Split Thread: Should creationism be taught as Science?

[bruto]

I guess I'm a little confused here. We're told there is no "official" theory of evolution, and this is why we must allow religious arguments in science classes.

But isn't one of the things about real science that it does not produce official theories of stuff, and is open to new data, learning and understanding? By contrast, the religious argument is that there is indeed an official theory of evolution, and everything else, and that no further research, thought, or discovery can ever contradict a core set of holy beliefs.

If the lack of an official theory of evolution has any relevance, I should think it disqualifies religious arguments as science right from the start.

This whole thread strikes me as another form of semantic persiflage, in which we can go round and round debating whether the absence of something is a subset of the thing it isn't.

[jrhowell]

Originally Posted by psionl0

..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.

"Without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind" is actually code for without fear of denial or refutation. That is the opposite of critical thinking.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Darat

You are wicked!

Heh.


But although I guess how I seem to have ended up phrasing my post comes out as ...funny, but seriously, this does seem like a good idea, if only it could actually be done in practice. psion10 seems to have identified a real issue here, a real potential issue: When children whose superstitious parents and this whole gaggle of church teachers or whatever they've been exposed to, keep drilling into these young impressionable minds nonsensical ideas from Christian and/or Muslim and/or Judiac and/or Buddhistic and/or Hindu and/or whatever myths as fact, then it is quite possible that they might be conflicted when exposed to real science in school, and conflicted in a way other more normal children (who've not been indoctrinated into such supersitions) will not be.

So that, just like you hold correctional classes for children with specific learning disabilities, it does make sense to hold special correctional classes for these critically challenged kids. Where all religious BS --- not just of the Abrahamic variety, like psion10 is saying, but from all religions everywhere --- is clearly discussed, explained, and shown up as the utter nonsense it is. That acutally does make sense --- apart, that is, from the inevitable reaction that might elicit from the religious, and especially the parents of these specific kids.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

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.

You have evidently decided to make a strawman out of every argument I have given you.

I shouldn't be surprised. The notion that gods are scientifically unfalsifiable is too much for some people. It must drive them insane to know that they don't exist but can't prove it.

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by Mojo

I’ve already quoted the post where you presented “goddiddit” as an idea that should be presented unchallenged in science classes, but here it is again:


How is science to challenge “goddiddit” while being “theologically neutral”?

By pointing out that the activities of such a god are indistinguishable from natural processes and that Science gives precedence to natural explanations over supernatural ones.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

By pointing out that the activities of such a god are indistinguishable from natural processes and that Science gives precedence to natural explanations over supernatural ones.

That is actually a good answer.

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That is actually a good answer.

Gee, try not to sound so shocked.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

Gee, try not to sound so shocked.

Just take the compliment. I assure you, I'm not being sarcastic.

[ahhell]

Haven't read much of the thread because I'm lazy, I know its a bit of a dick move.

To the op, science properly understood, isn't a religion. Some folks kind of treat it that way. "follow the science" became a bit of mantra recently. Lots of lay folk are guilty of scientism, which I'd define as selectively accepting the science you like via confirmation bias. There's also the thing that most of us can't really follow the science, I generally just accept what I understand to be the scientific consensus on all sorts of issues. I accept the consensus on climate change in almost a faith based way. I can't dive into the data and figure it out for my self and that sort of resembles the faithful who believe the clergy.

Its not a religion but if squint a bit and are looking for things that confirm your belief I can understand why folks think it might be.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You have evidently decided to make a strawman out of every argument I have given you.

What on earth are you talking about? What strawman, where?

Quote:

I shouldn't be surprised. The notion that gods are scientifically unfalsifiable is too much for some people. It must drive them insane to know that they don't exist but can't prove it.

This here is where the straw is, right there. It's you who are twisting my words, not the other way around.

Twice at least I've clearly spelt out, in so many words, that some religious claims are directly falsifiable, and in that way directly refuted --- some, not all. But the rest of these religious claims (including the specific one you discussed in yours posts addressed to me), even when not directly falified/falsifiable, nevertheless in as much as they are not borne out by what science tells us, therefore they have no place whatever is a sane rational scientific worldview.


----------


And in any case, I note that you've ignored the bulk of my post, which actually discusses the meat of your suggestion about teaching critical thinking about scientific issues to those children that are hobbled by religious indoctrination. My post directly acknowledges, and addresses, your concern. I find it very curious that you bypass that very ...meaty? discussion in my post, while at the same time complaining that everyone here is derailing from the concern you raise about introducing critical thinking on scientific matters (and specifically as it affects the religiously indoctrinated, as you've clarified subsequently).

Whatever, address it or not, your call, but not doing that already, does raise questions about your motives in introducing this discussion in the first place. Note that as far as I'm concerned, I've engaged with you fully in good faith throughout. Happy to bow out now, as it is clear you're not really looking to have your concern addressed.

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You have evidently decided to make a strawman out of every argument I have given you.

I shouldn't be surprised. The notion that gods are scientifically unfalsifiable is too much for some people. It must drive them insane to know that they don't exist but can't prove it.

Nah, if you take a look at reality instead of the world full of strawmen you live in you'll realize that religions influence is going down every year. More and more people ignore religion, there's no one who is driven insane by some seemingly unfalsifiable, unimportant drivel like religion.

Religion is disproven every day, every second.

You, of course, are intentionally ignoring the fact that despite many claims, no interaction with gods has happened for (at least) the last 1500 years.

Science has more important things to do than falsifying fairytales

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I shouldn't be surprised. The notion that gods are scientifically unfalsifiable is too much for some people. It must drive them insane to know that they don't exist but can't prove it.

Science does not work that way, and no amount of your bare-faced lying about it will make it so. The non-falsifiability of gods is one of the greatest, most important pieces of evidence for their non-existence - they are unfalsifiable not because of their nature, but because there is no supporting evidence of their existence - there is no evidence to falsify!!

The onus for the proving the existence of gods is solely on theists, anything else is yet another is a reversal of the burden of proof. It drives some theists insane to know that they can't prove their gods exist, and that they must rely solely on faith, dogma and indoctrination to gull their fool adherents into continued belief.
.
.

[IanS]

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.

NO, absolutely not. Look at the first highlight of your words above - what you have done there is smuggle in the word "proof", even though I just took the trouble to explain why neither science nor anything else can claim actual "proof" in the sense of claiming 100% unarguable certainty for anything.

As for your second highlight - you need to first show that any such God is likely to exist. And to do that you need to show genuine testable evidence for all of the actions claimed to come from the God. In biblical times people believed there was such evidence. They believed that things such as thunder & lightning were certain evidence of God. But what we learned from modern science is that the claimed evidence was never any sort of credible evidence of any such God at all ... if you make a claim that the biblical God exists and claim that he/she/it does anything, then you have to show genuine evidence for that … and of course there is no such genuine evidence.

[bruto]

Finer points aside: if religion is science, what is not science?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by bruto

Finer points aside: if religion is science, what is not science?

Religious people often try to argue that whilst religion relies on "faith", so too does science ... both religion and science depend on belief ... everything that we detect, understand or experience is a matter of "belief" ... in the end that sort of argument probably just reduces to so-called "Hard Solipsism", or the idea that we may be just "a brain in a vat" (though where any such “brain” or the "vat" came from, and how that ever recognises/experiences any information, seems to be unexplained).

But of course the big difference is that religion has no genuine credible evidence to support it's belief/faith. Whereas as science is based entirely on the "belief" that we are detecting a genuine reality around us where we can test and measure innumerable aspects of that reality.

In any case, it seems that we have no other option except to accept that what our senses detect is indeed real (even if our senses, or any scientific tests/devices, are limited and subject to various possible errors or approximations etc.). IOW, we try to do the best that we can to explain the world around us as honestly and objectively as we can; or at least science does that (religion does not really attempt to do that ... otherwise it would become science!).

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by EaglePuncher

You, of course, are intentionally ignoring the fact that despite many claims, no interaction with gods has happened for (at least) the last 1500 years.

Science has more important things to do than falsifying fairytales

Positive proof that God is good at hiding.

Interesting that miracles are hard to find in modern times. Take the knack of levitation. If you read about some of the RCC saints, it would seem the air was thick with flying holy men, many years ago.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by IanS

Religious people often try to argue that whilst religion relies on "faith", so too does science ... both religion and science depend on belief ... everything that we detect, understand or experience is a matter of "belief" ... in the end that sort of argument probably just reduces to so-called "Hard Solipsism", or the idea that we may be just "a brain in a vat" (though where any such “brain” or the "vat" came from, and how that ever recognises/experiences any information, seems to be unexplained).

But of course the big difference is that religion has no genuine credible evidence to support it's belief/faith. Whereas as science is based entirely on the "belief" that we are detecting a genuine reality around us where we can test and measure innumerable aspects of that reality.

In any case, it seems that we have no other option except to accept that what our senses detect is indeed real (even if our senses, or any scientific tests/devices, are limited and subject to various possible errors or approximations etc.). IOW, we try to do the best that we can to explain the world around us as honestly and objectively as we can; or at least science does that (religion does not really attempt to do that ... otherwise it would become science!).

We undertake just about everything on some kind of faith - as you say, our faith in science is faith that the world is real and that we can learn things from it, but faith in religion is recursive - it's faith in faith.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by IanS

NO, absolutely not. Look at the first highlight of your words above - what you have done there is smuggle in the word "proof", even though I just took the trouble to explain why neither science nor anything else can claim actual "proof" in the sense of claiming 100% unarguable certainty for anything.

As for your second highlight - you need to first show that any such God is likely to exist. And to do that you need to show genuine testable evidence for all of the actions claimed to come from the God. In biblical times people believed there was such evidence. They believed that things such as thunder & lightning were certain evidence of God. But what we learned from modern science is that the claimed evidence was never any sort of credible evidence of any such God at all ... if you make a claim that the biblical God exists and claim that he/she/it does anything, then you have to show genuine evidence for that … and of course there is no such genuine evidence.

This is an example of why this thread generates so much heat and so little insight.

There are varying standards of "proof". You have assumed the highest standard of all (mathematical certainty) so that you can take me to task over my statement. The peculiar thing is that you don't even dispute the sentiment. There isn't a scientific test that would even give a hint that God is behind the outcome of dice rolls. (Or am I reading you wrong?)

The second highlighted line in the post you quoted makes it quite clear that you can't test for the mind of God if there are no gods. Yet you devote an entire paragraph chiding me for "not" pointing out that you need to establish that gods exist before you can try and determine their minds.

Like so many others in this thread, you are not posting something that actually disagrees with what I posted. You are trying to make it appear that I posted something different so that you can "correct" me.

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This is an example of why this thread generates so much heat and so little insight.

There are varying standards of "proof". You have assumed the highest standard of all (mathematical certainty) so that you can take me to task over my statement. The peculiar thing is that you don't even dispute the sentiment. There isn't a scientific test that would even give a hint that God is behind the outcome of dice rolls. (Or am I reading you wrong?)

The second highlighted line in the post you quoted makes it quite clear that you can't test for the mind of God if there are no gods. Yet you devote an entire paragraph chiding me for "not" pointing out that you need to establish that gods exist before you can try and determine their minds.

Like so many others in this thread, you are not posting something that actually disagrees with what I posted. You are trying to make it appear that I posted something different so that you can "correct" me.

You have been rightfully corrected on many things, you just chose to ignore these posts in your usual dishonest way.

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Positive proof that God is good at hiding.

Interesting that miracles are hard to find in modern times. Take the knack of levitation. If you read about some of the RCC saints, it would seem the air was thick with flying holy men, many years ago.

It absolutely baffles me how in 2022 one could even claim "Maybe there is a god" while unspeakable things are happening every day for the last 1500 years which would easily justify another great flood.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Note that as far as I'm concerned, I've engaged with you fully in good faith throughout.

When you make statements like "So then, it seems you're not talking about generally teaching kids critical thinking, as I'd imagined you were doing" or go on about creating special re-education classes for students with a religious upbringing (as if this is my intent) then I am not so sure.

Maybe I haven't said it in so many words but science students should understand the "how" and not just the "what". Just giving them the facts without justification is not critical thinking.

Re Genesis, many students have been raised to believe that it is a valid alternative explanation for the world. So I say, let Genesis be subject to scientific scrutiny in a science class. If you disagree then that's fine but don't go on about special re-education classes.

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by psionl0

So I say, let Genesis be subject to scientific scrutiny in a science class.

Would be a rather short lesson..."Is there any evidence for genesis? No. Let's do something worthwhile now."

[Darat]

Originally Posted by psionl0

...snip...

Re Genesis, many students have been raised to believe that it is a valid alternative explanation for the world. So I say, let Genesis be subject to scientific scrutiny in a science class. If you disagree then that's fine but don't go on about special re-education classes.

All the major religions have creation stories, why are you limiting it to Genesis? And even limiting it to the tale in genesis do you mean the Christian or Judaic interpretation of Genesis? And if Christian which denomination of Christianity's interpretation will you use?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by bruto

We undertake just about everything on some kind of faith - as you say, our faith in science is faith that the world is real and that we can learn things from it, but faith in religion is recursive - it's faith in faith.

The word faith is often used to seemingly try and muddy the waters, like the word belief, faith has several meanings, and you'll find folk will slip between the definitions. The "faith" we have in the scientific process is different to the religious meaning of the word.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This is an example of why this thread generates so much heat and so little insight.

There are varying standards of "proof". You have assumed the highest standard of all (mathematical certainty) so that you can take me to task over my statement.

You are either not reading what is said, or else not understanding it. I did not say anything about maths or about what is labelled to be a "proof" in maths. Though in fact, afaik, even in maths, wherever that maths is claimed as an explanation of our perceived objective reality, the maths does not actually provide a literal proof in that sense of literal physical certainty ... that is - even in the maths there is always some underlying assumption that is not actually "proved". However, that's a side-issue here, so back to what either of us were saying ...

... you cannot have " varying standards of "proof" ". The word & the concept of "proof" is a claim of showing absolute unarguable 100% certainty. And as far as we can tell from current science (most specifically from the inherent uncertainty in quantum interactions ... which are, as far as we can tell, the basis of everything comprising observed "reality"), it is not actually possible ever to be truly certain about anything, or therefore to produce any literal "proof" or disproof of anything ... we are always relying on the existence of what we experience as "objective reality" (but we cannot literally "prove" that what we experience as that reality is indeed as real as it seems to us ... afaik, there is no good or credible reason to doubt reality, but that's not the same as claiming to have absolute proof of the observed reality).

Originally Posted by psionl0

The peculiar thing is that you don't even dispute the sentiment. There isn't a scientific test that would even give a hint that God is behind the outcome of dice rolls. (Or am I reading you wrong?)

Of course you can have a scientific "test" to detect a "hint" that a God (that means a biblical-type heavenly supernatural being) is NOT controlling any part of anything such as rolling dice ... all that is needed to establish any such "hint" is to show evidence of how the dice are rolled by perfectly natural forces such as a human hand, and how the outcome is determined by other natural forces such as friction, momentum, gravity, pressure etc. It's simply a matter of whatever evidence we can show for any such cause. And to the contrary, there is no evidence that any supernatural unexplained God is involved.

Remember ; we are not claiming to produce a "proof" here (ie within or from science). We are just claiming that what we observe as evidence, is compatible with a perfectly natural explanation that is in accordance with the "laws" of physics.

Originally Posted by psionl0

The second highlighted line in the post you quoted makes it quite clear that you can't test for the mind of God if there are no gods. Yet you devote an entire paragraph chiding me for "not" pointing out that you need to establish that gods exist before you can try and determine their minds.

Of course you can test for "the mind of a God, if there is no such God". You simply test for the existence of any of the attributes claimed for the God ... and if you do not find any evidence of the claimed attributes, then you conclude that there is no evidence to support belief in that God. For example, that same God was originally claimed to be the cause of thunder & lightening ... but 2000 years after that religious claim, science is able to test for what actually causes thunder & lightening, and the answer is that the cause is perfectly natural without any such God being involved or detected at all.

Originally Posted by psionl0

Like so many others in this thread, you are not posting something that actually disagrees with what I posted. You are trying to make it appear that I posted something different so that you can "correct" me.

I am simply posting replies to what you have said in those two previous posts of yours. This is a reply to what you have said in the above quotes from your last post. I am disagreeing what you have said in those two posts.

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by Darat

All the major religions have creation stories, why are you limiting it to Genesis? And even limiting it to the tale in genesis do you mean the Christian or Judaic interpretation of Genesis? And if Christian which denomination of Christianity's interpretation will you use?

Psion10 didn't limit it to Genesis. He gave it as a specific example. The reason he did so is because many students have been raised to believe that it is a valid alternative explanation for the world, you can tell that's the reason by the fact he says "many students have been raised to believe that it is a valid alternative explanation for the world. So I say, let Genesis be subject to scientific scrutiny in a science class."

If you consider another example where many students have been raised to believe that it is a valid alternative explanation for the world, then I guess you can work out how Psion10's reasoning would apply to it.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

Psion10 didn't limit it to Genesis. He gave it as a specific example. The reason he did so is because many students have been raised to believe that it is a valid alternative explanation for the world, you can tell that's the reason by the fact he says "many students have been raised to believe that it is a valid alternative explanation for the world. So I say, let Genesis be subject to scientific scrutiny in a science class."

Then they have been raised to believe in fantasy fiction, like Santa Claus. Do you think a scientific examination of the topic of Santa Claus should be seriously considered as part of a science class?

Originally Posted by sphenisc

If you consider another example where many students have been raised to believe that it is a valid alternative explanation for the world, then I guess you can work out how Psion10's reasoning would apply to it.

The problem with allowing any religious creation myths into science classes is that the very act of doing so risks lending them credence to such stories for which they are undeserving. Religious creation myths only really belong in two types of classes... religious studies and history, with the latter being focused on studying how religion can be used to gull people into believing in preposterous fairytales all the way into adulthood.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by IanS

... you cannot have " varying standards of "proof" ". The word & the concept of "proof" is a claim of showing absolute unarguable 100% certainty.

Come on! You know very well that there are standards of proof such as "preponderance of the evidence" (aka "balance of probabilities") and "beyond reasonable doubt".

You are just trying to falsely ascribe to me a notion that you can't reject a hypothesis unless you have "absolute unarguable 100% certainty" even though I stated the exact opposite in black and white.

Originally Posted by IanS

As for your second highlight - you need to first show that any such God is likely to exist.

Originally Posted by IanS

Of course you can test for "the mind of a God, if there is no such God".

Look at that goal post go!

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Then they have been raised to believe in fantasy fiction, like Santa Claus. Do you think a scientific examination of the topic of Santa Claus should be seriously considered as part of a science class?

I'm pretty sure that nobody (except young children) believes that Santa Claus is real.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

The problem with allowing any religious creation myths into science classes is that the very act of doing so risks lending them credence to such stories for which they are undeserving. Religious creation myths only really belong in two types of classes... religious studies and history, with the latter being focused on studying how religion can be used to gull people into believing in preposterous fairytales all the way into adulthood.

Any scientific scrutiny of Genesis (even by U16s) is likely to conclude that Genesis is false.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

Psion10 didn't limit it to Genesis. He gave it as a specific example. The reason he did so is because many students have been raised to believe that it is a valid alternative explanation for the world, you can tell that's the reason by the fact he says "many students have been raised to believe that it is a valid alternative explanation for the world. So I say, let Genesis be subject to scientific scrutiny in a science class."

If you consider another example where many students have been raised to believe that it is a valid alternative explanation for the world, then I guess you can work out how Psion10's reasoning would apply to it.

Using PsionI0's "reasoning" science teachers would have to ascertain what each individual child has been taught as a creation story and address all those in a science class. And if it is not only being limited to creation stories then all the other supernatural stories children have been told would have to be addressed, might cause upset for some of the younger kids when the teacher must take them through why the claims about Santa Claus are unscientific and do not have any supporting evidence.

One wonders when any actual science will be taught, or geography, or history with this new paradigm of paedology PsionIO wants ushered in...

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Darat

The word faith is often used to seemingly try and muddy the waters, like the word belief, faith has several meanings, and you'll find folk will slip between the definitions. The "faith" we have in the scientific process is different to the religious meaning of the word.

I've found myself explaining this to people several times over the years when I mention that I think faith is a bad thing. They often mistake that for cynicism. I tell them that I have no problem with "faith" when defined as what I think is better described as trust based on experience. I have that sort of trust in many things. But when I was growing up among Evangelical Christians, the faith that we were incessantly told was a great virtue was the faith that means having an absolute belief in something despite a total lack of supporting evidence, or in the face of contradictory evidence. The examination of the supposed virtue of such faith was a major contributor to my abandonment of religious superstition.

The notion that the assumption that something observed to occur invariably thousands of time under controlled conditions will continue to happen the same way in the future is somehow equivalent to the faith belief that invisible agencies are controlling events in our lives is just silly. But it points a spotlight at the discomfort that religious faith can create in the faithful. Looking back on my own experiences, I strongly suspect that many of the faithful have a hard time justifying belief without evidence. But they're indoctrinated to view faithful people as virtuous, and those who lack faith as spiritually and even morally deficient, so there's a real social pressure to at least talk the talk as far a faith is concerned. So trying to pull science down to the level of faith is an understandable projection.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by psionl0

When you make statements like "So then, it seems you're not talking about generally teaching kids critical thinking, as I'd imagined you were doing" or go on about creating special re-education classes for students with a religious upbringing (as if this is my intent) then I am not so sure.

When I saw you advocating here for critical thinking in science class, I thought that you’d identified, correctly in my view, the lack of proper grounding in critical thinking as an issue that needs addressing. And following that line of thought, I pointed out that that would apply not just to science but to most subjects kids are taught: most conspicuously religious studies (in institutions where such are taught), but also history, and literature, and civics, et cetera. And you seemed to agree. And I pointed out that the right way to do this would probably be to start a separate class, a separate subject, specifically to teach critical thinking. But your later posts addressed to me made clear that you were interested in discussing only critical thinking as it applies to science, and not to critical thinking in general (so that you yourself posted that ideas about general teaching of critical thinking in subjects other than science ought to be discussed not in this thread but separately). Clearly then, and like I said, “you’re not talking about generally teaching kids critical thinking, as I’d imagined you were doing,” so that such an idea, although probably a good one, is better left out of this thread. It’s amazing that I’m needing to spell this out to you like this: What part of this do you find other than “in good faith”?

As for the second part of what you complain about there: You agreed with me that this critical thinking business need not necessarily be discussed in science class itself, and that you were onboard with my idea of doing it separately. You pointed out to me that your concern was that kids who’d been taught religious ideas might end up conflicted when taught regular sane rational science in class, when the content of such teaching is at variance with what their religion has taught them. I thought that a valid concern, and suggested --- very rightly, I think --- that the correct way to address such a concern would be to hold correctional classes for these (potentially) critically challenged kids, much like you hold correctional classes for kids challenged in other respects. This was most certainly and most emphatically not said “as if this was (your) intent”. It was my suggestion --- and a very good one, it seems to me, pedagogically speaking, even if I say it myself, except that is for the practical aspect of religious parents protesting such a move --- I repeat, my suggestion, not yours, but presented as a solution to the concern that you raised. I’ve no clue why you imagine this was said “as if this was (your) intent”; it wasn’t, because this is my idea, not yours, you only identified the problem, the solution occurred not to you but to me. In what way is this not engaging with you in good faith?

You seem confused about what engaging in good faith amounts to. You seem to imagine it consists of echoing your ideas and intent, which is a very weird approach to looking at things. It is perfectly possible to engage in good faith with you while introducing an idea that you hadn’t been able to think up yourself, or even that you might disagree with. I engaged with the concern you raised, and put forward an excellent proposed solution to address that concern: I don’t see what on earth you’re whining on about here, and why on earth you accuse me of not engaging in good faith.

Quote:

Maybe I haven't said it in so many words but science students should understand the "how" and not just the "what". Just giving them the facts without justification is not critical thinking.

Agreed. And, like I’ve already pointed out, that applies not just to science but to practically every subject taught in school. So that, while the concern you raise is valid, the proper way to address this would be to introduce a separate Critical Thinking class.

I’m surprised you’re back to repeating this as if this is a point of disagreement, seeing that you’ve already said that you were onboard with my suggestion of conducting the detailed discussion of the “how” of things, the critical thinking part, outside of the particular class (the science class, in this case), so as to do this better and also so as to not derail individual subject classes.

Quote:

Re Genesis, many students have been raised to believe that it is a valid alternative explanation for the world. So I say, let Genesis be subject to scientific scrutiny in a science class. If you disagree then that's fine but don't go on about special re-education classes.

Why the hell not? You raised a concern. And I did you the courtesy of engaging in good faith with your concern, and acknowledging your concern, and what is more suggesting an excellent resolution for your concern. If you were here to discuss this honestly and in good faith yourself, then you’d have thanked me for engaging with the problem you’ve identified, and for offering you a solution to that problem. Instead, you pretend that just because for some reason best known to yourself you don’t like this solution that I’ve proffered, therefore having presented this idea makes my own engagement not in good faith? How utterly warped is that thinking?!

-----

And I note that from a general discussion on critical thinking in science class, you now show your true colors and focus down to specifically discussing Genesis. I’m afraid this gives away your intentions entirely, that you’ve been hiding so far under the fig leaf of your pretend concern about critical thinking.

As I’ve pointed out at least two or three times to you: Even if for the sake of argument we agree with the rest of your warped logic, even then, all of this will apply not just to Judeo-Christian creation myth, but to all creation myths of all religions. Even if time constraints keep us from including a discussion on each and every religion, but still, certainly we’d need to discuss the relevant portions from all of the major religions like Buddhism, and Daoism, and Hinduism, maybe somewhat smaller religions like Shintoism, maybe Jainism, and maybe a few others as well, as well as Christianity and Islam and Judaism. (Note also that often different denominations of each of these religions say different things, so we’d need some discussion around that as well.)



eta:
Ah, I see that the title of the thread has recently been changed to “Should creationism be taught as Science?” That’s fine, that at least makes your ideas upfront. It’s an utterly cock-eyed proposal, nakedly shameless in the closed-minded bigotry it betrays, but at least it is honest, at least it does away with the subterfuge of pretending a concern for critical thinking in general, and hones in on what you’re actually interested in, which is the teaching/discussion of specifically Judeo-Christian superstitions in science class. Cool.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Come on! You know very well that there are standards of proof such as "preponderance of the evidence" (aka "balance of probabilities") and "beyond reasonable doubt".

No. If something is claimed to be proven as true, then it is claimed to be certain as a fact.

The "preponderance of evidence" is not by any means a "proof" of whatever conclusion you might draw from what you are offering as "evidence".

Originally Posted by psionl0

You are just trying to falsely ascribe to me a notion that you can't reject a hypothesis unless you have "absolute unarguable 100% certainty" even though I stated the exact opposite in black and white.

Not at all. In fact I am doing the very opposite of what your highlight just said ... I am saying (very clearly) that "absolute unarguable certainty" is probably impossible (according to current science) ... so of course you can "reject a hypothesis" without having any such certainty of "proof" ...

... and, your word "reject" is yet another fudge-factor being used there - you can "reject", i.e. refuse to accept or believe, anything you want on any basis at all, no matter how weak your reasons for such "rejection" are.

But what is not valid for you to do, is to claim that something is untrue or wrong, e.g. some scientific theory, unless and until you can show genuine evidence that would render the established theory/explanation wrong.

Originally Posted by psionl0

Look at that goal post go!

To judge from your replies so far, I doubt that you even know where the pitch is or even which country the pitch is in, let alone where any goalposts are.

[Mongrel]

Originally Posted by IanS

Religious people often try to argue that whilst religion relies on "faith", so too does science ... both religion and science depend on belief ... everything that we detect, understand or experience is a matter of "belief" ... in the end that sort of argument probably just reduces to so-called "Hard Solipsism"

It's also pretending the two different meanings of Belief are interchangeable (from Google)
1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
"his belief in extraterrestrial life"
2. trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).

You need faith to believe many of the things that happen in whichever religious book you choose. As opposed to me, a non-scientist, believing that the overwhelming majority of scientists are honest with their results which is what the scientific process relies on.

[The Great Zaganza]

Instead of arguing semantics (badly), why not build two planes?
One based on Science, the other on Faith?

Creationists could prove how much they actually believe...

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

When I saw you advocating here for critical thinking in science class, I thought that you’d identified, correctly in my view, the lack of proper grounding in critical thinking as an issue that needs addressing. ...

I think I have misconstrued your earlier response. Yes, with all the misinformation students are being subjected to via the media, courses for critical thinking in general does sound like a good idea.

However, my original response was to the article that reportedly claims that the GOP wants creationism taught in science classes as "valid science". To me critical thinking in a science class means understanding the scientific method and not accepting any unevidenced theory as a fact. Critical thinking in science is a more specialized area than critical thinking in general.

Originally Posted by Chanakya

eta:
Ah, I see that the title of the thread has recently been changed to “Should creationism be taught as Science?” That’s fine, that at least makes your ideas upfront. It’s an utterly cock-eyed proposal, nakedly shameless in the closed-minded bigotry it betrays, but at least it is honest, at least it does away with the subterfuge of pretending a concern for critical thinking in general, and hones in on what you’re actually interested in, which is the teaching/discussion of specifically Judeo-Christian superstitions in science class. Cool.

That's what happens when a mod creates a strawman title. They now have you believing that I want what the GOP wants.

I had requested a title like "Should science classes include critical thinking?" but for some strange reason they want to paint me as pro-creationist teaching.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by IanS

But what is not valid for you to do, is to claim that something is untrue or wrong, e.g. some scientific theory, unless and until you can show genuine evidence that would render the established theory/explanation wrong.

That is exactly what I am NOT claiming but with the new thread title, I don't expect that you will believe me now.

[Resume]

Yes.

As long as it's being demonstrated as a good example of pseudoscience.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Resume

Yes.

As long as it's being demonstrated as a good example of pseudoscience.

Is an accurate treatment of it possible? If you don't or can't point out how much literal lying goes in to it is it a good idea to mention it all? Stick to rejected earlier scientific theories.

That's of course assuming there is time. High school science glasses should be broad not deep. There is a lot to cover and getting in to depth is for college.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Any scientific scrutiny of Genesis (even by U16s) is likely to conclude that Genesis is false.

I wouldn't explore it at all. Don't even acknowledge it, not in a formal education setting for a different subject. Critical biblical scholarship would help clear up Genesis far better imo if that's what we're looking for. But it's such a niche field that's largely drowned out by mainstream Bible-believing or at least Bible-sympathetic scholarship, let alone pastors and Sunday school teachers.