Holy Bible!

[Jessterw]

I'd agree it has no place in a science class, save for the exception of one in a Christian-based setting that is limited in scope to its correlation with scientific theories that affect it. While exceptions to the rule are often dangerous in this regard, I believe that such an exception is appropriate; though, the chance for abuse is readily apparent in the less than open minded populace that makes up the Christian movement.

So while I feel the segment on this topic that I was exposed to in (Christian) school was well intentioned, I digress that it is an all-around acceptable teaching.

[cjolley]

The problem I have with that is that I think telling a student that they are in a science class and then introducing anything about creationism or intellegent design is abusive to start with.

Imagine the same thing in History class.
We include as an "aternative theory" that the South won the civil war.
Why? Because some southerners wish it were true.

People would be up in arms.

Why aren't they about the abuse of biology?
Because people are abysmally ignorant about science in this country

[DukeP]

The point being DukeP, that Creationism in all its forms does represent the belief in a purposeful creation and is wide-spread. Given that it is a "theory" on how the universe came into being and a lot of other stuff, which is to an extent within the scope of science it might be a good idea to compare the two views on it's scientific merits. That the conclusion will be that creationism contributed nothing to science is not an issue for me.

Its not at "theory" in the scientific meaning of the word.
Its a theory in the same sense as the theory that we are all living a virtual life inside the matrix.

Just because a lot of ignorant people belives that God create humans as is, or that the earth is flat, or that there is no spoon - doesnt make it right or give it any more validity.

It just proves that the world is full of stupid uneducated people.

For something to become a scientific theory, it has to fallsible. Ie, a scientific theory can be proven wrong.

How will you prove that God didnt create the world?
How will you prove that we arent infact living inside a personality construct?

Its doesnt need to be absolute prof - thats almost impossible. But give me the standard 5% chance of a type II error - and ill be happy with that.

~~DukeP~~

[Jessterw]

I disagree that it is an abuse for a science class at a Christian school to provide students with some correlation between their faith and that of the scientific world. I think it goes a long way in erasing much of the ignorance the Christian faith places around such theories as evolution and the big bang. I'm not talking about a predominant segment of instruction either, but rather a short overview with a Q&A.

I'm being specific to Christian school as that is the ONLY educational environment I would even slightly feel it is appropriate.

[cjolley]

Well, I've actually been a High School biology teacher.
In very rural Oklahoma districts (Stonewall and McLish)
And believe me, it would open a can of worms.

After all, the teacher would, by definition (in the perception of the students), be arguing with GOD.
Better to just present the subject and require them to know it, whether they believe it or not.

[Jessterw]

I can agree that it would be dangerous, but I'm not so sure it would be perceived as arguing with god. You are likely correct that it is best to just stick to the curriculum as it was intended without such a divergence, as I am willing to admit that my experience with this is probably a best case that isn't likely to be repeated in the majority of situations.

As an afterthought, I perhaps was wrong to say it was Creationism that was being taught rather than a form of divine intervention, or maybe 'divine initiation' in that god started the ball rolling. It definitely requires a non-literal stance on creation as it takes place in Genesis. Of course there is little hope for anyone who still subscribes to the notion that god created everything in seven actual days, but that's a whole other topic

[DukeP]

Well, I've actually been a High School biology teacher.
In very rural Oklahoma districts (Stonewall and McLish)
And believe me, it would open a can of worms.

After all, the teacher would, by definition (in the perception of the students), be arguing with GOD.
Better to just present the subject and require them to know it, whether they believe it or not.

Ach. That sounds just sooo bad, Cjolley.
Im currently teaching biology at a high school - and Im soo glad that we have seperated state and religion in my country!

We might just be lucky, but there would be an OUTCRY if the teachers werent allowed to teach what they have learned at the university.

2+2�*5 no matter how annoyed some parents would be!!

edit: ah, the "not equal to" sign does not agree with the bulletin board system.
~~DukeP~~

[cjolley]

Well, it wasn't so bad.
I took my own advice and just presented the course and tested them.

There were moments though...
At one of the schools every assembly was opened with a prayer in open defiance of the law.
These were tiny schools though.
Stonewall had a graduating class of ~35 and McLish 12

I had preps in 5 different science and math courses every day as I was the only HS science teacher at either school.
Busy busy busy!

[DukeP]

OKie that WAS small.

I think they have around 1400 students at my highschool (ie around 400 graduating each year).

You should try and reach the book by Michael Ruse called: Philosophy of Biology (edited).

He was the main witness in one of the legal fights between federation and state on the matter of non-religious education.


~~DukeP~~

[cjolley]

My conserns were more of the "Up the Down Staircase" variety at the time

[Jammrock]

2+2�*5 no matter how annoyed some parents would be!!

~~DukeP~~

But 2+2 = 5 for very large values of 2!

Here's my take on the whole issue.

From a pure scientific standpoint, evolution and the big bang are the only two feasible solutions. Period. I do not, however, believe that in their current forms that they are axiom grade solutions. They do stand up to scientific scrutiny with finesse, and as such they are excellent examples of scientific thinking, work, and hypothesis ... and all around great ideas. As such they should be taught in schools not only as good theories, but as excellent examples of scientific thinking.

I've never really read a lot about 'intelligent design' until the big school stinks in the US popped up, but after reading a bit about it, I don't think much 'intelligence' went into the 'theory.' The arguement that things are 'just too complex to happen by accident' is uh ... stupid at best. From a statistical or probability standpoint I can see how someone could think that, but from a natural science standpoint it's just absurd.

IMHO, if there is a logical arguement that a supreme being had a hand to play in creation, evolution, big bang, etc. it is through the arguement 'things are too organized.' I've always found it interesting that nature is so highly orgainized and logical once science figure out how it works. But that idea would still not be in the realm of science, only a slightly more logical arguement for a god-assisted creation idea.

Just my $0.02.

Jammrock

[cjolley]

A couple of good concise discusions:

The "New" Creationism

In sum: So far as I can tell, all the major components of "intelligent design theory" are either not new, not significant, or just wrong.

The Times piece was a legitimate news story. The "intelligent design movement" is having impact—getting the attention of school boards, legislators, and, obviously, journalists. And the Times is right to say that intelligent design theorists are "more sophisticated" than past creationists in the sense that most of them don't believe the Earth was created a few thousand years ago as described in Genesis. Some of them even believe evolution happened—albeit with divine input. Still, in the movement's critique of Darwinian theory, there is no sign of any new sophistication—at least, not in any positive sense of the word. "Intelligent design theory" is just a fresh label, a marketing device—and, evidently, an effective one.

Unintelligible Redesign
This is the way creationism ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

That, in a nutshell, is ID. It offers no predictions, scope modifiers, or experimental methods of its own. It's a default answer, a shrug, consisting entirely of problems in Darwinism. Those problems should be taught in school, but there's no reason to call them intelligent design. Intelligent design, as defined by its advocates, means nothing. This is the way creationism ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

[xortam]

... IMHO, if there is a logical arguement that a supreme being had a hand to play in creation, evolution, big bang, etc. it is through the arguement 'things are too organized.' I've always found it interesting that nature is so highly orgainized and logical once science figure out how it works. But that idea would still not be in the realm of science, only a slightly more logical arguement for a god-assisted creation idea. ...

There you go. That's where I'm at.

[Umfriend]

Its not at "theory" in the scientific meaning of the word.
Its a theory in the same sense as the theory that we are all living a virtual life inside the matrix. <SNIP>relevant stuff also[/SNIP]
For something to become a scientific theory, it has to fallsible. Ie, a scientific theory can be proven wrong.

How will you prove that God didnt create the world?
How will you prove that we arent infact living inside a personality construct?

Its doesnt need to be absolute prof - thats almost impossible. But give me the standard 5% chance of a type II error - and ill be happy with that.

And this is exactly why it could be worthwhile to treat it in science class: to show the difference between science and religion. And it is important to show the difference if only because religion still has such a strong influence on how people view the world.

IMHO, if there is a logical arguement that a supreme being had a hand to play in creation, evolution, big bang, etc. it is through the arguement 'things are too organized.' I've always found it interesting that nature is so highly orgainized and logical once science figure out how it works. But that idea would still not be in the realm of science, only a slightly more logical arguement for a god-assisted creation idea.

I disagree it is a "logical" argument for a god-assisted creation idea. This reminds me of a brief discussion with Gurm a few weeks back. I don't think creationists understand what the implications of the hypothesis that 'things are to organised to have arrived without ID/god/whatever' are. You'd have to show that it is improbable that they did without which requires a HUGE understanding of the universe.

This is actually the thing with ID: it simply does not add anything to our understanding of anything. But as it is so prevalent in society, I don't see why in science class it can not be scrutinised. In fact, I think in raising our children, it si important to show some of the many fallacies they will be tempted to fall for.

[Nowhere]

...
I disagree it is a "logical" argument for a god-assisted creation idea. This reminds me of a brief discussion with Gurm a few weeks back. I don't think creationists understand what the implications of the hypothesis that 'things are to organised to have arrived without ID/god/whatever' are. You'd have to show that it is improbable that they did without which requires a HUGE understanding of the universe.
...

Actually, it is a little logical trap even...because if nature is too organised/there is too much harmony/perfection to be not created, then...what about the creator?