How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Nurvingiel]

*springs up as if out of nowhere*

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And macro-evolution is based on thoughts in people's heads, not geological evidence. And that's not science, either.

The reason (but it's a biggie), IMO, that creationism, Theistic evolution, Intelligent Design, et al are not scientific theories is because God is part of the theories. They are all philosophies (for lack of a better term) and there's nothing wrong with having a philosophy as a world view.
However, science, and not philosophy should be taught in science class. I think the flaws in Evolution should be presented (as well as the flaws in the Bohr model and other scientific theories) but presenting the flaws in Evolutionary theory does not mean we have to teach philosophies as alternate scientific theories.

I think we disregard philosophy (not necessarily religious) too much in our society. I think this is one reason why some people who believe in creationism etc want them recognized as scientific. What some people might be saying is that they have a logical and well-thought out theory that has some supporting evidence. This is a line of thought society calls science, but philosophies can be well thought out and evidence-based as well. I think society in general forgets that.

Do I think creationism, Intelligent Design and Theistic evolution should be taught in science class?
No.
Do I think that people who believe those philosophies are somehow less reasonable, intelligent or logical than people who believe in the scientific theories?
Not at all.

I realize there is a grey area between science and philosophy, but the presence or absence of God in the theory draws the line for me. So macro-evolution = science, creationism = philosophy IMO.


You know it's time to go to bed when you can't tell whether or not you can spell "whether" and "philosophy". I hope this post makes sense.

Edited to attempt to make more sense.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by sun-star

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. ... 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.

Sorry about the off-topic post, but I was thinking about the same thing when I was talking about societies' perception of science in the "Evidence for Creationism" thread. I didn't write it, but Brownie articulates that well. (I think it was Brownjenkins not Butterbeer who first brought that up. )

*gives you your thread back*

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by sun-star

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. ... 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.

Sorry about the off-topic post, but I was thinking about the same thing when I was talking about societies' perception of science in the "Evidence for Creationism" thread. I didn't write it, but Brownie articulates that well. (I think it was Brownjenkins not Butterbeer who first brought that up. )

*gives you your thread back*

[The Gaffer]

Talking of historical perspectives, there are plenty of parallels.

Rian, you have articulated why this matters: because it affects a person's worldview. I know that it is not your personal and intention, but here is the rub.

Creationists cannot accept many aspects of evolution because it contradicts their worldview. End of story, as Hobbit said. They will do whatever they can to undermine it.

Consider the Copernican view of the solar system (you know, the one where earth goes around the sun), banned by the Catholic Church in 16-oatcake because it contradicted doctrine.

It's a good example because, like evolution, you can't observe it directly.

Note however, that the Ptolemaic view (earth is at the centre), the one the Church was defending, can actually be consistent with the evidence from observing planets etc. The Copernican model was preferred by science because it was simpler.

Galileo was banned from promoting this worldview as "correct", but he was allowed to postulate it as a theoretical concept. Ring any bells?

[The Gaffer]

Talking of historical perspectives, there are plenty of parallels.

Rian, you have articulated why this matters: because it affects a person's worldview. I know that it is not your personal and intention, but here is the rub.

Creationists cannot accept many aspects of evolution because it contradicts their worldview. End of story, as Hobbit said. They will do whatever they can to undermine it.

Consider the Copernican view of the solar system (you know, the one where earth goes around the sun), banned by the Catholic Church in 16-oatcake because it contradicted doctrine.

It's a good example because, like evolution, you can't observe it directly.

Note however, that the Ptolemaic view (earth is at the centre), the one the Church was defending, can actually be consistent with the evidence from observing planets etc. The Copernican model was preferred by science because it was simpler.

Galileo was banned from promoting this worldview as "correct", but he was allowed to postulate it as a theoretical concept. Ring any bells?

[Spock]

are you referring to Quasimoto?

[Spock]

are you referring to Quasimoto?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

actually none of this evidence contradicts the bible in fact all of the new evidence supports the biblical view of creation

i have yet to see one piece of scientific evidence supporting creationism... and criticism of another theory does not equal support for the other... what evidence specifically supports the biblical view of creation? you can just give me the best one if you like

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

actually none of this evidence contradicts the bible in fact all of the new evidence supports the biblical view of creation

i have yet to see one piece of scientific evidence supporting creationism... and criticism of another theory does not equal support for the other... what evidence specifically supports the biblical view of creation? you can just give me the best one if you like

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, no, no, I don't mean that - I'm talking about things like how IRex says his position on abortion depends on what science finds out about the fetus. Also, IIRC, the founder of Planned Parenthood believed in eugenics, based on Darwin's philosophy. Also, based on Darwin's philosophy, blacks and Jews were considered to be an inferior, less-well-adapted branch-off of the human race for quite a while, which sure made it easier to overlook abuses.

it can be used as a basis for false interpretations, yes... the KKK used the bible to make blacks "less that human" too

but a true scientist does not jump to these kind of conclusions... there is no "right" and "wrong" from a scientific perspective... just data and interpretation

it's not the fault of the scientists if people make ubsurd conclusions... much as it is not the fault of the bible if people decide to justify killing in it's name

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, no, no, I don't mean that - I'm talking about things like how IRex says his position on abortion depends on what science finds out about the fetus. Also, IIRC, the founder of Planned Parenthood believed in eugenics, based on Darwin's philosophy. Also, based on Darwin's philosophy, blacks and Jews were considered to be an inferior, less-well-adapted branch-off of the human race for quite a while, which sure made it easier to overlook abuses.

it can be used as a basis for false interpretations, yes... the KKK used the bible to make blacks "less that human" too

but a true scientist does not jump to these kind of conclusions... there is no "right" and "wrong" from a scientific perspective... just data and interpretation

it's not the fault of the scientists if people make ubsurd conclusions... much as it is not the fault of the bible if people decide to justify killing in it's name

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

I respect your beliefs, however I do not quite understand your logic, what evidence is there for evolution? if you have any please present it here

read this page

pick anything you'd like to further discuss

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

There is absolutely NO difference - your "scientist" investigator has a very firm belief that Mr. MacroEvolution/naturalism did it, and your "creationist" investigator has a very firm belief that Mr. God did it.

once again... it is about what the theory is based upon... observation and theorizing... scientists speculated about the origin of life in non-theological ways before darwin was even born... and scientists may very well discard darwin's theory in the future if a better one comes along... a scientist is looking for the answers

creationist's already have the answer, and are only looking to prove it and disprove others... and more importantly, the creationist answer is based upon a book written thousands of years ago... not on observable evidence

give me one piece of observable evidence that a) does not come from the bible and b) makes creationism a logical alternative

[Spock]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss bank.

How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?

What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet.

Interestingly, according to modern astronomers, space is finite. This is a very comforting thought - particularly for people who can never remember where they have left things.

What if nothing exists and we're all in somebody's dream? Or what's
worse, what if only that fat guy in the third row exists?



--the above courtesy of Woody Allen--

[brownjenkins]

If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.

Eternal nothingness is fine if you happen to be dressed for it.

Not only is there no God, but try getting a plumber on weekends.

[Spock]

Yes, Yes, I'd forgotten those. Good job.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

read this page

pick anything you'd like to further discuss

that is some great evidence for micro evolution but you don't have to convince me that micro evolution is scientific i know that already

I was asking for evidence of macro evolution that hasn't already been disproved

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i have yet to see one piece of scientific evidence supporting creationism... and criticism of another theory does not equal support for the other... what evidence specifically supports the biblical view of creation? you can just give me the best one if you like

i think the age of the earth has already been covered on another thread but it is the first i can think of at the moment

i'll try to get a link to some more info later, but i may gone for a day or two so be patient

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i have yet to see one piece of scientific evidence supporting creationism... and criticism of another theory does not equal support for the other... what evidence specifically supports the biblical view of creation? you can just give me the best one if you like

i think the age of the earth has already been covered on another thread but it is the first i can think of at the moment

i'll try to get a link to some more info later, but i may gone for a day or two so be patient

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

i think the age of the earth has already been covered on another thread but it is the first i can think of at the moment

i'll try to get a link to some more info later, but i may gone for a day or two so be patient

okay sounds good

most of the info i've seen tries to prove why the earth is not, say, millions of years old... but i have seen none presented to prove that it is just 6,000