Hey JonF, regarding your comment on my quickie thermo explanation:
The difference you point out seems largely semantic. For purposes of illustration, I was using a “box” analogy–where you refer to a boundary with energy fluxes across it, I simply used a bigger “box”. This changes the situation from two interacting system, to an easier-to-understand-qualitatively bigger closed system. If you continue this indefinitely, of course, you eventually get a “box” congruent with the boundaries of the universe/multiverse/whatever. Any time you have two systems interacting, you can treat them (along with any other systems interacting with either or both of them) as a closed system, in which my explanation holds. Computationally that’s a nightmare, but it helps for instructional purposes.
Mind you, I’m no physicist–there could be a distinction I’m not recognizing. If so, please point it out; I’ll be careful not to screw it up in the future.
On topic:
Granted, the OP didn’t specify “Creationism taught as science” in the question. I think we all assume that that’s the issue, because that’s what Creationists are always pushing for. I’ve never heard one demanding a comparative religions class. As for the “evolution isn’t science, either” bit, I think everyone has pretty well clobbered that idea already. If you don’t want to believe it, then don’t; but please don’t try to force your ideas down everyone else’s throat. You don’t see me demanding a Wiccan explanation of evolution in schools, do you? (Not that there really is one, exactly…:D)
Balance: I’m not trying to pick on you, but your statement about the second law applying only to closed systems was incorrect, and could cause confusion.
There are many cases in which you must work with an open system; if you mistakenly assume an open system is closed and you’re just doing hand-waving arguments (as we’re doing here) you run the risk of reaching the wrong conclusion, and if you’re actually doing calculations you will definitely get the wrong answer.
We’ve already discussed the case where the system is the Earth alone; no matter where you draw the boundary (as long as the Sun is outside the boundary), the energy/entropy flow across the boundary is significant. Another example is the system consisting of just the Earth and the Sun; that’s not a closed system, because a significant amount of energy flows through the boundary of the system (in the form of sunlight, including radiation outside the visible spectrum, that is not captured by the Earth) unless the system is so large that the light emitted by the Sun hasn’t yet reached the boundary; in which case the other stuff you will have to include in the system will complicate the analysis beyond possibility of solution, and will in turn be radiating significant energy through the boundary. It may or may not be possible to conceive of a system of unfathomable proportions that doesn’t have this problem. If there is such a system, about all we can say about it is that entropy may be rearranged within it in accordance with the second law.
The only reason we can ever work with closed systems is that the fluxes that exist are often insignificant. The behavior of a steam turbine doesn’t depend noticably on the amount of sunlight that hits it. But when we start working with systems as large as the Earth and larger, sunlight is always significant.
Failure to formally identify the system, its boundaries, and all the fluxes across those boundaries and then decide whether the system may be treated as open or closed is the most common error made by students of thermodynamics. I doubt that you can use that method to come up with a carefully identified and conceptually useful system that includes the Earth and the Sun and is closed (meaning that nothing significant crosses the boundary). So, if we’re going to do thermo, we need to be able to work with open systems; and all the laws of thermodynamics apply (in somewhat different and unfortunately more complex form).
OK, JonF. I really did want clarification, and I don’t mind at all. You’re a Mech. E., right? I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject–EE’s don’t get much thermo. I’ll bear the correction in mind in the future, and I apologize to any poor innocents I may have misled.
Edwino, I’m not quite sure I understand what you were trying to stay here.
quote:
Next lets make a Talmudic argument: conjures the ghost of Rambam
(i) God made man as the pinnacle of his perfect creation.
(ii) By understanding God’s Creation (ourselves and the world around us), we can gain a closer understanding of God.
So how do we resolve the obvious contradiction : (1) shows the earth to be 6000 years old, and (ii) to be 4.2 billion, etc ad nauseum?
The Talmud, if I’m not mistaken, is a jewish holy book. The book of of Genesis is is a Hebrew book in the Old Testament of the Bible, which is used by Christianity. You compare the two books. Why? They are two different books of two different religions. It’s like trying to compare Methodists to Catholics or Southern Baptist to Greek Orthodox. You can’t do it. They beleive different things. Do you think that Christianity uses the Talmud? No. Christianity uses the bible, the Jewish faith uses the Talmud and other books.
As for whoever said that we shouldn’t use the bible because it isn’t true. The Old Testament successfully predicted the rise and fall of 6 world powers and the rise of a seventh. Don’t beleive me? Read the book of Daniel.
I don’t beleive in Evolution for a reason. I believe there is a God who created the earth and the people and animals on it. The Bible fortells of a cataclysmic end of things, in the end of which, God does the judging. I’m going to run my chances on God if he does, which I beleive he does, exist. If I’m wrong, which I don’t think I am, I’ll die naturally, at a rife old age, the way evolution and survival of the fittest says I should. I’m just not going to dicredit the fact the the world has a creator. It’s too nice to have come about by chance.
Hi. I’m new here, but thought I’d dive in with my pocket change anyway
First, to address the initial question:
I believe that Creationism should be taught in public schools when evolution is taught in Sunday school. Until then, the two should be treated as separate entities - Creationism belongs in Religious Studies-type classes (and I certainly do NOT object to creationism being taught in this context), Evolution in science classes. They are not ‘competing theories’, simply because Creationism is not a ‘theory’ at all. It is a BELIEF. Evolution is not.
While the following is somewhat off topic, I feel the need to make a couple of statements:
Felicia said earlier:
Actually, evolution is both history and science. It is what is known as a ‘historical science’. Geology and Cosmology are two other well-known historical sciences (Stellar Astronomy, particularly the parts dealing with the ‘life-cycle’ of stars, is also a historical science).
Many people think that all science has to take place in a lab, with lasers everywhere and beakers full of bubbling liquids. This sort of thing may be common for ‘hard’ sciences, like chemistry and physics, but certainly does not apply to historical sciences.
This, of course, causes some problems. First off, when dealing with a historical science, we have to contend with the fact that no-one was around to witness many of the phenomena we are attempting to explain. Of course, this applies equally to Creationism (no-one SAW God create the universe…), so I don’t see this as a valid fault in any theories put forth by evolutionists, etc.
The cornerstone of historical science is inference. We didn’t see what happened, but, using the facts at hand, we can make a very educated guess. In this respect, evolution is very like detective work - surely no-one would say that the work of a forensic scientist is invalid simply because s/he didn’t ‘see’ the crime committed! We see patterns in nature, and evolution does a pretty good job of explaining them. Sure, the ‘theory’ changes - all theories do. But that doesn’t invalidate the facts: organisms DO change. Scientists, contrary to popular perception, are not seeking ‘Truth’ - they are seeking ‘Understanding’. As understanding grows, new hypotheses are proposed and tested. The current Theory of Evolution is our current ‘best guess’ as to how the process works. It is NOT a theory about WHETHER organisms change. It is a theory about HOW they change. What CAUSES change, and how does it manifest?
Darwin didn’t come up with evolution; evolution was accepted as fact long before Darwin. What Darwin did was to come up with a theory about the PROCESS, which brought evolution from the realms of pseudo-science into the realm of true science. The best theories are nothing without a mechanism, and Darwin gave us a mechanism for evolution.
OK…I think I’ve made enough of a nuisance of myself…for this post anyway
No, the Talmud is a set of commentaries by different teachers on the proper application of the Law to daily life.
Actually, Shagadelic, the Torah consists of the five books of Moses, i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. The Talmud is not Scripture, it’s commentary on Scripture. I won’t get into the Mishnah. Really, Shag, Christianity came from Judaism. You really should learn more about your own faith.
Actually, Shag, the book of Daniel says no such thing. Find a verse that says “six world powers will fall, and a seventh will follow.” If you’re talking about the vision of a statue with clay feet, brass shoulders, etc., since the Bible must be taken literally, Daniel must mean he saw a statue. After all, God doesn’t use metaphors, does he?
Shag, since you don’t really understand basic biology, you’re not qualified to debate the evidence for or against evolution. You’re a nice kid, but you need an education.
A “rife old age” shag? Hmmm…rife with what? The mind boggles at the possibilities :D.
Diffidently (given the hit my credibility just took) I point out that the book of Genesis–indeed all of the Old Testament–is Jewish. Genesis is part of the Pentateuch, the set of five books traditionally held to have been written by Moses. The Talmud contains stories, laws, medical information, and moral debates. Parts of it are derived from the Scriptures; others come from the society in which the Scriptures were revered. I see no reason not to compare two sources from the same religion. The fact that Christians have coopted the Hebrew Scriptures and pick out the bits they like to use in arguments doesn’t change the source.
Comments and corrections from those more familiar with Judaism are welcomed–I’m no authoritative source, I just wanted to get a basic misconception cleared up quickly.
Aside from the fact that the Old Testament IS essentially a Jewish holy book, in as much as it is an abridged version of the Torah, Edwino was not quoting from the Talmud. He said he was making a Talmudic argument. It’s a style of discussion, based on the way Judaic scholars have debated fine points of theology for several thousands of years.
You not only don’t know enough about science to discuss science, you don’t even know enough about your own professed faith to discuss it intelligently. Sorry to tell you this, but what you’re proving here is your ignorance rather than your points.
There is a clear consensus on this thread that answers your OP:
Creationism is not science and should not be taught as such in the public schools. Creation stories are perfectly acceptable when taught in an appropriate forum such as a Comparative Religions class, as long as no attempt is made to teach one religion as “the truth”.
One of the best college courses I ever took was devoted to exploring how the tools of science can be misused, how statistical analysis can be misapplied, and so forth.
The point was to tease out what science really is from the collection of tools that are used to produce a given result.
Put another way, (at least as far as science education is concerned) the American educational system seems intent on providing everybody with a hammer and nails and then just assumes that everyone can see how to use them to build a house. This course set about showing how to build a house.
I’m all for Creationism being taught, and this sort of a course is the forum for it. There are countless lessons to be taught about how scientific methods can be twisted, misunderstood, and misapplied. Creationism is a model example. Might as well learn from it.
Personally, I think that Creationism (Creation theories, Scientific Creation, or whatever) should not be taught in public schools. For one thing, the “science” focouses on the book of Genesis from the Bible or the Torah. This applies to two religions and does not attempt to take into account any other religious beliefs on the creation of the world, life, etc. Furhtermore, the majority of the supporters Creationism are Christians. If Creationism is taught, then all other forms of creation belief must also be taught, leaving no room in science courses for other topics.
For another thing, Many of the Creationist theories merely attempt to debunk the Theory of Evolution. The creationists then say, Well, what else could it be? This is not the proper way to develop a scientific theory.
Evolution does not have a preset line of conditions for its facts to meet, and so it “evolves” (hah hah) the way that new discoveries dictate, not in rigid accordance to a religious text. Also, there countless facts, experiments, and theories that back the theory of evolution, which would validate it as something that should be taught in my book. My opinion is: keep Evolution, leave Creationism toprivate institutions.
The other parts of this post have been dealt with nicely, thanks to goboy and redtail23. Indeed, I made an argument about the Old Testament (a Jewish book and a Christian book -that line underneath the assumption was the beginning of the Biblical Hebrew translation) in the style of the Talmud.
I was raised Jewish, and most forms of Judaism promote debate about the word of God. Hence, Judaism has a set of arcane traditions built of layers upon layers of rabbinical debate. That’s another issue.
It is wonderful to me if you go through life as a devout Christian and it is wonderful if you choose to ignore science. Just do me 1 favor – promise me you won’t impose your belief system on me or others who think like me.
I just have to say, though : If your view stands, God actually gave us much more than the Bible. Look around you. The entire natural world around and everything contained in it is His Creation. How can denying part of His Creation be holy? Surely if He put dinosaur bones under sediment and created it with the 14C/12C ratio just so that we would think it is 200 million years old, then He would mean us to know about it? Surely these are more pristine artifacts of His doing than a book which has been passed through 6000 years of human mishandling? It went through 2000+ years of oral tradition before anybody even thought to put it on paper.
Sorry, I know how divisive this must sound, but it really makes me curious as to how you resolve these facts.
I admit i’m not a very religious person and this is about the only place I’ll talk about it. Don’t worry about me trying to preach religion to you cause I don’t like to do that to people. I Only mention religion to prove some points.
I do acknowledge that god created the earth and everyliving thing on it. I’m not sure if he used evolution to bring it about, which I doubt, but that’s me. I don’t think that God would create the earth and some simple things then leave them alone to go on their own and involve. Too many miracles happen.
But don’t worry, this is the last post from a “religious” viewpoint that you’re getting from me. Believe me, I’ve tried to keep an open mind about evolution, and many other things. I just don’t believe it, yet… Not saying that I ever will, but I’m willing to study it to a deeper degree.
No, I don’t believe me. Prove it. And, no, just telling me to read the book of Daniel is not considered proving it.
There are lots of people who believe in God and these things and who still accept evolution. Why do you think you have to be different?
Oh, good. Another “Pascal’s Wager” argument. Gaudere will not be happy with you.
Which has nothing to do with evolution.
You seem to be associating evolution with atheism. But there are many evolutionists who are also theists – indeed, a number of them can be found around here, maybe even in this very thread.
Should Creationism be taught in school? What next? How about this: from now on students must receive communion in the lunch line? That’s What Jesus Would Do.
Carbon 14 dating is useless beyond an age of a few tens of thousands of years. For objects as old as the dinosaur bones, we have to use radioactive Potassium/Argon dating instead.
I graduted from a public high school this year. In World History (an elective) We learned about Darwinian Evolution, Hinduism theories of creation, Christian theories, and several other theories. All were taught in a secular manner. This is the only way history should be taught. It would be very narrow-minded to teach only one version of history.
As for prayer in schools we didn’t have any. We also had moments of silence when students died. however, at our baccalouriate (sp?) we had prayer. We also had the FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletetes) that met weekly at a guidance councellor’s house accross the street form the school.
The people that think it hurts other student’s rights if students pray at lunch or in the classroom are very stupid in my opinion. How can it harm a child’s beliefs to be exposed to other’s? I am not talking about prayer or religion being imposed or promoted by the school which would violate the establishment clause.
That sounds like a pretty cool history class–certainly far better than the nonsense I got as world history in high school. That is essentially the sort of venue that most of us agree that creation stories should be taught in; we’ve been saying “comparative religions”, but an elective world history class works as well.
As for students praying in schools…I don’t think anyone here has suggested (or would suggest) that students be forbidden to pray in the school. They can do so now–a fact that frequently gets ignored by those pushing school-sponsored prayer. They can (and some do) say grace in the lunchroom. Groups can organize prayer meetings during breaks and after school. They are not allowed to pray aloud during class for the same reason students are not supposed to talk about anything unrelated to the subject at hand: it’s disruptive. Offering an extemporaneous prayer aloud during class would certainly distract others from their work, or disrupt a lecture in progress, so it’s not permitted. OTOH, a student is perfectly free to sit and pray silently.
We had prayers at our Baccalaureate, too. We also had them at football games, our graduation, etc. I’m not a Christian, and wasn’t then, but I found the prayers only mildly annoying. I generally ignored them, or silently prayed in my own way if I thought it was appropriate; nevertheless, those prayers violated the establishment clause. They didn’t influence me (I’ve always been a contraty cuss), but they may well have lent undue support for religion in general and Christianity in particular in the eyes of other students.
Now that I’m done ranting, let’s get back to the OT.
