Creationism in schools

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

kalmar wrote:

That's definitely a real danger. I.D. has been "designed" exactly to exploit this, in order to "compete" as a scientific theory.

Giving it a formal place in the science class, even if the intention is purely to debunk it, would be falling into that trap. For one thing, it would immediately open the door to complaints and meddling in *how* it's taught.

That said, it doubtless comes up in science class anyway, so as Kern said above, teachers will have to be able to deal with kids that have been indoctrinated (or are just trying to waste time), but it absolutely should not be on the curriculum.

Any self-respecting science teacher would surely respond to questions about ID in science lessons with something along the lines of "It's bollocks. We also don't teach about dowsing or flower fairies. Now, back to science."

kalmar · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:27

Quite.

kalmar wrote:

"be quiet, this is a science class".

The Rev Owen · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:28

My wife's dad was a science teacher in Marietta, Georgia during the time all the science textbooks had the following disclaimer on them -

Quote:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

That must have been fun for him.

(The stickers were removed in 2005, by the way.)

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16560

kalmar wrote:

That's definitely a real danger. I.D. has been "designed" exactly to exploit this, in order to "compete" as a scientific theory.

Giving it a formal place in the science class, even if the intention is purely to debunk it, would be falling into that trap. For one thing, it would immediately open the door to complaints and meddling in *how* it's taught.

That said, it doubtless comes up in science class anyway, so as Kern said above, teachers will have to be able to deal with kids that have been indoctrinated (or are just trying to waste time), but it absolutely should not be on the curriculum.

But explaining how interpretation of the natural world has changed over time was a part of many science classes. How man came to gain a gradual understanding of the cosmos was taught as I remember. I don't think anyone came away choosing to believe that the sun orbits the earth. By deliberately avoiding creationism you *are* giving it a special status, better to mention it and show how the fossil record and other evidence has improved our understanding.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

kalmar wrote:

Quite.

Well, indeed. So I would entirely agree that it shouldn't be included as a "regular" component of a scence lesson, even to show it as being bunk, as it does, as someone further up mentioned in relaiton to scientists on tv, lend it some credibility: "well, they're talking about it in science lessons so there must be something to it, right?"

It doesn't need to be, and shouldn't be, treated with anything other than swift dismissal.

MrD · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 2139

Quote:

It doesn't need to be, and shouldn't be, treated with anything other than swift dismissal.

I'm pretty sure my old boss wrote exactly that about me in a report. :/

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Mr Chris wrote:

kalmar wrote:

Quite.

Well, indeed. So I would entirely agree that it shouldn't be included as a "regular" component of a scence lesson, even to show it as being bunk, as it does, as someone further up mentioned in relaiton to scientists on tv, lend it some credibility: "well, they're talking about it in science lessons so there must be something to it, right?"

It doesn't need to be, and shouldn't be, treated with anything other than swift dismissal.

Absolutely. Especially as there are dozens of creation myths which would all need debunking. Back to 2+2, the proof that 2+2≠5 is that 2+2=4. Handily, this also proves that 2+2≠6, 7, 18, and 146 billion. Nice and efficient, that.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:59

How do you explain Unicorns, dwarves and Dragons then hotshot?

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Zardoz wrote:

How do you explain Unicorns, dwarves and Dragons then hotshot?

Fossil records.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 13:42

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7613403.stm

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Please let these statistics be wrong.

I weep for the world.

Actually, one of the arguments presented in that article for Creationism is that it would be nicer than it not having happened. The same argument is used as, I kid you not, 'conclusive proof' in the literature handed out by Jehovah's Witnesses. They argue that a world in which we are alone and evolved, is not as nice an idea as one where God loves you and protects you... therefore the one where God loves you and exists HAS TO BE TRUE!

They're awesome at debates. Seriously...

myp · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 13:53

That article as at least two typos and a sentence that doesn't make sense.

Quote:

And while the Church of England this week issues a formal apology to Charles Darwin, after long publicly disassociated itself from the creation story as a scientific fact, other churches - mostly on the evangelical Christian wing - adhere to old beliefs.

Sorry, what?

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 25594

It makes sense - the Church of England disassociated itself from the story of creation being given over as scientific fact, but only recently actually issued an apology to Darwin.

But yes, the word 'dissociated' should be '-ing', I think.

myp · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 13:59

Yep. Anyone else spot 'eco' instead of 'echo'? Anyway, it's quite scary how many people believe in creationism.

Rodafowa · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 14:00

Curiosity wrote:

Actually, one of the arguments presented in that article for Creationism is that it would be nicer than it not having happened. The same argument is used as, I kid you not, 'conclusive proof' in the literature handed out by Jehovah's Witnesses. They argue that a world in which we are alone and evolved, is not as nice an idea as one where God loves you and protects you... therefore the one where God loves you and exists HAS TO BE TRUE!

John Keats wrote:

Beauty is truth, truth beauty - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 25594

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

The Rev Owen · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 14:09

Mimi wrote:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

It's my degree in handy bite-sized form!

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Rodafowa wrote:

Curiosity wrote:

Actually, one of the arguments presented in that article for Creationism is that it would be nicer than it not having happened. The same argument is used as, I kid you not, 'conclusive proof' in the literature handed out by Jehovah's Witnesses. They argue that a world in which we are alone and evolved, is not as nice an idea as one where God loves you and protects you... therefore the one where God loves you and exists HAS TO BE TRUE!

John Keats wrote:

Beauty is truth, truth beauty - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Keats was a fag, though.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 15:44

Mimi wrote:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

This is ace.

Quote:

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Curiosity wrote:

Mimi wrote:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

This is ace.

Quote:

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

I think they mean "ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL CREDULITY"

myp · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 15:48

I've only read down to about 150, but my favourite so far is:

Quote:

ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF EVIDENCE (I)
(1) I believe that if God exists, there will be no evidence for his existence.
(2) There is no evidence for the existence of God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Shin · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 16:00

(Someone's probably already said this)
I think Dr.Reiss has a good idea there, kids don't listen to 'no, you are wrong' because that's being too heavy handed. If people explained 'why' they are wrong then that would make a huge difference. Kids don't like to be 'told' anything, so helping them learn why is better than just saying 'you will believe this.'

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

myoptika wrote:

That article as at least two typos

*cough*

Rodafowa · **Posted:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 17:04

Mr Chris wrote:

Rodafowa wrote:

John Keats wrote:

Beauty is truth, truth beauty - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Keats was a fag, though.

Nah, you're thinking of Byron.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Rodafowa wrote:

Mr Chris wrote:

Rodafowa wrote:

John Keats wrote:

Beauty is truth, truth beauty - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Keats was a fag, though.

Nah, you're thinking of Byron.

In his defence, Byron shagged most of the women in Europe.

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 25594

Curiosity · **Posted:** Tue Sep 16, 2008 17:44

That's funny.

There is almost nothing that makes me angrier than Creationists.

MarcusJ · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 85

Job vacancy created at Royal Society.

Malabelm · **Posted:** Wed Sep 17, 2008 0:04

Quote:

The Royal Society reiterated that its position was that creationism had no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum.

"However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific."

Isn't that pretty much what he was pushing for, except not waiting for the children to make the first move?

myp · **Posted:** Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:06

Craster wrote:

myoptika wrote:

That article as at least two typos

*cough*

I don't write articles for BBC News, though.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:16

myoptika wrote:

Craster wrote:

myoptika wrote:

That article as at least two typos

*cough*

I don't write articles for BBC News, though.

They still have some standards then!

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16560

Curiosity wrote:

That's funny.

There is almost nothing that makes me angrier than Creationists.

It's easy to feel that way, but the more I think about it the more I feel pity for them and relief that I'm not one too. I can't believe that all those hundreds of millions of people who believe things that seem absurd to me are just inherently dumb or weak-minded, it seems an inadequate and just highly unlikely explanation. Religion is truly a horrible virus.

Be Excellent To Each Other

Creationism in schools

Who is online