Should Creationism be taught in classrooms?

[otseng]

Should Creationism be taught in classrooms (as science)?
More specifically, should it be taught in public schools?
If so, how should it be taught as a science?

[Nyril]

I think I see the root of the problem. Because you see no evidence of gnomes or little green men, you think it follows that there is no evidence of God.

No. I don't think it neccessarily follows in any logical sort of way. But I see no evidence of gnomes. I see no evidence of little green men. And I also see no evidence of God.

Let me put it this way: something cannot be "logically necessary" but "not exist" without violating the law of non-contradiction. The resulting contradiction is not only evidence of existence of God. It is logical proof of the existance of God.

I see no contradiction. Show that god is logically necessary.

Time had to begin. To say otherwise is to say that time had no beginning, and that is the same as saying that the "beginning" of time was infinitely far in the past! But that does not make sense. If the "beginning" of time was infinitely far in the past, then the time required to get from the "beginning" of time to this point in time would be infinite! And we could never have gotten to this point in time! But, we are here at this point in time! Therefore, time had to have a beginning, that was not infinitely far in the past.

No. We cross infinities all the time. There is an infinite number of points between two spots on the face of an analog clock. By your logic, the clock hand cannot move.

There are a number of alternatives to your scenario, the first being that time is possibly circular.

Some have suggested that time does not have to have a beginning. Some have suggested that time is circular, that time had no beginning but we reach this point in time again and again. However that does not make sense. The concept of time is one and the same with the concept of change. If time were circular, we would be re-living the exact same patterns of change again and again, one cycle to the next. Such an idea of time has no room for the concept of free will; and has no room for the ability of persons to make decisions. Such an idea of time turns all humans into robots, were all choices are meaningless, because they were preordained with no input of will at this point in time.

Distasteful, possibly, but that does not rule out the possibility that it is true.

For time to have a beginning, something must have caused it. That something must transcend time (exist out side of time), must have will (to cause the creation of time), and must therefore have, at a minimum, characteristics of personality ..... God.

Again, what caused god? If you can accept that nothing caused god, why can you not then accept that nothing was needed to cause time?

[An Observer]

......

I cannot help you at the present time ..... you are going to have to start at the basics ...

I will write more when I have more time .... but, it will be helpful if you were to realize that good philosophy is a prerequisite of good science, not the other way around.

[Corvus]

Time had to begin. To say otherwise is to say that time had no beginning, and that is the same as saying that the "beginning" of time was infinitely far in the past! But that does not make sense. If the "beginning" of time was infinitely far in the past, then the time required to get from the "beginning" of time to this point in time would be infinite! And we could never have gotten to this point in time! But, we are here at this point in time! Therefore, time had to have a beginning, that was not infinitely far in the past.

I have to hand it to you, Observer, you almost convinced me there, and that is a significantly rare occurence. But I still thought the argument flawed in a way, but I did not know how. Only now, several days later, did my subconscious brain discover why.

The reason I believe your argument is flawed is because it hangs finite time on an infinite clothesline. God would have to create, at one point in time in an existence where time does not exist, a timed narrative, and how could a timed narrative exist when it is part of a larger timeless narrative? And how does a timeless narrative exist coherently at all?

The common response to the argument of first causes is; "what caused the First Cause (God)?" The common answer is; "God is infinite and he exists outside of time, thus not requiring a cause". I believe this overlooks a step, and that is, the question of what caused the First Cause to cause an effect at all . If God is infinite and time has no meaning to him, what is the cause of his intent to create earth, and how does this required cause exist at all in chronological vacuum? The cause of the act of creating would have to exist at one point in non-time and not another. Phrased in the clearest way possible, I am asking; What provoked the First Cause to be the first cause? This may deserve its own topic.

[An Observer]

......

The reason I believe your argument is flawed is because it hangs finite time on an infinite clothesline. God would have to create, at one point in time in an existence where time does not exist, a timed narrative, and how could a timed narrative exist when it is part of a larger timeless narrative? And how does a timeless narrative exist coherently at all?

.......

Maybe this does deserve its own topic .... but ... for the time being let me say that the "infinite clothsline" you reference is not made out of time! It is made out of logic (part of the nature of God).



To assert that there was a point in time when time did not exist is to assert the contradiction that:
1) time existed
and
2) time did not exist,
both at the same time.
The contradiction proves the assertion to be false.

Now, I certainly do not have all the details of how and why God created space and time (there are many mature theological explanations developed over the ages). However, I do know that space has no meaning without time, and time has no meaning without space. Time is measured via movement and changes of physical things. Physical changes are measured via time. Space and time are, in a sense, the same thing.

I also know that logic is not dependent upon the physical universe (space and time), but the physical universe (space and time) is dependent upon logic (among other things).

There are prerequisites of the physical universe, in the same way that the concept of a side of a triangle is a prerequisite of the concept of a triangle. The concept of the side is not necessarily temporally before the concept of a triangle. It is logically before the concept of a triangle. But, the concept of a triangle is not necessary for there to be a concept of a side. Therefore the concept of a side is a foundational to the triangle, not the other way around.

In the same way, logic is a prerequisite to the physical universe. The physical universe (space and time) is not a prerequisite to logic (part of the nature of God). God created the universe out of nothing (no space, time), not the other way around.

[potwalloper.]

I also know that logic is not dependent upon the physical universe (space and time), but the physical universe (space and time) is dependent upon logic (among other things).

Out of interest why is the physical universe dependent upon logic? It could be argued that logic is simply conceptual and therefore would not exist without sentience; as such in a physical universe without sentient life forms logic would not exist.

Whilst logic provides a useful platform for the examination and conceptualisation of the universe there are areas where logic does not appear to apply - quantum physics being one.

[An Observer]

I also know that logic is not dependent upon the physical universe (space and time), but the physical universe (space and time) is dependent upon logic (among other things).

Out of interest why is the physical universe dependent upon logic? It could be argued that logic is simply conceptual and therefore would not exist without sentience; as such in a physical universe without sentient life forms logic would not exist.

everything is dependent upon logic (but not only logic).

Whilst logic provides a useful platform for the examination and conceptualisation of the universe there are areas where logic does not appear to apply - quantum physics being one.

If a branch of science is real, it is logical, and does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

Intelligent Design is logical.

The theory of Evolution, to the extent it presumes "chance" is a force, is non-logical.

Quantum Mechanics, to the extent it presumes "chance" is a force, is non-logical, and is a misrepresentation of reality.

Statistics, on which much of TOE and Quantum Mechanics rely, is a useful tool for predicting results of experiments. But statistics is not a useful tool for explaining why things happen.

Intelligent Design and Creationism are not non-logical. They may gloss over much information. But they do not violate the law of non-contradiction.

[Nyril]

potwalloper. wrote:
Quote:
I also know that logic is not dependent upon the physical universe (space and time), but the physical universe (space and time) is dependent upon logic (among other things).


Out of interest why is the physical universe dependent upon logic? It could be argued that logic is simply conceptual and therefore would not exist without sentience; as such in a physical universe without sentient life forms logic would not exist.

everything is dependent upon logic (but not only logic).

That's nice. But it didn't answer the question. Why is everything dependent upon logic?

If a branch of science is real, it is logical, and does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

What precisely is the law of non-contradiction? Although I would not consider myself to be an academic elite of sorts, I am in some relatively high level science classes (physics, chemistry, etc...) in college, and I've yet to hear of it.

[Corvus]

I have created a topic in the philosophy forum on whether God is the logical answer to the creation of the universe to avoid derailing this already gargantuan thread. I am just about to begin writing my response, An Observer. I encourage you, Potwaller and Nyril to debate this topic there.

[otseng]

Here is another argument for teaching creationism in public schools.

As tax funded organizations, I believe the public should have a say in what gets taught. After all, it is their money. According to Gallop polls, Americans support teaching creationism in schools by a substantial margin (I do not have exact numbers since I'm not a Gallop subscriber).

Americans Support Teaching Creationism as Well as Evolution in Public Schools

Although some leaders in the scientific community have expressed stunned dismay at the willingness of both leading presidential contenders, Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice-President Al Gore, to support the teaching of creationism in public schools, recent Gallup polls confirm that Americans are in favor of that policy by a substantial margin. At the same time, they are divided on how human beings came into existence.

However, I have found data from 2001 on the beliefs of Americans on evolution and creation.

God created people in present form within last 10,000 years - 45%
Evolution occurred over millions of years guided by God - 37%
Evolution occurred with no interference by God - 12%
Don't Know - 6%

Source: Evolution Battles

[perfessor]

Here is another argument for teaching creationism in public schools.

As tax funded organizations, I believe the public should have a say in what gets taught. After all, it is their money. According to Gallop polls, Americans support teaching creationism in schools by a substantial margin.

Hello Otseng, I agree with you up to a point. But believe it or not, a majority of voters cannot just decide to ignore the Constitution - they have to go to the trouble of amending it first. And the teaching of creationism is seen by many to involve church-state separation issues. So my guess is that the most important voting block at this point is the nine SC Justices.

I can forsee this debate spilling over into the "Politics and Religion" subforum.