Split Thread: Should creationism be taught as Science?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yup... EVERY ******* TIME A ******* COCONUT IN EVERY ******* THREAD!!!!

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by psionl0

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.

I said spare me.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by varwoche

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.

Someone who is skeptical about skeptics hasn't the first clue what "critical thinking" (the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment) actually is. There are certain scenarios and subjects that can be utterly dismissed without the need for critical thinking because they are flat out wrong on their face.. for example, claims that the Earth...

1. is flat.
2. is only a few thousand years old.
3. is created by a some magic invisible deity.

In order to objectively analyse and evaluate a claim, there has to be viable, testable evidence to analyse and evaluate. There is none for the above three listed scenarios/subjects.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

There are certain scenarios and subjects that can be utterly dismissed without the need for critical thinking because I say they are flat out wrong on their face..

ftfy.

Anybody who can't come up with a reason to reject the flat earth hypothesis for example isn't thinking at all.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I said spare me.

We are not in a relationship so I don't have to guess what you actually mean when you say something.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by psion10

ftfy.

No, you didn't fix anything.

Originally Posted by psion10

Anybody who can't come up with a reason to reject the flat earth hypothesis for example isn't thinking at all.

Same goes for "traditional" Creationism and YEC. They do not deserve any consideration (there's no evidence to consider). If you want them taught in religious whackadoodle class, go ahead, but they should not be taught in science class, because they are NOT science, they are fantasy, and fairytale make-believe.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

No, you didn't fix anything.

So who says it then?

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Same goes for "traditional" Creationism and YEC.

You obviously didn't read the post where I said that these are not issues that can be dealt with using the scientific method.

It is hardly surprising. You would rather deal with strawman arguments than anything I am actually posting about.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by psionl0

We are not in a relationship so I don't have to guess what you actually mean when you say something.

[psionl0]

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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.

That's exactly what he's doing.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

That's exactly what he's doing.

You can say "you don't understand me" or even "you are lying about what I said" but the fact remains that nobody is saying that critical thinking* has a place in the science class room.

* By "critical thinking" I don't mean the new definition about it meaning "YEC" or any other type of "ID". Critical thinking used to be about analyzing the evidence that is used to form a conclusion and not just automatically believing that something is true simply because somebody says "science says so".

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by psionl0

You can say "you don't understand me" or even "you are lying about what I said" but the fact remains that nobody is saying that critical thinking* has a place in the science class room.

* By "critical thinking" I don't mean the new definition about it meaning "YEC" or any other type of "ID". Critical thinking used to be about analyzing the evidence that is used to form a conclusion and not just automatically believing that something is true simply because somebody says "science says so".

See the above.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You can say "you don't understand me" or even "you are lying about what I said" but the fact remains that nobody is saying that critical thinking* has a place in the science class room.

* By "critical thinking" I don't mean the new definition about it meaning "YEC" or any other type of "ID". Critical thinking used to be about analyzing the evidence that is used to form a conclusion and not just automatically believing that something is true simply because somebody says "science says so".

You seem to be talking about college and university level education not under 16 schooling. For your view of up to 16 year old education it would mean a huge overhaul of all education. For example you appear to be against teaching by rote under 16s in a math class that 2+2=4, that 12x12=144, or in History that Obama became a president of the USA in 2009, or in geography that the North Pole is rather chilly.

Or is your only objection to teaching about evolution in the same way to under 16s?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Darat

You seem to be talking about college and university level education not under 16 schooling. For your view of up to 16 year old education it would mean a huge overhaul of all education. For example you appear to be against teaching by rote under 16s in a math class that 2+2=4, that 12x12=144, or in History that Obama became a president of the USA in 2009, or in geography that the North Pole is rather chilly.

When is the last time you saw the inside of a class room? (How old are you?) Do you really think that in this century kids are expected to recite tables?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

But they are, Blanche, they are in this country!

Bwahahaha... Is he old enough to get that reference?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Critical thinking used to be about analyzing the evidence that is used to form a conclusion...

You see, this is the part you actually do understand - that evidence is required before there can be any analysis or evaluation.

Originally Posted by psionl0

... and not just automatically believing that something is true simply because somebody says "science says so".

And this is the part you still don't get.

Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that

Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "a 2000 year old book written by itinerant goat-herders says so"
.
.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

And this is the part you still don't get.

No, YOU are the one who refuses to get it.

No matter how often or how vehemently I point out that science can say nothing about religious matters, you still insist on acting as if I am saying the complete opposite.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by psionl0

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 .

Please, please stop pretending you didn’t know what the GOP wants to do with biology classes. It makes Sea Lioning look honest.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by psionl0

No, YOU are the one who refuses to get it.

No matter how often or how vehemently I point out that science can say nothing about religious matters, you still insist on acting as if I am saying the complete opposite.

Because that is not what you are saying. You have been pretending that the GOPs efforts to shove religion into the science classroom is actually some kind of good faith effort to raise other legitimate evidenced theories. You accused those against this kind of indoctrination of being the equivalent of heresy hunting religious fanatics.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

When is the last time you saw the inside of a class room? (How old are you?) Do you really think that in this century kids are expected to recite tables?

I see you avoided all the points I made.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You can't doctor past posts. The GOP agenda is irrelevant. It was the idea of teaching "critical thinking" (not creationism) in the classroom that is being knocked and I was criticized for defending critical thinking. If you don't believe me then read some of the responses.

I’ve read them. You are utterly wrong and are giving the GOP far too much leeway and are taking their claims of new evidence for YEC and against climate change with unbelievable levels of credulity. You then turn around and claim that going against the GOP anti-science is somehow being against critical thinking and those opposed to these antics must be hunting “heretics”.

You state this premise in post #10. It’s clear how bad you are at evaluating the GOPs claims. I can read it clear as anyone. There’s no witch-hunt here, it’s just you taking psychopartisan religious fanatics on their word.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Darat

I see you avoided all the points I made.

You didn't make any points. Schools don't work the way they do in Leave it to Beaver.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

There’s no witch-hunt here, it’s just you taking psychopartisan religious fanatics on their word.

Which of course is the exact opposite of the truth. You won't find a single post of mine that says that YEC or any other form of creationism should be taught in schools.

It has been, is and always will be about critical thinking (ask Darat).

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You can say "you don't understand me" or even "you are lying about what I said" but the fact remains that nobody is saying that critical thinking* has a place in the science class room.

As facts go, that is not one of them.

I, for example, will state here my unequivocal opinion that critical thinking has a place in science classrooms.

I wish critical thinking occupied a more prominent place in this subforum.

Originally Posted by psionl0

No matter how often or how vehemently I point out that science can say nothing about religious matters, you still insist on acting as if I am saying the complete opposite.

A lot of religious people disagree with the part I highlighted. They say the age of the earth is a religious matter, and some of them are quite serious about that.

Need I point out that science can say quite a bit about the age of the earth?

Need I point out that the people who are upset about that tend to be the ones who are most unhappy with public education? Need I point out that there is a significant positive correlation between believing in young earth creationism and support for Governor Abbott's shenanigans?

Correlation is not causation, but correlation is not always mere coincidence. In this case, the correlation is not an accident.

That is part of the context. If critical thinking were more prominent in this thread, you'd see more critical thinkers taking that context into account. You might even start to see psionl0 taking that context into account.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

A lot of religious people disagree with the part I highlighted. They say the age of the earth is a religious matter, and some of them are quite serious about that.

If the age of the earth is a religious matter and not a scientific matter then there are any number of rationalizations you can make ("God time etc) if you want to reconcile the differing claims. I imagine that some YECs working in astronomics have no choice but to engage in "double think".

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Need I point out that science can say quite a bit about the age of the earth?

Not to me. We can be pretty confident about our estimate of the age of the earth. It would take some "earth shattering" new data to force us to significantly revise our estimate.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Need I point out that the people who are upset about that tend to be the ones who are most unhappy with public education? Need I point out that there is a significant positive correlation between believing in young earth creationism and support for Governor Abbott's shenanigans?

Again, this is pretty self evident. The point remains that the GOP might oppose critical thinking (because they want students indoctrinated with creationism) but indoctrinating students with contemporary scientific positions without encouraging critical thinking is no better.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Darat

I see you avoided all the points I made.

And he will continue to do so until he faces any consequences or downside for doing it.

When all the rest of us can do is go "You're wrong" in flat, neutral, toothless terms over and over when we know that doesn't work what exactly do you expect to change and why?

Why on Earth would anyone NOT just be stubbornly and intentionally wrong and never change on this board?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Nothing of what you have been claiming has anything to do with critical thinking beyond you bleating the term like a parrot.

The article being discussed is headed GOP Opposes Critical Thinking.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You didn't make any points. Schools don't work the way they do in Leave it to Beaver.

And no one has said they do.

[newyorkguy]

Originally Posted by psionl0

....accused me of arguing in favour of creationism instead of critical thinking.

The other side of this is, you have posted twenty messages to this thread in the past twenty-four hours, more than half the messages posted to this thread in that time period, not one of them directly related to the subject: Governor Abbott wants to end mandatory public education. Most of the messages seem to be, primarily, about you. I write, 'seems to be,' because I've scrolled past most of them without more than a quick glance. Granted, you've had a lot of help.

In my opinion, this is the kind of out-of-control bickering that makes people give up on this forum.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by psionl0

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.

Lots wrong there.

First: Scientific theories can be challenged only if you have a body of data that contradicts it. At present there is no body of data that contradicts these theories therefor they are not at present changeable. You should not be teaching students that they are changeable because at present they are not.

Second: When data is found that challenges a theory rarely does it overturn that theory and it never changes the things that the theory already explains. For example when Relativity and Quantum Mechanics superseded Classical Physics we didn't stop using Classical Physics because within it's limitations it still works. Evolution and Climate Change will always explain what they explain even if new data comes along that necessitates a new theory.

Third: Climate change isn't really a theory, it's a mathematical outcome that arises from applying Conservation of Energy and the Stefan Boltzmann Law of Blackbody Radiation. You can still use the Scientific Method to verify that the math has been done correctly, and when this is done the results are confirmed.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You can't doctor past posts. The GOP agenda is irrelevant.

The GOP Agenda is irrelevant when discussing the GOP platform? That seems like a failure of critical thinking on your part.

Originally Posted by psionl0

It was the idea of teaching "critical thinking" (not creationism) in the classroom that is being knocked and I was criticized for defending critical thinking.

It says nothing about critical thinking, it says they want teach children that climate change and evolution are challengeable when in fact they are not because there is not body of data that challenges them.

Don't bother with crap like "what if new data..." when there is new data teach it, until then teach what the current data tells us. Or, do you think we should be teaching children that the next time they drop something it may fall upwards because gravity is a challengeable theory and new data could come along at any time. You can't teach critical thinking by appealing to something that may never happen.

[JoeMorgue]

When a Republican says 2+2=5 we can always count on someone on this board to run into the thread about it and scream "NO 2+2=49 and I demand a civil debate about that now!"

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

The other side of this is, you have posted twenty messages to this thread in the past twenty-four hours, more than half the messages posted to this thread in that time period, not one of them directly related to the subject: Governor Abbott wants to end mandatory public education. Most of the messages seem to be, primarily, about you. I write, 'seems to be,' because I've scrolled past most of them without more than a quick glance. Granted, you've had a lot of help.

In my opinion, this is the kind of out-of-control bickering that makes people give up on this forum.

I think its fair though, to discuss the type of education here. After all, this Texas we're talking about - one of The Great Redneck Bastions of anti-science idiocy, racial intolerance and religious bigotry in America. There are certain posters here who it seems plain do not want mud people educated, least of all in their white privileged schools and exposing all their white privileged kiddies to all those ungodly ideas like diversity, racial harmony and evolution.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Darat

Which alternate scientific theory for evolution?

Neo-Lamarckism?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Darat

Which alternate scientific theory for evolution?

This is a trick question... there isn't one.

[smartcooky]

I disagree with the title of this thread made by the mod who moved the posts

... it should be "Should religious creation concepts be taught in schools as science?"

The answer is, of course, no! Not ever... Never!

Religion's idea of the beginning of the universe is nothing more than fantasy and fairytales, not worthy of serious discussion.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

Most of the messages seem to be, primarily, about you.

I can't help it if others want to make it about me instead of my argument. I notice you have just done the same thing.

[EaglePuncher]

Yawn...2 pages already for an extremely silly question.

Here, let me help you: Science is not a religion because (unlike religion) there is this thing called evidence involved. You may now continue to scream and yell about that fact.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is science a religion?

No. [/thread]

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Is science a religion?

No. [/thread]

Why are you answering a question I didn't ask?