How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[The Gaffer]

I agree with Rian: my understanding of this thread is that it's about how evolution should be taught, not on the finer points of the debate. That is, it's about pedagogical and political choices around how the material is introduced in schools.

In which case:

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Why pick solely on evolution? We don’t do this for any other science. We teach what we currently know. We ALSO ALREADY teach inconsistencies and point out what we DON’T know about evolution in the classroom. Science never claimed to have 100% of the answers in this field. So what is it you want to add to this exactly… What REALLY is your agenda here…

That's the key question, as yet unanswered by any of the creationists in this discussion.

[The Gaffer]

I agree with Rian: my understanding of this thread is that it's about how evolution should be taught, not on the finer points of the debate. That is, it's about pedagogical and political choices around how the material is introduced in schools.

In which case:

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Why pick solely on evolution? We don’t do this for any other science. We teach what we currently know. We ALSO ALREADY teach inconsistencies and point out what we DON’T know about evolution in the classroom. Science never claimed to have 100% of the answers in this field. So what is it you want to add to this exactly… What REALLY is your agenda here…

That's the key question, as yet unanswered by any of the creationists in this discussion.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

bring back philosophy i say.

Truth, logic, morality, ethics, semantics, mathematics and THE right vehicle to examine both creationism and evolutionism.

I think BB raises an interesting point here. There's currently no place in schools - at least there wasn't in my school - for the study of philosophy. Science is taught in science classes, and religion in Religious Studies (whatever form that takes). Both subjects are based on factual content and don't usually encourage students to question the things BB mentioned, which underlie both subjects. Perhaps what's needed is somewhere for students to learn to evaluate what they study in their other classes, e.g. scientific processes (how do we arrive at scientific theories, what is bad scientific practice, what constitutes proof etc.), how do we arrive at truth, or how have philosophy, science and theology viewed these kind of questions in the past. If they know how to come to their own conclusions on these things, it matters less what the prejudices of their teachers are on any topic.

That doesn't solve the issue of how evolution should be taught in science classes, but it's worth thinking about.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

bring back philosophy i say.

Truth, logic, morality, ethics, semantics, mathematics and THE right vehicle to examine both creationism and evolutionism.

I think BB raises an interesting point here. There's currently no place in schools - at least there wasn't in my school - for the study of philosophy. Science is taught in science classes, and religion in Religious Studies (whatever form that takes). Both subjects are based on factual content and don't usually encourage students to question the things BB mentioned, which underlie both subjects. Perhaps what's needed is somewhere for students to learn to evaluate what they study in their other classes, e.g. scientific processes (how do we arrive at scientific theories, what is bad scientific practice, what constitutes proof etc.), how do we arrive at truth, or how have philosophy, science and theology viewed these kind of questions in the past. If they know how to come to their own conclusions on these things, it matters less what the prejudices of their teachers are on any topic.

That doesn't solve the issue of how evolution should be taught in science classes, but it's worth thinking about.

[brownjenkins]

philosophy was an elective when i went to high school, but i agree... as i've said elsewhere, i'd really like to see required "comparative religion" courses... maybe starting around the 6th grade... in such a class you could study the religions of the world and how they deal with various philosophical questions, and also how various philosophers throughout history have dealt with the same questions... that way when it is brought up in science class that evolution is just one scientific theory about how we got here but there are also many belief systems out there from hindu to catholic that have different ideas, there would be another class where these kind of things could be discussed and compared in more depth

[brownjenkins]

philosophy was an elective when i went to high school, but i agree... as i've said elsewhere, i'd really like to see required "comparative religion" courses... maybe starting around the 6th grade... in such a class you could study the religions of the world and how they deal with various philosophical questions, and also how various philosophers throughout history have dealt with the same questions... that way when it is brought up in science class that evolution is just one scientific theory about how we got here but there are also many belief systems out there from hindu to catholic that have different ideas, there would be another class where these kind of things could be discussed and compared in more depth

[brownjenkins]

here's a bit more info... see this map:



the area of greenland where the crash occured is very far south, and near the shoreline... as such it has a much higher annual precipitation rate than the much more northerly regions of greenland where core samples tend to be taken

deep in antarctica precipitation is some of the lowest in the entire world... it is simply much too cold to snow all that much... this is why the ice core samples are more reliable from there... and more impressive in the amount of time they cover

your point does bring up a very valid point about scientific theories however... all factors must be taken into account to insure accuracy of interpretations... time via ice core, for example, is not just about depth... it is also about annual precipitation in a given area where the core is taken... along with nearby cores taken to insure consistancy

in the case of antarctica... the sheer amount of ice, considering yearly precipitation in that region alone (putting aside any core interpretations), makes a 6 or even 10 thousand year "history of the world" very hard to theorize

though obviously you could just say "god made it that way 6,000 years ago" ... but if you take that route basically "anything goes" and any observation or deductions are essentially meaningless

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Heres the problem:

The religious folk dont want to approach this in the same way as any other scientific subject is approached when we dont have all the data or when something new is discovered.

Absolutely!

Ab-so-LUTELY!!!!!!!

You and I AGREE!!!!! I TOTALLY agree with you!!!

Like TOTALLY, man!!!


However, I think we're probably thinking about different folk - when you say "religious folk", you're probably thinking of creationists. You're quite wrong, in my case at least, so please modify your statement to "many religious folk" or "some religious folk" if you care about truth and accuracy

When I read your statement and totally agree with it, the group of people I have in mind for "religious folk" are those who fervently and religiously believe - without ANY scientific proof - that macro evolution (particle to people) definitely took place (the closest they get to proof are that micro evolutionary changes took place, but that's no big deal!). Talk about some irrational zealots! Sheesh! Exactly like some hard-core, irrational creationists, these hard-core, irrational evolutionists react with a religious fervor when their pet unproveable belief is attacked.

(And because I'm reasonable and openminded and care about truth, I still think it should be modified with "many" or "some", because I know not all evolution believers are that way.)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Heres the problem:

The religious folk dont want to approach this in the same way as any other scientific subject is approached when we dont have all the data or when something new is discovered.

Absolutely!

Ab-so-LUTELY!!!!!!!

You and I AGREE!!!!! I TOTALLY agree with you!!!

Like TOTALLY, man!!!


However, I think we're probably thinking about different folk - when you say "religious folk", you're probably thinking of creationists. You're quite wrong, in my case at least, so please modify your statement to "many religious folk" or "some religious folk" if you care about truth and accuracy

When I read your statement and totally agree with it, the group of people I have in mind for "religious folk" are those who fervently and religiously believe - without ANY scientific proof - that macro evolution (particle to people) definitely took place (the closest they get to proof are that micro evolutionary changes took place, but that's no big deal!). Talk about some irrational zealots! Sheesh! Exactly like some hard-core, irrational creationists, these hard-core, irrational evolutionists react with a religious fervor when their pet unproveable belief is attacked.

(And because I'm reasonable and openminded and care about truth, I still think it should be modified with "many" or "some", because I know not all evolution believers are that way.)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Heres the problem:

The religious folk dont want to approach this in the same way as any other scientific subject is approached when we dont have all the data or when something new is discovered.

Err, RÃ*an? I think that when IR said this, he meant to say, "we treat every scientific theory the same way when we don't have all the answers to them, but creationists don't want this method to apply to evolution."

He didn't mean to say, "not all the facts are in on evolution, so creationists don't want it treated the way all other scientific subjects are."

He's saying that evolution is treated differently by creationists than other subjects that have a similar amount of evidence backing them are.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Heres the problem:

The religious folk dont want to approach this in the same way as any other scientific subject is approached when we dont have all the data or when something new is discovered.

Err, RÃ*an? I think that when IR said this, he meant to say, "we treat every scientific theory the same way when we don't have all the answers to them, but creationists don't want this method to apply to evolution."

He didn't mean to say, "not all the facts are in on evolution, so creationists don't want it treated the way all other scientific subjects are."

He's saying that evolution is treated differently by creationists than other subjects that have a similar amount of evidence backing them are.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So far we have had:
...[list of strawman tactics]

I suppose your tactics I thru III have occurred somewhere, but they certainly don't represent the full spectrum, and they especially do NOT represent what is going on in Kansas.

This is what I think is going on in Kansas:

True Scientists - We're getting tired of the group of evolutionary scientists that are trying to redefine science as we've known it for centuries, and trying to give their pet belief system a free pass from normal scientific evidentiary rules. We want to give our students the whole truth about everything, even this theory, and let them think about it themselves. Let's put everything on the table - warts and all! - and let free scientific inquiry flow unfettered.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So far we have had:
...[list of strawman tactics]

I suppose your tactics I thru III have occurred somewhere, but they certainly don't represent the full spectrum, and they especially do NOT represent what is going on in Kansas.

This is what I think is going on in Kansas:

True Scientists - We're getting tired of the group of evolutionary scientists that are trying to redefine science as we've known it for centuries, and trying to give their pet belief system a free pass from normal scientific evidentiary rules. We want to give our students the whole truth about everything, even this theory, and let them think about it themselves. Let's put everything on the table - warts and all! - and let free scientific inquiry flow unfettered.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Err, RÃ*an? I think that when IR said this, he meant to say, "we treat every scientific theory the same way when we don't have all the answers to them, but creationists don't want this method to apply to evolution."

He didn't mean to say, "not all the facts are in on evolution, so creationists don't want it treated the way all other scientific subjects are."

He's saying that evolution is treated differently by creationists than other subjects that have a similar amount of evidence backing them are.

I know exactly what he's saying (or I should say, I agree with you that that's what he's saying - are we right, IRex?)

My point is that there is another group that is just as "religious" as the people that he calls "religious" - and that group is the evolutionists that hold to their belief in macro-evolution as absolutely true. They are religious in exactly the same way, and exactly the same sense, as the people IRex was referring to.

So while I realize he is saying (to put it in your words) that "evolution is treated differently by creationists than other subjects that have a similar amount of evidence backing them are", I am saying that evolution is treated differently by EVOLUTIONISTS than other subjects that have a similar amount of evidence backing them are.

Look around you at the level and type of hysterical rhetoric generated by these evolutionists (again, I want to stress that it's not by any means ALL evolutionists). Look at the name-calling! It's absolutely amazing to me. After all, the theories of YECs also call into doubt the work of astronomers - yet are they throwing hissy fits? No! Why is that, Lief? Why do you think? I think it's because the hard-core evolutionists' BELIEFS are being threatened - not their theories, but rather their BELIEF that macro evolution took place. Their response is absolutely typical of a person whose firmly held and cherished, but unproven and unproveable, belief is being threatened.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Err, RÃ*an? I think that when IR said this, he meant to say, "we treat every scientific theory the same way when we don't have all the answers to them, but creationists don't want this method to apply to evolution."

He didn't mean to say, "not all the facts are in on evolution, so creationists don't want it treated the way all other scientific subjects are."

He's saying that evolution is treated differently by creationists than other subjects that have a similar amount of evidence backing them are.

I know exactly what he's saying (or I should say, I agree with you that that's what he's saying - are we right, IRex?)

My point is that there is another group that is just as "religious" as the people that he calls "religious" - and that group is the evolutionists that hold to their belief in macro-evolution as absolutely true. They are religious in exactly the same way, and exactly the same sense, as the people IRex was referring to.

So while I realize he is saying (to put it in your words) that "evolution is treated differently by creationists than other subjects that have a similar amount of evidence backing them are", I am saying that evolution is treated differently by EVOLUTIONISTS than other subjects that have a similar amount of evidence backing them are.

Look around you at the level and type of hysterical rhetoric generated by these evolutionists (again, I want to stress that it's not by any means ALL evolutionists). Look at the name-calling! It's absolutely amazing to me. After all, the theories of YECs also call into doubt the work of astronomers - yet are they throwing hissy fits? No! Why is that, Lief? Why do you think? I think it's because the hard-core evolutionists' BELIEFS are being threatened - not their theories, but rather their BELIEF that macro evolution took place. Their response is absolutely typical of a person whose firmly held and cherished, but unproven and unproveable, belief is being threatened.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I agree with Rian: my understanding of this thread is that it's about how evolution should be taught, not on the finer points of the debate. That is, it's about pedagogical and political choices around how the material is introduced in schools.

Yes - I'd like evidence discussions to take place in the other threads, please

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

In which case:

That's the key question, as yet unanswered by any of the creationists in this discussion.

I'll answer it, even tho I've already answered it before.

We (at least those that I agree with) are NOT picking solely on evolution! What we ARE doing is trying to point out, and then revoke, its priviledged (and unscientific) position, and put it back on the same level as the other fields, where it should be.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I agree with Rian: my understanding of this thread is that it's about how evolution should be taught, not on the finer points of the debate. That is, it's about pedagogical and political choices around how the material is introduced in schools.

Yes - I'd like evidence discussions to take place in the other threads, please

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

In which case:

That's the key question, as yet unanswered by any of the creationists in this discussion.

I'll answer it, even tho I've already answered it before.

We (at least those that I agree with) are NOT picking solely on evolution! What we ARE doing is trying to point out, and then revoke, its priviledged (and unscientific) position, and put it back on the same level as the other fields, where it should be.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

My point is that there is another group that is just as "religious" as the people that he calls "religious" - and that group is the evolutionists that hold to their belief in macro-evolution as absolutely true. They are religious in exactly the same way, and exactly the same sense, as the people IRex was referring to.

Yes, I agree that there is such a group. I've met one myself that I think is definitely in that category.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

My point is that there is another group that is just as "religious" as the people that he calls "religious" - and that group is the evolutionists that hold to their belief in macro-evolution as absolutely true. They are religious in exactly the same way, and exactly the same sense, as the people IRex was referring to.

Yes, I agree that there is such a group. I've met one myself that I think is definitely in that category.

[Rían]

And here's something that I think is pretty amusing -

You evolutionists will never - NEVER - know if you were right You'll know if the creationists were right, tho!

We creationists will know if we were right, but we'll never find out if we were wrong!