Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

[Mojo]

Beyond saying "it's unfalsifiable" there is nothing to discuss within a scientific context.

Do you know what we call unfalsifiable ideas presented in a scientific context?

 

[Mojo]

You are not reading me right. I said "it might be worth giving Genesis a second look".

But if you require science to be “theologically neutral” it can’t be examined in science lessons.

 

[psionl0]

Can you link to some posts where people other than you have said that, please?

Well there is this post but 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. So if I use the words "critical thinking" when they are not explicitly used in the context, I am referring to the statement that the GOP made.

The questions can only “trick” you if you don’t have valid answers to them. And since the only alternative you have offered is “goddidit”, it looks rather as if you don’t.

That's the trick. The objective is to try and rail road me into inadvertently posting a word that could be misinterpreted as an entire creationist argument.

Then we can have 1000 pages of posters berating me for my "dishonesty".

 

[Mojo]

Well there is this post…

No, I meant posts supporting your assertion that people here are saying, "we must not have critical thinking in schools".

That's the trick. The objective is to try and rail road me into inadvertently posting a word that could be misinterpreted as an entire creationist argument.

That horse bolted the moment you presented “goddiddit” as an idea that should be presented unchallenged in science classes. The only way you can now salvage your position is to present credible alternative scientific theories to evolution, and the grounds on which the current theory should be challenged.

 

[Darat]

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

And when asked out right about what other theories should be taught they completely ignore the question.

 

[psionl0]

And when asked out right about what other theories should be taught they completely ignore the question.

That question has been addressed. (One poster even pointed out that there is no "official" theory of evolution).

Your nose is just out of joint because I haven't posted several pages of an evolutionary theory that you can poke holes in.

 

[EaglePuncher]

You are not reading me right. I said "it might be worth giving Genesis a second look". Large numbers of students are going to school with beliefs that are incompatible to what they will learn in the science room. That's a lot of people who aren't going to get much out of a science class if their beliefs aren't addressed.

However, I am only postulating this as apossible exception to the "it's unfalsifiabe - we won't waste any more time on this" rule. I am willing to accept that we don't need to deal with their beliefs at all or that we should deal with their beliefs elsewhere and leave it out of the science class room.

The correct course of action is: Despite many many many claims about supernatural beings directly interacting with us humans and nature, not a single shred of evidence was found.

 

[Darat]

Ah, ok. A mod-split thread of a derail from another thread. Well then, while this is a derail off of that earlier thread, surely this is bang on here, given that is literally what this thread's about? And in any case, since my post directly addressed your own post, I don't see how you can describe mine as a derail, not unless you accept that yours itself was a derail, from whatever original course you may have had in mind for your thread.

...Anyway, moving on. I agree, teaching critical thinking in schools seems like a great idea. But why just in science, though? Why not literature as well --- for instance, discussing controversial authorship (Shakespeare? The Bible?), and/or controversial content, and/or critical analysis and criticism of plots (as opposed to merely literary analysis)? Why not history, that is one field that would be a great subject for critical analysis and evaluation. Civics as well, obviously. And most importantly in religion, in religious schools where they actually teach religious subjects.

In fact, given that critical thinking is something so sorely needed, and in practice so sorely lacking, it would be a terrific idea to properly teach it in schools, rigorously, I'm with you there; but given that it is needed in every subject, not just science but also literature, and civics, and history, and religion (where religion is taught, in religious schools) surely a better idea would be to have a separate subject called Critical Thinking, that teaches critical thinking both standalone, and also as it relates to specific subjects taught in other classes? Why single out just science?





It's an argumentum ad absurdum. It shows how absurd the whole idea is, of even considering wild unsupported declarations (including of the kind the Bible makes, the unfalsified and unfalsifiable bits).

Think about it. In your scheme of things, in science class about evolution, you'd need to have Creationism also discussed, as well as Maori creation myths, as well as creation stories from Hindu mythology and ...well, why stop with religion, why not out-and-out fiction like the Silmarillion as well, and interesting sci-fi .....as well as, I suppose, wild random "theories" that students might be able to come up with themselves? That won't even be a science class any more.

And again, why just science class, right? Why not literature as well, and history as well, and civics as well, and religious studies as well (in religious schools)? Well, there also, those classes would devolve to chaos, and not even look like history classes any more, or civics classes, or literature classes.

Once again, your point about emphasizing teaching of critical thinking rigorously is well taken. But it makes sense to make it a separate subject, then, rather than merge that teaching with other subjects like history and science and literature and religious studies.

They have made their ignorance of current education for under 16s clear to all. For instance they don't think kids are any longer taught 2+2=4 in math classes, that the North Pole is rather chilly in geography lessons.

Their view of under 16s education is -to put it poilitley - peculiar to say the least.

 

[smartcooky]

You are not reading me right. I said "it might be worth giving Genesis a second look"

"Genesis" is fantasy fiction. Its not even worth a first look...

Large numbers of students are going to school with beliefs that are incompatible to what they will learn in the science room. That's a lot of people who aren't going to get much out of a science class if their beliefs aren't addressed.

Tough to be them. If they want to learn about actual science, then its surely better for them to do actual science, and not indulge in fairytales.

However, I am only postulating this as a possible exception to the "it's unfalsifiabe - we won't waste any more time on this" rule.

Its not just a "rule", ITS A FUNDAMENTAL TENET OF SCIENCE!!!!

I am willing to accept that we don't need to deal with their beliefs at all or that we should deal with their beliefs elsewhere and leave it out of the science class room.

This is the first thing you have posted in this thread that makes any sense whatsoever.
.
.

 

[Mojo]

They have made their ignorance of current education for under 16s clear to all. For instance they don't think kids are any longer taught 2+2=4 in math classes, that the North Pole is rather chilly in geography lessons.

Their view of under 16s education is -to put it poilitley - peculiar to say the least.

They’ve already admitted that they…

…don't care that the GOP wants to cast education back into the middle ages.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

I'm afraid that ship has already sailed!

When someone who claims not to be a theist spends such an inordinate amount of time staunchly defending theist principles, others will understandably grow suspsicious of that someone's motives!

 

[psionl0]

When someone who claims not to be a theist spends such an inordinate amount of time staunchly defending theist principles, others will understandably grow suspsicious of that someone's motives!

Your problem is that you can't cope with the fact that there are some things that can be falsified with the scientific method and some things that can't - even though you "know" that they are wrong.

Of course, this is a fact that you can't argue against so just to be disagreeable, you label me a "theist" so that you have something to argue about.

 

[smartcooky]

Your problem is that you can't cope with the fact that there are some things that can be falsified with the scientific method and some things that can't - even though you "know" that they are wrong.

Such as?

Of course, this is a fact that you can't argue against

Non-sequitur - its not a fact at all

 

[EaglePuncher]

Such as?

"God", he means "god". A god that is hiding in just the right moments, but after we unsuccessfully tried to detect him he continues to physically interact with the universe. And he exists because those eggheads in their lab coats can't falsify him. Same as the Tooth Fairy btw. Of course there actually aren't any methods for detecting gods or tooth fairies, which is very convenient for some people.

 

[IanS]

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.

It's certainly not beyond scientific testing. Science does not claim to provide literal proofs (or disproof), for anything. The closest that science gets, is to declare any particular explanation to be a "Theory" ... and a Theory is an explanation which has such enormous evidential support, and such overwhelming agreement amongst genuine scientists in that exact field, that it's not possible to argue that it's wrong by producing genuine counter evidence, calculation and explanation that is significantly different to the established Theory.

The essential point is that scientific explanation is strongly supported by all the known properly verified evidence, such that there is no credible reason to doubt the consensus explanation ... that's what we have with things like Evolution, Relativity, Quantum Theory etc.

So, coming to the highlighted sentence above – if the bible makes any claim about what a claimed/believed God can do or has done, then science can very easily investigate such claims to see if the claim is supported by any of the known evidence … and in the case of all God claims there is no credible evidence to support the claims – and that is the conclusion of Science.

Those religious claims are in fact all claims of the supernatural. But what science has shown, and concluded, is that all such supernatural claims are untenable … they are in contradiction with all known evidence and in contradiction with all discoveries, explanations, calculation and all testing and all methods of confirmation ever devised by any method objective enough and precise enough to count as “Science”.

 

[psionl0]

So, coming to the highlighted sentence above – if the bible makes any claim about what a claimed/believed God can do or has done, then science can very easily investigate such claims to see if the claim is supported by any of the known evidence … and in the case of all God claims there is no credible evidence to support the claims – and that is the conclusion of Science.

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.

 

[Darat]

That question has been addressed. (One poster even pointed out that there is no "official" theory of evolution).

...snip..

You still have not answered the question.

 

[Chanakya]

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.

It is a scientific standard, though, per my lights. Let me spell out what I'm thinking.

Are thunders caused by bolts being hurled down by an angry Thor (or Zeus, or Indra, or whoever)? I haven't looked, but I'm pretty much sure there's no paper actually discussing that precise thing. However, in as much as science has given us a very plausible explanation of the how of it, without having to invoke furious Gods, therefore I'd say it is "scientific" --- that is, in accord with a scientific worldview, even if this specific question is not directly borne out by the precise steps of the scientific method --- to reject the notion of thunder being caused by livid gods.

Likewise, I should think, with the God of the dice? That is, we have a good enough idea of how the dice rolls play out, basis what science has already shown us. And introducing a God of the dice does not improve on that explanation, and in any case raises twenty other unanswered questions, and finally is entirely lacking in evidentiary support. Therefore, I should think it is very much "scientific" to reject a God of the dice. I should think such rejection would accord with a scientific standard, even if there's no research paper that's directly titled "Experiments that disprove, step by step following the scientific method, the god of the dice".

 

[Chanakya]

You are not reading me right. I said "it might be worth giving Genesis a second look". Large numbers of students are going to school with beliefs that are incompatible to what they will learn in the science room. That's a lot of people who aren't going to get much out of a science class if their beliefs aren't addressed.

However, I am only postulating this as a possible exception to the "it's unfalsifiabe - we won't waste any more time on this" rule. I am willing to accept that we don't need to deal with their beliefs at all or that we should deal with their beliefs elsewhere and leave it out of the science class room.

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.

 

[Darat]

You are wicked!