Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

[jimbob]

I actually agree with you but do understand the other point people are making. Folk who want creationism and other religious doctrines to be taught in science classes such as psionI0 want to handwave over the fact that what those religious doctrines claim today isn't what is in the texts they claim their doctrines come from. They want to say today that their gods created what we now call the "universe" but it is clear that the modern concept of universe is very different from what is in the religious texts.

And to me, one version of the creation myth in Genesis makes a lot more internal sense if you think it would have been originally talking about a creator who was just one of many deities inhabiting (for want of a better word) the environment, before the start of the story.

This creator behaves like a superhero rather than an omnipotent, omniscient, infinite entity.

He crafts Adam out of clay in his own image and breathes life into him. He later realises that Adam needs a partner, so again, instead of willing Eve into being, he sends Adam to sleep and takes a rib* which he uses to make into Woman.

This makes sense if you haven't considered the idea of an entity that can just will stuff into being, but instead a supernatural craftsman or potter.

*This* god walks around the Garden of Eden and interacts with Adam and Eve as a finite being with super senses and great deductive skills - they hide from him, and later he deduces that Cain killed Abel, but didn't know what they did at the time.

There are also a couple of special plants that would provide most of the attributes of the deity to those who eat them. The tree of life** as opposed to the tree of knowledge.

Later, of course, he wrestles with Jacob and it's not a complete curbstomp (just as Pallas Athene was able to inspire her heroes in the Trojan war to actually harm Ares).

These really do notot make sense if the composers of these stories envisioned an infinite omniscient, omnipotent deity.


*Yup

**And THAT motif makes more internal sense in a lot of tribal myths from East Asia, where mankind was tricked into eating from the tree of death by the snake, which ate from the tree of life, and thus got the secret of eternal youth, which is to shed its old, wrinkly skin and have young, fresh skin underneath.

 

[psionl0]

No I didn't - why you lie so much is beyond me when the clear evidence of your lying is just a click away.

So let readers "click away" and decide who the liar is.

Here is what you say:

It arose from psionI0 saying we should have "literally" Genesis in science class rooms.

And here is what I actually said:

I say, let Genesis be subject to scientific scrutiny in a science class.

 

[smartcooky]

So let readers "click away" and decide who the liar is.

Here is what you say:

And here is what I actually said:

Yup, I clicked away aaaaand... you're still lying

What you said, and what Darat said you said are indistinguishable in the context of this thread... I think the term is "distinction without a difference"

 

[psionl0]

Yup, I clicked away aaaaand... you're still lying

What else are you going to say?

 

[Darat]

So let readers "click away" and decide who the liar is.

Here is what you say:


And here is what I actually said:

I shall be generous and assume you aren't trying to get away with another lie and assume you have simply got confused, this is the start of this particular sidebar:

I'm not sure that there is a single ID theory. For example, I understand that some people (particularly in the GOP) simply substitute the term "ID" for "God" (sort of an attempt to sucker people into believing that intelligence is necessary before going on to their real agenda).

If this is the case then every "goddidit" theory falls under the umbrella of "ID". This can range from a God who literally created the universe as described in Genesis (then presumably laid a false trail for scientists) to a god who wandered into an existing universe and did some tinkering around.

That isn't what is literally said in Genisis. Genisis does not state that God created the universe, that's a mistake in many of the translations..

 

[psionl0]

I shall be generous and assume you aren't trying to get away with another lie and assume you have simply got confused, this is the start of this particular sidebar:

As long as you pretend that I haven't addressed that claim, you are not really being generous:

Only in Young's Literal Translation is the word "prepared" used (and even that doesn't necessarily mean from existing materials). Every other version uses "created". https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis 1:1

 

[LarryS]

I don't have a dog in this who's lying but I think the two statements are the same - - - 'Science' already includes the notion of 'to scrutinize' - - so it doesn't add anything to say we can include Genesis in Science with scrutiny - just like it doesn't add anything to suggest we'll include Evolution in Science with scrutiny.
- - - -
On another note,
Saying that we can include Genesis in science with scrutiny is kinda like saying we can include Shakespeare's Hamlet in a Science class with scrutiny.

 

[jimbob]

I don't have a dog in this who's lying but I think the two statements are the same - - - 'Science' already includes the notion of 'to scrutinize' - - so it doesn't add anything to say we can include Genesis in Science with scrutiny - just like it doesn't add anything to suggest we'll include Evolution in Science with scrutiny.
- - - -
On another note,
Saying that we can include Genesis in science with scrutiny is kinda like saying we can include Shakespeare's Hamlet in a Science class with scrutiny.

On the second part, my son would argue that Hamlet at least has more literary merit. And the story it tells is probably less riddled with inconsistencies.

I think he has a point.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't want to participate in the long standing ISF tradition of arguing about whether someone actually said something, so I'm not going to go into that. I'll just say what I think ought to happen, and I'll say that I think Psion10 won't be averse to my position, but I think other people on the forum will be.

I think there ought to be required curriculum standards in high schools. For biology, that should include the history of life on Earth, including evolution. So, part of the lessons have to be fossil forms of animals and plants, including the age of those fossils.

When teaching that, it is possible that some of the students will object, saying that it cannot be true that the dinosaur fossil is 66 million years old, because the Earth is only 6,000 years old. The formation of that fossil was caused by a massive flood about 4,000 years ago.

The understanding of the fossil record is a vital part of understanding the history of life, so if there are students who don't accept the reality of that record, it's a major impediment to their education. At that point, I would very much like to spend a day talking about how we know the age of that fossil, and how we know that there was no deluge. In doing so, I would like to directly and specifically address the source of the students' misconceptions, dealing with sources, specifically, that teach "flood geology", and I wouldn't want to dance around the fact that I'm talking about Genesis.

As it stands, in the United States, that would be a very risky path to take. Someone would say that I can't criticize Genesis, because that's insulting to their religion and I'm violating their rights. I disagree.

Now, in order to be fair and unbiased, in order to do what I think ought to be done, there's a certain risk. If I bring up "flood geology" in class, I can't put it on the test, because that would go too far. Worse, though, I have to accept the possibility that some other teacher will also bring up "flood geology" as an "alternative theory" i.e. painting it in a positive light.

I'm willing to accept the risk, with some limitations. Again, it can't be on the test. It can't be part of an official curriculum. Principals have to be coached on how to tell the difference between offering an opinion and preaching in the classroom, and lawsuits will be inevitable if they don't do a great job of making sure those opinions don't stray into the preaching. However, I'm ok with taking the chance.

What we have right now in the United States is a sort of "Don't say God." bill.

(For those who don't read USA news, it's a contrast with the characterization in Florida of a recent bill as a "Don't say gay" bill.)

I'm ok with relaxing the requirements a little bit. I think the right side will win, given a chance. Right now, I think the creationists win by default. When a teacher says, "I can't talk about that." it makes "that" more appealing.

I would be very much opposed to including creationism or any variant into an official curriculum, and would believe any such requirement is, in fact, a violation of students' rights. However, I think we go too far if we say that creationism cannot be mentioned in any context.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm a bit puzzled by this insistence that the Genesis creation account wasn't intended to describe the creation of what we think of as the universe. The account explicitly includes the sun, moon, stars, etc. The only ambiguity seems to be whether God created the primaeval "stuff" from which he fashioned such bodies. But I don't see how it can be understood *not* to include everything we can look around and see today, everything the authors understood to exist (unless you're going to suggest that the CMB is that aforementioned primaeval stuff).

The Genesis story is the foundation of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and the 65 other books of the Bible as well as the numerous apocryphal books that followed. It establishes original sin and is the reasoning behind the need for Jesus and the resurrection. Never mind that the story is flawed scientifically and logically. Never mind that the book is supposedly written by Moses a thousand to thousands of years later. Never mind that the Moses story is contradicted by archeology.

There are multiple creation stories in Genesis that seem to contradict each other. The people that wrote these stories were clueless. They had no idea, none on how the earth, the sun or the stars came to be.

It's ridiculous to argue what they exactly meant in their literature. The language has changed too much and certainly it doesn't translate into English all that easily.

Still it seems damn clear they were attempting to explain the stars/dots in the sky, the moon and the sun and the other phenomena around them.

But this is like trying to explain comic book characters. The Bible is fan fiction and nothing else.

 

[jimbob]

The Genesis story is the foundation of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and the 65 other books of the Bible as well as the numerous apocryphal books that followed. It establishes original sin and is the reasoning behind the need for Jesus and the resurrection. Never mind that the story is flawed scientifically and logically. Never mind that the book is supposedly written by Moses a thousand to thousands of years later. Never mind that the Moses story is contradicted by archeology.

There are multiple creation stories in Genesis that seem to contradict each other. The people that wrote these stories were clueless. They had no idea, none on how the earth, the sun or the stars came to be.

It's ridiculous to argue what they exactly meant in their literature. The language has changed too much and certainly it doesn't translate into English all that easily.

Still it seems damn clear they were attempting to explain the stars/dots in the sky, the moon and the sun and the other phenomena around them.

But this is like trying to explain comic book characters. The Bible is fan fiction and nothing else.

It's fan fiction with a very limited concept of what could be.

And to me, one version of the creation myth in Genesis makes a lot more internal sense if you think it would have been originally talking about a creator who was just one of many deities inhabiting (for want of a better word) the environment, before the start of the story.

This creator behaves like a superhero rather than an omnipotent, omniscient, infinite entity.

He crafts Adam out of clay in his own image and breathes life into him. He later realises that Adam needs a partner, so again, instead of willing Eve into being, he sends Adam to sleep and takes a rib* which he uses to make into Woman.

This makes sense if you haven't considered the idea of an entity that can just will stuff into being, but instead a supernatural craftsman or potter.

*This* god walks around the Garden of Eden and interacts with Adam and Eve as a finite being with super senses and great deductive skills - they hide from him, and later he deduces that Cain killed Abel, but didn't know what they did at the time.

There are also a couple of special plants that would provide most of the attributes of the deity to those who eat them. The tree of life** as opposed to the tree of knowledge.

Later, of course, he wrestles with Jacob and it's not a complete curbstomp (just as Pallas Athene was able to inspire her heroes in the Trojan war to actually harm Ares).

These really do notot make sense if the composers of these stories envisioned an infinite omniscient, omnipotent deity.


*Yup

**And THAT motif makes more internal sense in a lot of tribal myths from East Asia, where mankind was tricked into eating from the tree of death by the snake, which ate from the tree of life, and thus got the secret of eternal youth, which is to shed its old, wrinkly skin and have young, fresh skin underneath.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I'm a bit puzzled by this insistence that the Genesis creation account wasn't intended to describe the creation of what we think of as the universe. The account explicitly includes the sun, moon, stars, etc. The only ambiguity seems to be whether God created the primaeval "stuff" from which he fashioned such bodies. But I don't see how it can be understood *not* to include everything we can look around and see today, everything the authors understood to exist (unless you're going to suggest that the CMB is that aforementioned primaeval stuff).

It simply wasn't what we thought of as the universe. They thought all that "up" stuff was floating around in a dome of water (and maybe supported by some glass like dome, hard to say).

 

[Darat]

As long as you pretend that I haven't addressed that claim, you are not really being generous:

I have given you links to the Hebrew text.

 

[Darat]

I don't want to participate in the long standing ISF tradition of arguing about whether someone actually said something, so I'm not going to go into that. I'll just say what I think ought to happen, and I'll say that I think Psion10 won't be averse to my position, but I think other people on the forum will be.

I think there ought to be required curriculum standards in high schools. For biology, that should include the history of life on Earth, including evolution. So, part of the lessons have to be fossil forms of animals and plants, including the age of those fossils.

When teaching that, it is possible that some of the students will object, saying that it cannot be true that the dinosaur fossil is 66 million years old, because the Earth is only 6,000 years old. The formation of that fossil was caused by a massive flood about 4,000 years ago.

The understanding of the fossil record is a vital part of understanding the history of life, so if there are students who don't accept the reality of that record, it's a major impediment to their education. At that point, I would very much like to spend a day talking about how we know the age of that fossil, and how we know that there was no deluge. In doing so, I would like to directly and specifically address the source of the students' misconceptions, dealing with sources, specifically, that teach "flood geology", and I wouldn't want to dance around the fact that I'm talking about Genesis.

As it stands, in the United States, that would be a very risky path to take. Someone would say that I can't criticize Genesis, because that's insulting to their religion and I'm violating their rights. I disagree.

Now, in order to be fair and unbiased, in order to do what I think ought to be done, there's a certain risk. If I bring up "flood geology" in class, I can't put it on the test, because that would go too far. Worse, though, I have to accept the possibility that some other teacher will also bring up "flood geology" as an "alternative theory" i.e. painting it in a positive light.

..snip….

As I asked about the idea of using the Shroud in science lessons for under 16s why would you use “flood geology” in a science class? There is so much to cover why cover non-science in science classes, leave it to the religious study classes to discuss religious claims.

 

[Meadmaker]

As I asked about the idea of using the Shroud in science lessons for under 16s why would you use “flood geology” in a science class? There is so much to cover why cover non-science in science classes, leave it to the religious study classes to discuss religious claims.

The answer is inside the post you quoted. 4th paragraph is where it's addressed most specifically. It begins with "The understanding of the fossil record is a vital part of understanding the history of life, so if there are students who don't accept the reality of that record, it's a major impediment to their education."

 

[smartcooky]

What else are you going to say?

What else is there to say?

I don't want to participate in the long standing ISF tradition of arguing about whether someone actually said something.

<snip>

Then don't!

 

[acbytesla]

And to me, one version of the creation myth in Genesis makes a lot more internal sense if you think it would have been originally talking about a creator who was just one of many deities inhabiting (for want of a better word) the environment, before the start of the story.

This creator behaves like a superhero rather than an omnipotent, omniscient, infinite entity.

He crafts Adam out of clay in his own image and breathes life into him. He later realises that Adam needs a partner, so again, instead of willing Eve into being, he sends Adam to sleep and takes a rib* which he uses to make into Woman.

This makes sense if you haven't considered the idea of an entity that can just will stuff into being, but instead a supernatural craftsman or potter.

*This* god walks around the Garden of Eden and interacts with Adam and Eve as a finite being with super senses and great deductive skills - they hide from him, and later he deduces that Cain killed Abel, but didn't know what they did at the time.

There are also a couple of special plants that would provide most of the attributes of the deity to those who eat them. The tree of life** as opposed to the tree of knowledge.

Later, of course, he wrestles with Jacob and it's not a complete curbstomp (just as Pallas Athene was able to inspire her heroes in the Trojan war to actually harm Ares).

These really do notot make sense if the composers of these stories envisioned an infinite omniscient, omnipotent deity.


*Yup

**And THAT motif makes more internal sense in a lot of tribal myths from East Asia, where mankind was tricked into eating from the tree of death by the snake, which ate from the tree of life, and thus got the secret of eternal youth, which is to shed its old, wrinkly skin and have young, fresh skin underneath.

Yes, God is a comic book superhero. But frankly, God is an evil villainous superhero. Think about it. The God of the Bible has the worst of man's character traits. He's jealous, he's narcissistic,. self centered, sexist, racist. He's petty and insecure. He commits genocide over and over and over again. There is absolutely nothing good about the God character in the Bible. And this is the being that supposedly created a billion trillion stars and 5 to 20 times that many planets and an unimaginable number of organic species.

 

[mgidm86]

Once creation is accepted as scientific fact it can be taught as such, until then go **** yourselves (they know who they are). It isn't even a theory because there is no science supporting it whatsoever.

Science class is not there to prove anything, it exists to teach what is already accepted scientific fact, and perhaps some theory as well. Didn't we figure all this out several hundred years ago?

What a stupid question. "Hey I have a stupid theory with no science backing it up, can we maybe teach it in science class and see if it's actually science?"

14 pages?

 

[psionl0]

Science class is not there to prove anything, it exists to teach what is already accepted scientific fact, and perhaps some theory as well.

The point of the OP was to argue against this notion and if you believe that science classes should simply recite current theory without justification then you are not teaching anything. You are certainly not turning out future scientists.

 

[arthwollipot]

I say, let Genesis be subject to scientific scrutiny in a science class.

Okay, let's run with this.

Hypothesis: God created the heavens and the earth in seven days.

How would you go about testing that hypothesis using the scientific method?