Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Cat

Creationism in Private Schools

227 posts in this topic

Not really, but it's a pretty good explanation of how I feel at the moment. "I'm bored" is another one.

these message board debates accomplish a whole lot of nothing other than wasted time.

Or how about "some people believe that there is while others do not"?

Is there anything inaccurate about that sentence?

Why are you so insistent that this is a Science teachers job? The answer is the same if you are a PhysEd teacher or teaching a shop class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you so insistent that this is a Science teachers job? The answer is the same if you are a PhysEd teacher or teaching a shop class.

I actually asked my Phys Ed teacher if there was a God once.

He said there was, explained that he was it, then told me God said to do 50 pushups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Scot the fundamental thing you are missing here is that science cannot prove nor disprove god, and therefore arguing about it in scientific terms is absurd. the reason a scientist cannot acknowledge that others believe in god is because he cannot acknowledge it scientifically. The reason, as Zod stated, that a theist/creationist can be a legitimate scientist, is because god's existence is a philosophical precept, and one can come to a philosophical conclusion that a god or gods exist(s) and extrapolate a worldview from that decision that affects how they interpret scientific data.

It's ridiculous to keep trying to slam home the idea that nobody can validate the fact that people have different ideas about the origins of the world. literally every scientists out there acknowledge that fact. the difference is that there is a gross imbalance of evidence collections one way versus the other, and science is all about empirical evidence. Why is it such a surprise, given this, that new-earth creationism is generally castigated scientifically as overwhelmingly invalid? And why to christians hear this and immediately start screaming about evil science vs. GOD?

This boils down to a very basic misunderstanding of some christians (generally specific to the united states; even the most conservative british theologians are baffled by the temper tantrums being thrown by new-earth creationist) regarding what science is. Science not proving god does not mean science is "bad." god transcends science. The metaphysical can not be jammed into a test tube.

If Christians want to complain, they should focus their energies on the school systems' lack of emphasis on humanities courses like philosophy and religion - areas in which discussion of these things is incredibly relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a class years ago that went over a lot of stuff, different interpretations of fossil evidence, geological stuff, etc. Remember about as much of it as I do my 7th grade biology.

If you want to look, there's plenty of stuff you can find online. Same as with Biscuit. I'm too lazy to look it up for just a message board debate.

My issue is more the notion that we can't even acknowledge that such theories exist. There are plenty of people, including scientists, who believe in one theory or another of intelligent design. But we can't allow that discussion to happen because somehow that harms the children's minds.

Where are you getting "we can't even acknowledge that such theories exist" from then?

So again, it's only "science" if it agrees with your viewpoint and interpretation of the data. Have I got that right?

No... no you have it wrong.

It's only science if it builds & organizes knowledge of the physical/material world through observation & experimentation that forms testable explanations & predictions about the universe.

Since there is no way to physically observe, experiment on, or test as to whether or not there is a god, Allah, higher power ( in that sense)...

It's not science.

How exactly is that different from teaching orthodoxy?

Its not, which is why its such an effect strawman for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Scot the fundamental thing you are missing here is that science cannot prove nor disprove god, and therefore arguing about it in scientific terms is absurd. the reason a scientist cannot acknowledge that others believe in god is because he cannot acknowledge it scientifically. The reason, as Zod stated, that a theist/creationist can be a legitimate scientist, is because god's existence is a philosophical precept, and one can come to a philosophical conclusion that a god or gods exist(s) and extrapolate a worldview from that decision that affects how they interpret scientific data.

It's ridiculous to keep trying to slam home the idea that nobody can validate the fact that people have different ideas about the origins of the world. literally every scientists out there acknowledge that fact. the difference is that there is a gross imbalance of evidence collections one way versus the other, and science is all about empirical evidence. Why is it such a surprise, given this, that new-earth creationism is generally castigated scientifically as overwhelmingly invalid? And why to christians hear this and immediately start screaming about evil science vs. GOD?

This boils down to a very basic misunderstanding of some christians (generally specific to the united states; even the most conservative british theologians are baffled by the temper tantrums being thrown by new-earth creationist) regarding what science is. Science not proving god does not mean science is "bad." god transcends science. The metaphysical can not be jammed into a test tube.

If Christians want to complain, they should focus their energies on the school systems' lack of emphasis on humanities courses like philosophy and religion - areas in which discussion of these things is incredibly relevant.

Ah, but things like the Big Bang cannot be proven or disproven either. They are suggested by certain interpretations of evidence, interpretation on which people can legitimately disagree. And this is not the only thing of which that can be said.

To be clear, I'm not in favor of teaching creation science courses anywhere other than in private religious schools. The only thing I would ask of public schools is simple acknowledgement that intelligent design theory exists and has a fair share of supporters who view the evidence differently than those who espouse evolution.

Is that really too much to ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are you getting "we can't even acknowledge that such theories exist" from then?

That's pretty much the whole "intelligent design" debate.

It's only science if it builds & organizes knowledge of the physical/material world through observation & experimentation that forms testable explanations & predictions about the universe.

Since there is no way to physically observe, experiment on, or test as to whether or not there is a god, Allah, higher power ( in that sense)...

It's not science.

In other words, there's no way to interpret any data whatsoever in anything other than an atheist viewpoint.

That's not science either. It's orthodoxy, just of a different sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but things like the Big Bang cannot be proven or disproven either. They are suggested by certain interpretations of evidence, interpretation on which people can legitimately disagree. And this is not the only thing of which that can be said.

To be clear, I'm not in favor of teaching creation science courses anywhere other than in private religious schools. The only thing I would ask of public schools is simple acknowledgement that intelligent design theory exists and has a fair share of supporters who view the evidence differently than those who espouse evolution.

Is that really too much to ask?

maybe not proven per se, but at some point enough evidence exists to point towards the validity of an argument, even if only temporarily.

i would be a supporter of science classes taking some time to delve into the philosophy of science and a brief history of it, which would undoubted include at least a mention of the debate. but again, that is not the place of science. it is the place of philosophy. there is a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe not proven per se, but at some point enough evidence exists to point towards the validity of an argument, even if only temporarily.

i would be a supporter of science classes taking some time to delve into the philosophy of science and a brief history of it, which would undoubted include at least a mention of the debate. but again, that is not the place of science. it is the place of philosophy. there is a difference.

I might not agree with the definition of terms, but that's the sort of compromise that I could find perfectly acceptable.

That, or a discussion of say, what questions science can answer and what questions it cannot, or even a simple acceptance that evolution/big bang/whatever is a theory and not the only one out there.

Again, none of that requires teaching a religious viewpoint, just acknowledging that they exist and are valid options.

Something which, again, I don't understand people having such a major problem with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and we must also teach tolerance for other people's ideas.

I show tolerance to reasonable thought and intellectual consideration. If someone has an idea and can show how that may have happened, well done. However, being open minded does not mean I have to believe or condone every poppycock idea that someone out there has come up with that lacks any evidence whatsoever. If I did, I would have to think that the lunatic on the street corner screaming about how the devil is inside his soup bowl may be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites