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?

[otseng]

I think what the real debate here surrounds two questions:

1) Are there any CM theories which meet all of these criteria (or a similar set of criteria suitably modified to be acceptable to most folks within this forum)

2) If yes, should they be taught in schools as scientific theories?

I absolutely agree.

I would suggest that we center our discussion in this thread on the second question rather than the first. For the first one, let's argue about the specific theory/hypothesis in the appropriate threads to determine if they are valid theories.

And, btw, I appreciate your open minded and fair approach on this highly controversial subject.

[Daystar]

Should Creationism be taught in classrooms (as science)?
Absolutely not. I don't mind if it's taught, but it should be taught in a social studies context as part of a wider discussion on the World's various creation myths. (Assuming there is room in the education budget for social studies anymore).

Science should be taught as science. The country is already lagging behind much of the western world in scientific literacy. My feeling is that this has to do with the relative decline in the social value of science and the loss of curiosity about the world.

Also, many would-be scientists are instead going into computer fields instead of scientific fields, because that's where the money is. These may be some of the smartest, most driven people on the planet. But they study human information systems instead of hard science. Most basic science is now done by government or through government grants. It didn't used to be this way. It used to be that individual philanthropists offered prizes for scientific discovery. Aside from a few math and astrophysics prizes, this is no longer done. Large corporations no longer do basic science, they perform specific experiments that are relevant only in the context of the corporation.

Creationism is just a symptom of this trend. It's not good science to start out with an idea and then set out to justify this idea. But this is how many people believe science works. "Scientists are people, so they must be biased." But just like Christianity tells us that we must deny ourselves certain pleasures that we crave, science tells scientists that they must refrain from making assumptions about their experiments before the data comes in. As a result of this belief (& other feelings about the media), people have this cynical view of information that they receive from such studies. My feeling is that people should be skeptical, not cynical. A skeptic will ask What's wrong with this? but a cynic will say Something's wrong with this and not pursue it further.

In short, we already have problems with how science is taught, we shouldn't be turning the schools into places where we turn away from scientific thought

Hello ST88. Would you object to the following to be taught in the public school science classes.?

A former Sandia National Laboratories Scientist, Dr. Russell Humphries, submitted a report and poster at the annual AGU Conference showing recently measured Helium Diffusion Rates from Zircons. His poster had a very provocative title: Precambrian zircons yield a helium diffusion age of 6,000 years. ("Precambrian" implies an accepted age of more than a half-billion years.) He presented his findings that granites which are dated at more than a billion years old with Uranium-Lead dating methods still have large quantities of helium in them. This Helium, along with Lead, are daughter products of the radioactive decay of Uranium. Helium, a highly mobile gas, should have all diffused out of the granite by now if it were a billion or more years old. However, if the granite is only thousands of years old, the quantity of Helium still remaining agrees very closely with the rates Dr. Humphreys obtained from laboratory measurements of helium diffusivity in zircon. The measurements of the helium gave an age for the zircons of Biblical proportions: 6,000 2,000 years. These findings indicate more than a billion years worth (at todays rates) of nuclear decay of Uranium has occurred within the last 6,000 years!

[ENIGMA]

Hello ST88. Would you object to the following to be taught in the public school science classes.?

A former Sandia National Laboratories Scientist, Dr. Russell Humphries, submitted a report and poster at the annual AGU Conference showing recently measured Helium Diffusion Rates from Zircons. His poster had a very provocative title: Precambrian zircons yield a helium diffusion age of 6,000 years. ("Precambrian" implies an accepted age of more than a half-billion years.) He presented his findings that granites which are dated at more than a billion years old with Uranium-Lead dating methods still have large quantities of helium in them. This Helium, along with Lead, are daughter products of the radioactive decay of Uranium. Helium, a highly mobile gas, should have all diffused out of the granite by now if it were a billion or more years old. However, if the granite is only thousands of years old, the quantity of Helium still remaining agrees very closely with the rates Dr. Humphreys obtained from laboratory measurements of helium diffusivity in zircon. The measurements of the helium gave an age for the zircons of Biblical proportions: 6,000 2,000 years. These findings indicate more than a billion years worth (at todays rates) of nuclear decay of Uranium has occurred within the last 6,000 years!

I would object because it is fallacious and misleading. It is fallacious in that it is an example of a Fallacy of the One-Sided Equation, i.e.

Since people grow at a fast rate (As demonstrated during their teenage years), that means that all senior citizens must be much taller than everyone else. Therefore the doors need to be scaled up at least 10 feet to accomodate the elderly.

or

My puppy is growing so fast, in a century or two, it will be able to wipe out a few buildings with one swipe of its tail.

etc.

Likewise the depletion of helium is not a linear process and in fact only occurs in any significant measure when there is more pressure from the helium pushing out than from the surrounding area, pushing in. (In other words, a pressure gradient) Meaning that a full depletion of Helium, regardless of whether one is waiting a few thousand of a few billion years is extraordinarily improbable unless one places the Zircon in a vaccum, such as space. Also, considering that the "helium diffusivity" was measured where there was almost certainly less external pressure (Yes, air gives a good deal less external pressure than solid rock), it's not suprising that the "good" Dr. was able to sufficiently cook the experiment to validate his own theological beliefs.

It is misleading since it plans on teaching students a falsehood that is not in any way whatsoever a decent approximation of the current state of scientific knowledge on the matter.

[ST88]

Hello ST88. Would you object to the following to be taught in the public school science classes.?

A former Sandia National Laboratories Scientist, Dr. Russell Humphries, submitted a report and poster at the annual AGU Conference showing recently measured Helium Diffusion Rates from Zircons...

Hello Daystar, and welcome to the forums.

Yes, assuming that the course touched on radiometric dating techniques, I would object to this being taught in classrooms. I, personally, do not care if the "result" of the experiment tends to support Creationist theory. If it's good science, then it's fine with me. So far, there has not been much to back up the claim. The experiment that produced the figures was done well enough as far as I can tell. But the conclusions have yet to be verified or even repeated.

I don't know enough about geology to comment on some of the claims made, but there is enough conflicting data for this study that makes me think this is probably one of those "cold fusion" stories. I am not trying to be dismissive. High school science classes should be places where students learn the basic ideas of what science has been able to figure out. This is not one of those ideas.

Humphreys' assumptions and conclusions do not appear to be borne out by the data (again, as far as I can tell). There are problems with "closing temperatures" whatever that means, and decay rates that I can't really get into. Because these conclusions have not been successful in the peer-review process, I would not recommend that they be taught as part of a science curriculum.

However,

Suppose for the moment that this subject did come up in a classroom. What would be the best way to teach it? I am guessing that just saying the theory out loud in a lecture would be enough for Creationists, but I think it would be a valuable experiment to allow the students to test the theory. Does the structure of zircon allow for this to happen? Are there any other explanations for why that amount of Helium can be found in there? Do other types of rocks have this same property? How is Helium formed and where else can it be found? I would think that a classroom full of high-school chemistry (AP) students could refute this theory in a couple of weeks.

Resources:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-352.htm
http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm
http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/noble/helium.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Radiometric_dating
http://www.televar.com/~jnj/item14.htm
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/1425chap5.htm
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm (Debate with Creationist)
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000022-2.html (scroll down to message 22)

ed to add:
Enigma beat me to answering a question addressed to me! How slow am I?

[Daystar]

Hello ST88. Would you object to the following to be taught in the public school science classes.?

A former Sandia National Laboratories Scientist, Dr. Russell Humphries, submitted a report and poster at the annual AGU Conference showing recently measured Helium Diffusion Rates from Zircons...

Hello Daystar, and welcome to the forums.

Yes, assuming that the course touched on radiometric dating techniques, I would object to this being taught in classrooms.

[Day] Hello St88, good to hear from you. I assume you ment to say, "I would NOT object....."

I, personally, do not care if the "result" of the experiment tends to support Creationist theory. If it's good science, then it's fine with me. So far, there has not been much to back up the claim. The experiment that produced the figures was done well enough as far as I can tell. But the conclusions have yet to be verified or even repeated.

[Day] Thanks for including the article by Gentry. As you know, he is one of the world's leading experts in the field of studying rocks, radiometric dating and interpreting haloes. His claim that if man can produce in the laboratory the kind of rocks he claims are primordial, then his theory is of no value. ICR has done a 5 year research on helium retention and plans to reveal the results in 2005. Should be interesting.

I don't know enough about geology to comment on some of the claims made, but there is enough conflicting data for this study that makes me think this is probably one of those "cold fusion" stories.

[Day] Gentry has been critiqued by many. Some say he is on to something; others say he is on to nothing. The bottom line is that his research should be examined by serious students of this kind of research.

I am not trying to be dismissive. High school science classes should be places where students learn the basic ideas of what science has been able to figure out. This is not one of those ideas.

Humphreys' assumptions and conclusions do not appear to be borne out by the data (again, as far as I can tell). There are problems with "closing temperatures" whatever that means, and decay rates that I can't really get into. Because these conclusions have not been successful in the peer-review process, I would not recommend that they be taught as part of a science curriculum.

[Day] Of course, Humphries short article only touches upon the tip of the iceberg. I wonder how much of his research dovetails with Gentry.

However,

Suppose for the moment that this subject did come up in a classroom. What would be the best way to teach it?

[Day] I don't know. But these claims about helium retention should be "milked" for all they are worth. Isn't this what science is all about? I'm certain that the framers of education could adopt some king of lesson plan that could capture the essence of the theory and make it something students could do their own research.

I am guessing that just saying the theory out loud in a lecture would be enough for Creationists, but I think it would be a valuable experiment to allow the students to test the theory. Does the structure of zircon allow for this to happen? Are there any other explanations for why that amount of Helium can be found in there? Do other types of rocks have this same property? How is Helium formed and where else can it be found? I would think that a classroom full of high-school chemistry (AP) students could refute this theory in a couple of weeks.

[Day] You ask good questions and they should be pursued.

Resources:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-352.htm
http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm
http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/noble/helium.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Radiometric_dating
http://www.televar.com/~jnj/item14.htm
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/1425chap5.htm
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm (Debate with Creationist)
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000022-2.html (scroll down to message 22)

[otseng]

High school science classes should be places where students learn the basic ideas of what science has been able to figure out.

I generally agree.

However, when I took biology in high school, it was taught that abiogenesis was a fact. And science has not been able to explain abiogenesis.

If we are to apply this standard, should it not also be applied to evolutionary teachings?

[Daystar]

High school science classes should be places where students learn the basic ideas of what science has been able to figure out.

I generally agree.

However, when I took biology in high school, it was taught that abiogenesis was a fact. And science has not been able to explain abiogenesis.

[Day] Excellant point. Not only this but macro-evolution as well. When I consider the humming bird, I have to question the IQ of anyone who believes that this radiant, fine-feathered helicopter evolved. I know that sounds arrogant, but........................oh well

It's all about "intelligent design.

[Daystar]

Hello ST88. Would you object to the following to be taught in the public school science classes.?

A former Sandia National Laboratories Scientist, Dr. Russell Humphries, submitted a report and poster at the annual AGU Conference showing recently measured Helium Diffusion Rates from Zircons. His poster had a very provocative title: Precambrian zircons yield a helium diffusion age of 6,000 years. ("Precambrian" implies an accepted age of more than a half-billion years.) He presented his findings that granites which are dated at more than a billion years old with Uranium-Lead dating methods still have large quantities of helium in them. This Helium, along with Lead, are daughter products of the radioactive decay of Uranium. Helium, a highly mobile gas, should have all diffused out of the granite by now if it were a billion or more years old. However, if the granite is only thousands of years old, the quantity of Helium still remaining agrees very closely with the rates Dr. Humphreys obtained from laboratory measurements of helium diffusivity in zircon. The measurements of the helium gave an age for the zircons of Biblical proportions: 6,000 2,000 years. These findings indicate more than a billion years worth (at todays rates) of nuclear decay of Uranium has occurred within the last 6,000 years!

I would object because it is fallacious and misleading. It is fallacious in that it is an example of a Fallacy of the One-Sided Equation, i.e.

Since people grow at a fast rate (As demonstrated during their teenage years), that means that all senior citizens must be much taller than everyone else. Therefore the doors need to be scaled up at least 10 feet to accomodate the elderly.

or

My puppy is growing so fast, in a century or two, it will be able to wipe out a few buildings with one swipe of its tail.

etc.

Likewise the depletion of helium is not a linear process and in fact only occurs in any significant measure when there is more pressure from the helium pushing out than from the surrounding area, pushing in. (In other words, a pressure gradient) Meaning that a full depletion of Helium, regardless of whether one is waiting a few thousand of a few billion years is extraordinarily improbable unless one places the Zircon in a vaccum, such as space. Also, considering that the "helium diffusivity" was measured where there was almost certainly less external pressure (Yes, air gives a good deal less external pressure than solid rock), it's not suprising that the "good" Dr. was able to sufficiently cook the experiment to validate his own theological beliefs.

It is misleading since it plans on teaching students a falsehood that is not in any way whatsoever a decent approximation of the current state of scientific knowledge on the matter.

[Day] You are obviously way beyond my scientific level, but click on this for a very scholarly article about helium/lead retention.

http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/d ... plored.htm

Robert Gentry is one of the world's leading authorites on halos. His work has been peer-reviewed and published in several science journals.

[ST88]

However, when I took biology in high school, it was taught that abiogenesis was a fact. And science has not been able to explain abiogenesis.

If we are to apply this standard, should it not also be applied to evolutionary teachings?

Please see my "Thistlebottom" post for an explanation of this. States and school boards require an inordinate amount of information to be presented, and digressions into the academic arcana of exactness are for universities, not high school. That is to say, it is perfectly fine to say that science presupposes abiogenesis occurred without having to say "how" at this level. I think it's fair to present the dominant view of science as science. 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.

[Daystar]

However, when I took biology in high school, it was taught that abiogenesis was a fact. And science has not been able to explain abiogenesis.

If we are to apply this standard, should it not also be applied to evolutionary teachings?

Please see my "Thistlebottom" post for an explanation of this. States and school boards require an inordinate amount of information to be presented, and digressions into the academic arcana of exactness are for universities, not high school. That is to say, it is perfectly fine to say that science presupposes abiogenesis occurred without having to say "how" at this level.

[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.

I think it's fair to present the dominant view of science as science.

[Day] 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.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1967), provides five definitions of "science," with the 5th noting "observation and experiment."

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.

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.

[Day] 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.