Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

[Tassman]

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.

Yes it is: "1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

 

[smartcooky]

Yes it is: "1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

No, that is not the universe. "The Heavens" at that time were literally the stars in the sky, thought to be the result of holes in the firmament (a dome over the earth) through which the lights of heaven shone. The bible has absolutely NO concept of a greater universe and in fact, teaching such ideas was heresy. The 16th-century Italian philosopher (and former Catholic priest) Giordano Bruno taught that universe is infinite and that other solar systems exist... he was burned at the stake for his teachings.

 

[IanS]

Very close. I am hostile to the idea that ID can be proven (ie tested) using the scientific method.

If something appears random then it is either controlled by "random forces" or by mechanisms that either can't be identified or measured. For example, in a coin toss, we can identify a number of factors going down almost to the quantum level that would determine the result. Since we can't measure any of these factors we can just assume that the outcome is purely random and that works perfectly fine for all practical purposes.

We can examine the idea that such a hypothetical designer is both competent and benign.

This from 2008

​

You have posited in this thread the idea that maybe some entity might be making mutations to direct the direction of evolution. Pretty much the "noodly appendages" of the FSM but in mutations rather than isotope ratios. That is indeed not testable, but we do know that when organisms are adapted to their environment, there would be a greater number of occurrences of detrimental mutations than beneficial mutations. Indeed, we see this in our own species with children who suffer from genetic diseases.


So we have to posit a designer with the ability to direct mutations who is happy allowing suffering due to harmful mutations, and by their very nature these first appear before the victim is sentient.

Now one might argue that it's okay because original sin* means that they have inherited sin from somewhere or that the creator can do whatever it wishes with its creation. However that's a moral code which is happy with slavery (which, of course the Bible was). Just because someone creates a sentient being, one doesn't have any ownership of it - that would include any hypothetical future sentient robots. And yes I can judge any hypothetical designer by my moral standards.

anyway this point is made in this post in the "what is Marvel's dumbest character thread.

The highlighted

​

*Only exists if you believe that Genesis is actually true.

Obviously, I am not disagreeing with you on the general/overall points being made in this thread (mostly points made opposing what Psion has been saying), however, just on that highlight – why do you think it's not “testable” to see if “some entity might be making mutations to direct the direction of evolution” ? That seems very easily “testable” to me … all that we need to do is collect the evidence of whatever role mutations play in evolution, and see if any of that is genuine evidence of an intelligent entity “guiding the process” … that's exactly what has been done by all of the millions of research projects investigating and characterising our knowledge of evolution … so far, in all of the published research (probably hundreds of thousands of papers on this since Darwins time), nobody has seen any evidence whatsoever of any guiding intelligence (all steps are afaik consistent with natural chemical & physical change) … what else do you require?...what else do you think is possible? … because as I have tried to explain several times here, all that is ever possible is to do exactly what science has done here, and that is to gather all possible genuine evidence and provide an explanation which fits all of the evidence … and the answer/conclusion from that is a natural non-guided/non-intelligent/non-Godly “evolution” … so when you say it's not “testable”, that, ie the above gathering of evidence, is the “TEST”, there is no other test such as discovering a “proof”! …

… I think maybe you need to be clear in your thinking about what is a “test” vs what is a “proof”.

A “proof” is not possible (as far as science can tell), because no “proofs” are ever possible!

A “test” is very easily possible!

 

[jimbob]

Obviously, I am not disagreeing with you on the general/overall points being made in this thread (mostly points made opposing what Psion has been saying), however, just on that highlight – why do you think it's not “testable” to see if “some entity might be making mutations to direct the direction of evolution” ? That seems very easily “testable” to me … all that we need to do is collect the evidence of whatever role mutations play in evolution, and see if any of that is genuine evidence of an intelligent entity “guiding the process” … that's exactly what has been done by all of the millions of research projects investigating and characterising our knowledge of evolution … so far, in all of the published research (probably hundreds of thousands of papers on this since Darwins time), nobody has seen any evidence whatsoever of any guiding intelligence (all steps are afaik consistent with natural chemical & physical change) … what else do you require?...what else do you think is possible? … because as I have tried to explain several times here, all that is ever possible is to do exactly what science has done here, and that is to gather all possible genuine evidence and provide an explanation which fits all of the evidence … and the answer/conclusion from that is a natural non-guided/non-intelligent/non-Godly “evolution” … so when you say it's not “testable”, that, ie the above gathering of evidence, is the “TEST”, there is no other test such as discovering a “proof”! …

… I think maybe you need to be clear in your thinking about what is a “test” vs what is a “proof”.

A “proof” is not possible (as far as science can tell), because no “proofs” are ever possible!

A “test” is very easily possible!

No, because one can always dial it down and say that "to preserve the need for faith" only a very small proportion of mutations are affected.

It's another God of the gaps argument.

ETA, it's not falsifiable.

 

[Darat]

Yes it is: "1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

Which is part of the "mistranslation". The only thing we are told that god creates from nothing in Genesis is light. Things already existed before god started forming the earth and so on, now it may be that he created the stuff he forms into the earth and heavens but that is not stated "literally" in Genesis.

ETA: Gone through this before see: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12964929#post12964929

 

[psionl0]

Which is part of the "mistranslation". The only thing we are told that god creates from nothing in Genesis is light. Things already existed before god started forming the earth and so on, now it may be that he created the stuff he forms into the earth and heavens but that is not stated "literally" in Genesis.

You failed to show that that is the prevailing view before and you are failing now. Nowhere in Genesis does it say that God took existing material and used it to form either the heavens or the earth.

The RCC describes God as the "King of creation" and the Nicene Creed affirms God as the "creator of all that is seen and unseen". So while there may be some dissent, it is hardly a unique view that God created the universe.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Yeah, none if this sounds like stuff for a science class. But have fun with it in Sunday School.

 

[psionl0]

Yeah, none if this sounds like stuff for a science class. But have fun with it in Sunday School.

Maybe I shouldn't respond to this derail but it shows the difficulty of subjecting religious claims to scientific scrutiny if there is so much disagreement about what the claims are.

 

[Olmstead]

Maybe the GOP uses "We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced" as a euphemism for teaching creationism instead of evolution but you didn't state that in your post. I can only respond to what you actually posted.

FWIW trying to discuss ID in a scientific context is like asking a computer how it feels. The scientific method is not capable of dealing with philosophical questions. It can only deal with observable data.

The statement itself is ridiculous. Why is it focusing on those two very specific things instead of any other aspect of reality?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Maybe I shouldn't respond to this derail but it shows the difficulty of subjecting religious claims to scientific scrutiny if there is so much disagreement about what the claims are.

Well, you just need to be able to spell out what those claims are. But just as we have seen over the years with various paranormal claims on these forums, very bold sounding initial claims seem to become more and more nebulous and their effects(signal) vanish into the background noise so as to be untestable when someone attempts to shine the light of scrutiny on them.

That all seems beside the point because it isn't these hard/impossible to test fluffy claims of an intelligent agent with a hand in evolution that people want in the classroom. No, it has always been the big hairy claims of ex nihilo creation of earth less than 10,000 years old and a recent global flood. Those ideas are readily demonstrated false by being at odds with both the geological record and geography of animal and plant species today and in the fossil record and genetics. Among other things.

 

[newyorkguy]

I don't live in the USA, so I don't know precisely what they teach in US schools. But are you really saying that US schools teach the children that Genesis is not true...

No they don't, at least not as part of an established curriculum.

What distinguishes "teaching religion" from "teaching about religion"?

Religion may be presented as part of a secular educational program. Programs that "teach about religion" are geared toward teaching students about the role of religion in the historical, cultural, literary and social development of the United States and other nations. These programs should instill understanding, tolerance and respect for a pluralistic society. When discussing religion in this context, religion must be discussed in a neutral, objective, balanced and factual manner. Such programs should educate students about the principle of religious liberty as one of the fundamental elements of freedom and democracy in the United States. Anti-Defamation League link

I think most schools stay pretty close to the above. They teach about religion in a pluralistic way either as a part of literature classes or social studies. But not in science classes, at least they're not supposed to. As I recall -- it's been a while! -- by junior high school or high school my science teachers avoided discussing religious beliefs versus scientific. The reality is, again in my experience, none of the science teachers made the kind of declarative statements that internet discussions thrive on. They were careful to avoid that.

 

[Mojo]

The statement itself is ridiculous. Why is it focusing on those two very specific things instead of any other aspect of reality?

Because those two are the ones they want to undermine.

 

[IanS]

No, because one can always dial it down and say that "to preserve the need for faith" only a very small proportion of mutations are affected.
It's another God of the gaps argument.

ETA, it's not falsifiable.

Sorry, I but I have no idea what the highlight means.

And - what I am saying is that, if by "falsifiable" you actually mean that the claim can be shown to be untrue as matter of certainty, then according to current science, ie as far as we can tell, that is a mistake. That is - it's not possible to show anything to be "false" in that sense of absolute certainty.

 

[IanS]

No they don't, at least not as part of an established curriculum.


I think most schools stay pretty close to the above. They teach about religion in a pluralistic way either as a part of literature classes or social studies. But not in science classes, at least they're not supposed to. As I recall -- it's been a while! -- by junior high school or high school my science teachers avoided discussing religious beliefs versus scientific. The reality is, again in my experience, none of the science teachers made the kind of declarative statements that internet discussions thrive on. They were careful to avoid that.

OK, thanks. And yeah, of course that's what I thought was the case.

It's the same in the UK (or certainly was when I was at school ... again, rather along time ago), and same at university - there is no mention of God or religion in any science classes ...

... as far as I can tell, the difference of opinion in this thread is that Psion thinks there should be a discussion of religion in science classes ... specifically, the students should interrupt the teaching to demand that the teacher shows that a "guiding hand" or "ID" is not possible in any discovery from science.

I don't think that is practical, and I think it will cause all sorts of problems. I also don't think it's necessary in science classes (you have to analyse things in a logical way there anyway).

 

[Darat]

You failed to show that that is the prevailing view ...snip...

Since I never made that claim it is hardly surprising I didn't.

before and you are failing now. Nowhere in Genesis does it say that God took existing material and used it to form either the heavens or the earth.

Yes it does.

....Genesis 1
In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep,...​

The RCC describes God as the "King of creation" and the Nicene Creed affirms God as the "creator of all that is seen and unseen". So while there may be some dissent, it is hardly a unique view that God created the universe.

You are aware that isn't in Genesis - you know the claim you made?

Your strawmen are never going to be able to score anything but a home goal with the way you move those goalposts.

 

[jimbob]

No, because one can always dial it down and say that "to preserve the need for faith" only a very small proportion of mutations are affected.
It's another God of the gaps argument.

ETA, it's not falsifiable.

Sorry, I but I have no idea what the highlight means.

And - what I am saying is that, if by "falsifiable" you actually mean that the claim can be shown to be untrue as matter of certainty, then according to current science, ie as far as we can tell, that is a mistake. That is - it's not possible to show anything to be "false" in that sense of absolute certainty.

You can examine the idea, true, but as soon as you say - there's no evidence of such directed mutation (which is of course true). However the (lame) riposte to that is that an omniscient designer who is trying to preserve the value of faith (by hiding incontrovertible evidence of their existence) would have anticipated current scientific knowledge, so kept such directed mutations at a level below which they could be detected. Say by having lots of deleterious mutations as well.

The level of claimed activity is such that it is not really examinable.

 

[Mojo]

You can examine the idea, true, but as soon as you say - there's no evidence of such directed mutation (which is of course true). However the (lame) riposte to that is that an omniscient designer who is trying to preserve the value of faith (by hiding incontrovertible evidence of their existence) would have anticipated current scientific knowledge, so kept such directed mutations at a level below which they could be detected. Say by having lots of deleterious mutations as well.

The level of claimed activity is such that it is not really examinable.

They’ve got to maintain some gaps…

 

[Cosmic Yak]

The best BS non scientific idea gets to come to the science class. How about no?

I think it would be worthwhile as an exercise in critical thinking. For a start, examining the merits of competing claims whose only commonality is a complete lack of supporting evidence would have benefits. It would encourage students to look at the arguments used by fundamentalists, on their own merits, and without placing the teacher in the awkward position of having to say 'this is all lies' (for reasons I have stated above). Examining competing religious claims, from pretty much the same religion, in a religious studies class, would sidestep a lot of the potential controversy that could be generated by explicitly anti-religious classes from teachers. By rejecting any claim that lacks evidence, or even a logical foundation, the students would have to consider the merits of any religious claim, without an overtly anti-religious teaching. Then getting them to compare the quality of evidence of a faith-based claim with a scientific claim as a next step would most likely result in a realisation of the shaky foundations upon which ID claims are built. Again, the students would be led to this themselves, by their own efforts, so there would be no grounds for complaint by parents, preachers etc.
I have no doubt this will never actually happen, but it's an entertaining intellectual exercise all the same.

 

[Darat]

You can examine the idea, true, but as soon as you say - there's no evidence of such directed mutation (which is of course true). However the (lame) riposte to that is that an omniscient designer who is trying to preserve the value of faith (by hiding incontrovertible evidence of their existence) would have anticipated current scientific knowledge, so kept such directed mutations at a level below which they could be detected. Say by having lots of deleterious mutations as well.

The level of claimed activity is such that it is not really examinable.

And of course you are no longer talking about the god that creationists believe in, one that has and is actively making macro level changes all the time. (ID is of course nothing but lipstick on the pig of creationism.)

 

[jimbob]

And of course you are no longer talking about the god that creationists believe in, one that has and is actively making macro level changes all the time. (ID is of course nothing but lipstick on the pig of creationism.)

Yup or...

They’ve got to maintain some gaps…