• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

psionl0 said:
You can't doctor past posts. The GOP agenda is irrelevant. It was the idea of teaching "critical thinking" (not creationism) in the classroom that is being knocked and I was criticized for defending critical thinking. If you don't believe me then read some of the responses.
Click to expand...

I’ve read them. You are utterly wrong and are giving the GOP far too much leeway and are taking their claims of new evidence for YEC and against climate change with unbelievable levels of credulity. You then turn around and claim that going against the GOP anti-science is somehow being against critical thinking and those opposed to these antics must be hunting “heretics”.

You state this premise in post #10. It’s clear how bad you are at evaluating the GOPs claims. I can read it clear as anyone. There’s no witch-hunt here, it’s just you taking psychopartisan religious fanatics on their word.
 
kookbreaker said:
There’s no witch-hunt here, it’s just you taking psychopartisan religious fanatics on their word.
Click to expand...
Which of course is the exact opposite of the truth. You won't find a single post of mine that says that YEC or any other form of creationism should be taught in schools.

It has been, is and always will be about critical thinking (ask Darat).
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
You can say "you don't understand me" or even "you are lying about what I said" but the fact remains that nobody is saying that critical thinking* has a place in the science class room.
Click to expand...
As facts go, that is not one of them.

I, for example, will state here my unequivocal opinion that critical thinking has a place in science classrooms.

I wish critical thinking occupied a more prominent place in this subforum.

psionl0 said:
No matter how often or how vehemently I point out that science can say nothing about religious matters, you still insist on acting as if I am saying the complete opposite.
Click to expand...
A lot of religious people disagree with the part I highlighted. They say the age of the earth is a religious matter, and some of them are quite serious about that.

Need I point out that science can say quite a bit about the age of the earth?

Need I point out that the people who are upset about that tend to be the ones who are most unhappy with public education? Need I point out that there is a significant positive correlation between believing in young earth creationism and support for Governor Abbott's shenanigans?

Correlation is not causation, but correlation is not always mere coincidence. In this case, the correlation is not an accident.

That is part of the context. If critical thinking were more prominent in this thread, you'd see more critical thinkers taking that context into account. You might even start to see psionl0 taking that context into account.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
A lot of religious people disagree with the part I highlighted. They say the age of the earth is a religious matter, and some of them are quite serious about that.
Click to expand...
If the age of the earth is a religious matter and not a scientific matter then there are any number of rationalizations you can make ("God time etc) if you want to reconcile the differing claims. I imagine that some YECs working in astronomics have no choice but to engage in "double think".

W.D.Clinger said:
Need I point out that science can say quite a bit about the age of the earth?
Click to expand...
Not to me. We can be pretty confident about our estimate of the age of the earth. It would take some "earth shattering" new data to force us to significantly revise our estimate.

W.D.Clinger said:
Need I point out that the people who are upset about that tend to be the ones who are most unhappy with public education? Need I point out that there is a significant positive correlation between believing in young earth creationism and support for Governor Abbott's shenanigans?
Click to expand...
Again, this is pretty self evident. The point remains that the GOP might oppose critical thinking (because they want students indoctrinated with creationism) but indoctrinating students with contemporary scientific positions without encouraging critical thinking is no better.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
I see you avoided all the points I made.
Click to expand...

And he will continue to do so until he faces any consequences or downside for doing it.

When all the rest of us can do is go "You're wrong" in flat, neutral, toothless terms over and over when we know that doesn't work what exactly do you expect to change and why?

Why on Earth would anyone NOT just be stubbornly and intentionally wrong and never change on this board?
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
....accused me of arguing in favour of creationism instead of critical thinking.
Click to expand...

The other side of this is, you have posted twenty messages to this thread in the past twenty-four hours, more than half the messages posted to this thread in that time period, not one of them directly related to the subject: Governor Abbott wants to end mandatory public education. Most of the messages seem to be, primarily, about you. I write, 'seems to be,' because I've scrolled past most of them without more than a quick glance. Granted, you've had a lot of help.

In my opinion, this is the kind of out-of-control bickering that makes people give up on this forum. :(
 
psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lots wrong there.

First: Scientific theories can be challenged only if you have a body of data that contradicts it. At present there is no body of data that contradicts these theories therefor they are not at present changeable. You should not be teaching students that they are changeable because at present they are not.

Second: When data is found that challenges a theory rarely does it overturn that theory and it never changes the things that the theory already explains. For example when Relativity and Quantum Mechanics superseded Classical Physics we didn't stop using Classical Physics because within it's limitations it still works. Evolution and Climate Change will always explain what they explain even if new data comes along that necessitates a new theory.

Third: Climate change isn't really a theory, it's a mathematical outcome that arises from applying Conservation of Energy and the Stefan Boltzmann Law of Blackbody Radiation. You can still use the Scientific Method to verify that the math has been done correctly, and when this is done the results are confirmed.
 
psionl0 said:
You can't doctor past posts. The GOP agenda is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The GOP Agenda is irrelevant when discussing the GOP platform? That seems like a failure of critical thinking on your part.

psionl0 said:
It was the idea of teaching "critical thinking" (not creationism) in the classroom that is being knocked and I was criticized for defending critical thinking.
Click to expand...

It says nothing about critical thinking, it says they want teach children that climate change and evolution are challengeable when in fact they are not because there is not body of data that challenges them.

Don't bother with crap like "what if new data..." when there is new data teach it, until then teach what the current data tells us. Or, do you think we should be teaching children that the next time they drop something it may fall upwards because gravity is a challengeable theory and new data could come along at any time. You can't teach critical thinking by appealing to something that may never happen.
 
When a Republican says 2+2=5 we can always count on someone on this board to run into the thread about it and scream "NO 2+2=49 and I demand a civil debate about that now!"
 
newyorkguy said:
The other side of this is, you have posted twenty messages to this thread in the past twenty-four hours, more than half the messages posted to this thread in that time period, not one of them directly related to the subject: Governor Abbott wants to end mandatory public education. Most of the messages seem to be, primarily, about you. I write, 'seems to be,' because I've scrolled past most of them without more than a quick glance. Granted, you've had a lot of help.

In my opinion, this is the kind of out-of-control bickering that makes people give up on this forum. :(
Click to expand...

I think its fair though, to discuss the type of education here. After all, this Texas we're talking about - one of The Great Redneck Bastions of anti-science idiocy, racial intolerance and religious bigotry in America. There are certain posters here who it seems plain do not want mud people educated, least of all in their white privileged schools and exposing all their white privileged kiddies to all those ungodly ideas like diversity, racial harmony and evolution.
 
I disagree with the title of this thread made by the mod who moved the posts

... it should be "Should religious creation concepts be taught in schools as science?"

The answer is, of course, no! Not ever... Never!

Religion's idea of the beginning of the universe is nothing more than fantasy and fairytales, not worthy of serious discussion.
 
Yawn...2 pages already for an extremely silly question.

Here, let me help you: Science is not a religion because (unlike religion) there is this thing called evidence involved. You may now continue to scream and yell about that fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom