Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

[Sideroxylon]

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.

Too long ago to remember your own science classes? Is that how you remember them? Is that how the textbooks present the subject? Is that how you think your dear interlocutors think it works?

I know you love the taxonomy of fallacious arguments soooo……

Strawman!!!!!!11

 

[Sideroxylon]

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?

Bbbbbrrrrrt: Geological column says, “No.”*

* And thats just one easy to understand one right off the bat.

 

[Meadmaker]

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?

Don't get fooled into thinking that the thread title is related to the thread contents.

 

[psionl0]

Too long ago to remember your own science classes? Is that how you remember them? Is that how the textbooks present the subject? Is that how you think your dear interlocutors think it works?

I know you love the taxonomy of fallacious arguments soooo……

Strawman!!!!!!11

This is really weird! Somebody argues that "Science class is not there to prove anything", I disagree with that sentiment and who do you take to task?

 

[arthwollipot]

Bbbbbrrrrrt: Geological column says, “No.”*

* And thats just one easy to understand one right off the bat.

That's hardly the scientific method, Sid.

 

[Sideroxylon]

This is really weird! Somebody argues that "Science class is not there to prove anything", I disagree with that sentiment and who do you take to task?

You are the master of the cheap shot and will gleefully latch onto anyone speaking loosely on a subject. Gotcha! If you were to have answered my questions it would expose your uncharitable interpretation ploy. You paint the bloody classroom like a Chick tract. Do you think the person you are responding to sees it that way? Of course they bloody well don’t.

 

[Sideroxylon]

That's hardly the scientific method, Sid.

It is in shorthand. It’s not hard to infer the prediction I am extrapolating from a 7 day of creation and falsifying with the observation of the geological column.

Could make for a nice Sunday school critical thinking exercise.

 

[psionl0]

You are the master of the cheap shot and will gleefully latch onto anyone speaking loosely on a subject. Gotcha! If you were to have answered my questions it would expose your uncharitable interpretation ploy. You paint the bloody classroom like a Chick tract. Do you think the person you are responding to sees it that way? Of course they bloody well don’t.

So now you are claiming that I responded to a false post? You must be really desperate if that is the depths you have sunk to just to paint me in a negative light.

 

[Sideroxylon]

So now you are claiming that I responded to a false post? You must be really desperate if that is the depths you have sunk to just to paint me in a negative light.

Yes, debate gambits that start with, “So.”

Perhaps ironically that isn’t a charitable interpretation of what I posted? Maybe, bless you, this isn’t done deliberately.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

You have no ******* idea whatsoever! There is no science class that I know of which looks anything like that bull-**** you just posted. I am also 100% certain that no-one here (even you) believes this is how it happens. You're just being a contrarian ... again!

In science classes, the students do experiments to show that the theories they are presented with are correct. They are allowed, and in fact ENCOURAGED to challenge the methodology and results, and are also encouraged to design their own experiments to do so.

Earlier, I posted a link to a science class lesson plan with details, in a post in which I was directly replying to YOU. I'm betting, based on the utter crap you just posted, that you didn't even bother to read it!

 

[psionl0]

You have no ******* idea whatsoever! There is no science class that I know of which looks anything like that bull-**** you just posted. I am also 100% certain that no-one here (even you) believes this is how it happens. You're just being a contrarian ... again!

In science classes, the students do experiments to show that the theories they are presented with are correct. They are allowed, and in fact ENCOURAGED to challenge the methodology and results, and are also encouraged to design their own experiments to do so.

Earlier, I posted a link to a science class lesson plan with details, in a post in which I was directly replying to YOU. I'm betting, based on the utter crap you just posted, that you didn't even bother to read it!

I was responding to the claim "Science class is not there to prove anything". I don't know what you are responding to.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Serious question:

what is there to teach about Creationism that you can't fit into a single presentation slide or a small pamphlet?
Why would we need to adapt school curriculums to incorporate that?

 

[acbytesla]

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.

What the hell are you going on about? Science classes are nothing like as you describe.

Science classes shouldn't be wasting the valuable time of students and teachers debunking 4000 year old superstitions. Should they also be explaining why thunder isn't created by Thor's hammer?

 

[psionl0]

What the hell are you going on about? Science classes are nothing like as you describe.

Science classes shouldn't be wasting the valuable time of students and teachers debunking 4000 year old superstitions. Should they also be explaining why thunder isn't created by Thor's hammer?

GOTO 551

 

[Mojo]

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.

How did you know that this notion was going to be presented when you posted the OP? It doesn’t seem to be in the post the OP was a reply to.

 

[psionl0]

How did you know that this notion was going to be presented when you posted the OP? It doesn’t seem to be in the post the OP was a reply to.

The word "challengeable" was a key for me but it appears that some others may have interpreted it differently.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Here is what you say:


And here is what I actually said:

I having trouble seeing the difference between:

we should have "literally" Genesis in science class rooms.

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

 

[smartcooky]

I was responding to the claim "Science class is not there to prove anything". I don't know what you are responding to.

GOTO 551

What you replied to was this statement...

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

... but as is usual with you, you snipped out the parts that gave it context so that you could get up to your usual dishonest trick of making their post say something other that what it actually says. You do this so often, that is surprises me that you still think the rest of us won't notice.

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?

You implied what you implied, and no amount of goalpost shifting, pretzel twisting and context snipping gets you out of that.

 

[smartcooky]

I having trouble seeing the difference between:

we should have "literally" Genesis in science class rooms.

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

So do I!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... 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.

I don't think any of my science classes were taught this way.

We did do things like titrate how many drops of something or other it took to turn a liquid pink and that meant the liquid went from a base to an acid (or vice versa). But I never took that to mean we were regurgitating facts.

If anything, we were seeing how one tests liquids for their acidity or alkalinity (as an example).