Split Thread: Should creationism be taught as Science?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by psionl0

And the derail continues . . . .

The phrase "much that is religious" is too vague to mean anything. If you mean that we can use the scientific method to show that many claims in the bible are wrong (such as the universe is only 6000 years old) then that is true. But anything the bible says about God himself is beyond the realm of scientific testing.

For example, the notion that God determines the outcome when you roll dice (Proverbs 16:33) is totally unfalsifiable. You can say that it is nonsense but you can't say that "science proves" that this is nonsense. There endeth any discussion of gods in the science class room because science is theologically neutral.

What alternative scientific theories of evolution do you think should be considered, and on what basis do you think the current theory can be challenged?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Mojo

What alternative scientific theories of evolution do you think should be considered, and on what basis do you think the current theory can be challenged?

I'm not falling for that trick again.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by psionl0

And the derail continues . . . .

The phrase "much that is religious" is too vague to mean anything. If you mean that we can use the scientific method to show that many claims in the bible are wrong (such as the universe is only 6000 years old) then that is true. But anything the bible says about God himself is beyond the realm of scientific testing.

For example, the notion that God determines the outcome when you roll dice (Proverbs 16:33) is totally unfalsifiable. You can say that it is nonsense but you can't say that "science proves" that this is nonsense. There endeth any discussion of gods in the science class room because science is theologically neutral.

How do you mean, derail? I directly quoted your post, and directly addressed it, with zero spin, and in good faith. My response couldn't possibly have been a derail, not unless your own post itself was a derail.

Do you really want me to spell out religious stuff science has actively disproved? Seriously? Thunder? Olympus? Or don't non-Christian religions count as religious with you? And coming to the Bible, sure, the age of the universe, and the rest of that bilge, why not?

I made my position amply clear, I think. I clearly said that much of religion --- much, not all --- has been directly falsified by science. And the rest don't hold up to a scientific scrutiny either, because they don't provide compelling parsimonous explanation for our observations. That part of it is Sagan's dragon all over again. Non-falsifiable propositions aren't scientific, generally speaking, not science, generally speaking; and even when not directly falsified, unsupported random declarations are most certainly unscientific.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

How do you mean, derail?

This thread is supposed to be about critical thinking in science classes (in spite of the inappropriate title).

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Non-falsifiable propositions aren't scientific, generally speaking, not science, generally speaking; and even when not directly falsified, unsupported random declarations are most certainly unscientific.

Other than using the vague "scientific/unscientific", you are just paraphrasing me.

Re the old "invisible dragon" chestnut, it might serve a purpose to believe (or to convince others to believe) that there is an invisible dragon in your garage but other than pointing out that it is not scientifically falsifiable, it serves no purpose to discuss it in the science class room.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This thread is supposed to be about critical thinking in science classes (in spite of the inappropriate title).

Ah, ok. A mod-split thread of a derail from another thread. Well then, while this is a derail off of that earlier thread, surely this is bang on here, given that is literally what this thread's about? And in any case, since my post directly addressed your own post, I don't see how you can describe mine as a derail, not unless you accept that yours itself was a derail, from whatever original course you may have had in mind for your thread.

...Anyway, moving on. I agree, teaching critical thinking in schools seems like a great idea. But why just in science, though? Why not literature as well --- for instance, discussing controversial authorship (Shakespeare? The Bible?), and/or controversial content, and/or critical analysis and criticism of plots (as opposed to merely literary analysis)? Why not history, that is one field that would be a great subject for critical analysis and evaluation. Civics as well, obviously. And most importantly in religion, in religious schools where they actually teach religious subjects.

In fact, given that critical thinking is something so sorely needed, and in practice so sorely lacking, it would be a terrific idea to properly teach it in schools, rigorously, I'm with you there; but given that it is needed in every subject, not just science but also literature, and civics, and history, and religion (where religion is taught, in religious schools) surely a better idea would be to have a separate subject called Critical Thinking, that teaches critical thinking both standalone, and also as it relates to specific subjects taught in other classes? Why single out just science?

Quote:

Other than using the vague "scientific/unscientific", you are just paraphrasing me.

Re the old "invisible dragon" chestnut, it might serve a purpose to believe (or to convince others to believe) that there is an invisible dragon in your garage but other than pointing out that it is not scientifically falsifiable, it serves no purpose to discuss it in the science class room.

It's an argumentum ad absurdum. It shows how absurd the whole idea is, of even considering wild unsupported declarations (including of the kind the Bible makes, the unfalsified and unfalsifiable bits).

Think about it. In your scheme of things, in science class about evolution, you'd need to have Creationism also discussed, as well as Maori creation myths, as well as creation stories from Hindu mythology and ...well, why stop with religion, why not out-and-out fiction like the Silmarillion as well, and interesting sci-fi .....as well as, I suppose, wild random "theories" that students might be able to come up with themselves? That won't even be a science class any more.

And again, why just science class, right? Why not literature as well, and history as well, and civics as well, and religious studies as well (in religious schools)? Well, there also, those classes would devolve to chaos, and not even look like history classes any more, or civics classes, or literature classes.

Once again, your point about emphasizing teaching of critical thinking rigorously is well taken. But it makes sense to make it a separate subject, then, rather than merge that teaching with other subjects like history and science and literature and religious studies.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

I agree, teaching critical thinking in schools seems like a great idea. But why just in science, though? Why not literature as well --- for instance, discussing controversial authorship (Shakespeare? The Bible?), and/or controversial content, and/or critical analysis and criticism of plots (as opposed to merely literary analysis)? Why not history, that is one field that would be a great subject for critical analysis and evaluation.

By "critical thinking" what I mean is that lessons should be structured in the form of "We observe X", "We apply Y", "We conclude Z". Too many teachers short circuit this process and just say "Z". It may be that STEM teachers are in short supply - especially in public schools - but this teaching approach denies the student the tools they need when they hear a preacher say "scientists are lying".

Yes, this approach should be applied in other subjects ("Historian X says ..." "Records show ...") but that is for another thread to deal with.

Originally Posted by Chanakya

It's an argumentum ad absurdum. It shows how absurd the whole idea is, of even considering wild unsupported declarations (including of the kind the Bible makes, the unfalsified and unfalsifiable bits).

I know what Carl Sagan was demonstrating here. "I say X now prove me wrong" is a ridiculous way to argue about something. I could just as easily say "You are making it up now YOU prove ME wrong" (which is not a scientific answer).

However, his assertion that there is no difference between believing in God and believing in invisible dragons remains that - just an assertion. One belief has a lot more adherents than the other but neither is scientifically falsifiable.

Originally Posted by Chanakya

In your scheme of things, in science class about evolution, you'd need to have Creationism also discussed, as well as Maori creation myths, as well as creation stories from Hindu mythology and ...well, why stop with religion, why not out-and-out fiction like the Silmarillion as well, and interesting sci-fi .....as well as, I suppose, wild random "theories" that students might be able to come up with themselves?

If you read my posts properly you will see that I am arguing the exact opposite. Beyond saying "it's unfalsifiable" there is nothing to discuss within a scientific context.

However, since Judaeo/Christian/Islamic religions are so prevalent and have so many believers, it might be worth giving Genesis a second look to see if any of it is reconcilable to scientific principles. https://answersingenesis.org/ attempts to do so and it could be quite instructive for students to examine the flaws in their reasoning but that is an aside and not something that I am advocating (I am merely distinguishing between things that are widely believed and things that almost nobody believes).

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I actually stated the EXACT OPPOSITE of this notion. Stop lying about my posts.

Ad-hom instead of addressing my points. I take that as "I yield". Match over.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

Ad-hom instead of addressing my points. I take that as "I yield". Match over.

If I don't address other points in your post it is because I don't disagree with them.

But if you are going to say that I am advocating examining every crack pot "goddidit" theory under the sun in a science class room then I am perfectly entitled to go beyond "you don't understand what I posted". You might as well ask me when I stopped beating my wife.

[Pixel42]

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.

The statement was carefully worded precisely so that this sort of defence could be made for it. Disregarding the agenda and making it is playing right into their hands.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

The statement was carefully worded precisely so that this sort of defence could be made for it.

And also, of course, to imply that Christians are being oppressed.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

The statement was carefully worded precisely so that this sort of defence could be made for it. Disregarding the agenda and making it is playing right into their hands.

Not really. If their real agenda is to get ID taught as "valid" science then sooner or later they are going to have to drop this facade and won't be able to fool anybody anymore.

In the mean time, nobody is saying "we must not have ID taught as valid science in schools". They are responding to the "carefully worded" statement and saying "we must not have critical thinking in schools". That is damaging.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I'm not falling for that trick again.

The questions can only “trick” you if you don’t have valid answers to them. And since the only alternative you have offered is “goddidit”, it looks rather as if you don’t.

The ball is in your court.

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by psionl0

They are responding to the "carefully worded" statement and saying "we must not have critical thinking in schools". That is damaging.

I see we have arrived at Psions "I lie because I am very angry that no one agrees with my silly assertions"-stage.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by psionl0

They are responding to the "carefully worded" statement and saying "we must not have critical thinking in schools".

Can you link to some posts where people other than you have said that, please?

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by psionl0

By "critical thinking" what I mean is that lessons should be structured in the form of "We observe X", "We apply Y", "We conclude Z". Too many teachers short circuit this process and just say "Z". It may be that STEM teachers are in short supply - especially in public schools - but this teaching approach denies the student the tools they need when they hear a preacher say "scientists are lying".

Yes, this approach should be applied in other subjects ("Historian X says ..." "Records show ...") but that is for another thread to deal with.

Not really. My point was this: this applies to science, and also to religious studies (where taught), and also to history, and also to civics, in short to practically everything that's taught. So that, while it's good to teach critical thinking, but it makes sense to teach it separately.

(Like you know, teaching English? Good to have literate teachers that can correct your grammar even when teaching science, if the teacher's skilled enough to manage that sort of thing without derailing their class, sure; but makes sense to teach the subject separately, and also doesn't make sense to insist every teacher necessarily becomes an expert in also teaching English, or to even attempt it if they don't feel drawn to.)

Quote:

I know what Carl Sagan was demonstrating here. "I say X now prove me wrong" is a ridiculous way to argue about something. I could just as easily say "You are making it up now YOU prove ME wrong" (which is not a scientific answer).

However, his assertion that there is no difference between believing in God and believing in invisible dragons remains that - just an assertion. One belief has a lot more adherents than the other but neither is scientifically falsifiable.

So what if a belief has lots of adherents? That contributes nothing to its truth value. That's an out-and-out argumentum ad populum.

Sure, wild religious ideas might merit discussion, in general terms, and should they be discussed at all it is good that they be discussed critically: but surely the place to do that would be in a class teaching religious studies (where such are taught), or a class dedicated to teaching critical thinking, like I was saying? Otherwise every class will end up getting derailed.

I emphasize again, it's not just history, along with science. It's practically everything. Science, and history, and literature, and civics, and religious studies (where taught), practically everything that's taught.

Quote:

If you read my posts properly you will see that I am arguing the exact opposite. Beyond saying "it's unfalsifiable" there is nothing to discuss within a scientific context.

Why propose dragging it into the science class, then?

Quote:

However, since Judaeo/Christian/Islamic religions are so prevalent and have so many believers, it might be worth giving Genesis a second look to see if any of it is reconcilable to scientific principles. https://answersingenesis.org/ attempts to do so and it could be quite instructive for students to examine the flaws in their reasoning but that is an aside and not something that I am advocating (I am merely distinguishing between things that are widely believed and things that almost nobody believes).

Once again, blatant argumentum ad populum. Makes no sense.

And also: why on earth just the Abrahamic religions? By that token you'd need to examine the stories of every major denomination of every religion, including the Abrahamic ones, but also the other major religions like Buddhism, and Hinduism, and Daoism, and ...well, you name it. Why just the Abrahamic religions, this makes no sense.

Like I said, critically examining these ideas isn't bad. but probably a separate critical thinking class might be good. Because this isn't about science per se, but about practically everything the kids are taught at school, in every class.

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by psionl0

However, since Judaeo/Christian/Islamic religions are so prevalent and have so many believers, it might be worth giving Genesis a second look to see if any of it is reconcilable to scientific principles.

Done many times, the conclusion was and is : "gods do not exist". Deal with it.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Why propose dragging it into the science class, then?

So that the teacher is forced to admit that he can’t falsify it, and HAHA GOTCHA!!!

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I'm not falling for that trick again.

Anyway, why do you say, “again”? You don’t so far seem to have attempted to answer either question.

Your offer of “goddidit” was part of an attempt to imply that if students bring it up they are “ostracized” and “ridiculed”, and that this belief, if brought up in science lessons, shouldn’t be challenged because science should be “theologically neutral”.

[Mojo]

Here it is, by the way:

Originally Posted by psionl0

Everything should be open to questions. If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so. An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.

This looks suspiciously like an assertion that critical thinking should only be applied to those ideas on which science is not required to be “theologically neutral”.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

So what if a belief has lots of adherents? That contributes nothing to its truth value. That's an out-and-out argumentum ad populum.

You are not reading me right. I said "it might be worth giving Genesis a second look". Large numbers of students are going to school with beliefs that are incompatible to what they will learn in the science room. That's a lot of people who aren't going to get much out of a science class if their beliefs aren't addressed.

However, I am only postulating this as a possible exception to the "it's unfalsifiabe - we won't waste any more time on this" rule. I am willing to accept that we don't need to deal with their beliefs at all or that we should deal with their beliefs elsewhere and leave it out of the science class room.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Beyond saying "it's unfalsifiable" there is nothing to discuss within a scientific context.

Do you know what we call unfalsifiable ideas presented in a scientific context?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You are not reading me right. I said "it might be worth giving Genesis a second look".

But if you require science to be “theologically neutral” it can’t be examined in science lessons.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Can you link to some posts where people other than you have said that, please?

Well there is this post but I must admit that the GOP stance seems rather confusing. On the one hand they say that they are opposed to critical thinking in the class room but then they say that "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" which IS critical thinking. So if I use the words "critical thinking" when they are not explicitly used in the context, I am referring to the statement that the GOP made.

Originally Posted by Mojo

The questions can only “trick” you if you don’t have valid answers to them. And since the only alternative you have offered is “goddidit”, it looks rather as if you don’t.

That's the trick. The objective is to try and rail road me into inadvertently posting a word that could be misinterpreted as an entire creationist argument.

Then we can have 1000 pages of posters berating me for my "dishonesty".

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Well there is this post…

No, I meant posts supporting your assertion that people here are saying, "we must not have critical thinking in schools".

Quote:

That's the trick. The objective is to try and rail road me into inadvertently posting a word that could be misinterpreted as an entire creationist argument.

That horse bolted the moment you presented “goddiddit” as an idea that should be presented unchallenged in science classes. The only way you can now salvage your position is to present credible alternative scientific theories to evolution, and the grounds on which the current theory should be challenged.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Mojo

It’s the only alternative you have been able to present.

And when asked out right about what other theories should be taught they completely ignore the question.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Darat

And when asked out right about what other theories should be taught they completely ignore the question.

That question has been addressed. (One poster even pointed out that there is no "official" theory of evolution).

Your nose is just out of joint because I haven't posted several pages of an evolutionary theory that you can poke holes in.

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You are not reading me right. I said "it might be worth giving Genesis a second look". Large numbers of students are going to school with beliefs that are incompatible to what they will learn in the science room. That's a lot of people who aren't going to get much out of a science class if their beliefs aren't addressed.

However, I am only postulating this as apossible exception to the "it's unfalsifiabe - we won't waste any more time on this" rule. I am willing to accept that we don't need to deal with their beliefs at all or that we should deal with their beliefs elsewhere and leave it out of the science class room.

The correct course of action is: Despite many many many claims about supernatural beings directly interacting with us humans and nature, not a single shred of evidence was found.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Ah, ok. A mod-split thread of a derail from another thread. Well then, while this is a derail off of that earlier thread, surely this is bang on here, given that is literally what this thread's about? And in any case, since my post directly addressed your own post, I don't see how you can describe mine as a derail, not unless you accept that yours itself was a derail, from whatever original course you may have had in mind for your thread.

...Anyway, moving on. I agree, teaching critical thinking in schools seems like a great idea. But why just in science, though? Why not literature as well --- for instance, discussing controversial authorship (Shakespeare? The Bible?), and/or controversial content, and/or critical analysis and criticism of plots (as opposed to merely literary analysis)? Why not history, that is one field that would be a great subject for critical analysis and evaluation. Civics as well, obviously. And most importantly in religion, in religious schools where they actually teach religious subjects.

In fact, given that critical thinking is something so sorely needed, and in practice so sorely lacking, it would be a terrific idea to properly teach it in schools, rigorously, I'm with you there; but given that it is needed in every subject, not just science but also literature, and civics, and history, and religion (where religion is taught, in religious schools) surely a better idea would be to have a separate subject called Critical Thinking, that teaches critical thinking both standalone, and also as it relates to specific subjects taught in other classes? Why single out just science?





It's an argumentum ad absurdum. It shows how absurd the whole idea is, of even considering wild unsupported declarations (including of the kind the Bible makes, the unfalsified and unfalsifiable bits).

Think about it. In your scheme of things, in science class about evolution, you'd need to have Creationism also discussed, as well as Maori creation myths, as well as creation stories from Hindu mythology and ...well, why stop with religion, why not out-and-out fiction like the Silmarillion as well, and interesting sci-fi .....as well as, I suppose, wild random "theories" that students might be able to come up with themselves? That won't even be a science class any more.

And again, why just science class, right? Why not literature as well, and history as well, and civics as well, and religious studies as well (in religious schools)? Well, there also, those classes would devolve to chaos, and not even look like history classes any more, or civics classes, or literature classes.

Once again, your point about emphasizing teaching of critical thinking rigorously is well taken. But it makes sense to make it a separate subject, then, rather than merge that teaching with other subjects like history and science and literature and religious studies.

They have made their ignorance of current education for under 16s clear to all. For instance they don't think kids are any longer taught 2+2=4 in math classes, that the North Pole is rather chilly in geography lessons.

Their view of under 16s education is -to put it poilitley - peculiar to say the least.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You are not reading me right. I said "it might be worth giving Genesis a second look"

"Genesis" is fantasy fiction. Its not even worth a first look...

Originally Posted by psionl0

Large numbers of students are going to school with beliefs that are incompatible to what they will learn in the science room. That's a lot of people who aren't going to get much out of a science class if their beliefs aren't addressed.

Tough to be them. If they want to learn about actual science, then its surely better for them to do actual science, and not indulge in fairytales.

Originally Posted by psionl0

However, I am only postulating this as a possible exception to the "it's unfalsifiabe - we won't waste any more time on this" rule.

Its not just a "rule", ITS A FUNDAMENTAL TENET OF SCIENCE!!!!

Originally Posted by psionl0

I am willing to accept that we don't need to deal with their beliefs at all or that we should deal with their beliefs elsewhere and leave it out of the science class room.

This is the first thing you have posted in this thread that makes any sense whatsoever.
.
.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Darat

They have made their ignorance of current education for under 16s clear to all. For instance they don't think kids are any longer taught 2+2=4 in math classes, that the North Pole is rather chilly in geography lessons.

Their view of under 16s education is -to put it poilitley - peculiar to say the least.

They’ve already admitted that they…

Originally Posted by psionl0

…don't care that the GOP wants to cast education back into the middle ages.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This is why I am reluctant to answer questions like these. Everybody is trying to trap me into appearing to be a religious nut and hence derail the thread.

I'm afraid that ship has already sailed!

When someone who claims not to be a theist spends such an inordinate amount of time staunchly defending theist principles, others will understandably grow suspsicious of that someone's motives!

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

When someone who claims not to be a theist spends such an inordinate amount of time staunchly defending theist principles, others will understandably grow suspsicious of that someone's motives!

Your problem is that you can't cope with the fact that there are some things that can be falsified with the scientific method and some things that can't - even though you "know" that they are wrong.

Of course, this is a fact that you can't argue against so just to be disagreeable, you label me a "theist" so that you have something to argue about.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Your problem is that you can't cope with the fact that there are some things that can be falsified with the scientific method and some things that can't - even though you "know" that they are wrong.

Such as?

Originally Posted by psionl0

Of course, this is a fact that you can't argue against

Non-sequitur - its not a fact at all

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Such as?

"God", he means "god". A god that is hiding in just the right moments, but after we unsuccessfully tried to detect him he continues to physically interact with the universe. And he exists because those eggheads in their lab coats can't falsify him. Same as the Tooth Fairy btw. Of course there actually aren't any methods for detecting gods or tooth fairies, which is very convenient for some people.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by psionl0

And the derail continues . . . .

The phrase "much that is religious" is too vague to mean anything. If you mean that we can use the scientific method to show that many claims in the bible are wrong (such as the universe is only 6000 years old) then that is true. But anything the bible says about God himself is beyond the realm of scientific testing.

For example, the notion that God determines the outcome when you roll dice (Proverbs 16:33) is totally unfalsifiable. You can say that it is nonsense but you can't say that "science proves" that this is nonsense. There endeth any discussion of gods in the science class room because science is theologically neutral.

It's certainly not beyond scientific testing. Science does not claim to provide literal proofs (or disproof), for anything. The closest that science gets, is to declare any particular explanation to be a "Theory" ... and a Theory is an explanation which has such enormous evidential support, and such overwhelming agreement amongst genuine scientists in that exact field, that it's not possible to argue that it's wrong by producing genuine counter evidence, calculation and explanation that is significantly different to the established Theory.

The essential point is that scientific explanation is strongly supported by all the known properly verified evidence, such that there is no credible reason to doubt the consensus explanation ... that's what we have with things like Evolution, Relativity, Quantum Theory etc.

So, coming to the highlighted sentence above – if the bible makes any claim about what a claimed/believed God can do or has done, then science can very easily investigate such claims to see if the claim is supported by any of the known evidence … and in the case of all God claims there is no credible evidence to support the claims – and that is the conclusion of Science.

Those religious claims are in fact all claims of the supernatural. But what science has shown, and concluded, is that all such supernatural claims are untenable … they are in contradiction with all known evidence and in contradiction with all discoveries, explanations, calculation and all testing and all methods of confirmation ever devised by any method objective enough and precise enough to count as “Science”.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by IanS

So, coming to the highlighted sentence above – if the bible makes any claim about what a claimed/believed God can do or has done, then science can very easily investigate such claims to see if the claim is supported by any of the known evidence … and in the case of all God claims there is no credible evidence to support the claims – and that is the conclusion of Science.

Either you misunderstood my post or you are making a claim which is just plain false.

Like the invisible dragon, if somebody claims that the outcome of a dice roll is controlled by God then there is no scientific test that can prove otherwise. All you can do is show that the outcomes are consistent with random forces. Similarly, there is no scientific test that can determine the mind of God (obvious if there is no god).

Such claims may be unbelievable and not worth a second glance but that is not a scientific standard.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That question has been addressed. (One poster even pointed out that there is no "official" theory of evolution).

...snip..

You still have not answered the question.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Either you misunderstood my post or you are making a claim which is just plain false.

Like the invisible dragon, if somebody claims that the outcome of a dice roll is controlled by God then there is no scientific test that can prove otherwise. All you can do is show that the outcomes are consistent with random forces. Similarly, there is no scientific test that can determine the mind of God (obvious if there is no god).

Such claims may be unbelievable and not worth a second glance but that is not a scientific standard.

It is a scientific standard, though, per my lights. Let me spell out what I'm thinking.

Are thunders caused by bolts being hurled down by an angry Thor (or Zeus, or Indra, or whoever)? I haven't looked, but I'm pretty much sure there's no paper actually discussing that precise thing. However, in as much as science has given us a very plausible explanation of the how of it, without having to invoke furious Gods, therefore I'd say it is "scientific" --- that is, in accord with a scientific worldview, even if this specific question is not directly borne out by the precise steps of the scientific method --- to reject the notion of thunder being caused by livid gods.

Likewise, I should think, with the God of the dice? That is, we have a good enough idea of how the dice rolls play out, basis what science has already shown us. And introducing a God of the dice does not improve on that explanation, and in any case raises twenty other unanswered questions, and finally is entirely lacking in evidentiary support. Therefore, I should think it is very much "scientific" to reject a God of the dice. I should think such rejection would accord with a scientific standard, even if there's no research paper that's directly titled "Experiments that disprove, step by step following the scientific method, the god of the dice".

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You are not reading me right. I said "it might be worth giving Genesis a second look". Large numbers of students are going to school with beliefs that are incompatible to what they will learn in the science room. That's a lot of people who aren't going to get much out of a science class if their beliefs aren't addressed.

However, I am only postulating this as a possible exception to the "it's unfalsifiabe - we won't waste any more time on this" rule. I am willing to accept that we don't need to deal with their beliefs at all or that we should deal with their beliefs elsewhere and leave it out of the science class room.

As far as the highlighted (highlighted with bold font, to set it apart from the highlighted text in your quote): That seems reasonable, I should think.


So then, it seems you're not talking about generally teaching kids critical thinking, as I'd imagined you were doing. Fair enough. (Although, and incidentally, I continue to think that's a terrific idea. But I guess that's a separate subject, then, for a separate thread.)




Actually I'm on board with what you seem to be suggesting here. In practice it may not be possible, because it might cause resentment with the religious, but that practical and political consideration apart, I think this idea makes sense: Profile students to see which of them are likely to be 'critically challenged', by seeing whose parents self-describe as religious (and therefore likely to subscribe to cock-eyed belief systems, that they might have infected their child with). Then, just like you hold separate corrective classes for students that are lacking in some specific skill, likewise you could herd these 'critically challenged' kids together into special critical thinking classes designed specifically to clearly show them that all of that bilge that they may have learnt from their parents or maybe from religious instructors is just that, bilge, and that they should focus on what is being taught in class without reference to all of that nonsense, other than maybe to laugh at those quaint ideas that their religion teaches them.

I like the sound of that. In practice it may cause said cock-eyed parents to go ballistic and line the streets in protest, so in practice this seems undoable: but in a perfect world, in a world not hobbled by this kind practical and political considerations, I'd be happy to back this kind of a move.

[Darat]

You are wicked!