• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Teaching creationism - what does it look like?

C_Felix said:
This is the essence of my OP.


There's no evidence for ID.
Click to expand...

Intelligent design is a scam and the proponents of it do not believe it!

It is simply a trick for the holy rollers to get their foot in the door of a science classroom. If that were to happen, bit by bit full blown creationism would eventually be taught in sciece classrooms.

Bob Guercio
 
drkitten said:
The problem with that :

Why should one particular failed theory get singled out to be presented and dissected like that?
Click to expand...

It is not a failed theory! It is not science and it was never a theory according to the scientific method. It is religion, pure and simple.

In science, valid theories come and go and there is nothing wrong in teaching all of them. Valid or not valid today, it is still a theory and it is still science.

An example is the liquid drop model of the nucleus. It is is very simple but it is totally out of mode; yet it is perfectly acceptable to be taught in a science classroom since it is science.

However, creationism/Intelligent Design is simply not science and is not and never was a science theory.

Bob Guercio
 
You have gotten me started about a subject that I am very passionate about!

I'm sorry about monopolizing this thread; however, we in the United States are at war regarding the intelligence and dignity of our great nation.

This subject was supposed to have been settled at the Scopes trial in 1926. At that time, the United States was the laughing stock of the progressive world for seriously entertaining the teaching of creationism versus evolution. The outcome of that trial temporarily restored our dignity. Now here we are 100 years later and we are still discussing this issue. The world regards us as a bunch of ass***** because of this.

It is 2009. Let's get with the program already.

Bob
 
Last edited:
What i don't like about teaching both sides is the both-ness of it.
One side is science; the other side is Christo-facistic.
I should think this will end when various minorities insist on equal time in the class room to teach their side. Poly-theists should be as steamed about this crap as scientists are.

I demand that my grandchildren are also taught about the turtles, and how far down they go. The exasperating part about I.D. is that it is utterly specific to a certain brand of nonsense, and the other brands get no air-time.
 
C_Felix said:
Just pointing out where evolution fails is not teaching ID...
Click to expand...

Exactly, the two central tenets of ID (irreducible complexity and complex specified information) both rely on negative reasoning and therefore commit a logical fallacy--false dichotomy. Proponents mistakenly think that by discrediting evolution they are simultaneously bolstering ID.
 
C_Felix said:
This is the essence of my OP.

Just pointing out where evolution fails is not teaching ID...
Click to expand...

The model of evolution has not failed at all. It is incomplete and we should not complete it with anything other than science.

I may add that this incompleteness of evolution is used by the mindless to challenge evolution. In reality, the theory of evolution will never be complete so unfortunately we will always have the mindless challenging it. Our job is to marginalize the mindless to the fringes of society!

Bob Guercio
 
I'd like to ask a question that I've been wondering about.

I understand fully how mutations effect a species and cause it to change over time. However, I've never heard an explanation for speciation which is the evolution of one species into another.

I would expect that, if man and apes evolved from the same being, man and apes would have the same number of chromosomes which would be that of the common ancester. However, this is clearly not the case and man has 23 pairs of chromosomes whereas apes have 24 pairs and the common ancester may have a number different from either of these.

So how does speciation happen? How does the chromosome count change?

Bob Guercio
 
Last edited:
Bob Guercio said:
This subject was supposed to have been settled at the Scopes trial in 1926. At that time, the United States was the laughing stock of the progressive world for seriously entertaining the teaching of creationism versus evolution. The outcome of that trial temporarily restored our dignity.
Click to expand...

You are way, way overstating the value and importance of the Scopes trial. It orginally began as a publicity stunt for the city of Dayton. It evolved into much more but nobody ever claimed it would "settle" anything. The outcome was overturned on a technicality and it had very little legal or educational effect on the teaching of creationism. It was mostly a political phenomenon. The really important cases would only come much later in Louisana, Missouri and, of course, recently in Pennsylvania.
 
The demand to "teach both sides" is disingenuous. I've been to "Genesis Expo" - the creation museum in Portsmouth, UK. Though their exhibits are pathetic they have a well-stocked bookshop with DVDs and creationist books (many originating in the US), but I saw nothing by pro-evolution authors such as Richard Dawkins.

As for the practicality of "teaching both sides" in science classes, it can't be done. You can teach evolution; you can even teach that there are some minor aspects of evolution theory that remain subject to controversy in the scientific community. But the other side? The other side has nothing scientific to say.

You can teach "Goddidit" - but not in a science class. Comparative Religion is where such philosophical speculation belongs. Science teaching should include only those theories that are backed by evidence.
 
quarky said:
What i don't like about teaching both sides is the both-ness of it.
One side is science; the other side is Christo-facistic.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I can't discuss religion with a believer. I claim logic and he claims faith. Where do you go from there?

It's like two trains on two seperate tracks!
 
PaulJ said:
you can even teach that there are some minor aspects of evolution theory that remain subject to controversy in the scientific community.
Click to expand...

You should teach this and also why it is not a problem! It helps to know because the other side uses this as a reason to debunk evolution.
 
PaulJ said:
Unfortunately yes. For the low-down, Google "Evil Burnee Genesis Expo" :)

(Sorry, can't post links yet...)
Click to expand...

A few years ago, a British collegue told me that most of the holy roller organizations in Britain were actually American based.

I'm wondering if that is the case with this museum?

Bob
 
BobG said:
A few years ago, a British collegue told me that most of the holy roller organizations in Britain were actually American based.

I'm wondering if that is the case with this museum?

Bob
Click to expand...

Not sure. Genesis Expo is run by the Creation Science Movement (whose HQ is in the offices above). The CSM was founded in 1932, and though it may be affiliated with US organisations I think it was originally home-grown. It's overtly Bible-based, as can be seen in how it describes itself in each of its pamphlets (one of these is illustrated in my blog post entitled "Creationism and the velocity of light").
 
C_Felix said:
True.

I'm with you.

I'd be up for teaching creationism if there was something to teach. If it was exposed to and run through the scientific method, and it was revised and run through the scientific method again...etc...Then, sure, I'd teach it.
Click to expand...

The rub is that this makes it sound like that if that was done, maybe something good would come out. So why refuse to do it? Why not actually go and do that -- why not have real serious scientists go out there and try and transform it into a working theory?

Of course, the answer is that any attempt to try and do so results in there not being any Evidence to hold it up.
 
C_Felix said:
Ausmerican said:
I don't think teaching both sides would necessarily be all that bad. Here is how I would approach it:
"Class I have been told that I have to teach both sides of this Evolution/ID debate. We will begin the semester by looking intensely at the ID/creationism side of the debate. Godidit. There you go. For the rest of the year we can focus on evolution."
Click to expand...

This is the essence of my OP.

What else apart from that is there to teach?

There's no evidence for ID.

Just pointing out where evolution fails is not teaching ID...
Click to expand...
That is exactly what IDers would have you do. That's the insidiousness of the movement. If teachers were required to "teach both sides" they would not be given the freedom to do it however they would like (ie, in the manner that Ausmerican suggested). They would be gradually forced to "teach ID" in the form of attempting to discredit evolution and point out any shortcomings in order to plant the seeds of doubt. It's been shown time and time again that ID is no more than a refutation of evolution and not a theory in and of itself.
 
BobG said:
It is not a failed theory! It is not science and it was never a theory according to the scientific method. It is religion, pure and simple.
Click to expand...
BobG, I think the "one particular failed theory" that drkitten was referring to was the idea of "irreducible complexity" ("Behe's particular stupid idea"), not ID as a whole. Although I'm not sure that irreducible complexity warrants the label of "theory" either. Even "hypothesis" would be generous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom