Split Thread: Should creationism be taught as Science?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

"Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific
theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

Because GOD and mah Bible are just as scientificy as evolution. If we're descended from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys? and Climate Change is just a hoax. I mean, look at how much snow we got this past winter!

This part just negated your entire post. It shows that like the Republicans, you are not interested in the free exchange of ideas but only in indoctrination.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

New data isn't being produced that challenges the theories though. Beliefs like creationism and intelligent design are religious in origin rather than data-based.

That doesn't mean that contemporary theories must be regarded as sacrosanct. All theories should be subject to change if or when new data is discovered.

Otherwise, science is just another religion (Science be praised).

[KDLarsen]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That doesn't mean that contemporary theories must be regarded as sacrosanct. All theories should be subject to change if or when new data is discovered.

Otherwise, science is just another religion (Science be praised).

Let's not pretend that the GQP talking about challenging contemporary scientific theories is anything other than a blatant attempt to shoehorn in 'Teach the controversy'.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by KDLarsen

Let's not pretend that the GQP talking about challenging contemporary scientific theories is anything other than a blatant attempt to shoehorn in 'Teach the controversy'.

The wording in the article was "Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

Regardless of the GOP agenda, if you or anybody else has a problem with these words then you are just being as zealotous as the GOP.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by psionl0

The wording in the article was "Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

Regardless of the GOP agenda, if you or anybody else has a problem with these words then you are just being as zealotous as the GOP.

No teacher should not be able to "openly discuss" GOD DID IT WITH MAGIC AND SCIENCE IS BAD! and saying so does make one any level of zealous, let alone as much as the Death Cult that is the GOP.

You are multiply wrong, yet again.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by psionl0

The wording in the article was "Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

Regardless of the GOP agenda, if you or anybody else has a problem with these words then you are just being as zealotous as the GOP.

Are we back to pretending that school classrooms are some kind of nebulous debate society rather than a teacher lead instructional space? Keeping students on topic and focused on coursework is like 99% of the job of being a teacher.

[JoeMorgue]

"Science is all wrong because maybe God did it with magic" - Honest debate that must be in our schools!
"The United States has some racism in its past" - EVIL LEFTIST PROPOGANDA THAT HAS NO PLACE IN OUR SCHOOLS!

How does being this stupid not hurt people?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

No teacher should not be able to "openly discuss" GOD DID IT WITH MAGIC AND SCIENCE IS BAD! and saying so does make one any level of zealous, let alone as much as the Death Cult that is the GOP.

You are multiply wrong, yet again.

You should take a few deep breaths before you post. I can't make head nor tail out of that word salad.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You should take a few deep breaths before you post. I can't make head nor tail out of that word salad.

Well don't strain yourself on my account.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Are we back to pretending that school classrooms are some kind of nebulous debate society rather than a teacher lead instructional space? Keeping students on topic and focused on coursework is like 99% of the job of being a teacher.

So like the GOP, you are against teaching critical thinking, which has "the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." ?

Should we just be giving them instructions and not allowing any questions?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by psionl0

So like the GOP, you are against teaching critical thinking, which has "the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." ?

Should we just be giving them instructions and not allowing any questions?

Students should ask questions, but I don't see the value in permitting teachers to answer earnestly asked questions about science with fairy tales and easily disproven pseudo-science.

Teaching creationism is an objectively poor science education. it would be like paying money to go to a sovereign citizen law school or psychology program that takes seriously people's star signs. Imagine a health class that permitted the gym teacher to teach doubt about whether or not cigarettes are harmful to health. A tremendous disservice to the students in the school's care.

Creating a science education standard that ultimately boils down to the totally arbitrary "well, if your science teacher is a religious crank you won't get taught evolution" is abandoning the very concept of a course standard.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by psionl0

The wording in the article was "Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

Regardless of the GOP agenda, if you or anybody else has a problem with these words then you are just being as zealotous as the GOP.

People who look back fondly on Jim Crow don't get the benefit of the doubt.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Students should ask questions, but I don't see the value in permitting teachers to answer earnestly asked questions about science with fairy tales and easily disproven pseudo-science.

I don't see the value either. Indoctrination - whether it be religious instruction or teaching that only the official theory of evolution is true - is the antithesis of critical thinking.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by The Don

Would you advocate a similar approach to geography with equal weight being given to flat-Earthism ?

How about teaching maths where equal weight being given to a variety of values of pi ?

How about medical institutions "teaching the controversy" of the humours ?

What sort of rubbish is this?

In a maths/science class students should be encouraged to demand proof that a given teaching is true (or at least better than any other explanation) and why alternative theories fail.

Nobody advocates teaching "flat earthism" / "multiple values of pi" / "the humours" along with regular teachings.

Worst strawman ever.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by sackett

wish that people would abandon that word. They never, but never, use it right.*

There is no official theory of evolution. There is no official theory of tectonics, or stellar origins, or market forces. There is no official theory of any ******* thing. There are only theories that best explain facts as they are currently understood.

And if new evidence emerges that requires modification of ANY theory, you'll see scientists shoving and elbowing to publish it. Eventually, it will appear in textbooks. And in the mad denunciations of the religion industry.

* Come to that, does "official" ever mean much of anything? Which officials? How do they make something official? Must they all concur? Are there degrees of officiality? Suppose somebody (not me!) decides that something isn't official enough for him. What do we do then? psion, tell us what to do!

You might be able to see the different nuances in evolution or other scientific theories but I suspect that you are in the minority here.

The general consensus seems to be that there is only one fixed, never-changing theory of evolution and students must learn it by rote and never question it or the underlying assumptions.

"Critical thinking" has become a dirty word in this forum.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again with pretending schools are one long "debate class" that lets you teach gibberish..

Wow. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I posted!

The GOP would be so proud of your anti critical thinking stance.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Critical support for teaching the one true biblical creationism in schools:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub_(Nation_of_Islam)

The only comment I have for this irrelevant post is that it reinforces the notion that indoctrination must replace critical thinking always.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You might be able to see the different nuances in evolution or other scientific theories but I suspect that you are in the minority here.

The general consensus seems to be that there is only one fixed, never-changing theory of evolution and students must learn it by rote and never question it or the underlying assumptions.

"Critical thinking" has become a dirty word in this forum.

Who said that? I haven't read that anywhere in this thread.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by psionl0

The only comment I have for this irrelevant post is that it reinforces the notion that indoctrination must replace critical thinking always.

The story of Yakub seems more scientifically plausible than Young Earth Creationism.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Wow. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I posted!

The GOP would be so proud of your anti critical thinking stance.

Oh save it. You think the giant invisible sky wizard making the world with magic is a "valid alternative" that schools next to "teach the controversy" and let kids "debate" about. It's a goddamn joke right out of the Creationism Handbook.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by psionl0

"Sounds good" has nothing to do with science or critical thinking.

Joking aside, is there any significant difference between a young earth creationist who happens to be a high school biology teacher "teaching the controversy" and Nation of Islam science teacher teaching the controversy how whites/Jews were selectively bred by the mad scientist Yakub to vex the superior black race?

Obviously such ideological tolerances in the classroom will only be extended members of the preferred Christian belief system, but there's nothing that sets Christian creationism apart, on a scientific basis, from any other religious creation myth.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by psionl0

"Sounds good" has nothing to do with science or critical thinking.

And science and critical thinking thus far suggest that the theory of evolution is on par with the current atomic model, the current model for physics etc.

Not perfect, but by far the best and thus the one that should be taught in science classes in high school.
It's hard enough to teach without having to pay lip-service to every unproven and untestable theory out there.

[JesseCuster]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You might be able to see the different nuances in evolution or other scientific theories but I suspect that you are in the minority here.

The general consensus seems to be that there is only one fixed, never-changing theory of evolution and students must learn it by rote and never question it or the underlying assumptions.

"Critical thinking" has become a dirty word in this forum.

General consensus among who?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

But why do we have to teach it by rote? Why are students not supposed to ask why a particular explanation is the best one for the available data? Why can they not explore why alternative scientific theories (ie not YEC or any other form of untestable religious dogma) do not fit the known data as well?

Which alternate scientific theory for evolution?

[KDLarsen]

Originally Posted by psionl0

But why do we have to teach it by rote? Why are students not supposed to ask why a particular explanation is the best one for the available data? Why can they not explore why alternative scientific theories (ie not YEC or any other form of untestable religious dogma) do not fit the known data as well?

Presumably such a discussion would be fitting in an advanced biology class, possibly even at college level.

What the Texas GOP wants to do, is to make "cdesign proponentsism" a viable, scientifically accepted theory, something it most certainly is not.

[SteveAitch]

Originally Posted by Darat

Which alternate scientific theory for evolution?

Lamarckism?

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I don't see the value either. Indoctrination - whether it be religious instruction or teaching that only the official theory of evolution is true - is the antithesis of critical thinking.

“The official theory of evolution” shows your ignorance. While the basic structure of evolution as proposed by Darwin is in place evolution has undergone multiple, multiple changes to its aspects over the years. It’s still not exactly completely known (the fact that we fine new fossil species shows that) so claiming that sticking to its aspects rather than some deity creation fairy story is somehow “close-minded” shows ignorance of the science.

This would be like saying kids should jump off tall buildings and lick outlets because gravity and electrical theory are also theory and denying letting kids do this is “close-minded”.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by psionl0

But why do we have to teach it by rote? Why are students not supposed to ask why a particular explanation is the best one for the available data? Why can they not explore why alternative scientific theories (ie not YEC or any other form of untestable religious dogma) do not fit the known data as well?

Because you first need to teach the basics how things work.

Why do we not teach cuniform when learning the alphabet?
Why do we not teach the roman numeral system when learning maths?

Of course, if this law gets pushed trough and Texas ends up with a generation as well educated as those in Taliban schools I guess that will become obvious.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by SteveAitch

Lamarckism?

TO get technical Lamarckisnm is not a alternative theory to evolution; it is an alternative Theory OF Evolution to Darwins. It accepts evolution, it just thinks it works differently then what Darwin said.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This part just negated your entire post. It shows that like the Republicans, you are not interested in the free exchange of ideas but only in indoctrination.

How flat would you say the Earth is, exactly? Pretty flat? Really very flat? B flat minor?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

How flat would you say the Earth is, exactly? Pretty flat? Really very flat? B flat minor?

Like an exhausted battery?


" free exchange of ideas" has limits, as Dara Ó Briain so succinctly put it...

"You never see the balance thing with really hard science. You never see the guy on from NASA, talking about the space station. And they go, Mr. NASA guy, you’re building a space station, well that’s very interesting. And then they go and they say for “balance” we must now turn to Barry, who believes the sky is a carpet painted by God. There’s this kind of a notion that everyone’s opinion is equally valid. My arse! A bloke who’s a professor of dentistry for forty years does not have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Shhh! That's heresy in this forum. According to others in this forum, there is only a single unchangeable "fact" of evolution which tolerates no modifications whatsoever.

I seriously doubt anyone has truly been like that. I suspect you are butt hurt over something in an evolution thread and are now making a strawman attack so weak I don't even think it is straw.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Shhh! That's heresy in this forum. According to others in this forum, there is only a single unchangeable "fact" of evolution which tolerates no modifications whatsoever.

Come down off the cross, use the wood the build a bridge, and use the bridge to get over it.

"Oh I'm so oppressed for being wrong! It's a huge injustice!"

[JoeMorgue]

Also I like how we're talking about the need for public education and people immediately start screeching about Creationism.

Like thanks for making our entire argument for us.

Next we can have cIviL DebATE about whether or not Med School should teach the Four Humors.

[JoeMorgue]

BTW we're all savvy to the:

"You're wrong. Here's facts that show it"
"OH SO YOU JUST WANT TO BE THE TRUTH POLICE! I GUESS YOU JUST WANT AN ECHO CHAMBER! YOU'RE CLOSE MINDED! WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHT TO THINK WHAT I WANT?"

game and none of us are impressed.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

I seriously doubt anyone has truly been like that. I suspect you are butt hurt over something in an evolution thread and are now making a strawman attack so weak I don't even think it is straw.

This whole hoo ha came about because a poster criticized the concept of "critical thinking" in a science classroom.

It appears that suddenly, only a full blown religious nut would be in favour of critical thinking. You can't blame me for concluding that the people who would argue this way are in favour of the exact opposite of any form of critical thinking.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This whole hoo ha came about because a poster criticized the concept of "critical thinking" in a science classroom.

It appears that suddenly, only a full blown religious nut would be in favour of critical thinking. You can't blame me for concluding that the people who would argue this way are in favour of the exact opposite of any form of critical thinking.

I assume you are basing this off Stacys post number 7 and your post #10.

All I am gonna say is you got it wrong, way wrong. And you are giving much undeserving faith to a totally bad faith argument.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This part just negated your entire post. It shows that like the Republicans, you are not interested in the free exchange of ideas but only in indoctrination.

Nah. They're talking about Creationism and Climate Change. Don't pretend they aren't. Creationism doesn't belong in a science classroom any more than Voodoo does. It's not science; it's religion. So spare me. Climate Change is accepted as fact by the vast majority of scientists in the world. Again, spare me the crap that we need to have a 'free exchange of ideas' about it in science class any more than we need to discuss the idea of rain dances as science.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by psionl0

So like the GOP, you are against teaching critical thinking, which has "the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." ?

Should we just be giving them instructions and not allowing any questions?

Ignoring the motivations is ignoring the context. Ignoring the context, and taking the words strictly at face value, isn't critical thinking. That may not seem clear to you perched up on that high horse.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Nah. They're talking about Creationism and Climate Change. Don't pretend they aren't.

Maybe the GOP uses "We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced" as a euphemism for teaching creationism instead of evolution but you didn't state that in your post. I can only respond to what you actually posted.

FWIW trying to discuss ID in a scientific context is like asking a computer how it feels. The scientific method is not capable of dealing with philosophical questions. It can only deal with observable data.