Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

[TurkeysGhost]

"Sounds good" has nothing to do with science or critical thinking.

Joking aside, is there any significant difference between a young earth creationist who happens to be a high school biology teacher "teaching the controversy" and Nation of Islam science teacher teaching the controversy how whites/Jews were selectively bred by the mad scientist Yakub to vex the superior black race?

Obviously such ideological tolerances in the classroom will only be extended members of the preferred Christian belief system, but there's nothing that sets Christian creationism apart, on a scientific basis, from any other religious creation myth.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

"Sounds good" has nothing to do with science or critical thinking.

And science and critical thinking thus far suggest that the theory of evolution is on par with the current atomic model, the current model for physics etc.

Not perfect, but by far the best and thus the one that should be taught in science classes in high school.
It's hard enough to teach without having to pay lip-service to every unproven and untestable theory out there.

 

[JesseCuster]

You might be able to see the different nuances in evolution or other scientific theories but I suspect that you are in the minority here.

The general consensus seems to be that there is only one fixed, never-changing theory of evolution and students must learn it by rote and never question it or the underlying assumptions.
"Critical thinking" has become a dirty word in this forum.

General consensus among who?

 

[Darat]

But why do we have to teach it by rote? Why are students not supposed to ask why a particular explanation is the best one for the available data? Why can they not explore why alternative scientific theories (ie not YEC or any other form of untestable religious dogma) do not fit the known data as well?

Which alternate scientific theory for evolution?

 

[KDLarsen]

But why do we have to teach it by rote? Why are students not supposed to ask why a particular explanation is the best one for the available data? Why can they not explore why alternative scientific theories (ie not YEC or any other form of untestable religious dogma) do not fit the known data as well?

Presumably such a discussion would be fitting in an advanced biology class, possibly even at college level.

What the Texas GOP wants to do, is to make "cdesign proponentsism" a viable, scientifically accepted theory, something it most certainly is not.

 

[SteveAitch]

Which alternate scientific theory for evolution?

Lamarckism?

 

[kookbreaker]

I don't see the value either. Indoctrination - whether it be religious instruction or teaching that only the official theory of evolution is true - is the antithesis of critical thinking.

“The official theory of evolution” shows your ignorance. While the basic structure of evolution as proposed by Darwin is in place evolution has undergone multiple, multiple changes to its aspects over the years. It’s still not exactly completely known (the fact that we fine new fossil species shows that) so claiming that sticking to its aspects rather than some deity creation fairy story is somehow “close-minded” shows ignorance of the science.

This would be like saying kids should jump off tall buildings and lick outlets because gravity and electrical theory are also theory and denying letting kids do this is “close-minded”.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

But why do we have to teach it by rote? Why are students not supposed to ask why a particular explanation is the best one for the available data? Why can they not explore why alternative scientific theories (ie not YEC or any other form of untestable religious dogma) do not fit the known data as well?

Because you first need to teach the basics how things work.

Why do we not teach cuniform when learning the alphabet?
Why do we not teach the roman numeral system when learning maths?

Of course, if this law gets pushed trough and Texas ends up with a generation as well educated as those in Taliban schools I guess that will become obvious.

 

[dudalb]

Lamarckism?

TO get technical Lamarckisnm is not a alternative theory to evolution; it is an alternative Theory OF Evolution to Darwins. It accepts evolution, it just thinks it works differently then what Darwin said.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

This part just negated your entire post. It shows that like the Republicans, you are not interested in the free exchange of ideas but only in indoctrination.

How flat would you say the Earth is, exactly? Pretty flat? Really very flat? B flat minor?

 

[smartcooky]

How flat would you say the Earth is, exactly? Pretty flat? Really very flat? B flat minor?

Like an exhausted battery?


" free exchange of ideas" has limits, as Dara Ó Briain so succinctly put it...

"You never see the balance thing with really hard science. You never see the guy on from NASA, talking about the space station. And they go, Mr. NASA guy, you’re building a space station, well that’s very interesting. And then they go and they say for “balance” we must now turn to Barry, who believes the sky is a carpet painted by God. There’s this kind of a notion that everyone’s opinion is equally valid. My arse! A bloke who’s a professor of dentistry for forty years does not have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!

 

[kookbreaker]

Shhh! That's heresy in this forum. According to others in this forum, there is only a single unchangeable "fact" of evolution which tolerates no modifications whatsoever.

I seriously doubt anyone has truly been like that. I suspect you are butt hurt over something in an evolution thread and are now making a strawman attack so weak I don't even think it is straw.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Shhh! That's heresy in this forum. According to others in this forum, there is only a single unchangeable "fact" of evolution which tolerates no modifications whatsoever.

Come down off the cross, use the wood the build a bridge, and use the bridge to get over it.

"Oh I'm so oppressed for being wrong! It's a huge injustice!"

 

[JoeMorgue]

Also I like how we're talking about the need for public education and people immediately start screeching about Creationism.

Like thanks for making our entire argument for us.

Next we can have cIviL DebATE about whether or not Med School should teach the Four Humors.

 

[JoeMorgue]

BTW we're all savvy to the:

"You're wrong. Here's facts that show it"
"OH SO YOU JUST WANT TO BE THE TRUTH POLICE! I GUESS YOU JUST WANT AN ECHO CHAMBER! YOU'RE CLOSE MINDED! WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHT TO THINK WHAT I WANT?"

game and none of us are impressed.

 

[psionl0]

I seriously doubt anyone has truly been like that. I suspect you are butt hurt over something in an evolution thread and are now making a strawman attack so weak I don't even think it is straw.

This whole hoo ha came about because a poster criticized the concept of "critical thinking" in a science classroom.

It appears that suddenly, only a full blown religious nut would be in favour of critical thinking. You can't blame me for concluding that the people who would argue this way are in favour of the exact opposite of any form of critical thinking.

 

[kookbreaker]

This whole hoo ha came about because a poster criticized the concept of "critical thinking" in a science classroom.

It appears that suddenly, only a full blown religious nut would be in favour of critical thinking. You can't blame me for concluding that the people who would argue this way are in favour of the exact opposite of any form of critical thinking.

I assume you are basing this off Stacys post number 7 and your post #10.

All I am gonna say is you got it wrong, way wrong. And you are giving much undeserving faith to a totally bad faith argument.

 

[Stacyhs]

This part just negated your entire post. It shows that like the Republicans, you are not interested in the free exchange of ideas but only in indoctrination.

Nah. They're talking about Creationism and Climate Change. Don't pretend they aren't. Creationism doesn't belong in a science classroom any more than Voodoo does. It's not science; it's religion. So spare me. Climate Change is accepted as fact by the vast majority of scientists in the world. Again, spare me the crap that we need to have a 'free exchange of ideas' about it in science class any more than we need to discuss the idea of rain dances as science.

 

[varwoche]

So like the GOP, you are against teaching critical thinking, which has "the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." ?

Should we just be giving them instructions and not allowing any questions?

Ignoring the motivations is ignoring the context. Ignoring the context, and taking the words strictly at face value, isn't critical thinking. That may not seem clear to you perched up on that high horse.

 

[psionl0]

Nah. They're talking about Creationism and Climate Change. Don't pretend they aren't.

Maybe the GOP uses "We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced" as a euphemism for teaching creationism instead of evolution but you didn't state that in your post. I can only respond to what you actually posted.

FWIW trying to discuss ID in a scientific context is like asking a computer how it feels. The scientific method is not capable of dealing with philosophical questions. It can only deal with observable data.