Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

jimbob said:
It was very hard to not reference that.

My son tells me that Journey to the West has more internal consistency and literary merit in his mind than the first few books of the Old Testament.

He gave up on that somewhere with a lot of "begats"
Click to expand...

Both series are on Britbox with the 'original' dubbed dialogue.
marvelous
 
Pixel42 said:
If a school has a large number of Hindus that would be a reason to not use those beliefs as an example of how to apply critical thinking.

The best examples to use are those in which the students and their parents do not have an emotional investment. Then encourage the students to use those same skills and techniques to scrutinise all claims, without even mentioning religion. That strategy is far more likely to be effective in the long term, without causing problems in the short term.
Click to expand...

psionl0 said:
I don't disagree.
Click to expand...


You have been arguing that the Genesis myth should be used to teach critical thinking in schools because that is the myth that the most children are likely to believe in.
 
psionl0 said:
See how I listen to sensible arguments?
Click to expand...


One that was introduced yesterday:
Mojo said:
If “large numbers of students believe the Genesis account (many of them literally)”, then it (or something opposing it) is probably not a good topic to use to teach critical thinking skills, as they are going to be emotionally invested in the outcome.
Click to expand...


Can we close the thread now?
 
I admit, I haven't checked this thread in many days. Can we cut to the chase?

Has it ever been clearly stated what the 'other' scientific theory -- the one besides evolution -- what that theory actually is?

Or is that explanation still in the process of 'evolving' (if you'll pardon the pun)? ;)
 
Mojo said:
One that was introduced yesterday:


Can we close the thread now?
Click to expand...
My apologies. With so much heat being generated about "Santa Claus", I must have missed it.

I have also acknowledged other sensible arguments against discussing Genesis in a science class.
 
newyorkguy said:
I admit, I haven't checked this thread in many days. Can we cut to the chase?

Has it ever been clearly stated what the 'other' scientific theory -- the one besides evolution -- what that theory actually is?
Or is that explanation still in the process of 'evolving' (if you'll pardon the pun)? ;)
Click to expand...

Nope, and it never will be.

Theists and religion apologists are forever claiming there are "other competing scientific theories to Evolution", but when you press them for substance and details, you get crickets!
 
psionl0 said:
My apologies. With so much heat being generated about "Santa Claus", I must have missed it.

I have also acknowledged other sensible arguments against discussing Genesis in a science class.
Click to expand...

The best one is that it isn’t science.
 
newyorkguy said:
I admit, I haven't checked this thread in many days. Can we cut to the chase?

Has it ever been clearly stated what the 'other' scientific theory -- the one besides evolution -- what that theory actually is?

Or is that explanation still in the process of 'evolving' (if you'll pardon the pun)? ;)
Click to expand...

Evolution plus design
 
psionl0 said:
You are the one who argued that extending a proposition is not a strawman.


And I have explained almost as many times why we don't need to give other myths the same consideration as Genesis. You just simply refuse to read the reasons. (Hint: it's got nothing to do with silliness).
Click to expand...


In school biology classes, the students should be taught the basic ideas of evolution. And of course if they go on to study biology at university, then they will study evolution in far more detail ... whether they are religious or not, whether it's school science or univ., they can hardly fail to realise that evolution shows why the biblical story of creation cannot be true ...

... they don't need a debate with the teachers in the class about that. Even if the teacher does not specifically spell-it-out to them, their course text books will give an outline of how Darwin established the evidence that confirms evolution ... and if the students are especially interested in that, eg if they are Christians or Muslims who are concerned about that obvious difference between creation and evolution, then they can buy any number of small inexpensive popular-level books on evolution, any of which will describe all of the history and all of the evidence that people like Darwin and much later biologists up to the present day have discovered (and that's your “why” … that's your “critical thinking” of “why” evolution is true and why divine creation cannot therefore be true in any sense at all ... it's the total opposite of evolution).
 
IanS said:
In school biology classes, the students should be taught the basic ideas of evolution.
Click to expand...
Of course they should. Evolution works. The theory explains why life forms keep adapting (evolving). Computers use evolutionary algorithms to perfect the design of things - especially AI.

When it comes to living things, evolution is the way to go. Whether mutations are totally random or there is a "guiding hand" in the process is a moot point in science since there is no way to test for such speculation.
 
I'm looking down on two identical mazes, in each of which there is someone walking around. In one the person is wandering around randomly, and in the other he has an earpiece via which someone who is also looking down on the mazes is giving him directions to get to a particular point. No speculation is required for me to be able to tell which is which.

Natural selection is a far more powerful force than random chance, powerful enough to turn billion to one chances into stone cold certainties, but it is not a conscious force, and can easily be distinguished from one.
 
Pixel42 said:
I'm looking down on two identical mazes, in each of which there is someone walking around. In one the person is wandering around randomly, and in the other he has an earpiece via which someone who is also looking down on the mazes is giving him directions to get to a particular point. No speculation is required for me to be able to tell which is which.

Natural selection is a far more powerful force than random chance, powerful enough to turn billion to one chances into stone cold certainties, but it is not a conscious force, and can easily be distinguished from one.
Click to expand...
Evolution doesn't work that way. It is characterized by a variable population, selection and reproduction with some mutations.

Most mutations don't give the living thing an advantage over previous generations (after all, they are random) but when one does, the new generation quickly propagates that mutation. Over the long term, it may appear that a living thing has constantly evolved in a particular direction but we don't see all of the variations that fell by the way side.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Of course they should. Evolution works. The theory explains why life forms keep adapting (evolving). Computers use evolutionary algorithms to perfect the design of things - especially AI.

When it comes to living things, evolution is the way to go. Whether mutations are totally random or there is a "guiding hand" in the process is a moot point in science since there is no way to test for such speculation.
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to see what your criticism was in the first post of this thread then?

psionl0 said:
Stacyhs said:
"Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. 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. 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."

Because GOD and mah Bible are just as scientificy as evolution. If we're descended from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys? and Climate Change is just a hoax. I mean, look at how much snow we got this past winter!
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...


You attacked Stacyhs' argument against including the Genesis myth in science lessons as wanting "indoctrination".

Most readers would conclude that such an attack implies that you consider it appropriate to include that in a science lesson.
 
psionl0 said:
Of course they should. Evolution works. The theory explains why life forms keep adapting (evolving). Computers use evolutionary algorithms to perfect the design of things - especially AI.

When it comes to living things, evolution is the way to go. Whether mutations are totally random or there is a "guiding hand" in the process is a moot point in science since there is no way to test for such speculation.
Click to expand...


There is a “guiding hand”: it’s called natural selection.
 
psionl0 said:
Of course they should. Evolution works. The theory explains why life forms keep adapting (evolving). Computers use evolutionary algorithms to perfect the design of things - especially AI.

When it comes to living things, evolution is the way to go. Whether mutations are totally random or there is a "guiding hand" in the process is a moot point in science since there is no way to test for such speculation.
Click to expand...

Its not moot, it is WRONG. There is NO ******* guiding hand other than natural selection.

ETA Ninja'd by Mojo
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom