Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

[arthwollipot]

And that's the end of teaching evolution in school.

There are other examples.

Yes, there are. But this particular example is a way to talk about religion in a science class, and that's the only reason I brought it up. Specifically, as a response to this:

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]

If a teacher tried to teach ID or any other version of Biblical Creationism in a science class they would need to show why the theory or hypothesis was a fail. How would the parents like it if Jill or Jonny came home from school and reported to their parents they learned the Biblical creation story was disproved by science?

For starters you don't use absolutes like "disproved". All you can do is say "the bible says X and the observed data suggests Y" (with a critical examination of how we interpret the data).

The objective should not be to convince students that they are "wrong" to believe in creation but to give them the tools to examine their beliefs critically. Any suggestion that students should be taught that creation is a valid alternative scientific interpretation of observed data is absurd.

 

[Sideroxylon]

For starters you don't use absolutes like "disproved". All you can do is say "the bible says X and the observed data suggests Y" (with a critical examination of how we interpret the data).

The objective should not be to convince students that they are "wrong" to believe in creation but to give them the tools to examine their beliefs critically. Any suggestion that students should be taught that creation is a valid alternative scientific interpretation of observed data is absurd.

Substitute falsified for disproved then. Falsification is the term used by science and philosophers of science. Elimination of hypotheses is the fundamental of all daily trouble shooting.

Literalist interpretations of Genesis make many predictions that fail observation. That view is wrong, false and disproved.

Want to get all caught up the mires of epistemology? Well from a pragmatist perspective they are not true either. They fail at the arbitration of observation. They have zero predictive power unlike our evolutionary and geological understandings of life and origins.

 

[Meadmaker]

For starters you don't use absolutes like "disproved". All you can do is say "the bible says X and the observed data suggests Y" (with a critical examination of how we interpret the data).

The objective should not be to convince students that they are "wrong" to believe in creation but to give them the tools to examine their beliefs critically. Any suggestion that students should be taught that creation is a valid alternative scientific interpretation of observed data is absurd.

Agreed.



I want to suggest an alternative question to the one in the current thread title. (The one in the current thread title is a bad thread title because every participant in the thread would say "no". To put it as the thread title confuses people.) The alternative question I would put forward is,

"Should creationism be discussed in science class?"

I would say yes, but I think the current state of legal interpretation in the US makes it very risky to do so.

Some years back I remember a thread I started following a case where a teacher was sued after he called creationism "superstitious nonsense" in class. He lost, although he won on appeal, but it was kind of a marginal victory. The interesting thing was that the most vehement anti-creationists on this board tended to support the lawsuit. The mere possibility of mentioning creationism in an educational setting was enough for them to throw the teacher under the bus. (ETA: I remembered, the teacher in question actually joined the forum at one point.)

I think creationism should be discussed in science class, time permitting, and used as a point to critically examine evidence. Is the Earth 5 billion years old, or 6,000 years old? How can we tell? Could the Grand Canyon, and lots of not so grand canyons, have been formed by a massive flood? What does the evidence say? What kind of rock formations would you expect if the world was covered by water, which then evaporated quickly?

I think it's a good way to get people thinking about science, as opposed to just parroting answers to get an A on the test.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Raising creationism in a Kentucky science classroom, “We all know Gawd created the heavens and earth, Adam in Eve in seven days. The Bible tells us so but the board says I have to teach this evolution nonsense.”

Creationist ideas belong in a prelude of the history of geology and evolution. Discuss the dominant paradigms of that time and why people like Hutton and Wallace came to question them. I can’t see how personal beliefs in a science classroom is going to end well or be good use of time.

 

[EaglePuncher]

For starters you don't use absolutes like "disproved". All you can do is say "the bible says X and the observed data suggests Y" (with a critical examination of how we interpret the data).

We can also just ignore the bs in the bible and also ignore people who complain about "using absolutes" and then use "All you can do" in the very next sentence.

 

[Meadmaker]

Raising creationism in a Kentucky science classroom, “We all know Gawd created the heavens and earth, Adam in Eve in seven days. The Bible tells us so but the board says I have to teach this evolution nonsense.”

I'm ok with that, assuming she proceeds to teach "this evolution nonsense".

Because I think that the teacher in the next classroom will say, "So, let's look at these rocks....."


It's a net win.

 

[smartcooky]

I want to suggest an alternative question to the one in the current thread title. (The one in the current thread title is a bad thread title because every participant in the thread would say "no". To put it as the thread title confuses people.) The alternative question I would put forward is,
"Should creationism be discussed in science class?"

Should Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, The Sandman or the Afterlife be discussed in science class?

Answer... an emphatic "no"!

I would give the same answer for creationism. All of the above share the exact same evidence with the highlighted for their truth & reality....none! They are all a complete fiction - human conceived fantasies with no basis in fact.

For mine, even discussing religious creation in a science class affords it undeserved credence, and does a grave disservice to science itself!

 

[psionl0]

Should Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, The Sandman or the Afterlife be discussed in science class?

Answer... an emphatic "no"!

You keep ignoring the fact that nobody believes in Santa Claus or the Tooth fairy so there is no need to critically examine those concepts (in the science room or anywhere else).

OTOH large numbers of students believe the Genesis account (many of them literally). You can say "stiff ****, it serves them right for having religious parents" if you like but some of these kids are going to have a significant effect on the direction of the future. To deny them the critical thinking skills needed to make rational decisions is illogical.

 

[EaglePuncher]

You keep ignoring the fact that nobody believes in Santa Claus or the Tooth fairy so there is no need to critically examine those concepts (in the science room or anywhere else).

OTOH large numbers of students believe the Genesis account (many of them literally). You can say "stiff ****, it serves them right for having religious parents" if you like but some of these kids are going to have a significant effect on the direction of the future. To deny them the critical thinking skills needed to make rational decisions is illogical.

You keep beating a very dead and already decomposed horse named "But so many people believe in it"

Literally millions of children strongly believe in Santa and the tooth fairy, btw But I guess they "don't count", right?

Also, you need to provide evidence for the claim: "They are denied the critical thinking skills needed to make rational decisions"

 

[jimbob]

Should Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, The Sandman or the Afterlife be discussed in science class?

Answer... an emphatic "no"!

I would give the same answer for creationism. All of the above share the exact same evidence with the highlighted for their truth & reality....none! They are all a complete fiction - human conceived fantasies with no basis in fact.

For mine, even discussing religious creation in a science class affords it undeserved credence, and does a grave disservice to science itself!

Indeed. Instead I do think that one should "teach the controversy" in religious studies.

This could be the starting point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

These are all aspects of creation that people believe or believed in. And with neo-paganism, there are probably people who profess belief in most of them.

 

[Mojo]

You keep ignoring the fact that nobody believes in Santa Claus or the Tooth fairy so there is no need to critically examine those concepts (in the science room or anywhere else).

OTOH large numbers of students believe the Genesis account (many of them literally). You can say "stiff ****, it serves them right for having religious parents" if you like but some of these kids are going to have a significant effect on the direction of the future. To deny them the critical thinking skills needed to make rational decisions is illogical.

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.

 

[Darat]

You keep ignoring the fact that nobody believes in Santa Claus or the Tooth fairy so there is no need to critically examine those concepts (in the science room or anywhere else).

...snip...

Are you sure no youngsters believe in Sana and the Tooth Fairy? I'm not as I know and have known many small kids that believe in both.

 

[Darat]

Like I said before, you use it as an example of radiocarbon dating. Show what radiocarbon dating is, show why it is a reliable method of finding out how old organic matter is, then say "this is how we know the Shroud of Turin is a 14th century forgery".

In a science class? That seems very wrong to me, you bring up the Shroud in a RE or History class.

At key stage 4 - towards the end of under 16 education in England this is what is taught.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...le/381380/Science_KS4_PoS_7_November_2014.pdf

 

[Pixel42]

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.

That's a good point. Better to use something like astrology or homeopathy to demonstrate how people can fool themselves into believing things that aren't true, and how science/critical thinking can disprove them. Then encourage them to apply those skills to all claims, without mentioning religion specifically.

 

[arthwollipot]

In a science class? That seems very wrong to me, you bring up the Shroud in a RE or History class.

As an example of carbon dating successfully determining something's age, yes. You could also use other examples. Or you could just say "Fun fact - this is how we found out that the Shroud of Turin was manufactured in the C14th! Now, for older samples, you need to use Uranium-Thorium dating, which..."

 

[Sideroxylon]

You keep ignoring the fact that nobody believes in Santa Claus or the Tooth fairy so there is no need to critically examine those concepts (in the science room or anywhere else).

OTOH large numbers of students believe the Genesis account (many of them literally). You can say "stiff ****, it serves them right for having religious parents" if you like but some of these kids are going to have a significant effect on the direction of the future. To deny them the critical thinking skills needed to make rational decisions is illogical.

Critical thinking can be taught separately. The biology class need only touch on biblical ideas in their historical context of why the paradigm changed. This in itself is important for a lot of creationists to understand. Many will tell you evolution came about as an attack on Christianity which is not what we can see in history of ideas.

Religion is just too personal. A science teacher runs a real risk of offending students by discussing it. Better to prep the students in how to critically analyse information, which is an essential skill for almost everything they do at school. The science teacher can then focus on communicating what we know and how we know it.

 

[Darat]

As an example of carbon dating successfully determining something's age, yes. You could also use other examples. Or you could just say "Fun fact - this is how we found out that the Shroud of Turin was manufactured in the C14th! Now, for older samples, you need to use Uranium-Thorium dating, which..."

That doesn't seem to be what PsionIO is arguing for.

And also it just wouldn't work - how many under 16 year olds are going to know anything about the Shroud? To use it in such a way relies on the students knowing about the Shroud to begin with. Don't forget in the USA many of them won't be members of the RCC they will be members of churches that arose out of the protestant tradition, so iconology and relics are more likely to be considered heretical.

 

[Mojo]

Religion is just too personal. A science teacher runs a real risk of offending students by discussing it.

In the US, where this proposal originated, might they also run the risk of infringing (or at the very least being accused of infringing) the First Amendment?

 

[smartcooky]

You keep ignoring the fact that nobody believes in Santa Claus or the Tooth fairy so there is no need to critically examine those concepts (in the science room or anywhere else). OTOH large numbers of students believe the Genesis account(many of them literally)

"Argumentum ad populum" fallacy. What people believe is of ZERO consequence, what they have evidence for is the only thing that matters.

You can say "stiff ****, it serves them right for having religious parents" if you like

Yes, I do like.

but some of these kids are going to have a significant effect on the direction of the future. To deny them the critical thinking skills needed to make rational decisions is illogical.

You do not need to use creation as an example of teaching critical thinking skills. There are numerous other, more appropriate and far less controversial ways to teach critical thinking in science.

https://reboot-foundation.org/en/critical-thinking-in-science/

NOTE: You won't find the words "Bible", "God" or "creation" anywhere in there or in the associated lesson plan linked below...

WARNING: The following link is a 1.1 MB PDF - https://reboot-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/_docs/How_to_Teach Critical_Thinking.pdf