one in three teachers says teach creationism alongside evolution

[Chris_]

Worshipers of science will never understand that.  By denying creation the status of "science", they can keep the theory of evolution in a nice, neat little package.  Denying explanations that conflict with one's own has been a common tactic for eons, and it certainly isn't limited to creation or evolution.  Can you say "globalwarming" boys & girls?

So, if we believe that angels hold airplanes aloft, that should be accepted because it doesn't fit our nice, neat package of physics.
And TToE is over 200 years old with millions of scientists and billions of data points across multiple equally aged disciplines. 

AGW is a fad hypothesis that is just being used to generate money for weak "scientists" -- there is a HUGE population of true scientists who flatly say AGW is nonsense.

[MrsSmith]

And what have you to say about those who are so absolutely convinced that the bibles story of creationism is right, that they deny the existance of Dinosaurs, and other such animals that existed before humans?  What do you have to say about those who are so wrapped up in their religious teachings that they view those of us who would see outside of it as "stupid"?

I could without a doubt gaurantee you that they far out number the people your complaining about Frank.

I don't think the 6 or 7 people who fit this description in any way outnumber those who are positive that the theory of evolution has explained God out of existence...and all school children in the US must be taught this "truth."

[Chris_]

I don't think the 6 or 7 people who fit this description in any way outnumber those who are positive that the theory of evolution has explained God out existance...and all school children in the US must be taught this "truth."

That isn't what is taught. God is (theoretically) not allowed to be discussed in school in any non-philosophical context, since it violates the separatoon of Church and State.

[MrsSmith]

Oh, Coach, you have been badly misled.

No one says evolution is absolutely right -- not in the way you mean.  What they are saying is that evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the massive body of data and that no scientific alternatives have been found.  It means that to not understand this means you are willingly blinding yourself to science.  It is analogous to saying that since you can't see the wind it can't carry aircraft.  You can BELIEVE that, but it doesn't change the underlying science.

And a "theory" is not a "grown up hypothesis." A theory is the highest level of understanding in science.  "Just a theory" applies to non-scientific thought, never to science. 

Stephen J. Gould put it best:

In this context, TToE is a scientific fact, if not a metaphysical one (which I believe YOU believe is being asserted when scientists say TToE is a "fact."

And no one is "jamming TToE down" anyone's throat, any more than they are "jamming chemistry" down their throats or "jamming physics" down their throats.

Physics, astrophysics, astronomy, geology -- all these directly contravene literal Genesis and literal creation.  How come we don't have people protesting these branches of science?  Because creationism is selectively "enforced" -- the conclusions of these other sciences don't offend people.  The conclusions of TToE does (some).

So if you believe that creationism is a competing theory to TToE then it is a competing theory to ALL science. 

And that is withOUT bringing up what criteria an idea must meet before qualifying as a Scientific Theory.

Actually, there are questions within geology, for one.  Specifically the idea that all those layers couldn't possibly have been formed during a year-long worldwide flood, but were rather formed over billions of years...especially in light of the very rapid formation of layers around volcanoes...and the very rapid erosion also evident.  Then with astronomy, there are the questions of the origin of all that occupies space and the idea that everything came from a Big Bang that did NOT have supernatural force behind it, and the idea that the speed of light proves that the universe is ancient.  The conflicts exist, and both sides have their answers to those conflicts.  However, geologists and astronomers don't teach grade school children that their sciences "prove the non-existance of God."  Yet.  

[Chris_]

So, if we believe that angels hold airplanes aloft, that should be accepted because it doesn't fit our nice, neat package of physics.

Huh?

And TToE is over 200 years old with millions of scientists and billions of data points across multiple equally aged disciplines. 

Well, ain't that special.  Creationism is thousands of years old, etc., etc., etc......

AGW is a fad hypothesis that is just being used to generate money for weak "scientists" -- there is a HUGE population of true scientists who flatly say AGW is nonsense.

Oh ok...guess there's never been any research money for evolution research, huh?  Yeah, the money trough is bigger and older, that makes it completely different.  Riiiight.

[Chris_]

Actually, there are questions within geology, for one.  Specifically the idea that all those layers couldn't possibly have been formed during a year-long worldwide flood, but were rather formed over billions of years...especially in light of the very rapid formation of layers around volcanoes...and the very rapid erosion also evident.  Then with astronomy, there are the questions of the origin of all that occupies space and the idea that everything came from a Big Bang that did NOT have supernatural force behind it, and the idea that the speed of light proves that the universe is ancient.  The conflicts exist, and both sides have their answers to those conflicts.  However, geologists and astronomers don't teach grade school children that their sciences "prove the non-existance of God."  Yet.  

The fact that there are gaps in the specifics of some formations doesn't change the overall understanding of geological processes nor of the origins of the planet.  And new findings in astronomy don't change how heavenly bodies were formed.  The gaps in TToE do not undermine its overall theory.

And I defy you to show me one schoolbook that says "TToE proves the non-existence of God."  TToE is silent on God, as is all accepted science.

[MrsSmith]

That isn't what is taught. God is (theoretically) not allowed to be discussed in school in any non-philosophical context, since it violates the separatoon of Church and State.

Yes, the non-Constitutional separation that courts wrote into law by interpreting a private letter of Thomas Jefferson's...the same Thomas Jefferson who used his own money to purchase Bibles for the schools in his area.

And kids are most certainly taught that the theory of evolution explains the origins of life without any supernatural assistance. Just as they are specifically taught that they are descended from some half-ape creature instead of having an intentional purpose in their lives...they are worthless, merely the product of random chance and survival of the lucky.  Every evolution textbook starts something like..."Billions of years ago, in the primordial ooze, life began"...yet another totally unproven theory taught as absolute to children who are not experienced enough to catch the lies.  If you seriously don't believe what kids are taught, you need to go through some gradeschool and middle school science texts.

[Chris_]

Huh?Well, ain't that special.  Creationism is thousands of years old, etc., etc., etc......Oh ok...guess there's never been any research money for evolution research, huh?  Yeah, the money trough is bigger and older, that makes it completely different.  Riiiight.

You said that belief is as valid as science -- in fact, you repeat it here. 

Let me put my analogy another way -- Physics, astronomy and geology ALL defy Genesis -- do you not "believe" in them?  Do you tell kids that they "prove God doesn't exist?"  Do you believe your layman's knowledge (or lack thereof) is a proper substitute for true scientific knowledge?  Do you tell kids that creationism is a valid alternate theory to Astrophysics?

[Chris_]

Yes, the non-Constitutional separation that courts wrote into law by interpreting a private letter of Thomas Jefferson's...the same Thomas Jefferson who used his own money to purchase Bibles for the schools in his area.

And kids are most certainly taught that the theory of evolution explains the origins of life without any supernatural assistance. Just as they are specifically taught that they are descended from some half-ape creature instead of having an intentional purpose in their lives...they are worthless, merely the product of random chance and survival of the lucky.  Every evolution textbook starts something like..."Billions of years ago, in the primordial ooze, life began"...yet another totally unproven theory taught as absolute to children who are not experienced enough to catch the lies.  If you seriously don't believe what kids are taught, you need to go through some gradeschool and middle school science texts.

Science, by definition, assumes no supernatural assistance. That is science, not TToE.  TToE merely says that people evolved just like all other life on Earth.  It is silent on the worthiness of the individual.  YOU may read it that way, but nowhere does any textbook say "thus, there is no God."  I continue to show me where a textbook says that IN THOSE WORDS.  In fact, show me a textbook that mentions God at all.

And the primordial ooze is currently the best scientific explanation of the origins of life.  Creationism is NOT a valid alternative to this explanation.  Your inability to understand TToE does not undermine it, anymore than your probable inability to understand String Theory undermines that.

[Chris_]

You said that belief is as valid as science -- in fact, you repeat it here. 

Let me put my analogy another way -- Physics, astronomy and geology ALL defy Genesis -- do you not "believe" in them?  Do you tell kids that they "prove God doesn't exist?" 

No, plenty of others stand to do that.

Do you believe your layman's knowledge (or lack thereof) is a proper substitute for true scientific knowledge? 

Who says it's not "true scientific knowledge"?  You see...for you it's one or the other.

Do you tell kids that creationism is a valid alternate theory to Astrophysics?

Do you tell them it isn't?

[rich_t]

My God is better than your God.

End of story.

 

Science vs. Religion threads are often interesting to watch.

[franksolich]

I could without a doubt guarantee you that they far out number the people you're complaining about Frank.

I dunno, djones, sir.

It depends upon where one's at, I suppose.

If I am understanding "Christian fundamentalism" correctly, which I might or might not, be, Nebraska has never been fertile or productive land for "Christian fundamentalism."

(Nor Pennsylvania or New Jersey, where I've also lived.)

That might seem odd, given that Kansas is right underneath Nebraska, but Kansas is older, bigger, and has a wholly different sort of history and culture than we do.  There is no more similiarity between Nebraska and Kansas, than there is between New Jersey and Oregon.

Actually, most of the time, I think it would be better for Nebraskans, if we had the same passion, the same intensity, as do Kansans.

There are of course tiny minuscule little "pockets" or enclaves of what I assume are "Christian fundamentalists," but such exists in Vermont, Florida, Nevada, &c., &c., &c., too.

I was probably at least 10 years old before I ever saw a real live bona fide Baptist (if a Baptist is to be considered a "Christian fundamentalist," something about which I am not exactly sure).

Nebraska has consistently been circa 33% Roman Catholic, 40% Lutheran (all three synods), and the remainder the "mainstream" (or used to be "mainstream," until they swung clear over to the left, to Mammon) Protestant denominations.

If I am understanding the definition of "Christian fundamentalists" correctly, yes, I've met one or another of them every so often, once in a while.

I must say that I have always found such people to be decent and civilized people, and in many cases brighter and more articulate than the common run of humanity.

I must also say none has ever tried to persuade me to adopt his point of view, to follow his path.  On the Head of St. John the Baptist, I will swear that this has never occurred even a single time in this life.

On the other hand, one is besieged almost daily, almost hourly, by those who Hate God and religion and mankind, trying to jam their Hate and intolerance down one's throat.  I've never met a Hater who didn't try to "convert" me.

Think about it.  Think about television, for example.  How many minutes of television can one watch, before things offensive to decent and civilized people pop up?  Two minutes?  Three minutes? 

I have considerable problems accepting this apparently-popular notion that "Christian fundamentalists" are the "in your face" sort of people.  This is a media-created impression, with no reflection in real life.

I imagine that in the 300 million of Americans, there are maybe six, maybe half a dozen, "fundies" as the primitives (and liberals and the news media) describe them--there's all sorts of people in the world, after all.

And then one also has to remember that to a primitive on Skins's island, a little old lady arising from bed inside a house six blocks down the street at 4:00 a.m. (while the primitive himself is still passed out in the basement) and kneels down to pray the rosary, behind the closed door of her house, and behind the closed bedroom door, is "getting into" the primitive's face, "shoving" her religion at him.

[djones520]

I have considerable problems accepting this apparently-popular notion that "Christian fundamentalists" are the "in your face" sort of people.  This is a media-created impression, with no reflection in real life.

I imagine that in the 300 million of Americans, there are maybe six, maybe half a dozen, "fundies" as the primitives (and liberals and the news media) describe them--there's all sorts of people in the world, after all.

Get out a little more Frank.  I can count off the top of my head more then "six" people that I know of who fit that category.  And I can promise you I've been attacked more times because I'm an atheist, then I've ever attacked anyone for being a member of an organized religion.

[franksolich]

Get out a little more Frank.  I can count off the top of my head more then "six" people that I know of who fit that category.  And I can promise you I've been attacked more times because I'm an atheist, then I've ever attacked anyone for being a member of an organized religion.

Well, one's mileage may vary; all I'm doing is describing my own life-experiences and observations, during a life when I've been out considerably.

[Chris_]

>>Let me put my analogy another way -- Physics, astronomy and geology ALL defy Genesis -- do you not "believe" in them?  Do you tell kids that they "prove God doesn't exist?"
No, plenty of others stand to do that.

So you think thank teaching science means you teach "God doesn't exist."

>>Do you believe your layman's knowledge (or lack thereof) is a proper substitute for true scientific knowledge?
Who says it's not "true scientific knowledge"?  You see...for you it's one or the other.

It is.  Science is science and is SILENT on faith.  Faith is faith and can add no new knowledge or discovery to science.

Do you tell kids that creationism is a valid alternate theory to Astrophysics?
Do you tell them it isn't?

Yes.  Because it isn't.

I am amazed you use a computer.  I assume you think it runs on "holy food" or something.

Science is a very clearly document series of disciplines that uses a very rigorous set of standards and methods to expand true human knowledge about our physical Universe.  Without these there would be no medicine, no electricity, no technology -- at best we would be stopped at the year 1000 BC.

Why do you want to end science?  Putting faith as an integral scientific component is the same as saying "just pray for everything."

It is people like you who will make sure the next generation's great discoveries and scientific centers of gravity will be India and China.

Way to go.

[MrsSmith]

Science, by definition, assumes no supernatural assistance. That is science, not TToE.  TToE merely says that people evolved just like all other life on Earth.  It is silent on the worthiness of the individual.  YOU may read it that way, but nowhere does any textbook say "thus, there is no God."  I continue to show me where a textbook says that IN THOSE WORDS.  In fact, show me a textbook that mentions God at all.

And the primordial ooze is currently the best scientific explanation of the origins of life.  Creationism is NOT a valid alternative to this explanation.  Your inability to understand TToE does not undermine it, anymore than your probable inability to understand String Theory undermines that.

And in that assumption, with full emphasis on the word, teaches children that they are products of apes...that their ancestors began in swamps...that they have no specific purpose in life.  All three of which are complete lies.  Regardless of the evidence supporting that animals change, just as God intended, there is no solid proof that the changes were not rapid, and that the billions of years and primordial ooze are the only possible answer...they are assumed to be correct on today's interpretation of data, but they are taught to innocent children as absolute fact.  Even if the teachers were honest enough to mention that the data is interpreted to "the best of man's knowledge today, but may be seen differently in time," they could undo much of the damage done by their insistence that today's view must be 100% correct.  

The libraries of the world are full of scientific interpretations that were found to be wrong...how pompous of today's evo-fundies to be postive that they are the correct ones! I repeat, future scientists will look back on "all we know" now and laugh over our stupid and ignorant "knowledge."  We know that.  We DO that.  Yet we never outgrow our foolish self-pride enough to teach kids the truth...this is what we think, but later evidence may change our thoughts...at least, the thoughts of those still honest enough to admit error.

And does that mean we should teach science as a field full of questions?  Absolutely!!  We have hundreds of years of proof that shows that science constantly changes.  How dare we teach kids that we have all the answers when what we have are best-guesses that will definitely change eventually!

[rich_t]

Get out a little more Frank.  I can count off the top of my head more then "six" people that I know of who fit that category.  And I can promise you I've been attacked more times because I'm an atheist, then I've ever attacked anyone for being a member of an organized religion.

You may be an atheist but God loves you anyway.  He loves all of his children: even those that do not believe in him.

[MrsSmith]

It is people like you who will make sure the next generation's great discoveries and scientific centers of gravity will be India and China.

Way to go.

Teaching our kids that we "know" things when, in truth,  we merely assume that knowledge, will not go a long way toward improving our science discoveries. 

[Chris_]

Teaching our kids that we "know" things when, in truth,  we merely assume that knowledge, will not go a long way toward improving our science discoveries. 

All knowledge is assumption.  Please see the definition of a "scientific fact" upthread.

We KNOW Gravity is a Force and it is measurable at an average of 98 ft/sec²  We KNOW that it is not pushed down by angels.

If someone BELIEVES Gravity is because Angels push things down, that is not only unhelpful but detrimental.  And suggesting that Creationism is equal to TToE is the same thing.

Even IF "Goddidit" was true, how would we put that information to work?  In what mechinism would we build God's Hand?  How would we be sure it would behave the same way every time?

God gave us a Universe WITH CONSISTENT AND APPLICABLE RULES.  It is one of His greatest gifts, second only to the ability he gave Man to discern, discover and use these rules.

And, Coach, if you are still following, this isn't trivial.  Harnessing the Universe, which begins by exploring its rules, is one of the highest callings that God calls us to.

[USA4ME]

Proponents of evolution, who might or might not be correct, allege themselves to be "enlightened rational" people, when in fact they make those who advocate the other two major theories (creationism and aliens-from-outer-space-ism) look eminently reasonable in comparison.

I agree.

School vouchers are the answer.  If you want your child taught creationism in science class, and someone else doesn't, then you should be able to place your child in the class you desire and they in the one they desire.  As long as everyone is taught the core of the material, it shouldn't be a problem.  The only problem will come from those who don't believe it should be taught as a matter of "principle," but since they can place their children in a class that doesn't teach it, they have no reason to infringe upon those who wish it to be taught.

.

[franksolich]

You may be an atheist but God loves you anyway.  He loves all of his children: even those that do not believe in him.

I suppose one's encounter with both sorts of people, the so-called "Christian fundamentalists" and those who deny the existence of God, depends upon one's manner.

I rather suspect no one has ever tried to "convert" me (although surely "Christian fundamentalists," if I am understanding the term correctly, must find things they think in error, in my own religion) because perhaps maybe possibly the aura of confidence in my manner.  I know what I think, I know what I believe.

In the case of djones, a very worthwhile and exceptional member, a great member, here (at least to me), I'm assuming that maybe because he's still young and the family complicates things (a problem I wouldn't be able to deal with successfully myself, as I didn't deal with it effectively when I was young and the older siblings still alive), "Christian fundamentalists" might perceive him as more pliable, more flexible.

That of course changes over time.

[Chris_]

And in that assumption, with full emphasis on the word, teaches children that they are products of apes...that their ancestors began in swamps...that they have no specific purpose in life.  All three of which are complete lies.  

All humans are descended from a primate-like creature.  The current theories are that life was sparked in a primordial ooze.  How do those have anything to do with an individual's purpose in life?  You need to show me WHERE IN A SPECIFIC TEXT IT SAYS THE LATTER.  I have yet for you to show me where any text links evolution to spiritual purpose.  Not your interpetation -- show me where it is stated specifically.  I grew up understanding TToE -- and I always felt I was a unique and special entity in the Universe, imbued with grace from God and demanded by Him to find my purpose in life.

Regardless of the evidence supporting that animals change, just as God intended, there is no solid proof that the changes were not rapid, and that the billions of years and primordial ooze are the only possible answer...they are assumed to be correct on today's interpretation of data, but they are taught to innocent children as absolute fact.  Even if the teachers were honest enough to mention that the data is interpreted to "the best of man's knowledge today, but may be seen differently in time," they could undo much of the damage done by their insistence that today's view must be 100% correct.

 

The fact you don't understand the stochastic nature of TToE undermines it not a whit.  Again, I point you to the definition of a scientific fact upthread.  If you look at something and then look away, can you be 100% sure it is still there?  Your attempt at philosophizing the nature of reality and truth is fun, if sophomoric.  And the underlying fundamentals of TToE are unlikely to be changed, anymore than the measurementof the speed of light.

The libraries of the world are full of scientific interpretations that were found to be wrong...how pompous of today's evo-fundies to be postive that they are the correct ones! I repeat, future scientists will look back on "all we know" now and laugh over our stupid and ignorant "knowledge."  We know that.  We DO that.  Yet we never outgrow our foolish self-pride enough to teach kids the truth...this is what we think, but later evidence may change our thoughts...at least, the thoughts of those still honest enough to admit error.

Einstein's theory replaced Newtons -- yet the apples still fall.  The truth is that as science progresses and more data are amassed, evaluated and tested using the Scientific Method, aspects are discarded and/or adjusted as the evidence leads.  Under no circumstance will science ever allow a supernatural process in as a basis for anything.

And does that mean we should teach science as a field full of questions?  Absolutely!!  We have hundreds of years of proof that shows that science constantly changes.  How dare we teach kids that we have all the answers when what we have are best-guesses that will definitely change eventually!

Sure, you should.  But it should be clear that scientific questions can only have scientific answers.

[Chris_]

I agree.

School vouchers are the answer.  If you want your child taught creationism in science class, and someone else doesn't, then you should be able to place your child in the class you desire and they in the one they desire.  As long as everyone is taught the core of the material, it shouldn't be a problem.  The only problem will come from those who don't believe it should be taught as a matter of "principle," but since they can place their children in a class that doesn't teach it, they have no reason to infringe upon those who wish it to be taught.

.

I believe in Vouchers as a great idea.  The flip side of this argument is that many of today's teachers are STUPID and UNEDUCATED in all endeavors: They can't spell, they don't know grammar, they don't teach true classic literature, few can even perform fundamental calculations on the even numbered problems in their own texts.

And they DO teach TToE like they would a cake mix -- they read it without fielding or understanding the nature of science.

Mrs. S. is not totally out in left field.  An instructor with a modicum of science training would explain about the Scientific Method and how it allows science to progress by testing and re-testing scientific axioms and that all are up for rework at any given moment.

[franksolich]

School vouchers are the answer.  If you want your child taught creationism in science class, and someone else doesn't, then you should be able to place your child in the class you desire and they in the one they desire.  As long as everyone is taught the core of the material, it shouldn't be a problem.  The only problem will come from those who don't believe it should be taught as a matter of "principle," but since they can place their children in a class that doesn't teach it, they have no reason to infringe upon those who wish it to be taught.

That can however create financial haemorrhage in areas sparsely populated, where there's but one single school for five or six counties.

I've never had a problem with the teaching of evolution, but I do think science teachers should be required to say two things, when beginning the subect:

(a) "This is a class in evolution, where the theory of evolution is described, analyzed, and discussed.  The theory of evolution is but one of many theories about the origins of mankind, and if one thinks it in error, one is encouraged to explore all the other theories about the origins of mankind."

And

(b) "Since this is a class strictly about the theory of evolution, and no other theories, all discussion and dispute should be limited strictly to the theory of evolution."

The deal is, the Evolution Establishment would willingly say (b), but no way in Hell would they say (a); there's no way they're going to admit other theories deserve the same consideration and credibility as their theory.

[Chris_]

That can however create financial haemorrhage in areas sparsely populated, where there's but one single school for five or six counties.

I've never had a problem with the teaching of evolution, but I do think science teachers should be required to say two things, when beginning the subect:

(a) "This is a class in evolution, where the theory of evolution is described, analyzed, and discussed.  The theory of evolution is but one of many theories about the origins of mankind, and if one thinks it in error, one is encouraged to explore all the other theories about the origins of mankind."

And

(b) "Since this is a class strictly about the theory of evolution, and no other theories, all discussion and dispute should be limited strictly to the theory of evolution."

The deal is, the Evolution Establishment would willingly say (b), but no way in Hell would they say (a); there's no way they're going to admit other theories deserve the same consideration and credibility as their theory.

Lets think that through and try it on for size, Coach:

(a) "This is a class in physics, where physics is described, analyzed, and discussed. Physics is but one of many theories about the the nature of matter and time, and if one thinks it in error, one is encouraged to explore all the other theories about matter and time."

And

(b) "Since this is a class strictly about chemistry, and no other theories, all discussion and dispute should be limited strictly to chemistry."

That is the exact analogy, my friend.