom of Jesus' words are not seen as rendered meaningless becasue some bronze-age goatheard got the development of the Earth completely wrong as he was just making it up.
This is why there is the insistance on teaching creationism in any form in American schools. It is a desperate survival reflex by a moribund branch in RELIGION'S evolutionary tree.
European religion typically has adapted to survive, and does survive, and will survive. It doesn't damn the modern world as fools and insist their presuppostion is right.
American religion typically has not adapted the same way. Rather than changing and becoming immune to science, old-time religion FIGHTS science, as it cannot exist with science in science's full modern form. And it is doomed to extinction because it is a fight it cannot win. Facts are facts. We evolved our millions of years, whether god did it that way or intervened a certain way, or by natural selection.
Unless of course a small but vocal Creationistic lobby in the USA are right, and the VAST majority of scientific opinion in both the USA and the rest of the world, along with the majority of religious people who think Creationism is silly even if they believe in creation.
we then proceed to elect those that spout our uneducated views the loudest so we can rally behind them. i think americans' misunderstanding of evolution is a bigger (though not entirely unrelated) piece of this issue than their religious fanaticism is.
As you see, I see the religious opposal of modern scientific curriculums entirely as a result of understanding modern science all to well. If modern science is right, then the Bible is not literal, and can describe things in figurative terms, and is influenced by the culture of the original writer, so who the hell can say exactly what it means other than "be nice to each other"?
Better differentiation in science education of the FACT of evolution and the theories of evolution would help.
An attempt to keep religion literalistic cannot be seperated from the fact this also allows a greater amount of social control over people.
It has been a busy 150 years, and old-time religion, the religions that insists unprovable presuppostions are correct even if all evidence contradicts them, are near death. It is a reaction to the speed of social change, a desperate attempt to recall a bye-gone time by insisting what was a 'fact' then is still a fact now, because after you let evolution to be accepted as a fact, and literalistic Creationism as error... well then you have to let go of all sorts of nice moral pronouncements that make you feel better... as, quite lieterally, only god knows whether they were made up too.
Living in peace, respecting each others freedoms, and being nice to each other is a pretty cool idea, whoever thought of it, but far too wishy-washy for people bought up on the Rapture (over 25% of the US's population believe it, remember).
We should all know how it jars; don't you remember, you were going to live forever? LOL
-
doogie
It wasn't that long ago in the sceme of time that the earth-centric theory of the universe was considered the only scientifically acceptable theory. Those with differing views found themselves ridiculed and even persecuted. Have we learned so little in the intervening years that it is now acceptable to proclaim evolution as an unassailable truth and not allow any other theory to be considered? True, the RC church was behind the acceptance of the earth-centric view and the persecution of scientists who disagreed.
i can't BELIEVE you said the above as an argument FOR creationism.
But can it be said that the modern scientific community with its current leaders insistence on CONFORMITY of view, despite evidence to the contrary, is being any more enlightened than the scientific community of those times?
this is my problem: you speak of 'evidence to the contrary.' please provide it. when creationism proponents can present a testable, falsifiable theory (along with evidence to back it up), then and only then can it qualify for scientific appraisal and education in a SCIENCE class (evolutionary theory has done all these things). until then, off to sunday school it must go. at this point there is no alternate SCIENTIFIC theory for how the species we oberve today came to exist in their current states. you can't teach an alternate scientific theory if there is none.
-
Forscher
Of course morality should be taught in church or by parents and not in school, EvilForce. Unfortunately, Schools ARE being used to promote a morality that the MAJORITY of parents find objectional. That morality is being based on the only philosophy which modern scientific leaders consider acceptable, materialism. That, my friend, is the whole problem in a nutshell. Our schools are no longer considered an institution for teaching children the reading, writing, math, etc. that they need to function. Our schools are now considered the venue for socially engineering a brave, new, society free from the restraints of old-fashioned morality. And evolution is the vehicule and justification for that morality.
-
doogie
abaddon:
American religon typically has not adapted the same way. Rather than changing and becoming immune to science, old-time religon FIGHTS science, as it cannot exist with science in science's full modern form. And it is doomed to extinction because it is a fight it cannot win.
that's a great way to put it. on the flip side, to expect science to bend to accomodate religion is also a hopeless battle. this is what keeps me optimistic when i hear the debate raging on an on about what to teach in science class. i am quite confident that for my grand-children (if not my children) this will be a non-issue.