quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Define "intervenes". Do you mean necessarily in ways that we would recognize as other than "natural"? Why?
Well, the significance of that intervention would be pretty much nil otherwise, wouldn't it?
I know this kind of question has been posited before here, but I don't recall seeing anyone directly answer it:
If God and all he does falls neatly within the realm of the natural world, what is the significance of his existence or actions? What exactly is the difference between existence and nonexistence of such a god?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if you allow supernatural explanations then the natural explanations become somewhat meaningless. A+B=C except when it doesn't. How do you decide when to apply the supernatural explanation? Who decides?
Supernatural is, I think, that which cannot be explained by natural process.
Define "God".
God, as normally defined, is supernatural because He had to be somewhere when He created spacetime which in naturalism is, by definition, all that there is.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if God were God partly because He understood and functioned within natural laws much better than we did?
I think "supernatural" is like a big box marked "miscellaneous." We throw stuff in there when it doesn't fit in with what we have at the moment. We don't understand all the natural laws by any means; how can we say anything is outside them?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps a particular definition of God. God the creator has to 'be' before he creates being.
There is no question that naturalism is axiomatic. The saving grace (ha ha) is that it has been so phenomenally successful. Despite protestations to the contrary, it is all any of us really have.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think "supernatural" is like a big box marked "miscellaneous." We throw stuff in there when it doesn't fit in with what we have at the moment. We don't understand all the natural laws by any means; how can we say anything is outside them?
But is there anything in this box?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
God can certainly be defined in such a way as to not fall afoul of naturalists. However, the cost of this is (typically) a divergence from what most people mean by 'god'.
What is your complete definition, and what role do you think god plays in our daily lives?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: I think a discussion of creationism in science class should introduce the term and what it means, emphasize that science can't really determine whether it is true or false,
I'm afraid that this too easily would in practice become "Science is not really sure about creationism one way or another" instead of the closer-to-reality "creationism is such utter trash that it doesn't even merit (or allow) refutation by science"
For the point to be clearer made, it should be the Invisible Pink Unicorn that should be discussed in science class. A discussion should introduce the term and what it means, emphasize that science can't really determine whether it's true or false, and then explain why this makes it inappropriate as a scientific model.
Ideally, students would leave the discussion understanding that the debate regarding the Invisible Pink Unicorn is open in philosophy and politics, but also why most scientists believe the rules and limits of science require it to leave the IPU question to religion. Understanding that would require students to stretch their minds to improve their understanding of what science means.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Creationism and ID shouldn't be taught in science classes. Straight up no. Follow the scientific method.
Question: Where do we come from? Hypothesis: God made us Test 1: build a giant God-o-phone and call him.
It doesn't work. Sorry. Compare it to any other Theory/Law we have. They were built on repeatable tests, or a consistant set of data that could hold up to scrutiny. Is Evolutionary Theory correct? maybe, maybe not. Bodies don't really hold up so well after death, and so we have no perfect fossil record to track changes. But what we do have shows us a pattern that reinforces our theory.
I don't think any less of creationists or IDers, but they need to understand that, scientifically, their hypothesis can't be tested. It belongs up in the field of scientific philosophy, along with about half of theoretical physics.
I will think less of you if you are a young or flat earther though.
Posts: 86 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Test 1: build a giant God-o-phone and call him.
It doesn't work. Sorry."
See, there's your problem. They think praying is a God-o-phone, and they think it works. It's as good as proven to them.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if I believe we were created five minutes ago, does that make me a young earther? or maybe a very young earther?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Ok, but why doesn't God tell me when I ask? Am I praying wrong? There are over six billion people on earth; how big is their sample size in comparison? How many accurate repititions can we get? Does God give exact information? Or does he speak in vagueries? Or does he speak in symbols? Then, does he give everyone the same symbols? And if God isn't talking to me, then who else is he not talking to? Who in that group is lying? How do we account for them?
Prayer, unfortunately, is not scientifically robust
Posts: 86 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, you've gotta ask them. My point is that that isn't a good argument for why ID and creationism shouldn't be taught.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate - you got me thinking and I googled the term 'emergent god'. Most of the results were pretty wacky but I thought you might find this interesting:
quote:In that case I don't have any particularly strong objections. I think a good science teacher could make that into a meaningful science lesson. I do however wonder whether the average high school teacher could teach that to the average high school student without it either coming across as attack on religion or an attack on the scientific method. It would be better to not teach this at all than to teach it poorly.
I agree with you on that. But high school teachers are asked to teacher other tricky and highly controversial topics - sex ed comes to mind.
Bad teachers are a problem that's hard to get around, but I'd think a good science instructor could find ways to present it in a way that is fairly straightforward and understandable for high school students. Textbooks should also be able to find a way to explain it that emphasizes both that creationism is a valid debate for religion and also why scientists can't use it as a framework for their models.
quote:It is NOT USEFUL in teaching science, because science classes should ALREADY be providing students with the tools to understand science and reject ID as science on their own.
As has been mentioned earlier, only 40% of Americans report that they believe in evolution. I'd think this indicates that Americans are not being provided the tools to understand the science of evolution properly.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: As has been mentioned earlier, only 40% of Americans report that they believe in evolution. I'd think this indicates that Americans are not being provided the tools to understand the science of evolution properly.
I agree with this statement. However, it does not logically follow that the best way to correct this is to teach intelligent design. The more obvious solution would be to improve the teaching of evolutionary theory itself.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think "supernatural" is like a big box marked "miscellaneous." We throw stuff in there when it doesn't fit in with what we have at the moment. We don't understand all the natural laws by any means; how can we say anything is outside them?
But is there anything in this box?
Well, yes, everything we define as supernatural and therefore don't want to deal with.
We're certainly farther along in understanding how our universe ticks than we were 150 years ago, but when we claim something doesn't fit inside the natural laws we are claiming that we know of and understand all the natural laws, which is not true.
God to me is one who has mastery over all those laws, and all the elements, and one after whom we are patterned--in fact, as his children, the same way any children are patterned after their parents. He does not create ex nihilo, but organizes and directs what is already there according to his purposes. He is not just a natural force, but a living being with wisdom, love, and compassion.
That god does fit in quite well with naturalism, whatever its definition, and science as well. I am a strong believer in science and the good it continues to do, and am often mystified at how God is so frequently taken out of the equation.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
<i>That god does fit in quite well with naturalism, whatever its definition, and science as well. I am a strong believer in science and the good it continues to do, and am often mystified at how God is so frequently taken out of the equation. </i>
God is self removing from science.
The answer to almost any question can be "God did it"
What the scientist wants to know is how. God does the magic tricks, Scientists see them and try to figure out how they were done.
Posts: 86 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: My beliefs on how the earth was created are more complicated then a yes/no answer. I believe God did it. I also believe that the mechanism by which he did it is evolution- or he created everything to look exactly like it all came about through evolution- which in practical terms amounts to the same thing. But I also think it is entirely possible that an all powerful being could have created us all 5 minutes ago, but in such a way that none of us know that we are a mere 5 minutes old. But while being created 5 minutes ago is a great theory, for all practical and useful purposes, I am going to have to bet on evolution and what it predicts.
SHVESTER!
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: They think praying is a God-o-phone
BZZZZ! Sorry, that's incorrect. Thanks for playing!
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: But the key reason that works is that effectively no one alive today still holds to the geocentric model.
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: God to me is one who has mastery over all those laws, and all the elements, and one after whom we are patterned--in fact, as his children, the same way any children are patterned after their parents. He does not create ex nihilo, but organizes and directs what is already there according to his purposes. He is not just a natural force, but a living being with wisdom, love, and compassion.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, but I'm not sure what to make of a God who only works within the bounds of nature. When you say that God is organizing and directing people to be patterned after him as a child is patterned after his parents, do you mean that God is literally telling the DNA "and now make protein to form muscles?"
I guess I'm not sure where the extra step of adding God into the picture is necessary or functional. If nature just does nature's thing, it's difficult for me to understand how God is actually doing anything.
Can we say that photosynthesis or digestion or meiosis is wise and compassionate? If not, then how can we say that God is wise and compassionate by simply acting as the motive force for those things?
I guess what is tripping me up most is where God fits in to the natural process? Is God energy or gravity or chemical reactions or molecular bonds? If everything in nature is ultimately run on "God Power", I guess that's fine, but I don't see where it leaves room for wisdom or love or compassion.
Chemical reactions ALWAYS work the same way - there's no choice involved, and if there's no choice, I don't see how there can be said to be a wise or loving or compassionate acid-base reaction.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: Originally posted by The Rabbit: But the key reason that works is that effectively no one alive today still holds to the geocentric model. Um . . . actually, false.
You missed the key word "effectively" as in "the numbers are so small that they have no appreciable effect on society and public policy". While I am aware that there are still a few nut cases out there arguing that the earth literal has four corners, their numbers are so small that the chance of having more than one of them in a school district, or on a school board or in an elected office are small enough to ignore with out consequence. Those who still hold to the geocentric model of the universe are so small in number and so marginalized in society that pretty much everybody else thinks of them as nut cases hence they have no effective impact in a science classroom. The same is more certainly not true for creationists and IDers.
Are you disputing this or did you have some other point?
[ February 12, 2009, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree with this statement. However, it does not logically follow that the best way to correct this is to teach intelligent design. The more obvious solution would be to improve the teaching of evolutionary theory itself.
I suppose I'm proposing a less obvious solution, then. I'd say that the effect of teaching a controversy in schools is generally that students will later on be better able to judge which side of the controversy is correct.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I used to work in a school where the vast majority believed in the geocentric model. So yes, I am disputing your point -- at least in certain specific locales.
Nutty ideas tend not to be evenly dispersed throughout the population. They agglutinate. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: God to me is one who has mastery over all those laws, and all the elements, and one after whom we are patterned--in fact, as his children, the same way any children are patterned after their parents. He does not create ex nihilo, but organizes and directs what is already there according to his purposes. He is not just a natural force, but a living being with wisdom, love, and compassion.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, but I'm not sure what to make of a God who only works within the bounds of nature. When you say that God is organizing and directing people to be patterned after him as a child is patterned after his parents, do you mean that God is literally telling the DNA "and now make protein to form muscles?"
I guess I'm not sure where the extra step of adding God into the picture is necessary or functional. If nature just does nature's thing, it's difficult for me to understand how God is actually doing anything.
Can we say that photosynthesis or digestion or meiosis is wise and compassionate? If not, then how can we say that God is wise and compassionate by simply acting as the motive force for those things?
I guess what is tripping me up most is where God fits in to the natural process? Is God energy or gravity or chemical reactions or molecular bonds? If everything in nature is ultimately run on "God Power", I guess that's fine, but I don't see where it leaves room for wisdom or love or compassion.
Chemical reactions ALWAYS work the same way - there's no choice involved, and if there's no choice, I don't see how there can be said to be a wise or loving or compassionate acid-base reaction.
It's called the Watchmaker God theory, and it posits that god made the world this way, and lets his creation run as he wants it to.....as he designed it to.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: I suppose I'm proposing a less obvious solution, then. I'd say that the effect of teaching a controversy in schools is generally that students will later on be better able to judge which side of the controversy is correct.
But I don't think that's going to work. I think the students will thinking "We learned about Creationism alongside evolution. They must both be equally valid, so I'll pick the one I want to believe. After all, scientists must not really know that evolution is right, there's geuniune controversy".
You want to teach kids "The scientific consensus is total; the earth is a few billion years old. But there's a valid political and religious controversy over that fact"? What does this teach kids, except that scientific facts are trumped by religious whining?
And that's not the worst outcome. You tell Creationist teachers to teach Creationism in any form in their class, they will teach Creationism as fact. Creationist teachers simply are a fact of life, and yes, people will teach Creationism anyway, even if the rules explicitly forbid it, but having the rules that say "No Creationism in science class" is still better than a rule saying "teach Creationism alongside evolution".
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by advice for robots: God to me is one who has mastery over all those laws, and all the elements, and one after whom we are patterned--in fact, as his children, the same way any children are patterned after their parents. He does not create ex nihilo, but organizes and directs what is already there according to his purposes. He is not just a natural force, but a living being with wisdom, love, and compassion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, but I'm not sure what to make of a God who only works within the bounds of nature. When you say that God is organizing and directing people to be patterned after him as a child is patterned after his parents, do you mean that God is literally telling the DNA "and now make protein to form muscles?"
I guess I'm not sure where the extra step of adding God into the picture is necessary or functional. If nature just does nature's thing, it's difficult for me to understand how God is actually doing anything.
Can we say that photosynthesis or digestion or meiosis is wise and compassionate? If not, then how can we say that God is wise and compassionate by simply acting as the motive force for those things?
I guess what is tripping me up most is where God fits in to the natural process? Is God energy or gravity or chemical reactions or molecular bonds? If everything in nature is ultimately run on "God Power", I guess that's fine, but I don't see where it leaves room for wisdom or love or compassion.
Chemical reactions ALWAYS work the same way - there's no choice involved, and if there's no choice, I don't see how there can be said to be a wise or loving or compassionate acid-base reaction.
I just narrowed my definition to the context of the current discussion. I'm not describing some motive force for natural processes. I'm just trying to describe how God is not necessarily supernatural in the way it's being defined here, but in fact in command of the natural laws. Now you're applying my definition to the other extreme, wondering how God can just be a chemical reaction.
I'm not positing some Victorian-age tinkerer, either, setting in motion some grand clockwork design.
If you're a parent, think of how you care and provide for your kids. Think of your relationship with them, and how much more you can do than them, and all you are willing to do on their behalf. They have your genes, they have so many of your characteristics, they follow your example and pretty much rely completely on you. Compared to them, you are all-knowing and all-powerful. You have purposes and goals in everything you do for them. You provide an environment at home where they can learn and grow. Now take that to a much grander scale and think of God as the parent. Not a chemical reaction, not a watchmaker, but someone with all the goals and purposes of a parent as well as power over the elements.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree with this statement. However, it does not logically follow that the best way to correct this is to teach intelligent design. The more obvious solution would be to improve the teaching of evolutionary theory itself.
I suppose I'm proposing a less obvious solution, then. I'd say that the effect of teaching a controversy in schools is generally that students will later on be better able to judge which side of the controversy is correct.
Why do you continue to ignore the position that effective teaching with or without specific mention of stupid theories will guard one against intellectual dishonesty? The *nice* thing about ID is that it is so patently fallacious as a "theory." What we need really, is competent and intellectually curious students who understand science- not a defensive game against every piece of propaganda that gets thrown at the schools by religious extremists. After all, this is not a real controversy. It was created to further Creationist teaching in schools, it has never, and will never have a foothold in actual science- only in education. Science and education don't play the defensive game well- that is not their job, and ID promoters are making a conscious attempt, IMO, to corrupt our education system, either for profit, or out of religious fanaticism.
ID promotion is all about getting people to address ID and evolution as a binary debate. By including it in the curriculum, you encourage students to view it in this way, which lends credence to ID, because ID simply *doesn't* belong in the realm of a science discussion. By turning it into a binary debate, ID/Creationists can inflame people into believing that the schools are "rejecting" their beliefs, or saying that ID is "false." You hear endless mantras of "two competing theories." This is not a controversy, really. There are no contingents of credible scientists who promote the idea of ID as science. This is a propaganda campaign. And it's one that you are suggesting be accommodated.
I'm not going to continue with this, just so you know. You've come back with the same answer about 3 or 4 times now, so I think you're not willing to change your mind. That's fine.
quote: As has been mentioned earlier, only 40% of Americans report that they believe in evolution. I'd think this indicates that Americans are not being provided the tools to understand the science of evolution properly.
Perhaps it's harsh of me to say this, but I really don't care about those vast swaths of people, if they really exist (which I doubt). If you're so dirt stupid as to cling to the most pathetically childlike beliefs about the world around you, I have difficulty being empathetic. It concerns me, but these are not people I talk to or am interested in meeting. You might be shocked by that because we're all supposed to be Americans and countrymen, but I never believed in that, really. We get horribly upset at the differences between people in the states, and sometimes I don't see why. I shouldn't concern myself greatly with the stupidity of some guy living somewhere I'll never visit- nor have his idiocy inflicted on me if I ever do.
I read through the thread last night. There is some classic John Van Pelt too. I really miss that guy.
For my own part, I have come to accept that there may be structure below Planck length even though I am far more skeptical about string theory generally. Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Except, Orincoro, they vote.
Which is why I frankly believe that the US will not last forever. Everyone knows this intellectually of course, everything ends. But I think the end of our nation in its presently ungainly form is closer than most people appreciate. I'm not encouraged by the idea, but I do accept it as a probability.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
His first post in the thread could easily be mistaken for his latest posts in this thread... are you being sarcastic? Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You want to teach kids "The scientific consensus is total; the earth is a few billion years old. But there's a valid political and religious controversy over that fact"? What does this teach kids, except that scientific facts are trumped by religious whining?
If taught correctly, I'd think it should teach them that religion can trump science, but whether it does so is a question for philosophy and politics to work out; within science, science must abide by the rules that allow it to be so effective, making evolution the conclusion that scientists must accept in their models.
I'd also think that, at least if we are talking about kids who are being expected to do things like understand the periodic table or understand how DNA can determine an organism's traits, they should be able to learn the difference between what I said above and the claim that evolution and creationism are equally valid in science.
quote:And that's not the worst outcome. You tell Creationist teachers to teach Creationism in any form in their class, they will teach Creationism as fact. Creationist teachers simply are a fact of life, and yes, people will teach Creationism anyway, even if the rules explicitly forbid it, but having the rules that say "No Creationism in science class" is still better than a rule saying "teach Creationism alongside evolution".
The same could be said for issues regarding sex education - that doesn't mean we should simply take all sex education out of the curriculum. I don't think we should allow a minority of Creationism enthusiasts to hold education hostage; we should teach students what they need to learn, and if some teachers aren't willing to do it correctly, then we need to get new teachers.
quote:Why do you continue to ignore the position that effective teaching with or without specific mention of stupid theories will guard one against intellectual dishonesty?
Because I don't think students will care about or understand the boundaries of science unless they see how it is applied to issues that are actually confronting society. And I don't think most will understand how to apply that understanding to the evolution/creationism issue as well as if they were explicitly taught what the issue is all about. Otherwise, they're going to try to understand the issue through the arguments presented to them by two talking heads on Fox News. Again, I think its clear, based on the statistics, that our education system right now is not producing enough people who have all the tools needed to guard against intellectual dishonesty.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Again, I think its clear, based on the statistics, that our education system right now is not producing enough people who have all the tools needed to guard against intellectual dishonesty. "
And I can garuntee you that putting intellectual dishonesty into the classroom will increase the number of people who can't gaurd against it.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have not argued that we put any intellectual dishonesty in the classroom. I think everything I've said we should teach as true is true.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: His first post in the thread could easily be mistaken for his latest posts in this thread... are you being sarcastic?
hmmm, I may have linked to the wrong thread, I read through quite a few last night.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I have not argued that we put any intellectual dishonesty in the classroom. "
Yes, you have. You're arguing we should put creationism into science curriculum. Read a science curriculum sometime. The things that are in there are scientific principles, and tools that help in performing science. Creationism doesn't fit into either category, so what you're doing is saying that the science curriculum should contain things that are not science, and do not help perform science, as things that need to explicitly be taught. Yes, you're arguing that science teachers should teach that it is not science... but at that point, you have something in the curriculum that is assumed to be science. And in order to over-come the impression that it is science by virtue of it being a topic the teacher brings up, that shows up on the syllabus, etc, you have to spend inordinate amounts of time on it, which, unless done exactly correctly, means that kids will walk away thinking its a scientific principle.
Leave not-science out of the science curriculum. Not-science still comes into the class through student-teacher dialoguing. But when it comes up because a student asks a question, the teacher can spend only a few minutes on it, and the impression created is much more strong that its not-science.
A high school science curriculum is simply not the place to put non-science, even if you put it in to teach "this is not science." Especially then. The dynamics of a high school science classroom, and the way learning actually occurs, make it MORE likely students walk away thinking not-science is science, if the not-science is part of the curriculum. The only thing to be gained by including not-science as part of the formal science curriculum is to legitimize not-science.
And everyone, but you, arguing for creationism as part of the curriculum knows it.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I'm not positing some Victorian-age tinkerer, either, setting in motion some grand clockwork design. ... Compared to them, you are all-knowing and all-powerful. You have purposes and goals in everything you do for them. You provide an environment at home where they can learn and grow. Now take that to a much grander scale and think of God as the parent. Not a chemical reaction, not a watchmaker, but someone with all the goals and purposes of a parent as well as power over the elements.
So if I understand correctly, you don't believe in the watchmaker hypothesis, you believe that God takes an active role in day to day affairs.
At the same time though, you seem to be sure that there is nothing "supernatural" involved, that God works completely within the bounds of nature, having, "power over the elements" as you say.
My difficulty then, is if God only works through natural processes, how is it possible to find any evidence of God? Natural processes are natural, by definition. Gravity always pulls things at the same rate, nerve fibers fire with the same intensity, water takes the same amount of heat to boil.
If all these things are constant, how is there any room for some unknown force to guide them? If I pour boiling water on my foot, and pray to God for help, a God who works within the natural processes cannot do anything, because gravity is going to make the water fall, the temperature is going to burn my foot, and so on.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, you have. You're arguing we should put creationism into science curriculum. Read a science curriculum sometime. The things that are in there are scientific principles, and tools that help in performing science. Creationism doesn't fit into either category, so what you're doing is saying that the science curriculum should contain things that are not science, and do not help perform science, as things that need to explicitly be taught. Yes, you're arguing that science teachers should teach that it is not science... but at that point, you have something in the curriculum that is assumed to be science. And in order to over-come the impression that it is science by virtue of it being a topic the teacher brings up, that shows up on the syllabus, etc, you have to spend inordinate amounts of time on it, which, unless done exactly correctly, means that kids will walk away thinking its a scientific principle.
Understanding the philosophy of science, meaning the boundaries that define science from nonscientific studies and the role of science, is helpful (if not essential) to properly perform science. A discussion of Creationism is, or at least can be, part of that. And I see no reason to give it an inordinate amount of time - I'm not even sure it would merit more than a page in the textbook.
quote:The only thing to be gained by including not-science as part of the formal science curriculum is to legitimize not-science.
And everyone, but you, arguing for creationism as part of the curriculum knows it.
The study I linked to earlier shows this is not true. Over 70% of science teachers believed creationism should be "discussed" in science classes. That's far higher than the percent of science teachers who actually believe creationism, meaning at least some portion of that 70% must agree that there is value in discussing creationism other than to legitimize it.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that Creationism should be discussed for a total of about 1 minute. "Some people believe Creationism, not evolution brought about life on earth. That's a religious belief, based only on faith, not a scientific understanding of nature based on an examination of facts. Hence, it is no more appropriate to this class than to discuss any other religious belief."
Someone could probably cut that down to even less time, since I hate to give it too much credit.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
