Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

[bruto]

I guess I'm a little confused here. We're told there is no "official" theory of evolution, and this is why we must allow religious arguments in science classes.

But isn't one of the things about real science that it does not produce official theories of stuff, and is open to new data, learning and understanding? By contrast, the religious argument is that there is indeed an official theory of evolution, and everything else, and that no further research, thought, or discovery can ever contradict a core set of holy beliefs.

If the lack of an official theory of evolution has any relevance, I should think it disqualifies religious arguments as science right from the start.

This whole thread strikes me as another form of semantic persiflage, in which we can go round and round debating whether the absence of something is a subset of the thing it isn't.

 

[jrhowell]

..I must admit that the GOP stance seems rather confusing. On the one hand they say that they are opposed to critical thinking in the class room but then they say that "Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind" which IS critical thinking.

"Without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind" is actually code for without fear of denial or refutation. That is the opposite of critical thinking.

 

[Chanakya]

You are wicked!

Heh.


But although I guess how I seem to have ended up phrasing my post comes out as ...funny, but seriously, this does seem like a good idea, if only it could actually be done in practice. psion10 seems to have identified a real issue here, a real potential issue: When children whose superstitious parents and this whole gaggle of church teachers or whatever they've been exposed to, keep drilling into these young impressionable minds nonsensical ideas from Christian and/or Muslim and/or Judiac and/or Buddhistic and/or Hindu and/or whatever myths as fact, then it is quite possible that they might be conflicted when exposed to real science in school, and conflicted in a way other more normal children (who've not been indoctrinated into such supersitions) will not be.

So that, just like you hold correctional classes for children with specific learning disabilities, it does make sense to hold special correctional classes for these critically challenged kids. Where all religious BS --- not just of the Abrahamic variety, like psion10 is saying, but from all religions everywhere --- is clearly discussed, explained, and shown up as the utter nonsense it is. That acutally does make sense --- apart, that is, from the inevitable reaction that might elicit from the religious, and especially the parents of these specific kids.

 

[psionl0]

As far as the highlighted (highlighted with bold font, to set it apart from the highlighted text in your quote): That seems reasonable, I should think.


So then, it seems you're not talking about generally teaching kids critical thinking, as I'd imagined you were doing. Fair enough. (Although, and incidentally, I continue to think that's a terrific idea. But I guess that's a separate subject, then, for a separate thread.)




Actually I'm on board with what you seem to be suggesting here. In practice it may not be possible, because it might cause resentment with the religious, but that practical and political consideration apart, I think this idea makes sense: Profile students to see which of them are likely to be 'critically challenged', by seeing whose parents self-describe as religious (and therefore likely to subscribe to cock-eyed belief systems, that they might have infected their child with). Then, just like you hold separate corrective classes for students that are lacking in some specific skill, likewise you could herd these 'critically challenged' kids together into special critical thinking classes designed specifically to clearly show them that all of that bilge that they may have learnt from their parents or maybe from religious instructors is just that, bilge, and that they should focus on what is being taught in class without reference to all of that nonsense, other than maybe to laugh at those quaint ideas that their religion teaches them.

I like the sound of that. In practice it may cause said cock-eyed parents to go ballistic and line the streets in protest, so in practice this seems undoable: but in a perfect world, in a world not hobbled by this kind practical and political considerations, I'd be happy to back this kind of a move.

You have evidently decided to make a strawman out of every argument I have given you.

I shouldn't be surprised. The notion that gods are scientifically unfalsifiable is too much for some people. It must drive them insane to know that they don't exist but can't prove it.

 

[sphenisc]

I’ve already quoted the post where you presented “goddiddit” as an idea that should be presented unchallenged in science classes, but here it is again:


How is science to challenge “goddiddit” while being “theologically neutral”?

By pointing out that the activities of such a god are indistinguishable from natural processes and that Science gives precedence to natural explanations over supernatural ones.

 

[psionl0]

By pointing out that the activities of such a god are indistinguishable from natural processes and that Science gives precedence to natural explanations over supernatural ones.

That is actually a good answer.

 

[sphenisc]

That is actually a good answer.

Gee, try not to sound so shocked.

 

[psionl0]

Gee, try not to sound so shocked.

Just take the compliment. I assure you, I'm not being sarcastic.

 

[ahhell]

Haven't read much of the thread because I'm lazy, I know its a bit of a dick move.

To the op, science properly understood, isn't a religion. Some folks kind of treat it that way. "follow the science" became a bit of mantra recently. Lots of lay folk are guilty of scientism, which I'd define as selectively accepting the science you like via confirmation bias. There's also the thing that most of us can't really follow the science, I generally just accept what I understand to be the scientific consensus on all sorts of issues. I accept the consensus on climate change in almost a faith based way. I can't dive into the data and figure it out for my self and that sort of resembles the faithful who believe the clergy.

Its not a religion but if squint a bit and are looking for things that confirm your belief I can understand why folks think it might be.

 

[Chanakya]

You have evidently decided to make a strawman out of every argument I have given you.

What on earth are you talking about? What strawman, where?

I shouldn't be surprised. The notion that gods are scientifically unfalsifiable is too much for some people. It must drive them insane to know that they don't exist but can't prove it.

This here is where the straw is, right there. It's you who are twisting my words, not the other way around.

Twice at least I've clearly spelt out, in so many words, that some religious claims are directly falsifiable, and in that way directly refuted --- some, not all. But the rest of these religious claims (including the specific one you discussed in yours posts addressed to me), even when not directly falified/falsifiable, nevertheless in as much as they are not borne out by what science tells us, therefore they have no place whatever is a sane rational scientific worldview.


----------


And in any case, I note that you've ignored the bulk of my post, which actually discusses the meat of your suggestion about teaching critical thinking about scientific issues to those children that are hobbled by religious indoctrination. My post directly acknowledges, and addresses, your concern. I find it very curious that you bypass that very ...meaty? discussion in my post, while at the same time complaining that everyone here is derailing from the concern you raise about introducing critical thinking on scientific matters (and specifically as it affects the religiously indoctrinated, as you've clarified subsequently).

Whatever, address it or not, your call, but not doing that already, does raise questions about your motives in introducing this discussion in the first place. Note that as far as I'm concerned, I've engaged with you fully in good faith throughout. Happy to bow out now, as it is clear you're not really looking to have your concern addressed.

 

[EaglePuncher]

You have evidently decided to make a strawman out of every argument I have given you.

I shouldn't be surprised. The notion that gods are scientifically unfalsifiable is too much for some people. It must drive them insane to know that they don't exist but can't prove it.

Nah, if you take a look at reality instead of the world full of strawmen you live in you'll realize that religions influence is going down every year. More and more people ignore religion, there's no one who is driven insane by some seemingly unfalsifiable, unimportant drivel like religion.

Religion is disproven every day, every second.

You, of course, are intentionally ignoring the fact that despite many claims, no interaction with gods has happened for (at least) the last 1500 years.

Science has more important things to do than falsifying fairytales

 

[smartcooky]

I shouldn't be surprised. The notion that gods are scientifically unfalsifiable is too much for some people. It must drive them insane to know that they don't exist but can't prove it.

Science does not work that way, and no amount of your bare-faced lying about it will make it so. The non-falsifiability of gods is one of the greatest, most important pieces of evidence for their non-existence - they are unfalsifiable not because of their nature, but because there is no supporting evidence of their existence - there is no evidence to falsify!!

The onus for the proving the existence of gods is solely on theists, anything else is yet another is a reversal of the burden of proof. It drives some theists insane to know that they can't prove their gods exist, and that they must rely solely on faith, dogma and indoctrination to gull their fool adherents into continued belief.
.
.

 

[IanS]

Either you misunderstood my post or you are making a claim which is just plain false.

Like the invisible dragon, if somebody claims that the outcome of a dice roll is controlled by God then there is no scientific test that can prove otherwise. All you can do is show that the outcomes are consistent with random forces.

Similarly, there is no scientific test that can determine the mind of God (obvious if there is no god).
Such claims may be unbelievable and not worth a second glance but that is not a scientific standard.

NO, absolutely not. Look at the first highlight of your words above - what you have done there is smuggle in the word "proof", even though I just took the trouble to explain why neither science nor anything else can claim actual "proof" in the sense of claiming 100% unarguable certainty for anything.

As for your second highlight - you need to first show that any such God is likely to exist. And to do that you need to show genuine testable evidence for all of the actions claimed to come from the God. In biblical times people believed there was such evidence. They believed that things such as thunder & lightning were certain evidence of God. But what we learned from modern science is that the claimed evidence was never any sort of credible evidence of any such God at all ... if you make a claim that the biblical God exists and claim that he/she/it does anything, then you have to show genuine evidence for that … and of course there is no such genuine evidence.

 

[bruto]

Finer points aside: if religion is science, what is not science?

 

[IanS]

Finer points aside: if religion is science, what is not science?

Religious people often try to argue that whilst religion relies on "faith", so too does science ... both religion and science depend on belief ... everything that we detect, understand or experience is a matter of "belief" ... in the end that sort of argument probably just reduces to so-called "Hard Solipsism", or the idea that we may be just "a brain in a vat" (though where any such “brain” or the "vat" came from, and how that ever recognises/experiences any information, seems to be unexplained).

But of course the big difference is that religion has no genuine credible evidence to support it's belief/faith. Whereas as science is based entirely on the "belief" that we are detecting a genuine reality around us where we can test and measure innumerable aspects of that reality.

In any case, it seems that we have no other option except to accept that what our senses detect is indeed real (even if our senses, or any scientific tests/devices, are limited and subject to various possible errors or approximations etc.). IOW, we try to do the best that we can to explain the world around us as honestly and objectively as we can; or at least science does that (religion does not really attempt to do that ... otherwise it would become science!).

 

[Thor 2]

You, of course, are intentionally ignoring the fact that despite many claims, no interaction with gods has happened for (at least) the last 1500 years.

Science has more important things to do than falsifying fairytales

Positive proof that God is good at hiding.

Interesting that miracles are hard to find in modern times. Take the knack of levitation. If you read about some of the RCC saints, it would seem the air was thick with flying holy men, many years ago.

 

[bruto]

Religious people often try to argue that whilst religion relies on "faith", so too does science ... both religion and science depend on belief ... everything that we detect, understand or experience is a matter of "belief" ... in the end that sort of argument probably just reduces to so-called "Hard Solipsism", or the idea that we may be just "a brain in a vat" (though where any such “brain” or the "vat" came from, and how that ever recognises/experiences any information, seems to be unexplained).

But of course the big difference is that religion has no genuine credible evidence to support it's belief/faith. Whereas as science is based entirely on the "belief" that we are detecting a genuine reality around us where we can test and measure innumerable aspects of that reality.

In any case, it seems that we have no other option except to accept that what our senses detect is indeed real (even if our senses, or any scientific tests/devices, are limited and subject to various possible errors or approximations etc.). IOW, we try to do the best that we can to explain the world around us as honestly and objectively as we can; or at least science does that (religion does not really attempt to do that ... otherwise it would become science!).

We undertake just about everything on some kind of faith - as you say, our faith in science is faith that the world is real and that we can learn things from it, but faith in religion is recursive - it's faith in faith.

 

[psionl0]

NO, absolutely not. Look at the first highlight of your words above - what you have done there is smuggle in the word "proof", even though I just took the trouble to explain why neither science nor anything else can claim actual "proof" in the sense of claiming 100% unarguable certainty for anything.

As for your second highlight - you need to first show that any such God is likely to exist. And to do that you need to show genuine testable evidence for all of the actions claimed to come from the God. In biblical times people believed there was such evidence. They believed that things such as thunder & lightning were certain evidence of God. But what we learned from modern science is that the claimed evidence was never any sort of credible evidence of any such God at all ... if you make a claim that the biblical God exists and claim that he/she/it does anything, then you have to show genuine evidence for that … and of course there is no such genuine evidence.

This is an example of why this thread generates so much heat and so little insight.

There are varying standards of "proof". You have assumed the highest standard of all (mathematical certainty) so that you can take me to task over my statement. The peculiar thing is that you don't even dispute the sentiment. There isn't a scientific test that would even give a hint that God is behind the outcome of dice rolls. (Or am I reading you wrong?)

The second highlighted line in the post you quoted makes it quite clear that you can't test for the mind of God if there are no gods. Yet you devote an entire paragraph chiding me for "not" pointing out that you need to establish that gods exist before you can try and determine their minds.

Like so many others in this thread, you are not posting something that actually disagrees with what I posted. You are trying to make it appear that I posted something different so that you can "correct" me.

 

[EaglePuncher]

This is an example of why this thread generates so much heat and so little insight.

There are varying standards of "proof". You have assumed the highest standard of all (mathematical certainty) so that you can take me to task over my statement. The peculiar thing is that you don't even dispute the sentiment. There isn't a scientific test that would even give a hint that God is behind the outcome of dice rolls. (Or am I reading you wrong?)

The second highlighted line in the post you quoted makes it quite clear that you can't test for the mind of God if there are no gods. Yet you devote an entire paragraph chiding me for "not" pointing out that you need to establish that gods exist before you can try and determine their minds.

Like so many others in this thread, you are not posting something that actually disagrees with what I posted. You are trying to make it appear that I posted something different so that you can "correct" me.

You have been rightfully corrected on many things, you just chose to ignore these posts in your usual dishonest way.

 

[EaglePuncher]

Positive proof that God is good at hiding.

Interesting that miracles are hard to find in modern times. Take the knack of levitation. If you read about some of the RCC saints, it would seem the air was thick with flying holy men, many years ago.

It absolutely baffles me how in 2022 one could even claim "Maybe there is a god" while unspeakable things are happening every day for the last 1500 years which would easily justify another great flood.