Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Alex, good points again.

But the alien experiment theory just pushes the issue of origins back a little further. Where did the aliens come from? Were they created or did life arise on their home planet without intervention?

About the teachers, it's very true, and many science teachers make a point of stating that Evolution is just a theory because they are creationists at heart.

The dichotomy of "facts" vs. "theories" in science is not all that relevant. The reasons why elements bond the way they do is theoretical, and subject to change with better info. The reason why electricity flows the way it does is theoretical, as well.

Facts are the observations of phenomena we see around us, scientific theories explain why those factual events have occurred and whether they'll occur again. Furthermore, science classes are about teaching students the current theories that will be relevant to them if they choose a career in science, as well as teaching them "the scientific method" that can be useful in nearly all careers.

Facts are for history classes, science deals with theories.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

To be honest I think that what bothers most "creationists" isn't that evolution/abiogenesis is being taught.....merely that things about them are being taught as facts while in reality they're still working on finding out if they're true or not.

To be even more honest, I think what bothers most creationists is that they haven't been able to manipulate our education system to promulgate the teachings of their church.

Here's a link to the show ID on trial on PBS.


NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | PBS

Originally Posted by ScottS

To be even more honest, I think what bothers most creationists is that they haven't been able to manipulate our education system to promulgate the teachings of their church.

That is not called honesty, that is called accusations. Please refrain from those in any direction. I'm not a creationist myself but I recognise an accusation when I see one. Please keep this thread friendly even when you don't agree with something.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

That is not called honesty, that is called accusations. Please refrain from those in any direction. I'm not a creationist myself but I recognise an accusation when I see one. Please keep this thread friendly even when you don't agree with something.

I'm not trying to accuse, but I am trying to show where I'm coming from. To me, the argument for teaching creationism, ID, or whatever its labeled, is entirely religious, and so far, regardless of best efforts, that's still how I'm seeing it. If someone's arguments aren't reaching me-- and they keeping making the same ones (fourteen pages, to date) -- eventually I'm going to tell them why they're not reaching me.

Push comes to shove, with regard to scientific education, its tough to teach the concept of model, or "paradigm", as Kuhn called it, to young children. Nobody would assert that the current model of evolution, or how proteing formed life, is gospel, but it the best model to date. After that "I don't know" is just fine, much better than "insert fairy tale here". At some point in education, probably late high school, students start to understand the concept of a model, and they start to realize that there are some problems with just about everything they've been taught. This is natural. We move from concrete education to something more rational, because that's how people develop.

Originally Posted by ScottS

To be even more honest, I think what bothers most creationists is that they haven't been able to manipulate our education system to promulgate the teachings of their church.

Why don't you start out being as honest as you can and go from there. It makes it a lot easier if we know what you really think to begin with

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

This argument is still wrong.

Bricks and steel don't have forces acting on them in the same way that atoms and polymers do. So no, eons will not make bricks coalesce into a house, but the same cannot be said of atoms et al.

There are many books (and probably online sources) explaining the mechanisms that cause atoms, elements, chemicals, etc to bond and interact in the way that they do. The info is out there if you want to look it up.

So, if abiogenesis is caused by the natural way that atoms and molecules are structured, charged or what have you. These type of bonds work pretty well for taking two hydrogen atoms and a oxygen atom and creating water, or whatever other combo you choose.

So if the assertion is that the creation of life functioned on similar guidelines (a pretty good idea, actually)Then why doesn't this same phenomenon cause new life to be created all the time?

Plenty of raw material laying around for it to happen...Even guys in lab coats purposefully mixing the stuff together, and still, nada.




You had previously illustrated the self sorting principle associated with this by saying that the small crumbs in a potato chip bag alway self sort their way to the botom of the bag, while the larger ones remain on top.

However, I would propose that the creation of life in that scenario would be if you took that bag of primordo-chips and were somehow able to get all of those little crumbs to self assemble back into full chips. Shake it, heat it, hit it with lightning, whatever.

That is the sort of leap that is necessary for the creation of life.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Why don't you start out being as honest as you can and go from there. It makes it a lot easier if we know what you really think to begin with

Yes, let's agree to start out with the full truth!

We can save the half-truths and deceptions until we feel we have no other recourse!

Isn't that what being a gentleman is all about? Or am I missing something?

Originally Posted by ScottS

At some point in education, probably late high school, students start to understand the concept of a model, and they start to realize that there are some problems with just about everything they've been taught. This is natural. We move from concrete education to something more rational, because that's how people develop.

+1

I've heard it said many times that evolutionists only believe the theory because that's what they were taught in school, and that creationism would be considered equally viable if it were to be added to the curriculum. But the truth is, people learn what ideas exist in the world and make up their own mind about what's believable and what's not. If this were not true, there would be no such thing as advancement, since everyone would just be marching along to the beat of tribal drums and never devising knew explanations for our strange surroundings.

Until Creation can be shown to be a workable scientific theory (that makes predictions and allows for inspection of the creator and "his" methods), it does not belong in a science class and can be studied at the desire of the individual. Teaching a person that one theory is the currently accepted model is not going to brainwash them against the others.

alright, so can we all agree that it's ok to have evolution taught in science class as long as the teacher prefaces with, "it's just a theory, so far" ?

and that ID can be taught in philosophy/religion class so long as it's labeled accordingly?