Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

Wow this topic goes fast. I haven't been able to check it since my last post, and there are too many things for me to respond to, but here's my best attempt.


Here's a question... no, a challenge. Define science (or a scientist, or the scientific method) such that evolution is included, and creationism is not. A little more on that later, but you also said:

Of course by widely accepted I assume you mean by "scientists" (otherwise the quote is contradictory). Again, tell me what definition of "scientist" you are using. Because as I said when I called in to WPR last Friday, people can make claims that all scientists are 100% backing evolution as fact only if their defintion of "scientists" excludes creationists. Might I remind you that a creationist is a scientist who believes in creation, as opposed to an evolutionist, which is a scientist who believes in evolution. There are many real individuals that by any other standard would be considered genuine scientists, who happen to believe in creation. Many of them were the founding fathers of most of our present day scientific fields (Pasteur, Kepler, Pascal to name a few).

No arguments here that evolution is the most widely accepted; creationists will admit we're in the minority, but this doesn't make evolution true. As for other scientific creation theories, there is only one other option. I have never heard anyone propose any general scientific theory of origins other than Evolution, and Biblical Creationism. It's no surprise why Evolution is preferred among scientists who need a scientific explanation of origins (as opposed to many in the general public who could care less). One theory gives you freedom to do what you want, the other implies that you're accountable to the God of the Bible; are you beginning to understand why evolution is so appealing?

As for the Biblical Creationism theory itself, are you really going to listen to scientific evidence? Can you honestly say that you could consider it, or would you dismiss it flat out and come up with any excuse possible to deny it? I think the later. When will we realize that this is an issue of competing worldviews? It doesn't matter how much scientific evidence either side presents, because when it comes down to it, we all have the same evidence. We all see the same fossils, we all make the same measurements; but facts do NOT speak for themselves. Facts are INTERPRETED. And your worldview will determine whether you interpret scientific data in favor of evolution, or in favor of creation. If you've already chosen an evolutionary worldview, then there's not much chance that any evidence will persuade you otherwise; same goes for creation.

But for the slim chance that one of you is not yet to the point where you will stubbornly defend evolution at all costs, here are some snippets of the creationism scientific model (since some of you seem to have never heard of such a thing).

Ever wonder why sedimentary rock covers almost the entire earth? Ever wonder how vast oil and coal deposits formed? Ever wonder at the numerous fossils we find buried in sedimentary rock layers? There is a creationist scientific model that covers all of this, and it can be sumed in 2 words: global flood. A global flood, initiated by subducting techtonic plates, covered the whole earth with water, stirred up tons of sediment which later settled out and was deposited as sedimentary rock, and this killed and buried virtually all life on earth. This model of catostrophic flooding explains why we find so many "mass graves" of fossils, and so many massive oil and coal deposits (from buried vegetation). It also has a lot to do with explaining the history of the earth's magnetic field, and how there could be rapid reversals in the field in the years after the flood (something which evolutionary models are unable to explain).

Along the subject of the magnetic field, the scientific creationist model was also the only model which correctly predicted the magnetic field of Uranus (the evolutionary models were orders of magnitude off).


No research being conducted!? As I said, creationists certainly make up the minority of scientists, but we do exist. Try looking up some current research at www.icr.org. Or read up on the proceedings of the international conference on creationism. Most research having to do with origins at all is evolutionary, I'll admit; as I said, most scientists are evolutionists because of their a priori assumptions, so of course most scientific research would be evolutionary.

And last, a correction: There were several responses about my comment that there have been no mutational changes which resulted in increased information; that was a simple typo. I meant to say there have been no OBSERVED mutational changes which resulted in increased information. Many examples of mutations were at one time (and perhaps still are) highlighted as "evolution in action", when in fact just the opposite is true. Every time a scientist has taken a look at the genes, they've discovered that mutational damage resulted in a beneficial trait, such as bacteria developing penecillin resistance. This is not evolution; evolution requires that a novel new gene of information be created. Destroying genes does not help. You can still make the argument that these information increasing mutations just haven't been found yet by genetisits. Maybe. But the more and more genetisits try to find these elusive miraculous mutations, the more nails they hammer into the coffin of evolution. The truth is, if evolution were true, we would have expected to see many examples by now, not zero.

Thank you for reading, and I appologize for being somewhat unorganized; I've got very little free time to respond to all of this, but as I've said before, if you have a really pressing question, email me, because I don't expect to follow this thread for long.

Kevin

Too bad your model about the worldwide flood is all wet.
1Thhe worlds not all covered by water derived sediments or sediments at all. Canada is covered by mostly igneous rock and glacial gouge (land derived). The worldwide flood missed CAnaada and parts of Alaska The Peidmont of Eastern US, lots of South America, at least haalf of Africa, large parts of Asia and many of the Pacific islands.Of the areas covered by sedimentary rocks There are plenty of local fresh water deposits that are quiet lakes, and rivers withh no indication of any flood (The Triassic basins of the maritimes) (the fresh water swamps of the Permian in New Brunswick) The rest of the planet is similarly a striped mix of various kinds of sedimentary rocks, magmatic, vulcanic and detrital dry land beds. On top and underneathh are deposits of wind driven soils , glacial junk and ancient forests. You just fail to try to look at the planet as an entire story with individual sediments deposited at different times then uplifted. ive never figure out how the Creationists can actually believe in a falshood that is so easily seen by taking a simple field trip through a couple of states. The problem is that you Creationists dont want to see any evidence , you avoid it because it just spits in your face.
There is no place on earth that shows evidence of a universal Flood. A universal flood should leave universal footprints The fossils of the Paaleozoic lie lower in the stratigraphic column than those of the Mesozoic and so on. There is enough evidence out there to categorically disarm your "lumped sediment" story.
I dont think you have any idea what you are talking about when you speak of the coal measures and the geomagnetic reversals. These reversals were never the object of any Creationist research. They were the product of wok done by marine geophysicists in the US and France during the 1960s. This was pure luck when in world war II, when planes looking for german subs by airborne magnetometers, noticed that field reversals occured while thhey flew certain transects over the ocean. Later work showed the "stripes " and magnetic chrnostratigraphy or "magnetic sediment clocks were discovered and used to date these magnetic reversals. All showed that the earth was a s old as predicted by scientists(not creationists

I looked at the ICR web page you posted. Im familiar with Ians work and I repeat, wheres the research being conducted. The whole pub is just going nyah nyah and trying to argue out some points witth no facts on ttheir side. Noone has any field data, noones done any geophysics or even any DNA aanalysis. The entire Creationist movement is based upon 1 book and a bunch of refutation of other peoples work (and they dont know what they are talking about, and in many cases they lie, like the Paluxey "man" fossil). (No independent thought is even encouraged by Creationists) you dont test your hypotheses, you try to dovetail and refute real science without a shred of field evidence. Then you have the guts to call that research? Its just garbage and myth trying to parade itself as science.

Im a geologist who uses the results of paleontology in my work. I also have a working knolwedge of the use of DNA typing for ground water basin analysis when we look for dissolved metals, so thats more of a side area.
Come up with your best arguments on Creationist "research" and Ill be happy to try as best as I can to counter any argument you can come up with by posting real evidence that is peer reviewed. Youd rather just spout vast generalities so you dont get pinned down on your beleifs. I undesrttand your beliefs and defend your right to hold thhem. I will fight your desire to push that tripe onto kids minds and sett their education experience back a few centuries.
So, if you have any point of data and evidence for your side , bring it up and we can discuss.

As far as your challenge 'would we even listen to scientific evidence for Creation?", You doubt it.
That fighht has been gone over since Darwin and the evidence wasnt compiled with a "Lets smash Creation Myth by looking for some fossils that we can use to destroy tthis story" The research and field work was without any agendas. Field work just finds what it finds. You think that all those fossils were secreted out and those that support Creationism are left in the field. You guys are really naive. Any scientist wants to understand the whole story and if it happens to be that Creation is real , then everybody will want their field evidence to show how it fits in. It doesnt work that way, theres no secret anti Creationist meeting among the hundreds of thousands of scientists who work on these issues. We aint that smart . We do know when we see that some slick talker is tring to hoodwink our kids into believing some story of a universal flood and by doing so, ignore all the 200 plus years of good geology (since Hutton) that shows convincingly that the wrold is old and is covered in all places by various kinds of rocks that dont support a n all over flood.
Many people on thiese boards must think Im half nuts for being so passionate about this issue. I was a product of a Jesuit education in the final years of "Special evolution" which was Pious xII's last shot at a "directed evolution" It was conflicting with Physics and paleontology because there would have to be a very capricious God whho loved to shake up the environmnet and see what evolves out every 100 million years or so.

OH one last thing, evolution by natural selection is totally silent abaout how life began, you Creationists cant even get the facts right on a foundation like that.

Okay.

Farmerman, are you saving your posts in Word or Works?

They are valuable to me.

Hi Kevin, good question. We must understand our terminology before we can communicate effectively...



Scientists are people who use the Scientific Method for analysis and theory design.

The Scientific Method is a standard set of methodologies which adhere to the definitions of Science.

Science is a set of logical and empirical methods which provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in order to understand them. Scientific explanations are in terms of natural phenomena rather than supernatural phenomena, although science itself requires neither the acceptance nor the rejection of the supernatural.

The phrase "natural phenomena" above refers to the philosophy of naturalism, which is a required part of science. And this is why Creationism is not Science, and Creation Scientists are not Scientists (by definition).

Naturalism is a metaphysical theory which holds that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes and laws.

Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory which claims that a supernatural being created the universe. "Creation Science" is an oxymoron since science is concerned only with naturalistic explanations of empirical phenomena and does not concern itself with supernatural explanations of metaphysical phenomena.

Please note that Creationism is still a "Theory", it's just not a "Scientific Theory" because it does not meet the requirements of Science. It is because it is not a scientific theory that it does not deserve equal time in a science class.

Hope that helps.

For additional reference, see The National Science Teachers Association position statement.

Academic Freedom and Critical thinking are already key components of valid science. How ironic that Creationists like Carlson use this argument, when it is exactly these valuable aspects of standard science which would be most damaged if we do nothing while the thinly veiled agendas of religious groups are fed to kids under the guise of classroom authority.



Critique and analysis of evolution is commonplace in science class already. If Evolution is so fragile in their eyes, why not just let science continue to question it and test it. Why try to wedge creationism into science class by political force unless they realize that it will never find its way into science class through the normal process which is required to validate scientific theories.



We must wonder what the agenda of the Creationists are when they switch from debating their case with educated adults, and instead try to undermine the fundamental tenets of science education for our children, by attempting to insert specious theories into the process.

Science class is for teaching science, and educators have a responsibility to provide it in a format which is free from the manipulation of political and religious groups. And like it or not, Evolution is valid, demonstrated science, and Creationism is not.

There are those who believe school is for other purposes than teaching objective science and history. I can't wait until the True Believers sink their teeth into math. I wonder what they'll come up with?

For these folks, I suspect, schools are for prayer. The rest is window dressing.

...and if I anywhere had stated that Creation and evolution are "coequal in scientific weight", you'd have a valid point. I never did. Faith and science are clearly two different considerations entirely. My point is that those of you so adamant that people with faith in the non-scientific aspects of the Creation story are loony and should keep their ideas out of public schools need to adjust to the fact that their ideas are going to be in the public schools no matter how many scientific "facts" are documented.

Snood, with your admission you must then admit that , with Faith and science being 2 different considerations, we should carefully screen what we present in the science curriculum, and not try to water it down with myths and tribal stories.


osso, sorry, but I dont save anything. I tried to capture some of the evoluition threads over on abuzz but I was too lazy to search and paste. I wouldnt save my stuuf anyway since its mostly "trin of thought" off the top of my head and I can usually always come up with similar stuff. if I cant, Ive got a huge library on paleo and evolutionary sciences and geneticsas well as geology
I wanted to capture some of the really good abuzz stuff that Rosborne , or Neil, or Terry had posted as well as a few of the visiting scientists who popped in and out.
I did save some stuff from a thread last year in wich setanta and I kind of outed a well known Creationists who was trying to state that there were fossils of human skeletal remains in the Pennsylvanian coal measures .
You can find good resources on talk origins.com, or ncseweb.org and a whole bunch of others. talk origins has a bunch of excellent links. The Institute of creation science and answers in genesis are also good sites to see what Creationists believe in and how they go about trying to prove it.

I think, that with the emoldened mission of many people of faith who are extreme in their interpretations of science, we are gonna see many more of these local challenges on curriculum content.
Its no different thaan when the Catholic Legion of Decency was trying to clean out the libraries of their parochial schools in the late 50s (I was about 8 years old and had to answer to Father Miskevitch why I was reading Roy Chapman ANdrews book on "Dinosaurs in the desert") .

Those were the days, yep. I was in my teens then.

Dude, have you been in a public school lately? Everything is not neatly compartmentalized into sterile subject matter areas. Some of you keep trying to say "It isn't SCIENCE!" - Hello? No one's saying it is. By definition, by interpretation, or by any other way of comprehension, I'm not saying Creationism is science. I'm saying that this whole argument seems to be missing an obvious point. Creationism is not going anywhere, no matter how silly anyone thinks it is - it's not going the way of flat earth theories, grassy knolls or green cheese moons. There is (in case you hadn't noticed) an incredibly powerful conservative rightwing in power right now, a great portion of which views Creationism as just fine, thank you very much, for fare to teach our youth.

snood quote
That is not a concern of mine. My only goal is to see that this mythology doesnt interfere with the decent education of kids who may wish to continue in a career in science. Just as we dont teach Flat earthism in geography, we shouldnt teach any of the dressed up forms of Creationism to the science students.( Unless our goal is to produce a generation of ignorami).
I dont care if we teach creationism in some other cultural survey courses, just lets not parade it as science. YOU may not think its science but, unfortunately, the well funded spokesmen of this movement do, and are trying to convince their school boards to include it as a reasonable alternative explanation to evolution , and it certainly is not.

And check out the resources at Sceptics Dictionary, good stuff on all sorts of mumbo-jumbo (and properly cross-referenced, these guys should be giving lessons on how to put a site together!).

Well my friend, your "only goal" is going to meet a reality that is unmoveable in its insistence on the inclusion of Creationism into the curricula of American public schools. About your framing of this argument, in that you clearly don't want Creationism offered as a credible alternative to the unassailable correctness of evolution; hey, whatever floats your boat. When it comes down to it, I think that these two ideas, concepts, theories, WHATEVER - will have to find an uneasy coexistence in public schools for as long as the republic stands, and any stance that doesn't accept THAT as fact is empty bloviation.

Bloviation?

snood, Im afraid that you may be correctt. There is a commited group of activists that want Creationism included in our science curricula. Maybe that doesnt sound silly to you but it sure does tto me.

ive been busy with a group of concerned individuals whove already gotten one state to pass regs against teaching Creationism in biology and earth science because it doesnt follow the scientific methhod and data cannot be reproduced or even discovered.Creationism is dying under all the weight of its own qualifiers and bogus explanations. The true believers just dont know it because they are, generally , fairly closed minded and they cant look at any fossil or new discovery in genetics in any fashion that doesnt first start with some religious precept.Then they claim that evolutionary science isnt fair minded. Thhe hiistory of evolutionary research is full of clergy whove started doing research that proves Genesis was correct, only to have their original hypotheses just crushed by field data

I dont accept your compromise position that we will have to find an uneasy coexistence.NOT IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM The theory of evolution is demonstrable, evidence abounds and it can be used in other areas of science, whereas Creationism is built upon a series of myths with no scientific basis and no observable data. Why must we provide space in our curricula for that just because some religious group is presently feeling frisky and certain that everyone else is an advocate of their position?
We are not ruled by ministers or mullahs, and our scientific truths are not subject to congressional or presidential approval. however, if they were, I WOULD be looking to be a citizen elsewhere.

Weve already put a funding damper on genetic research and fetal stem cell work because of its "moral implications". This used to be one of the (or maybe THE) greatest innovative nations in Science and tech. If we keep dancing with midieval ideas as truths , we are F***ed, my friend.
So, if I dont take your advice , its not cause I dont rspect you, its cause I feel a greater respect for scientific truth.

I hadda look up bloviation, I thought it had to do with oral sex.

Dang, man - who besides you on this thread has said anything about including Creationism in Science class?

We are responding to the original article posted in this thread:



We are also responding to the general effort by organized religious groups to get various "alternate" theories included in science class:



We have been careful to differentiate between our objection to "alternate theories" in science class, and exposure to "alternate theories" in other class formats.

I think you are trying desperately to support your previous statements by ignoring the context of the discussion to which you are posting.

At this point, it seems that we are in agreement that only science should be taught in science class, but that the social discussion of science will continue in broader school curriculum as well as day to day life.

But it's obvious from the context of the thread that Farmerman and I are "on point" when it comes to Creationism in Science class, because that was the original point of this thread.

You are correct on all counts, sir - except in your assertion that I am "desperately" attempting to do anything - I don't really have that big a dog in this fight.

I think we are now in general agreement that the two bodies of ideas will both find their ways into most public school curricula. Where we have some difference is in how we view the contexts in which they will be discussed. For instance, I can easily imagine Creationism being introduced during discussions of history or sociology. In that case, would you prefer someone from the Creationist's camp make public pronouncements, denying that Creationism is a science? Under what circumstance would the introduction of the idea of a supernatural creation be acceptable to you in your children's schools? It ain't going to happen with the disclaimer "The following is all untrue..."

I said I don't have a big dog in the fight, but I do personally hope that American children are taught that it is possible to believe in things that aren't necessarily readily found under a microscope.