Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

ebrown_p: You said, "If I understand you correctly then, your opinion is that no view on anything that happened in the past (including origins) should be part of a science class."

You have not understood me!

I gave a definition of "Science" in answer to your question - I made no reference to the "science class"

My previous comment on this thread was "Evolution is a religious worldview that is based on belief, not science."

0 Replies

Evolution has gone through a scientific process and has been widely accepted by the scientific community.

There is no theory of creationism has gone through the same process. There is no theory of creationism that has been accepted by a significant part of the scientific community.

This is a fundamental difference between evolution and creationism. This difference is big enough in my mind to distinguish between scientific knowledge and "religious worldview".

That being said, you haven't answered my question (or you just unanswered it by saying I didn't understand you). But please explain...

In your opinion, what should scientists do to show an idea (such as evolution) is scientifically correct?

It is clear that the present scientific opinion of evolution doesn't meet your standards. Knowing that reproducing evolution with a fresh planet and millions of years is not practical, what would meet your standards of proof?

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

Evolution is a religious worldview that is based on belief, not science.

Incorrect. Science is a system based on a belief in the philosophy of Naturalism. Evolution is a fact based on the definitions of science.

0 Replies

Hello Ros.

You said, "Science is a system based on a belief in the philosophy of Naturalism. Evolution is a fact based on the definitions of science."

Would you like to read that again?

If evolution is "based on the definitions of science", and your definition of science "is a system based on a belief in the philosophy of Naturalism" then you've confirmed what I stated earlier!

"Evolution is a religious worldview that is based on belief..."

0 Replies

Bibliophile,

Could you answer my post?

Quote:

...
In your opinion, what should scientists do to show an idea (such as evolution) is scientifically correct?

It is clear that the present scientific opinion of evolution doesn't meet your standards. Knowing that reproducing evolution with a fresh planet and millions of years is not practical, what would meet your standards of proof?

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

Evolution is a religious worldview that is based on belief.

This is nonsense, of course, because evolution is a descriptive term for a process which has been theoretically described, and the description of which--as with any other theorectical construct subject to emperical review--is constantly revised. This point of view is common, however, among the religionists, who think to "level the playing field" in their denial of evolutionary theory by claiming that a theory is a belief. Despite Ros' rather awkward attempt to describe evolutionary theory, it is a case of apples to oranges to attempt to equate a scientifically examined theoretical construct to the rigid dogma of religious belief.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
Evolution is a religious worldview that is based on belief.

This is nonsense, of course, because evolution is a descriptive term for a process which has been theoretically described, and the description of which--as with any other theorectical construct subject to emperical review--is constantly revised. This point of view is common, however, among the religionists, who think to "level the playing field" in their denial of evolutionary theory by claiming that a theory is a belief. Despite Ros' rather awkward attempt to describe evolutionary theory, it is a case of apples to oranges to attempt to equate a scientifically examined theoretical construct to the rigid dogma of religious belief.

Is "religionists" a made-up perjorative like "leftists" (a term I never heard used until the polarization became pointedly nastier over the last couple years)? What the hell is a "religionist"? Is that like a broad term to cover anyone who believes in a higher power than man?

As far as I can tell, "equating" religion and science isn't the point. I have no problem with the idea that the two things are completely different. Hell, as far as I know, they are handled in two different parts of the freaking brain. I don't care how anyone says that religion and science are two completely different things, ideas, whatever. But what I thought we were discussing here, or at least what I consider to be the issue most promising of some civilized agreement (or civilized disagreement), is whether or not the two ideas can be taught during the same school day to the same students.

You see, it doesn't matter how silly or "unscientific" anyone believes, or can prove, creationism to be. In my opinion, the only sane discussion about this is in hashing out terms of HOW they will both be taught in schools, because neither side is going to run the other out.

0 Replies

Snood,

No. This isn't the question. The question is rather "creationism" should be taught in science class.

I don't have a problem with schools teaching the beliefs of world religions in a social studies class. I don't have a problem with pluralism and respect for different religious or cultural perspectives in literature or history or whatever. My children are in schools that do this quite well.

But science is another matter. Science is a rigorous study of our world with a set process and a framework for debate and proof.

Evolution is science. This is because evolution has met all the criteria required for scientific proof and has thus been almost universally accepted by the scientific community.

Creationism is not science. This is because it has not, and can not meet these same criteria.

Our society has deemed that science is important and can be taught in the schools. Our society has also deemed (and legislated) that religion can be taught-- but that no religion, or religious idea can be promoted over another.

This is why evolution has won over creationism in the science community and must win in science classrooms.

0 Replies

Quote:

Snood,

No. This isn't the question. The question is rather "creationism" should be taught in science class.

I agree that this thread was launched that way. But if you read the whole thing, it "evolved" into a discussion including the question "If we agree that creationism isn't science, can't they both be taught in public schools?"

Quote:

I don't have a problem with schools teaching the beliefs of world religions in a social studies class. I don't have a problem with pluralism and respect for different religious or cultural perspectives in literature or history or whatever. My children are in schools that do this quite well.

But science is another matter. Science is a rigorous study of our world with a set process and a framework for debate and proof.

Evolution is science. This is because evolution has met all the criteria required for scientific proof and has thus been almost universally accepted by the scientific community.

Creationism is not science. This is because it has not, and can not meet these same criteria.

Whew. see above.

Quote:

Our society has deemed that science is important and can be taught in the schools. Our society has also deemed (and legislated) that religion can be taught-- but that no religion, or religious idea can be promoted over another.

This is why evolution has won over creationism in the science community and must win in science classrooms.

I actually think that this battle is being fought on the level of both the original question of the thread, and on a couple of other levels, including the issue I referred to. The underlying "fight" seems to be that zealots on both sides want to push zealots of the other side out of the whole school system. that's what the whole trouble is, in my estimation.

0 Replies

Quote:

The underlying "fight" seems to be that zealots on both sides want to push zealots of the other side out of the whole school system. that's what the whole trouble is, in my estimation.

"Zealot" does not equal wrong. I understand your call for moderation, but I don't feel it is justified here.

In this case one side is right (and the other wrong) on two counts...

1) Evolution is a keystone of the modern body of knowledge we call science. It is the result of the scientific process and commonly accepted by the scientific community.

2) Promoting a specific religion in public schools (which are government institutions) is prohibited by our system of government and our Constitution.

Creationism is not science. Teaching creationism is not equivalent to teaching science.

Allowing those who want to make creationism equal to science will harm students.

First it unduly attacks a key point of modern science and instills uncertainty where scientists are not uncertain.

Second, it injects the beliefs of a specific religion into public school education which is inappropriate in a pluralistic democracy.

0 Replies

There is no science underpinning Creation Myth.
Evolution is not a beleif, it is a proven fact. We can study it, discover it, reproduce it, model it. The only thing we cannot do, (since there are many interactive causitive elements) is predict where an organism will go. Will it
1be static
2become extintc
3evolve
All of these oiutcomes depend upon changes in the environment that supportts the organism.

Bibliophile, your only source of knowledge and opinion in this subject is, one book. If you refuse to understand all the supportive "sciences" that underpin evolution theory, then you are being foolish, especially if you were in aerospace engineering.

Did you refuse to believe your equations of atomic decay because they interfere with a young earth belief?

You refute Hjolstroms theory on settlement of particles because it would counterindicate that sediment (or particles) settle at predictable rates and all that sediment piled up in the Grand Canyon hadda take awhile to load up?

You refuse to believe Beers Law because chemical soluttions cannot act in a definable way?
You know that tthe Creationistts view on the Second LAw of Thermodynamics is total bullshit because the earth isnt a closed system. as a "rocket scientist' you should know that baziillion of calories and megatons worth of junk are spit off into space at each shift change.

What kinda rockets did you work on? Im serious. please dont make me believe youre an aerospace engineer and then you would selectively discount basic tenets of science that dont agree with Creationism.

0 Replies

Farmerman,

I can answer the last question as I spent some time as an Evangelical Christian with an education in hard science.

Many Christians compartmentalize science, much as Bibliophile appears to have done here.

They make the distinction between engineering, which can be "reproduced" and evolution of the species which they claim can not be reproduced (and speaking very strictly they can not without a fresh planet and millions of years (and of course it could actually take thousands of fresh planets)). This type of reasoning avoids the obvious cognitive dissonance between fundamentalist religious beliefs and modern science.

Incidentally, most Evangelicals avoid studying life sciences. They claim it is because life sciences have been highjacked by evolutionists (ignoring the impressive advances being made in life sciences by these evolutionists).

But my point is, I know Evangelical Christians who have productive careers in engineering while holding on to Creationist beliefs. They do this by focussing the need to employ objective reason within their focussed discipline and shunning the same reason when talking about origins. Thus they can avoid the inconsistancies that seem obvious to you and I.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing-- until it comes to the area of public education.

However, my inability to live with these inconsistancies are one of the things that pulled me out of my religion.

0 Replies

Cognitive dissonance is the word for it, all right. Thanks for the explanation, ebrown_p!

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

The underlying "fight" seems to be that zealots on both sides want to push zealots of the other side out of the whole school system. that's what the whole trouble is, in my estimation.

"Zealot" does not equal wrong. I understand your call for moderation, but I don't feel it is justified here.

In this case one side is right (and the other wrong) on two counts...

1) Evolution is a keystone of the modern body of knowledge we call science. It is the result of the scientific process and commonly accepted by the scientific community.

2) Promoting a specific religion in public schools (which are government institutions) is prohibited by our system of government and our Constitution.

Creationism is not science. Teaching creationism is not equivalent to teaching science.

Allowing those who want to make creationism equal to science will harm students.

First it unduly attacks a key point of modern science and instills uncertainty where scientists are not uncertain.

Second, it injects the beliefs of a specific religion into public school education which is inappropriate in a pluralistic democracy.

You keep disagreeing with something that isn't there. Creationists, as you want to call them, don't necessarily have anything in common other than the belief that we don't exist by accident - that's not promotion of any specific religion. And you can't stop teachers from talking about the fact that that belief exists. The fact that you seem to want to worries me.

0 Replies

I am not sure if we are disagreeing or not then.

If science teachers mention the belief of "creation" exists, I don't have a problem with this. I would expect that social studies and history teachers cover differences in beliefs in a fair and unbiassed way (cultural differences is not the focus of a science curriculum).

If science teachers present creationism and evolution as two equivalent ideas that are scientifically equal-- that is if a science teacher does not say that evolution is more scientifically valid than creationism-- then there is a big problem.

In a science class, evolution should be presented as what it is-- the prevalent understanding of our origin reached by modern science.

So my proposal is this...

1) Let's teach science (as discovered by the scientific process as understood by the science community) in science classes.

2) Let's cover religious beliefs and cultural differences in social studies classes.

Evolution is science as it. It presents the mechanism that leads to the development of species.

You raise the question of whether we are here by "accident". This is not a science question and is best covered in the other classes.

Can we agree on this plan?

0 Replies

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

If evolution is "based on the definitions of science", and your definition of science "is a system based on a belief in the philosophy of Naturalism" then you've confirmed what I stated earlier!

No, you used the word "religion" in your definiton, and I did not. There is a difference between religion and philosophy.

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

"Evolution is a religious worldview that is based on belief..."

Everything is based on some level of belief. All of human consciousness requires some level of belief because we have not external reference point from which to judge to validate our own awareness.

However, Evolution itself is not a religious view by definition. The distinction we have to make here lies in the philosophy of naturalism. Naturalism is the assumption upon which science is based, and yes, it is an assumption.

Religions are a category of philosophies which are distinct from non-religious philosophies.

0 Replies

Quote:

Religions are a category of philosophies which are distinct from non-religious philosophies.

You wanna go with that, I can see some pretty heated debate coming out of that one.

0 Replies

e-brown, A bow to you sir. Having experienced and explained this bifurcation in reason as well as you do , would make an excellent presentation of tthe discipline of science in the ongoing debates that are cropping out in the various states.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
Religions are a category of philosophies which are distinct from non-religious philosophies.

You wanna go with that, I can see some pretty heated debate coming out of that one.

Yeh, I know. I wasn't all that satisfied with it either; a bit terse (and Setanta caught me on the same type of thing with a previous statement on science). But I've been through all this stuff so many times before and tried to define things so accurately in the past, only to have all my attempts at accuracy be ignored by people who aren't interested in accuracy, that I decided to plow ahead with sound bites instead. God forbid a "debate" should break out as a result Wink

0 Replies

hey Ros, no offense meant, I was only questioning the vague characterizations of philosophies as being religious vs non-religious. That's a hard row to hoe if you get my drift. You might try Descarte vs Camus and see where you get. Laughing

0 Replies

Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know