Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

[RecoveringYuppy]

It has been mentioned before that there is no such thing as a single fixed theory called evolution (or an "official" theory of evolution).

This subject has been done to death in other threads and is OT in this thread.

No, it's not OT because you said this:

The wording in the article was "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."

Regardless of the GOP agenda, if you or anybody else has a problem with these words then you are just being as zealotous as the GOP.

What theories in what classes? Science theories in science classes please. So which theories?

Some argument can be made that creationism could have a place in a comparative religion class. But the problem in the US right now is that no one makes that argument honestly. Virtually all the people making any argument at all that creationism belongs in school are liars who want religious indoctrination in the classroom.

 

[sackett]

Different theories from the same data? Happens all the time in the lab. That's why experimental work proceeds so slowly: You've got to design and run experiments to test different theories.

Further, you need data to construct any theory at all. Distinguishing applicable data from noise eats up time, money, and grad assistants. And then there's the delightfully maddening phenomenon of unexpected observations. The process never stops and it never stops changing.

Don't sound very dang reelijuss ta me.

 

[psionl0]

What theories in what classes?

Do you seriously expect me to name theories that are ok to question and imply that others are not to be questioned?

Everything should be open to questions. If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so. An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.

I don't care that the GOP wants to cast education back into the middle ages. We must not let them maneuver us into taking a polar opposite position.

 

[EaglePuncher]

Everything should be open to questions. If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so. An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.

Here we go

 

[Mojo]

Do you seriously expect me to name theories that are ok to question and imply that others are not to be questioned?

No, I want you to answer this question:

But why do we have to teach it by rote? Why are students not supposed to ask why a particular explanation is the best one for the available data? Why can they not explore why alternative scientific theories (ie not YEC or any other form of untestable religious dogma) do not fit the known data as well?

Which alternate scientific theory for evolution?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Do you seriously expect me to name theories that are ok to question and imply that others are not to be questioned?

No I expect you to keep ducking the question.

Let me rephrase the question in a way that is harder to duck: Should teachers be allowed to teach creationism?

I don't care that the GOP wants to cast education back into the middle ages. We must not let them maneuver us into taking a polar opposite position.

No one is arguing for a polar opposite position. No one. No one.

And no one should take seriously that the filthy lying creationists are making sincere arguments. When they say the words you quoted they are lying. And we should not pretend we don't know that.

 

[Mojo]

If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so.

What if they want to bring up Santa Claus as a disproof of relativity?

 

[lomiller]

Scientific theories can be challenged only if you have a body of data that contradicts it.

Wrong.

Well I guess the crackpots will challenge anything regardless of the data.

If an alternative theory is equally consistent with existing data

Again, because something like 10 people have already told you thins. There are no other theories that are consistent with the data in the cases of climate change or evolution.

makes the same predictions as the original theory

If they make the same predictions you haven't challenged the original theory.

 

[lomiller]

I really get the feeling that people are talking at cross-purposes here. But surely nothing should be taught as belief handed down from on high. To understand, you must teach the reasoning behind the resulting theory.

I think what you are suggesting is is that we don't just tell children why we are certain that these things are correct, we teach them the reasons that go into that conclusion.

That's different than saying children should be taught that theories like evolution and climate change should be "challengeable". In these cases there is no viable alternative theory, nor is there data to suggest the theories are wrong, so on what basis could they be challenged?

 

[Darat]

Do you seriously expect me to name theories that are ok to question and imply that others are not to be questioned?

Everything should be open to questions. If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so. An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.

I don't care that the GOP wants to cast education back into the middle ages. We must not let them maneuver us into taking a polar opposite position.

And fine for them to bring up the theory of a flat earth in geography when the teacher is teaching the theory of the earth being round? Fine for them to bring up that the sky is held up by Atlas in geography?

 

[Mojo]

I think what you are suggesting is is that we don't just tell children why we are certain that these things are correct, we teach them the reasons that go into that conclusion.

That's different than saying children should be taught that theories like evolution and climate change should be "challengeable". In these cases there is no viable alternative theory, nor is there data to suggest the theories are wrong, so on what basis could they be challenged?

Psionl0 has already answered that:

Everything should be open to questions. If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so.

 

[smartcooky]

Everything should be open to questions. If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so. An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.

Well at least you have finally shown the courage to not lie about what you really want.

But you are still wrong. "Goddidit" has absolutely NO place in science, ever... or at least, not unless the student brings scientifically testable evidence with the claim... but theists NEVER bring evidence, they only bring fairy stories and dogma from the religious books. "Goddidit" does not belong in science any more than flat earth... similarly, it ought to be dismissed from the get go

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Everything should be open to questions.

No. In science class, everything in nature is open to examination using the scientific method, the resulting validated body of knowledge is called science. It is wed to method; any theory one wishes to pursue must conform to scientific methodology to prosper and enter into the knowledge base.

If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so.

Not ostracized nor ridiculed; rather, instructed that this is science class, not religion, and to kindly save that question for home or Sunday school.

An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.

No. This is science class, not metaphysics, and "supposed intelligence" is not an observed fact needing an explanatory theory; it is speculative fantasy.

Point of order: Evolution, in the form of geologically layered progressive morphology; i.e., the fossil record, is fact. Rather, a set of factual observations. To explain it, and his differentiated finches, there is Darwin's theory of natural selection. Given that, to consider "goddidit" a theory would be a travesty, as it has no explanatory power and uses no method, being merely declaratory, such as "Bob did it". Once a specific theistic explanation comes into play, we see no natural laws can be operable, as no universals nor models of cause and effect pertain. Not science, not for science class, not a question of openmindedness.

Category error of epic, grandeous proportions. In conceptual space, theology harks to itself, not to nature. Thus, it is untethered to fact.

 

[Mojo]

An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces.

Nope, an honest answer would be that there is no evidence that this “supposed intelligence” exists.

You’re begging the question.

 

[slyjoe]

No. In science class, everything in nature is open to examination using the scientific method, the resulting validated body of knowledge is called science. It is wed to method; any theory one wishes to pursue must conform to scientific methodology to prosper and enter into the knowledge base.

Not ostracized nor ridiculed; rather, instructed that this is science class, not religion, and to kindly save that question for home or Sunday school.


No. This is science class, not metaphysics, and "supposed intelligence" is not an observed fact needing an explanatory theory; it is speculative fantasy.

Point of order: Evolution, in the form of geologically layered progressive morphology; i.e., the fossil record, is fact. Rather, a set of factual observations. To explain it, and his differentiated finches, there is Darwin's theory of natural selection. Given that, to consider "goddidit" a theory would be a travesty, as it has no explanatory power and uses no method, being merely declaratory, such as "Bob did it". Once a specific theistic explanation comes into play, we see no natural laws can be operable, as no universals nor models of cause and effect pertain. Not science, not for science class, not a question of openmindedness.

Category error of epic, grandeous proportions. In conceptual space, theology harks to itself, not to nature. Thus, it is untethered to fact.

I KNEW it.

 

[psionl0]

Well at least you have finally shown the courage to not lie about what you really want.

But you are still wrong. "Goddidit" has absolutely NO place in science, ever... or at least, not unless the student brings scientifically testable evidence with the claim... but theists NEVER bring evidence, they only bring fairy stories and dogma from the religious books. "Goddidit" does not belong in science any more than flat earth... similarly, it ought to be dismissed from the get go

This is why I am reluctant to answer questions like these. Everybody is trying to trap me into appearing to be a religious nut and hence derail the thread.

If you don't like the idea that science is theologically neutral then that is your problem. I have answered the question. Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about anything religious. So stop trying to make this about religion.

 

[psionl0]

Given that, to consider "goddidit" a theory would be a travesty, as it has no explanatory power and uses no method, being merely declaratory, such as "Bob did it".

I actually stated the EXACT OPPOSITE of this notion. Stop lying about my posts.

 

[Mojo]

I actually stated the EXACT OPPOSITE of this notion. Stop lying about my posts.

It’s the only alternative you have been able to present.

 

[Chanakya]

This is why I am reluctant to answer questions like these. Everybody is trying to trap me into appearing to be a religious nut and hence derail the thread.

If you don't like the idea that science is theologically neutral then that is your problem. I have answered the question. Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever[/I ]to say about anything religious. So stop trying to make this about religion.

Not true.

Science has actually actively positively directly disproved much that is religious. And what little now remains still within reach of the God of the gaps has no justification in terms of providing clear parsimonious explanation for our observations.


What a bizarre idea this is, that science has nothing to say about anything religious. I mean, how can anyone even say that with a straight face?

 

[psionl0]

Science has actually actively positively directly disproved much that is religious.

And the derail continues . . . .

The phrase "much that is religious" is too vague to mean anything. If you mean that we can use the scientific method to show that many claims in the bible are wrong (such as the universe is only 6000 years old) then that is true. But anything the bible says about God himself is beyond the realm of scientific testing.

For example, the notion that God determines the outcome when you roll dice (Proverbs 16:33) is totally unfalsifiable. You can say that it is nonsense but you can't say that "science proves" that this is nonsense. There endeth any discussion of gods in the science class room because science is theologically neutral.