Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Creationism in schools [CLOSED]      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 PirateJohn09
Joined: 1/7/2009
Msg: 77
view profile
History
Creationism in schoolsPage 4 of 61    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)

Should schools respect the supposed "controversial view" of creationism vs evolution in science class?

Absolutely not. Science is not a democracy -- never has been. There are only theories that pass rigorous scrutiny and hypotheses that do not. Creationism simply does not pass scientific scrutiny.

People are free to believe creationism if they like, but science class is for teaching science, not religion. The US is already far enough behind the rest of the developed world in science, so let's not set ourselves further back by diluting our science education with religious dogma.
 PirateJohn09
Joined: 1/7/2009
Msg: 78
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 5/5/2009 8:06:41 PM

And the fact is, evolution is being taught as 'fact' and not a 'theory'.

That's because evolution is both fact and theory. That's how science works.

Take gravity for example. There is a fact of gravity -- I am sitting on my couch and not floating around in my living room. There is also a theory of gravity, which is a series of equations and experiments that attempt to explain how gravity works.

Similarly, there is a fact of evolution -- we see species evolve all the time both in the lab and in nature (know why you need a flu shot every year?). There is also a theory of evolution, which is a series of explanations of why the fact of evolution exists.
 WanderingRain
Joined: 3/9/2008
Msg: 79
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 5/5/2009 8:33:43 PM
Creationists have had to give ground plenty of times in the past.

Now, they have accepted the gradual evolution of a species -- the many types of dogs or cows that humans have bred, for example. Certainly, they have accepted the irrefutable fact that Adam never even saw a Chihuahua in the garden of Eden.

No doubt, given time, even they will retreat from this. It's just that the Bible writers have already established that God made man in his image. And to them, the very thought of man coming from an ape-like ancestor is an appalling idea.

But I have personally come to accept that God is huge -- larger than any of us even imagine. God has an image that transcends even the bearded old man we see in the paintings. I truly believe God does not care about his "image". It's the men who represent God that have problems with this.
I believe God can turn himself into a small bird and not think he's demeaning himself in the process. After all, whether God is in the form of a chimp or a ladybug, if God is God, he can still, even in chimp form, conduct the business of heaven as God does.
It's only men that have this image problem because humans think in terms of hierarchies -- that I am better than "those others".

So in the end, it's only human pride that prevents us from acknowledging that we came from lower life forms. We are better than "those filthy animals", is the prevailing thought of this kind of close minded thinking.

If God intended for man to come about through evolution, then we should just accept it. Not my will but God's will be done, right?
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 80
Creationism in schools
Posted: 8/27/2012 9:15:51 AM
Bill Nye: “Creationism is not Appropriate for Children”
Robert T. Gonzalez

If the denial of evolution is holding society back, what can be done about it?

According to Bill Nye, the answer lies in cutting our losses, favoring science education in our youth over stagnant arguments with benighted adults.

Here, Nye makes the astute observation that those who opt to deny evolution elect to live in a world that's much more complicated than reality, a world that's "completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe." And you know what?

That's fine — provided they don't subject their children to that way of thinking. Because the truth of the matter is: we need them.

It's an interesting modus operandi, but perhaps one worthy of consideration.


Link to video: http://io9.com/5937947/bill-nye-creationism-is-not-appropriate-for-children
 2findU
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 81
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 8/27/2012 4:47:29 PM

Should schools respect the supposed "controversial view" of creationism vs evolution in science class? Should they be on equal ground as far as theories go? Should creationism be banned in a school setting? Do you think that people who don't believe in evolution should be taught creationism instead? Why or why not?


Creationism does NOT belong in schools. It is nothing more than biblical mythology. If they want to teach about it in some elective class that teaches about religions of the world. That may be acceptable. But it is not the truth. Otherwise keep it in the Sunday schools.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 82
Creationism in schools
Posted: 8/27/2012 4:53:44 PM

...Atheist are supposed to be free thinkers yet they quote and copy and paste more than anyone.

Do you see the contradiction in what you wrote?

A free-thinker is someone who is open to others ideas and is willing to read from multiple sources and not just take the word of one.

Though that said if you are calling you an atheist, you can add that to the list of things you are wrong about.




...They always seem to need the saying or teaching of someone else to reassure them ..I think secretly they want to be led or need to be led or have to be led.

The irony, it burns.
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 83
Creationism in schools
Posted: 8/30/2012 8:30:36 PM
I just have to stare in amazement at those ones who want us to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and that mankind originated in the mythical yet somehow entirely fictional 'garden of eden' - and who are entirely capable of ignoring bones of fossils that are millions of years old ... but they have no explanation for radioactive decay, which means they can't account for the existence of uranium - or the fossil bones. These people and their misguided 'creationism' / 'creation science' [an oxymoron], or 'intelligent design' are the ones who are responsible for the United States' being 18th in the world in science now. Be proud. The rest of us who can actually perform rational thought will just be about the business of defeating you.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 84
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 8/31/2012 8:22:11 AM
I would put creationism in schools to teach the kids what nonscience looks like.

I would go on to teach them how in order to maintain creationist beliefs, there are 2 people you have to have ZERO respect for 1: the creator you believe in and 2: yourself.

You can't respect the creator if you think that he purposely filled us and other animals with flaws (hey lets give people an appendix they don't need but kills them when it bursts), a being so cruel that so many species have hundreds or thousands of babies and only a few survive, a being so deceitful as to plant mountains of evidence of evolution around the world to trick us. You can't respect a foolish, cruel, deceitful, monster.
And if you respected yourself, you would have the integrity to be honest about your beliefs.

I would end the lesson by teaching that if you believe in a creator and you respect Him, you can do that by studying his creation. Men did not create the earth, but they did create bibles, so when one contradicts the other...which one are you going to believe?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 8/31/2012 8:35:18 PM
Am I missing something here? I am of the belief that evolution explains how we turned in to what we are today, not how we came to be, necessarily. To present several theories as far as how life on earth began doesn't seem like it could ever be bad science. Isn't science supposed to be thought provoking & encourage us (and our children) to come up with new theories & potential answers to existing questions ? Why wouldn't evolution, creationism, alien seeding, etc. all be presented for discussion? It is not the place of the public school system to force our children into believing any one thing in particular, rather to educate (give knowledge; develop abilities, including the ability to think for ones self) & encourage the expansion of thought processes.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 86
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 9/1/2012 6:43:57 AM

Am I missing something here? I am of the belief that evolution explains how we turned in to what we are today, not how we came to be, necessarily. To present several theories as far as how life on earth began doesn't seem like it could ever be bad science. Isn't science supposed to be thought provoking & encourage us (and our children) to come up with new theories & potential answers to existing questions ? Why wouldn't evolution, creationism, alien seeding, etc. all be presented for discussion? It is not the place of the public school system to force our children into believing any one thing in particular, rather to educate (give knowledge; develop abilities, including the ability to think for ones self) & encourage the expansion of thought processes.

Because only one of those things (evolution) is actual science. You cannot simply present an unproven idea/hypothesis as a scientific theory (remember that a scientific theory is one that has been validated with evidence and has been accepted by the scientific community). Scientists, and only scientists, determine what is and isn't science.
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 87
Creationism in schools
Posted: 9/1/2012 7:09:16 AM
Agreed. This is why 'creationism' / 'creation science' / 'intelligent design' and the rest of these unprovable collections of faith-based belief systems need to be taught [sic] in a 'Comparative Religions' class - none of them are science and there is no reason to ever have them advanced in the pretense that they are science. They are religious tenets as outdated as the disproven beliefs such as the sun revolving around the earth or a set of crystal 'layers' being responsible for the 'music of the spheres' heresies, both of which - like others - were proven without foundation by REAL science that used hypothesis, observation, and facts. 'Belief' and 'faith' would have us still believing those mistakes, Neil Armstrong would never have walked on the moon, and 'Curiosity's journey to Mars would never have been contemplated. We should be glad that the 'torches and pitchforks' crowd can no longer break out their 'instrumentalities of conversion' the way they used to ...
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 88
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 9/1/2012 4:07:03 PM

Because only one of those things (evolution) is actual science. You cannot simply present an unproven idea/hypothesis as a scientific theory (remember that a scientific theory is one that has been validated with evidence and has been accepted by the scientific community). Scientists, and only scientists, determine what is and isn't science.


Okay, agreed as far as that evolution is proven to occur. As an explanation for the origins of man & how we came to be, however, it is my understanding that it is still debated. It would seem to me that a science class discussion related to evolution may well lead in other directions. I do believe that Science is intended to provoke thought & open the mind, and to that end, I fail to see any harm whatever in broaching the topic of creationism and other theories as well, particularly when a huge majority believe in God, or a god(s) to begin with. Discussion is hardly indoctrination, although to blatantly declare evolution as the answer, and the only answer to it all may well be.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 89
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 9/1/2012 6:00:22 PM

Okay, agreed as far as that evolution is proven to occur. As an explanation for the origins of man & how we came to be, however, it is my understanding that it is still debated. It would seem to me that a science class discussion related to evolution may well lead in other directions. I do believe that Science is intended to provoke thought & open the mind, and to that end, I fail to see any harm whatever in broaching the topic of creationism and other theories as well, particularly when a huge majority believe in God, or a god(s) to begin with. Discussion is hardly indoctrination, although to blatantly declare evolution as the answer, and the only answer to it all may well be.

Again, the only thing that should be taught in science class is science. If something is not considered science (and creationism is definitely not science) then what is it doing in science class? It's like including poetry reading in PE class, or history in biology class. As others have indicated, such ideas belong in philosophy and/or religious history classes. Furthermore, creationism is not a scientific theory and majority opinion has nothing to do with this. As the saying goes, the truth is not a democracy (we don't just choose what to believe). Scientists establish scientific facts, and science teachers then teach it. It is scientists who decide what is science, not the students, not the faculty, and not the public.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 90
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 9/2/2012 5:02:04 PM
How unfortunate for our children, then. Your comparison is not entirely valid, in that philosophy is oft considered a branch of science. More like including little known rumors about our past presidents in History class so as to keep students interested than including poetry in PE. Additionally, it would seem then that you advocate teaching a scientific "fact' that is not entirely a "fact". I assume then that you advocate telling our children that this is where it ends, we don't really know for sure how we came to be, and complete answers will be forthcoming to another generation? As I stated, I view science as an opportunity to teach others to think, to hypothesize, to test & to challenge. Perhaps you are more technically correct, but I would rather support a public school system which allows our children to be less bored, more stimulated & which is more prone to foster growth in our children with my tax dollars.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 91
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 9/2/2012 5:45:21 PM
Your comparison is not entirely valid, in that philosophy is oft considered a branch of science.

Actually, science started off as "natural philosophy". Anyways, modern-day philosophy is a distinct field from science.

More like including little known rumors about our past presidents in History class so as to keep students interested than including poetry in PE.

No, it's like teaching poetry in PE. Again, creationism is NOT science so it has no place in a science class.

Additionally, it would seem then that you advocate teaching a scientific "fact' that is not entirely a "fact".

I don't understand what you mean. Evolution is a scientific fact. Despite what IDers say, there is no debate about this within the scientific community (the only debate is how evolution happened).

I assume then that you advocate telling our children that this is where it ends, we don't really know for sure how we came to be, and complete answers will be forthcoming to another generation?

Scientific theories/facts are what scientists currently hold to be true. Evolution is a fact, and abiogenesis is the best explanation for how life started.

As I stated, I view science as an opportunity to teach others to think, to hypothesize, to test & to challenge. Perhaps you are more technically correct, but I would rather support a public school system which allows our children to be less bored, more stimulated & which is more prone to foster growth in our children with my tax dollars.

As I said before, science can only be properly determined by scientists. It is not up to children to determine what is science and what is not, at least at that stage in their lives (they can do so when they learn enough about science and pursue a career in it). Frankly, I don't see how confusing children with an array of non-scientific ideas in science class can be of any help to them.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 92
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 9/2/2012 7:23:17 PM
Teaching children that "God did it" is an acceptable answer is not science, and it does not teach children anything. It might teach them to be satisfied with such a lazy answer, but that is about it. That's all the "God did it" answer is, anyway; just a gift wrapped version of "I don't know."



Guess what? We don't know!

Despite my own personal feelings regarding your need to judge those who disagree with you, as evidenced by the tone of your post.... no one is saying that children should be taught that "God did it". Please reread, and if need be, remove your blinders first.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 93
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 9/2/2012 7:40:42 PM
Scientific theories/facts are what scientists currently hold to be true. Evolution is a fact, and abiogenesis is the best explanation for how life started.


"Best explanation" is not the same as fact. The fact is that there is still debate about how there came to be life on earth, and until there is irrefutable proof, there is no scientific answer. In order to strenghten your argument to match YOUR personal belief, you needed to insert the words "currently hold to be true". That is different than fact.



As I said before, science can only be properly determined by scientists. It is not up to children to determine what is science and what is not, at least at that stage in their lives (they can do so when they learn enough about science and pursue a career in it). Frankly, I don't see how confusing children with an array of non-scientific ideas in science class can be of any help to them.


Science is the study of the physical world, is it not? Who ever said that children are to define science? Children can be encouraged to research, to think & come to their own conclusions, and I do believe that this is the object of education. Given that most children in the US do believe, or at least have exposure to God/gods, isn't it kinda dumb to ignore the theory, even if only to refute it? Are you fearful of promoting independent thought via alternative answers to what remains unanswered, or simply hell bent on forcing down children's throats only that which YOU believe to be true? That evolution "makes the most sense to me'" as the answer to how man came to be is no more science than any other belief, no matter how you came about that particular conclusion. Many argue that creationism & evolution are not mutually exclusive. Do they not have that right? If we never "confused children with non scientific ideas" how would we have ever come as far as we have? Are you suggesting that only those who agree with your conclusion are fit to pursue careers in science? How sad!

At least you have shown that narrow mindedness is not limited to those who question evolution as the answer to the question of how we came to be. Thanks.
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 94
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 9/2/2012 8:00:45 PM
"Best explanation" is not the same as fact. The fact is that there is still debate about how there came to be life on earth, and until there is irrefutable proof, there is no scientific answer. In order to strenghten your argument to match YOUR personal belief, you needed to insert the words "currently hold to be true". That is different than fact.

All scientific theories are best explanations, and those which have overwhelming consensus are determined to be facts. Keep up with the lingo, dude.

Children can be encouraged to research, to think & come to their own conclusions, and I do believe that this is the object of education.

No, education is to educate children about the world (isn't it obvious from the word?). When they've sufficiently developed their mental capabilities then they can start doing making their own contributions (that is, when they are in college/university). However, to confuse children at an early age about things like science is doing them no favors.

Given that most children in the US do believe, or at least have exposure to God/gods, isn't it kinda dumb to ignore the theory, even if only to refute it?

Again, this has nothing to do with what the majority believes (I thought I had made that clear in my previous post). And for the third time, creationism is NOT a "theory" (there are very specific criterion for what defines a scientific theory). Again, get your lingo straight.

Are you fearful of promoting independent thought via alternative answers to what remains unanswered, or simply hell bent on forcing down children's throats only that which YOU believe to be true? That evolution "makes the most sense to me'" as the answer to how man came to be is no more science than any other belief, no matter how you came about that particular conclusion.

Once again, it's up to scientists to determine what science is. It is not my decision, nor yours, nor anyone else's.
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 95
Creationism in schools
Posted: 9/3/2012 7:54:37 AM

" ... "Best explanation" is not the same as fact. The fact is that there is still debate about how there came to be life on earth, and until there is irrefutable proof, there is no scientific answer. In order to strenghten your argument to match YOUR personal belief, you needed to insert the words "currently hold to be true". That is different than fact. ... "


Since there appears to be some confusion in the 'conceptual continuity' here about what a theory is (or isn't), this seems to be a good time to remove the confusion - not that that's going to make any difference, but 'not knowing' won't be able to be used any more as an excuse to keep promoting the cause of 'intelligent design' / 'creationism' / 'creation science' - all being oxymorons intentionally crafted as misleading appeals to ignorance ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://tccsa.tc/articles/science_method.html

METHODS OF SCIENCE
VALIDATION CRITERIA FOR COMPETING THEORIES

by Dave Bergman? | Common Sense Science

The Scientific Method provides a means to select among competing models and theories of scientists. Common Sense Science has been developed using the following criteria as a scientific way to evaluate the various models and theories proposed to predict the configuration and motions of bodies.

1. Predictions of the theory must be in accordance with experimental data.

2. All parts of the theory must be consistent. One part of a theory must not contradict another part of the same theory.

3. Each subtheory entering into a larger theory must meet all the validating criteria and be based on the same principles, definitions, and axioms.

4. Generality and simplicity should prevail over a multiplicity of theories and models.

5. Contradictions disqualify any theory presented to be a description of reality. A contradiction disguised as a "paradox" invalidates a theory or model.

6. The principle of unity demands consistency of scientific theory/models over all ranges, scales, and domains.

7. The principle of causality demands explanations of effects based on preceding causes rather than random, spontaneous events.

8. The principle of reality demands an objective, ongoing existence independent of observation, measurement, or contemplation.

9. Truth, not success, is the goal for describing the physical universe.

10. Interpolation is more credible than extrapolation.

11. Existence of mathematical equations, propositions or theories cannot by themselves validate a physical model or theory. Singularities in equations should not be used to predict natural phenomena.

12. Scientific criteria are better than consensus.

13. Accuracy is more important than imagination, no matter how well a theory or model is described.

14. Models and theories that lead to applications benefiting mankind are preferred.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 96
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 9/5/2012 7:12:09 PM
Evolution is not the answer to "where we first came from". We have an understanding of how we came to be as we are today, but we have no clear answer as of yet, as to how we first came to exist. If we ignore anything that is not consistent with what would be simple, given evolutionary study we may never have that answer, nor are we true scientists.

I have no problem with teaching evolution, but to ignore the question that springs naturally from the discussion is bad education. It neither encourages children to think nor to test.

My position is that to ignore what a majority already have been exposed to relative to the scientific discussion taking place in a classroom is bad teaching. My position is that public education should be relevant, and should include even that which is unpopular, whether to the community at large or the scientific community specifically. Were it not, wouldn't the earth still be flat?
 Demigod1979
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 97
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 9/5/2012 9:10:15 PM

Evolution is not the answer to "where we first came from". We have an understanding of how we came to be as we are today, but we have no clear answer as of yet, as to how we first came to exist. If we ignore anything that is not consistent with what would be simple, given evolutionary study we may never have that answer, nor are we true scientists.

I have no problem with teaching evolution, but to ignore the question that springs naturally from the discussion is bad education. It neither encourages children to think nor to test.

My position is that to ignore what a majority already have been exposed to relative to the scientific discussion taking place in a classroom is bad teaching. My position is that public education should be relevant, and should include even that which is unpopular, whether to the community at large or the scientific community specifically. Were it not, wouldn't the earth still be flat?

You still don't get it, do you? I myself have repeated this numerous times: in science class they should only teach science. It does not matter if it doesn't provide the final answers or if it's opposed to what the majority believes, what matters is that only science is taught (after all, there is always philosophy class for the kinds of questions that you raised). Just like you wouldn't teach poetry in a math class, you don't teach non-science in a science class. It's that simple.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 98
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 9/8/2012 2:20:39 PM
No. Creationism should be not be taught at all in the school curriculum. It's a lie and a form of child abuse. Messing with a child's impressionable mind when you are in a powerful position should be treated just the same as a doctor/patient relationship, and the person in trust should be held accountable for breaking that trust by telling lies. They should lose their job and be banned from teaching.

The only way it should be taught is in a elective class on religion/philosophy.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 99
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 9/8/2012 5:57:50 PM

You still don't get it, do you? I myself have repeated this numerous times: in science class they should only teach science. It does not matter if it doesn't provide the final answers or if it's opposed to what the majority believes, what matters is that only science is taught (after all, there is always philosophy class for the kinds of questions that you raised). Just like you wouldn't teach poetry in a math class, you don't teach non-science in a science class. It's that simple.


What I do get is that you seem to want to inhibit learning in the classroom. For the majority, it is very plausible that a discussion regarding how we came to be would result from the discussion of evolution. Are you suggesting that an appropriate answer from a teacher would be "we don't discuss this, not in this class"? I might imagine we would have very few students interested in pursuing the field, were this the case.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 100
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 9/8/2012 6:04:38 PM

Science does not work on the basis that because we don't know exactly how something works means that we need to invoke a God.


I'm not suggesting we invoke God, but the truth is that the majority of those in public schools have already been introduced to God. Thusly, it is pertinent to the discussion even if only to refute it, if a teacher is so inclined. I have not suggested that the topic be brought up by the schools, only that if it does arise, it is valid to the scientific discussion at hand.

I am not an advocate of teaching Creationism as part of the science curriculum, although I have no problem with it's presentation & discussion, as opposed to "ignoring the elephant". My personal views have little to do with my comments here. Frankly, your comment worries me.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 101
view profile
History
Creationism in schools
Posted: 9/9/2012 1:19:08 AM
Uh oh...another religion-oriented thread in which we'll observe the bizarre ways by which people choose to be dishonest and careless, deceive others, and try on purpose to make themselves and others ignorant of what's real or what's true about something. This should be entertaining. Again.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Creationism in schools [CLOSED]