As far as the debate goes, I personally am a creationist by heart,not by mind, in fact I could give a care how it all began. However there are a few at my church who seem to enjoy the field of “Creation science.” Apparently theres a few institutions full of scientist (who are more often than not ridiculed about their credentals) who have based a science around the “creation” theroy. The only one I have heard of by name is Kent Hovid, but his name has been trashed here more than a few times. I haven’t taken the time to see any of his reports or essays so I can’t vouch for his certainty myself.
The main thing it seems to me these “Creation scientist” do is not try to prove creation,but rather try to debunk evolution. Some thing they use are the age of the moon (measured by the dust) the difference between micro and marco evolution beliefs and also how “peking” man was falseafied. I can’t go into detals about these claims as I’ve only glanced through a few of them.
Here’s a thing…instead of teaching creationisim along with evolution,why not just each some of the flaws of evolution instead that are pointed out by creationist? That is part of scientific reasoning right?
Creation “scientists” are not merely trying to debunk evolution. They find what they consider flaws in evolution, then deliver the punch-line: “since evolutionists can’t explain this, it must be the work of God!” And then they bring up the whole conspiracy about evolutionists concealing the truth (because, of course, we all know that evolution is bunk, but we’re so twisted with sin and evil and stuff that we’re just spreading lies for the hell of it. Or something)…
Sagasumono, science courses should certainly teach about genuine controversies and areas of uncerainty in science. But the claims of “Young Earth Creationists” aren’t genuinely controversial, they’re just ludicrous. We’re not talking about competing scientific theories. We’re talking about Flat Earthers demanding equal time in geography class. No genuine science teacher should be obliged to teach the “objections” to the heliocentric solar system. Granted, it’s right and proper for an astronomy class to discuss the history of astronomy, and to show the process by which people realized that the Earth was not the center of the Universe, and it’s right and proper for a geology class to show the process by which people realized that the Earth is really billions of years old. But it’s not going to be a question of teaching the “flaws” of those “theories”, but of showing how the human race came to have a more accurate view of the Universe. Properly done, it’s not going to make Flat Earthers or Young Earth Creationists very happy, but there’s no getting around that.
Well, it’s not really a science, insofar as the creation theory has no predictive capacity. If God decides to manufacture a new species next week He can, we can’t predict it. Evolutionary theory however allows us to predict with near abolute certainty that there won’t be any unicorns on Wednesday.
They’re available on the web. But if you don’t mind taking the word of a fellow creationist, don’t bother. The man’s seriously misguided and ignorant at best. At worst he’s an out and out liar. There are far better starting points if you’re interested.
And that’s all right too I suppose, but that doesn’t make it worthy of teaching in science class. We have at the outside 13 years to impart into children some small amount of knowledge. As a result history classes teach history as accepted by the majority of historians and ignores von Daniken’s gods from outer space. Geography teaches geography as accepted by the majority of geographers and ignores flat-earthers and hollow-earthers. Science teaches science as accepted by the majority of scientists and ignores creationism. We really don’t have time to explore every possible explanation in every subject in just 13 years. The majority opinion of the world’s experts seems like a raesonable starting point for constructing a syllabus.
Nope. No more than teaching the flaws in history pointed out by the illuminati-conspiracy-theorists and moon-landing-hoaxers is part of historical reasoning. Baseless conspiracies and what even I have to confess is a gut feeling based on an absence of evidence aren’t part of the scientific process.
Now teaching the flaws pointed out by scientists might have some merit, and there are plenty of respected scientists who do have serious problems with evolutionary theory as it stands. However, as I pointed out above, 13 years really isn’t enough time to explore every controversy in mathematics, history, geogrpaphy, sociology, chemistry, physics and biology. School IMHO should aim to provide the basic facts as accepted by the majority. It has a difficult time accomplishing that, adding any more strain seems scarcely likely to improve educational standards. I agree that if something is a subject of controversy among legitimate scholars, as the mechanism of evolution is, then this should be acknowledged in passing. But an opening statement to the effect that “There is still (widespread?) debate about the exact mechanisms involved here, but the majority opinion seems to be…” is about all that the school syllabus can handle. If we have to spend history classes teaching that Indonesia was colonised by people baked in the Gods’ ovens, and that the people of Oklahoma arrived there by climbing a ladder thrown from heaven by the coyote spirit then I fear our children will have no time to learn any facts at all.
What you just said just adds more fuel to the fire. To the fauthful, the Divine belongs everywhere and touches everything in our lives, the attempt to exclude faith from science notwithstanding. There are flaws in the theories of evolution and science, and views haev to be readjusted with each new discovery.
Also, there is a tendency for mankind, particularly in the Western World, to think that humans are as special because they are human. The effects of the downgrade in the status of humans in relation to nature because of the theories of evolution should never be underestimated.
And Darwin’s Finch, you are arguiung the excluded middle, falling into the exact trap the creationists have set. There can creation through evolution.
What does that mean, “there are flaws in the theories of evolution and science”? Or, more properly, what do you mean when you say it? Evolution is a science, but is not all science. There may be flaws in some of the mechanics of evolution, but there is no flaw in the concept of evolution itself. Hypotheses are tested and retested - such is the way of science. Those that stand up to repeated testing become theories; new discoveries can strengthen existing theories, inspire new hypotheses, or necessitate a re-working of current theories. This does not necessarily mean that a given theory is flawed.
**
Yeah, it would suck if we realized we were just another organism, and that other organisms have just as much right to be here as we do. Or that, if earth’s history had been different, we might not even have been here at all! Such realizations might actually cause us to rethink our place and importance in the universe, and that’s never good…
**
There can indeed. However, that’s not what I was arguing. I merely stated that, in general, creation scientists (not to be confused with “creationists”) who are out there attempting to debunk evolution aren’t doing anyone any favors; they are pursuing their own agenda, which is specifically to discredit evolutionists, delude their audience, and replace scientific theories with pseudo-scientific claptrap.
So are you saying that Christians can’t be scientists then? Chemists don’t say “When these two chemicals are mixed together, a miraculous act of divine intervention occurs to create a new compound. I have faith that this is so.” A scientist may see everything in nature as the handiwork of his or her God, but that’s a different question.
There’s also a church-state separation issue here. A public school teacher may see all of his or her students as children of God, or feel that teaching is a divine calling. But a public school teacher who feels compelled to witness to students in the classroom needs to look for another line of work.
Flaws in scientific theories are corrected by continuing to do science, not by injecting religious dogma into the scientific process.
I’m not sure what this has to do with the truth or falsity of scientific theories about the origins and ancestry of human beings.
So are you saying that Christians can’t be scientists then? Chemists don’t say “When these two chemicals are mixed together, a miraculous act of divine intervention occurs to create a new compound. I have faith that this is so.” A scientist may see everything in nature as the handiwork of his or her God, but that’s a different question.
There’s also a church-state separation issue here. A public school teacher may see all of his or her students as children of God, or feel that teaching is a divine calling. But a public school teacher who feels compelled to witness to students in the classroom needs to look for another line of work.
My reply:
There are people who are religious who claim that “secular humanists” have such an advantage in regards of witnessing to children because of the exclusion of religion from schools. I ought to know. I was witnessed to by a teacher in college who happened to be gay, about his lifestyle, and he even gave me the book Dracula by Bram Stoker. If I were to tell this to my religious relatives, they would get very, very upset.
I am not saying that Christians can’t be scientists. I am saying that there are undercurrents from both sides of the extreme that says that people should not be both, and if they are, then they are sellouts to either side.
A couple of months ago, my wife and I visited Kauai. We went on a bike tour of an old sugar plantation. During the tour the guide gave us several lectures on the islands and people. The main point was to inform us of what assholes we were to the Hawaiian people. I mention this for two reasons: #1. I was unaware of it and I now believe that it should be part of our history lessons. #2. To show that this wasn’t a Disney tour.
One of the other points made was that the islands were caused by volcanic eruptions and being so far from other lands there are very few things that are native to Hawaii.
There are birds and fish that are indigenous of Hawaii, but not plants and animals. When the Polynesians discovered Hawaii they brought many plants and animals, and over the years others have done the same thing. The climate is so good that almost everything prospers in Hawaii. Hawaii is a wonderful place, but it is not the Galápagos.
This is an essentially totalitarian claim that is often put forward by would-be theocrats. They claim that not establishing their religion equals repressing it.
Has anyone ever tried to persuade you your eyes should be blue? (Assuming that you do not, in fact, have blue eyes.) And did this teacher try to convert you to being gay, or did he just not conceal the fact of his sexual orientation from his students?
Also, Dracula by Bram Stoker is not a secular humanist scripture. I don’t think it constitutes any kind of Gay Bible either, although I guess you’d have to ask Esprix about that one. :rolleyes: It is a Gothic horror novel. Some people have read it and found it to be an enjoyable work of fiction. I believe there may even have been a major motion picture. I suppose some religious people might object to it; some religious people have objected to Shakespeare.
Young Earth Creationism does not help the position of Christians who happen to be scientists in gaining the respect of their non-Christian peers.
Umm, Kniz if the tour guide told you this he was off in Disneyland. Hawaii has hundreds if not thousands of species of indigenous animals and plants. Several entire familes are found nowhere else on the planet.
Try a quick google search on “indigenous plants hawaii”.
I almost wish I’d been there. I’d have given him some McGuffin-like black box, and said, “Here ya go. It’ll be ready in about a hundred thousand years, give or take. Five thousand dollars, please.”
I guess Jody Haworth don’t believe in the Sun either, since them pointy-headed godless secular humanist heathen scientists have been saying “Oh, fusion is thirty years away” for at least thirty years now.
I demand we give equal time to the “Sun is the Chariot of Helios Theory”!
[sub](Not to mention the “Sun is the Eye of Ra Theory” and the “Emperor of Japan is a Descendant of the Sun-Goddess Theory” and of course the “We Must Sacrifice the Hearts of Our Enemies to Huitzilopochtli Lest the Sun Go Out Theory”)[/sub]
There have also been minor mutterings of including creationism in philosophy classes and such. Considering the hasty backpeddling exhibited by the DOE on the whole creationism issue, however, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Feh. If by “prospers” you mean “grows to a desirable height,” you’ve obviously never met me.
