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?

[ST88]

Have you noticed that the evolutionary/uniformitarian community still ponders "how," but has never arrived at a single "this is how?" What is so amazing is that "hows" are taught as fact.

No, I don't think they are. The "how" isn't taught as fact, what is taught as fact is the "what". In other words, how abiogenesis occurred is not taught as fact, but that it did occur is taught as fact. This is fine because it fits with the model as the many branches of science understand it.

Webster's Dictionaries of the 1800's, as today, show that the word "science" was derived from the Latin "scientia," which means, "knowledge, the comprehension or understanding of truth....Pure science is built on self-evident truths." "Observation" and "experiment" do receive an honorable mention further down in the definitions. The Greek for "science" is "gnosis," and means "to know." Science, today, does not "know" how the universe began, how lifeless matter produced life, or how species evolved different species.

Dictionary definitions are very misleading when it comes to usage, especially for etymologies. The way the word "science" came to be an English term might be interesting for etymologists and anthropologists, but the word is used in a moden context, and this is the context we understand it to be now.

Perhaps a new word should be introduced which more accurately defines at what stage the experts are really at when it comes to fact and truth: Speculience.

These are all working theories. The main objection in this thread is the way it's taught, not how it's arrived at. What you might call guesswork, I may call estimation and deduction. By this definition (a modern one), your "speculience" and my science are one and the same. Classroom discussion on this would be valuable. There should be a high school class called "The Scientific Method" in which these sorts of questions are examined. I would pair it with Critical Thinking and Advertising Awareness courses to let students know the difference between persuasion and objective study.

Though I must agree that presenting it as absolute fact is disingenuous, it is still the most accepted view. If it's wrong, then we'll all have fun rewriting the textbooks.

I believe intelligent design will become the paradigm, and the rueful saga will be, "Look at the trillions spent on trying to prove it wasn't.

As would I lament the oodles of brainpower spent on trying to prove Creationism. But if we push each other towards any greater truths by the very fact of debating, aren't we all better off?

[Daystar]

Have you noticed that the evolutionary/uniformitarian community still ponders "how," but has never arrived at a single "this is how?" What is so amazing is that "hows" are taught as fact.

No, I don't think they are. The "how" isn't taught as fact,

[Day] Some time ago, our local newspaper quoted the Broward County School Science Director as saying, "Evolution is a fact. It's not how it happened, but that it happened." How can anyone be sure that it happened if they can't explain how?

what is taught as fact is the "what".

[Day] Teaching that evolution is only a theory should be the only "what." Whatever methods used are attempts to find truth.

In other words, how abiogenesis occurred is not taught as fact, but that it did occur is taught as fact.

[Day] This is evolutionary goobledeegook. How does anyone know it ocurred? Who observed it? Where is the evidence? What were the conditions under which it happened? Science can only speculate "how" it happened, not "that" it happened.

Webster's Dictionaries of the 1800's, as today, show that the word "science" was derived from the Latin "scientia," which means, "knowledge, the comprehension or understanding of truth....Pure science is built on self-evident truths." "Observation" and "experiment" do receive an honorable mention further down in the definitions. The Greek for "science" is "gnosis," and means "to know." Science, today, does not "know" how the universe began, how lifeless matter produced life, or how species evolved different species.

Dictionary definitions are very misleading when it comes to usage, especially for etymologies.

[Day] Words have meanings and to try and circumvent them with other words or terms is taking license with them.

The way the word "science" came to be an English term might be interesting for etymologists and anthropologists, but the word is used in a moden context, and this is the context we understand it to be now.

[Day] This is classic liberalism; abandoning orthodoxy or authority to arrive at a desired result through spin.

Perhaps a new word should be introduced which more accurately defines at what stage the experts are really at when it comes to fact and truth: Speculience.

These are all working theories. The main objection in this thread is the way it's taught, not how it's arrived at. What you might call guesswork, I may call estimation and deduction. By this definition (a modern one), your "speculience" and my science are one and the same. Classroom discussion on this would be valuable.

[Day] Only if they are discussed as theory.

There should be a high school class called "The Scientific Method" in which these sorts of questions are examined. I would pair it with Critical Thinking and Advertising Awareness courses to let students know the difference between persuasion and objective study.

[Day] There is nothing wrong with any of this just so long as students understand that there is nothing demonstrably factual about evolution or abiogenesis.

Though I must agree that presenting it as absolute fact is disingenuous, it is still the most accepted view.

[Day] I'm not so sure about that. If you poll the public, I think you will find that most people believe our origins are found in special creation and that most people favor creation to be taught along side evolution.

If it's wrong, then we'll all have fun rewriting the textbooks.

[Day] Right, but I'm not so sure about the fun part.

I believe intelligent design will become the paradigm, and the rueful saga will be, "Look at the trillions spent on trying to prove it wasn't.

As would I lament the oodles of brainpower spent on trying to prove Creationism.

[Day] I believe that when a person looks into a Mt. Palomer telescope to view the wonders of space, and into a microscope to observe the wonders of DNA, the only response should be, "My God how great thou art."

But if we push each other towards any greater truths by the very fact of debating, aren't we all better off?

[Daystar]

Have you noticed that the evolutionary/uniformitarian community still ponders "how," but has never arrived at a single "this is how?" What is so amazing is that "hows" are taught as fact.

No, I don't think they are. The "how" isn't taught as fact,

[Day] Some time ago, our local newspaper quoted the Broward County School Science Director as saying, "Evolution is a fact. It's not how it happened, but that it happened." How can anyone be sure that it happened if they can't explain how?

what is taught as fact is the "what".

[Day] Teaching that evolution is only a theory should be the only "what." Whatever methods used are attempts to find truth.

In other words, how abiogenesis occurred is not taught as fact, but that it did occur is taught as fact.

[Day] This is evolutionary goobledeegook. How does anyone know it ocurred? Who observed it? Where is the evidence? What were the conditions under which it happened? Science can only speculate "how" it happened, not "that" it happened.

Webster's Dictionaries of the 1800's, as today, show that the word "science" was derived from the Latin "scientia," which means, "knowledge, the comprehension or understanding of truth....Pure science is built on self-evident truths." "Observation" and "experiment" do receive an honorable mention further down in the definitions. The Greek for "science" is "gnosis," and means "to know." Science, today, does not "know" how the universe began, how lifeless matter produced life, or how species evolved different species.

Dictionary definitions are very misleading when it comes to usage, especially for etymologies.

[Day] Words have meanings and to try and circumvent them with other words or terms is taking license with them.

The way the word "science" came to be an English term might be interesting for etymologists and anthropologists, but the word is used in a moden context, and this is the context we understand it to be now.

[Day] This is classic liberalism; abandoning orthodoxy or authority to arrive at a desired result through spin.

Perhaps a new word should be introduced which more accurately defines at what stage the experts are really at when it comes to fact and truth: Speculience.

These are all working theories. The main objection in this thread is the way it's taught, not how it's arrived at. What you might call guesswork, I may call estimation and deduction. By this definition (a modern one), your "speculience" and my science are one and the same. Classroom discussion on this would be valuable.

[Day] Only if they are discussed as theory.

There should be a high school class called "The Scientific Method" in which these sorts of questions are examined. I would pair it with Critical Thinking and Advertising Awareness courses to let students know the difference between persuasion and objective study.

[Day] There is nothing wrong with any of this just so long as students understand that there is nothing demonstrably factual about evolution or abiogenesis.

Though I must agree that presenting it as absolute fact is disingenuous, it is still the most accepted view.

[Day] I'm not so sure about that. If you poll the public, I think you will find that most people believe our origins are found in special creation and that most people favor creation to be taught along side evolution.

If it's wrong, then we'll all have fun rewriting the textbooks.

[Day] Right, but I'm not so sure about the fun part.

I believe intelligent design will become the paradigm, and the rueful saga will be, "Look at the trillions spent on trying to prove it wasn't.

As would I lament the oodles of brainpower spent on trying to prove Creationism.

[Day] I believe that when a person looks into a Mt. Palomer telescope to view the wonders of space, and into a microscope to observe the wonders of DNA, the only response should be, "My God how great thou art."

But if we push each other towards any greater truths by the very fact of debating, aren't we all better off?

[Lotan]

Daystar wrote:

[Day] Some time ago, our local newspaper quoted the Broward County School Science Director as saying, "Evolution is a fact. It's not how it happened, but that it happened." How can anyone be sure that it happened if they can't explain how?

Can you please explain how YHWH created the universe?

[Day] ... How does anyone know it ocurred? Who observed it? Where is the evidence? What were the conditions under which it happened?

I just had the pleasure of watching a 4 hour special of Nova on PBS called "Origins" that answered these questions, and more. Of course the public library is good too.

[ENIGMA]

Ok, I must take this opportunity to request that standard quote tags be used since it is becoming increasingly muddled as to who said what.

That said:

[Day] Some time ago, our local newspaper quoted the Broward County School Science Director as saying, "Evolution is a fact. It's not how it happened, but that it happened." How can anyone be sure that it happened if they can't explain how?

If a person is positively verified as being in London and Houston in the same day, they almost certainly traveled by plane. Now, given this information, please detail that person's flight plan.

I mean, you should be able to, right? Since how can one be sure that they took a plane without knowing how?

Dictionary definitions are very misleading when it comes to usage, especially for etymologies.

[Day] Words have meanings and to try and circumvent them with other words or terms is taking license with them.

So I take it that whenever someone uses the term "groovy" that it should only be used as an adjective describing an object with grooves?

Perhaps a new word should be introduced which more accurately defines at what stage the experts are really at when it comes to fact and truth: Speculience.

These are all working theories. The main objection in this thread is the way it's taught, not how it's arrived at. What you might call guesswork, I may call estimation and deduction. By this definition (a modern one), your "speculience" and my science are one and the same. Classroom discussion on this would be valuable.

[Day] Only if they are discussed as theory.

So I take it then that we should teach gravity as "just" a theory as well, since we don't fully understand the mechanism.

[Day] I'm not so sure about that. If you poll the public, I think you will find that most people believe our origins are found in special creation and that most people favor creation to be taught along side evolution.

So I take it then that you would trust a random member of the public to do heart surgery on you, or manage the local nuclear reactor? How about having NASA staffed by random members of the public, qualifications be damned?

If not, then I must inquire on what basis would you entrust the basis of our intellectual future that will be training all of the above to decrees made by the random public? Perhaps it would be in everyone's best interest if curriculum were set by those who are in said fields.

[Day] I believe that when a person looks into a Mt. Palomer telescope to view the wonders of space, and into a microscope to observe the wonders of DNA, the only response should be, "My God how great thou art."

The fact that people think that a deity would construct the universe just to make us only demonstrates humanity's ego and profound lack of a sense of proportion at such scales.

[Jose]

Have you noticed that the evolutionary/uniformitarian community still ponders "how," but has never arrived at a single "this is how?" What is so amazing is that "hows" are taught as fact.

No, I don't think they are. The "how" isn't taught as fact.

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree, ST88. Often the "how" is taught as fact, or discussed so quickly that it's hard to distinguish from things that really are taught as "facts," if for no other reason than lack of time to go into the details. I think that part of the problem is that K-12 texts use specific examples to illustrate specific points--sometimes hypothetical examples to make the mechanisms more clear. Obviously, the hypothetical example isn't being taught as "fact," but the mechanism is. I suspect that creationists see this as using false examples, and thereby teaching "facts" with speculation. Of course, a small amount of looking into the details would easily reveal that many real examples exist, but are more cumbersome to delve into in the time available.

Teaching that evolution is only a theory should be the only "what." ... Words have meanings and to try and circumvent them with other words or terms is taking license with them.

You can't have it both ways, though you are trying to. Yes, words have meanings, and the word "theory" has the explicit and precise meaning of "a scientific explanation that has been tested and supported so thoroughly as to be considered nearly certain." You are choosing to circumvent this meaning with colloquial usage of "theory" to mean "guess." Do you consider the theory of gravity to be a guess, also? Or the cell theory, or the heliocentric theory, or the germ theory of disease?

Some time ago, our local newspaper quoted the Broward County School Science Director as saying, "Evolution is a fact. It's not how it happened, but that it happened." How can anyone be sure that it happened if they can't explain how? ... This is evolutionary goobledeegook. How does anyone know it ocurred? Who observed it? Where is the evidence? What were the conditions under which it happened? Science can only speculate "how" it happened, not "that" it happened.

So, suppose you plant a tree in a secluded spot in the forest. You then go away for 10 years, and come back and look at it. It's a whole lot bigger. What do you conclude? You didn't see it grow. You have no evidence that this particular tree grew. I could say it sat there unchanged for 9.9 years, and then suddenly went "pop" and became what it is now. Are you going to say the tree grew, or that it didn't, because no one was there to see it? I bet you'd state it as fact that the tree grew, and speculate on how--because, on the basis of evidence of other kinds, this is the most reasonable interpretation of the data.

There is nothing wrong with any of this just so long as students understand that there is nothing demonstrably factual about evolution or abiogenesis.

It's interesting that you present, as fact, your notion that "there is nothing demonstrably factual about evolution." There are a great many facts, which you would be hard pressed to deny and retain any kind of legitimacy. For example:

-- mutations happen. We know that a great many chemicals, as well as radiation, cause DNA damage. We have many before-and-after examples of DNA sequence, demonstrating the fact of mutation. We also know that there is no known method to prevent mutations from occurring.

-- populations of organisms have genetic diversity. You can look around and see this for yourself, but if that's not enough, you can find DNA sequences from many individuals from wild populations, demonstrating the existence of multiple versions of the same gene. This is genetic diversity. Genetic diversity arises through mutation, followed by reassortment at meiosis.

-- some individuals have more offspring than do other individuals. All you have to do is count to see that this is so.

-- some individuals carry genes that make them unable to compete effectively against others. They don't have many offspring.

-- some individuals carry genes that make them able to compete very effectively against others. They have more offspring than the ones they out-compete.

-- there are environmental changes. Some changes produce conditions in which some individuals that were previously not effective competitors now become much better competitors, while the previous "winners" become less effective.

-- mutations, environmental differences, and differential success at producing offspring can cause different populations of the same species to become different from each other genetically. Genetic differences can become sufficient to prevent matings between the different populations, resulting in the creation of new species. There are many examples.

Now, these things have been demonstrated. They have been shown to be part of the world we live in. They are facts. It isn't very hard to demonstrate evolution, based on these facts. In other words, evolution happens.

You may quibble with this, as YEC theorists often do, and say "but this is just microevolution, so it doesn't count. It's not real evolution." Alas, it is real evolution. It's how evolution works. You may also quibble, and say "yes, but these are not the real, important questions. You haven't explained how humans evolved, because you haven't identified 100% of the mutations, 100% of the environmental conditions, 100% of the matings that occurred in our history, or in the presumed history that led to the first human." In saying this--which is a commonly-stated objection--you are back at the "plant a tree" problem. You would have to say, also, that trees don't grow because no one has identified 100% of the conditions responsible for each cell-cell interaction, or 100% of the photons that strike the leaves at each possible angle to determine the orientation of the leaves, or 100% of the microbes that interact with the roots underground.

I believe intelligent design will become the paradigm, and the rueful saga will be, "Look at the trillions spent on trying to prove it wasn't.

As I would lament the oodles of brainpower spent on trying to prove Creationism.

But who is actually "trying to prove" their favorite hypothesis? The theory of evolution came about because it happened to fit the data. It continues to thrive because it remains the best explanation of all of the data. No one is "trying to prove it." Many evolutionary biologists are studying various aspects of the mechanism, trying to learn more, but they haven't set out to "disprove ID." By contrast, the ID folks begin with the hypothesis of special creation, and seek data that support that hypothesis, while explicitly not seeking data (and, perhaps, even ignoring the data from other researchers) that fail to support the hypothesis.

Hence, one of the main questions of this thread: how would it be possible to teach creationism as science? Some of the discussion in earlier posts led to the current direction of the global flood thread, in which we have treated the Flood Model scientifically, as requested by Creationists. We have stated a particular hypothesis--a particular Flood Model--and have stated the predictions made by that model. The next step is to look at the data, and ask whether they match the predictions. If there are data that don't match the predictions, then either the predictions were incorrect, there are technical flaws in the data, or the model is inaccurate and must be revised.

I think this is a good way to get at this. Rather than say, as if it were fact, that "there is no evidence for evolution" or that "ID is a better paradigm," let's look at the Creationist/ID hypotheses scientifically. What are the hypotheses? What do they predict? What do we find? It might be helpful, Day, if you started a thread on your most important theoretical issue (unless such a thread already exists), so that we can study it. As a biologist not trained at all in ID or Creationism of any stripe, I have a very hard time distinguishing Creationism from a general "God did it" explanation for everything (which is not, you must agree, scientific). Explain the details for us, so we can see what you are proposing.

[Daystar]

Daystar wrote:

[Day] Some time ago, our local newspaper quoted the Broward County School Science Director as saying, "Evolution is a fact. It's not how it happened, but that it happened." How can anyone be sure that it happened if they can't explain how?

Can you please explain how YHWH created the universe?

[Daystar] Yes. He "spoke" it into existence (Psalm 33:6,9)

[Day] ... How does anyone know it ocurred? Who observed it? Where is the evidence? What were the conditions under which it happened?

I just had the pleasure of watching a 4 hour special of Nova on PBS called "Origins" that answered these questions, and more. Of course the public library is good too.

[Daystar] The conventional explanation for the origins of the universe was not observed, nor is it testable. This explanation serves the unbeliever to accept something that will give him reason to deny his sinful nature and accountability to his Creator. Man wants to be his own god and does it numerous ways.

[Jose]

The conventional explanation for the origins of the universe was not observed, nor is it testable. This explanation serves the unbeliever to accept something that will give him reason to deny his sinful nature and accountability to his Creator. Man wants to be his own god and does it numerous ways.

Well, yes...according to this particular viewpoint, you may be right. Of course, for many of us, wanting to "be god" doesn't enter into it. Some of us (possibly most, if the overall US population were to be asked) do not share this viewpoint. So, back to the topic of the thread...If we are to present the theological explanations of life's origin, or of evolution once the origin of life occurred, as a part of science classes, how would you suggest we do it? Whether man is sinful, or whether he has accountability to a possible Creator is philosophical and religious issue. We have no scientific tests for such. What, specifically, is the "theory" you would like to have taught? How do you move it from the realm of religion and into the realm of science?

[Daystar]

Ok, I must take this opportunity to request that standard quote tags be used since it is becoming increasingly muddled as to who said what.

[Day] I'm sorry but I don't know how to do it any other way than I have been doing it.

That said:

[Day] Some time ago, our local newspaper quoted the Broward County School Science Director as saying, "Evolution is a fact. It's not how it happened, but that it happened." How can anyone be sure that it happened if they can't explain how?

If a person is positively verified as being in London and Houston in the same day, they almost certainly traveled by plane. Now, given this information, please detail that person's flight plan.

[Day] The person was observed boarding and disembarking from the plane and the flight can be verified taking off and landing. These are verifiable facts. Bad anaology.

Dictionary definitions are very misleading when it comes to usage, especially for etymologies.

[Day] Words have meanings and to try and circumvent them with other words or terms is taking license with them.

So I take it that whenever someone uses the term "groovy" that it should only be used as an adjective describing an object with grooves?

[Day] Let's stay focused The definition of "science" is what the dictionaries say it is. And the word basically means "knowledge." Trying to prove that we evolved is not science because there is no factual knowledge. Colin Patterson, the late senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, was asked if he knew of one thing about evolution that was true and of which an air tight case was made. He responded that he knew nothing.

Perhaps a new word should be introduced which more accurately defines at what stage the experts are really at when it comes to fact and truth: Speculience.

These are all working theories. The main objection in this thread is the way it's taught, not how it's arrived at. What you might call guesswork, I may call estimation and deduction. By this definition (a modern one), your "speculience" and my science are one and the same. Classroom discussion on this would be valuable.

[Day] Only if they are discussed as theory.

So I take it then that we should teach gravity as "just" a theory as well, since we don't fully understand the mechanism.

[Day] Gravity is demonstrably true. We don't need to theorize about any part of it and it is not necessary to understand it to believe it. There is nothing true about evolution even though it seems reasonable to some.

[Day] I'm not so sure about that. If you poll the public, I think you will find that most people believe our origins are found in special creation and that most people favor creation to be taught along side evolution.

So I take it then that you would trust a random member of the public to do heart surgery on you, or manage the local nuclear reactor? How about having NASA staffed by random members of the public, qualifications be damned?

[Day] What do these have to do with the fact that there is nothing verifiable about evolution, big bang, abiogenesis, etc.

If not, then I must inquire on what basis would you entrust the basis of our intellectual future that will be training all of the above to decrees made by the random public?

[Day] I think there is a particular elitism that assigns ignorance to the masses. Some things are of such common sense that no PHD can bamboozle them with their fancy theories, terms, spins, etc. "Where is the wise man? Where is the Scholar? Where is the philospher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world." (1 Cor. 1:20)

Common sense should drive one's attention to intelligent design once observing the wonders of the universe, the DNA molecule and that fascinating feathered helicopter we call a humming bird.

Perhaps it would be in everyone's best interest if curriculum were set by those who are in said fields.

[Day] And I think there should be specialists in the application of common sense in this mattter of origins. Evolution only serves man with a reason to deny the inevitable: Accountability to his Creator (Intelligent Designer) who calls him to repentance: "God commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30)

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their foolish hearts were darkened." (Rom. 1:20,21)

[Day] I believe that when a person looks into a Mt. Palomer telescope to view the wonders of space, and into a microscope to observe the wonders of DNA, the only response should be, "My God how great thou art."

The fact that people think that a deity would construct the universe just to make us only demonstrates humanity's ego and profound lack of a sense of proportion at such scales.

[Day] Not sure I follow what you are saying here. Please rephrase.

[nikolayevich]

[Day] Not sure I follow what you are saying here. Please rephrase.

To quote such a large portion of a conversation and simply say "please rephrase" is not specific enough to the text. You might find more success quoting individual items of difficulty and citing parts you do not understand and why. As much of your quote includes your own conversation with ENIGMA, it would be difficult at best for him to know what you are confused about or what he should rephrase.