Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

From what I understand the whole idea about science is that no fact is absolutely certain....even when proven in labaratory conditions, it is supposedly encouraged to "think outside of the box".

The whole principle of science is to have a theory based on facts and observations, with the ability to make predictions about the outcome of a predefined situation.
The predictions are what determine if a theory is valid or not.

Relativity and QT were both declared to be ludicrous when they came out. Albert Einstein did not get a nobel prize for his theory because it was too controversial at the time.
Instead they gave him one for his work on the photo electric effect.

Creationsim -and any religious inspired idea- is not science because
a) it cannot be tested.
b) it can make no predictions
c) there are no facts
d) there are hundreds of religions, most of which are mutually incompatible, and all with the previous 3 failings. So even if we allow religion in science, there was no way to know which one to pick.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

If this is the case then why can't creationism be taught as an alternative theory to evolution? Even if it's simply an exircise in thought.

I understand that a lot of people claim that it's not science so it should't be taught.....but on the other hand even if you don't teach it in science classes, why not teach it in history classes as a stream of thought? Or a worldview class? Or religions of the world class? I fail to see the harm in that.

I have no problem with creationism in religious classes. I learnt genesis in high school in the course on religion. I also learnt about other religions, and some of the other creation myths.

But I would object to creationism being called science because it isn't.

Evolution is a theory (describing a process) which is based on facts, can make predictions and can be tested.
It may not explain everything yet, and the details may be subject to change. but on the whole it is the best scientific theory we have right now.

And evolution does not have to be incompatible with science, if you can believe that God(s) created the fundamental laws of physics / chemistry and biology in a way that allows evolution to happen.

I find it very interesting that the proponents of creationism tout that *not* teaching it in science classes is being close minded to the act of learning. This is interesting because, by and large, creationism's proponents tend to be folks who are of religious faiths that believe in a strict interpretation of religious texts. (I am not attempting to speak in absolutes as you can see.) That is somewhat at odds with the initial argument. Why could you not be open to interpret the text in any other way? Is it wise to assume that there is only one way to interpret anything like a religious text? Particularly one that has been filtered through translations and altered to the benefit of whoever sees a need?

I myself went to a parochial school and was taught both sides of the coin in different classes. I was also taught the cosmology of other religions. The best part is that it is a choice my parents made to have me taught this way. They weren't forced to pay taxes to support an educational system that violated the separation of church and state in any way. Nor did they ask the government for help in teaching such personal things to their children.

As conservatives, they didn't want the government's help for anything. They taught us that the choices we made were more important than what the law said we were allowed to do. They took responsibility for teaching us about the faith in which we were raised and that we practice. I, personally, don't intend to rely wholly on the government for anything so important as teaching my children how to think. Inching us closer to a state religion would, in fact, be going the opposite direction of expanding knowledge IMHO.

That is all.

-Rob

Originally Posted by Hutch

The main reason is Creationism shouldn't be taught is it's a religious belief not really a theory with any scientific proof.
If Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught then hey lets include Aliens too.

If Creationism is true it should be taught

Rob, what's interesting to me about what you said is (speaking of your parents): "As conservatives, they didn't want the government's help for anything."
And yet they sent you to public school - curriculum will be a sore point for every taxpayer who strongly disagrees with what is or isn't being taught because they have to pay for it. I don't know what the best solution is, but if a parent wants their kid to learn creationism, they are free to teach them outside of public school. Although like I mentioned above I think ideally whatever is true is what ought to be taught. The problem is that the people who make the rules disagree on what's true

It seems when one looks at contemporary evolutionary theory in detail its faith based tenets are quite striking. Their best hope is the general possibility that there were vast stretches of "time" when no one was watching and the idea that anything is possible.

There is no good reason to present the Biblical version of creation exclusively. A comparative view of different creation myths is interesting, but there may be enough counter evolution science to present a balanced class that delves in to the mystery of how we began. The more we learn about DNA, genes, mutation etc. the more ignorant evolution as a viable explanation of how we began becomes imho.

I do believe in a Creator, however, I also believe that all religion is mythology trying to make the unknowable understandable. Popularized explanations of quantum physics, string theory and all thatl really sound quite mystical to a mathematical dimwit such as myself

John in response, I agree intelligence in and of itself does not guarantee a good leader, but by the same token lack of intelligence guarantees a poor leader.

If Creationism is true, I agree that it should be taught in science class, but as others have pointed out there is no proof that it is true, so thus it has no place in science class.

Science is based on facts that undergo peer review, scientific theories are always being challenge, but they don't have this emotional baggage attached to them. There are scientific theories that have been elevated beyond theory they are called Laws, one such law is gravity.

I too have no problem with Creationism being taught in religious classes that explore other religions and their beliefs. I myself took such a course and found it very interesting, not only did it confirm my spirituality but its also confirmed my disdain for organized religions.

Religion and spirituality are two different things, one of my favorite writers on the subject was Thomas Payne.

Age of Reason Introduction

by Thomas Paine
TO MY FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

I PUT the following work under your protection. It contains my opinions upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.

Your affectionate friend and fellow-citizen,

THOMAS PAINE

Originally Posted by kevint

....

I do believe in a Creator, however, I also believe that all religion is mythology trying to make the unknowable understandable. Popularized explanations of quantum physics, string theory and all thatl really sound quite mystical to a mathematical dimwit such as myself

I agree. This is an important point. One problem, and I'm saying this from a broad social perspective, is that most of the organized religions come from a time long before modern science. It will be interesting to see if we come up with new myths that can accommodate what science has shown us over the past few centuries.

Jordan

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

If Creationism is true it should be taught

absolutely. but it can't EVER be proved or disproven. If I say that my invisible pal up in the sky got bored one day and made existence, but that my invisible pal is omnipotent and unobservable, then there's really no room for discussion, is there?

Invisible Pink Unicorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
for more information on why this premise cannot be argued one way or the other logically.

if it bides no logical discussion, experimentation, etc. then it really doesn't belong in a science class. philosophy maybe. but not science. if i want to do some hard and fast lab experiments and observe the results (which is science) i can do something like this:
Miller-Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
which may or may not be instructive. how do you design a lab experiment around creationism?

you just can't. whether it's true or not, i don't know. but it's NOT science, or even remotely scientific, and thus isn't something that should be addressed in a science class. it's like doing sonnets in PE.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

If Creationism is true it should be taught

The problem is that niether creatism nor ID are scientifically viable theories, thus they have no place in a science class.

Why aren't they viable theories? Because they started with the conclusions that they wanted, then found supporting "evidence" in the loopholes of Evolutionary Theory, rather than taking a scientific approach and start with raw data and observation in order to formulate a conclusion by watching the way that data and those observations interract in and with the natural environment.

One of the biggest arguments for design (that has raised legitimate concern) is the Precambrian Explosion, where they say Evolutionary Theory is too improbable to have accounted for all of the life forms that arose in that period. But this isn't the kind of evidence that makes a scientific argument, it just casts doubt on Evolutionary theory then steps in to claim itself as the only alternative. An honest scientific argument would have to find design in action, which will never happen if you truly believe the designer to be supernatural.

If you really want to read the whole thing we've discussed this in pretty decent detail here: http://straightrazorpalace.com/conve...tml#post197762

We are looking at NOW for answers to questions from THEN. Nearly all schools were started by 'religious' groups and even though the premise of public education has been taken over by the states, the religious groups do not want to let go.

Warning: As far as I can tell my reply below has nothing to do with Sarah Palin. The location of this post is at the mercy of the forum rules and administrators

If science is the study of our physical world, and God created the physical world, then science is the study of what God created. If it's true, it should be taught in every class and especially science class as the underlying principle in what is being studied. (I don't really know what Creationism with a C is, so I simply assume it means God created everything.)

Maybe an example would help clarify what I mean. When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he based its underlying justifications on the benevolence of man's Creator. The declaration was going to be politically valid whether or not Jefferson could prove that man's Creator actually did give men certain rights. But to leave God out of it would have removed the underlying principle of his arguments

I don't think it's a good idea for Creationism to be the subject of any class that is not a religious class, but I think if it's true then it should be given place in every setting in and outside of school. To ignore such a profound truth would be ridiculous. And if it is not true, then to admit in a classroom such a myth would be equally ridiculous. Unfortunately, since many people are not convinced one way or another, and public schools funded with public money makes a general and possibly necessary mess of things, then a half-decision is made to neither admit its truth nor deny its truth. The result is confusion