Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Creationism in Private Schools


  • Please log in to reply
226 replies to this topic

#61 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,581 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:30 PM

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.

#62 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • ALL-PRO
  • 41,400 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:33 PM

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.

#63 PhillyB

PhillyB

    that jungle football

  • ALL-PRO
  • 21,096 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:34 PM

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.

#64 BBQ&Beer

BBQ&Beer

    The good actor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,965 posts
  • LocationMissouri

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:35 PM

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.

#65 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • ALL-PRO
  • 41,400 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:39 PM

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?

#66 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • ALL-PRO
  • 41,400 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:41 PM

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.

#67 PhillyB

PhillyB

    that jungle football

  • ALL-PRO
  • 21,096 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:43 PM

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.

#68 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,663 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:45 PM

Posted Image

#69 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • ALL-PRO
  • 41,400 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:48 PM

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.

#70 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:51 PM

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.

#71 BBQ&Beer

BBQ&Beer

    The good actor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,965 posts
  • LocationMissouri

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:52 PM

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

So... you can't back that up either. :rolleyes:


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.


Its my fault you can't show how this data is "interpreted differently"?

#72 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • ALL-PRO
  • 41,400 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:53 PM

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.


So if you disagree with it, you can just dismiss it as an invalid option, regardless of how many other people might believe it.

Convenient.

#73 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,581 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:53 PM

It's not a "compromise" to teach religion in a science class, its simply NOT TEACHING fuging SCIENCE what is so hard to grasp about this simple concept

You can call it "philosophy" all you want but at the end of the day creationism is RELIGION. PERIOD.

Why aren't we all on here posting topics on when Sunday School is going to teach evolution?

#74 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,126 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:55 PM

Science classes should devote a semester to just standing there teaching "Some people believe God created the universe. Some people believe Xenu trapped thetans in our bodies. Some people believe Joseph Smith wore a magic hat. Some people believe that Zeus lives on Mt. Olympus. Some people believe that Venom has many accurate predictions for the future."

That way every special interest can have their ideas pushed, and people remain ignorant to science so that they can continue pushing their ideas to impressionable minds.

#75 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,680 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:55 PM

Same old stuff, honestly.

We don't dare allow that there is anything other than the orthodoxy. We can't even acknowledge that there are people who disagree or who believe in things like religion because to even whisper such things means our children might somehow become brainwashed into believing them. We must deny even the very existence of opposition. This is the only way to ensure our children get a proper education.

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

They're out there. You can look it up. I'm too lazy at the moment.

Would you deny that intelligent design has a pretty broad base of supporters?

Bottom line for me: All you have to do is teach that the core idea exists. You don't have to explore specific theories. Granted you could go into those that have broad support (same as you would with any other theory) but just the acknowledgement of the general idea would be enough for me.

Granted, others may go further, but that'd be all I'd want. And frankly, I don't see why something as simple as that is such a big deal to people.



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?



I don't want this to get to a bash Mr Scot thread, because it shouldn't, but I don't think anyone here has suggested that ideas not be taught... my point is WHICH ideas should be taught? Christian based intelligent design? Muslim creationism? Buddhist Creationism? Alien creationism?

Sure, ID has plenty of supporters... how many is enough? 1? 10? 1000? Do we have to teach every single idea that someone ever came up with? See where that leads us?

It's not really too much to ask, but where do you draw the line and who draws it?

As PhillyB said, the big bang can't be "proven" per se, but there is a ton of actual physical evidence to say that it is a valid theory. What actual physical evidence does ID or creation have or any of the other ideas that have been mentioned?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com