Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Feb 20, 2012 18:16:02 GMT
The problem is that if teachers teach creationism in a critical way, if they allow the students to see the flaws, which are not hard to spot, then they will come under twice as much fire from proponents of creationism. They will also be open to accusations of religious preference, which is against the constitution, because they are not teaching the creation myths of other religions aside from Christianity. I would personally complain to the school my daughter attends if they were to include a Christian view of creationism, even purely to refute it, without also including Aztec and Discordian creation stories and examining the flaws and merits of those. Teaching Creationism as a nonreligious theory, basically the theory that the world was created in some way by some greater being, which could be JHVH let there be lighting in seven days, or it could have been a series of successive worlds that were destroyed in different ways with people remade each time, or it could have been aliens seeding us as a scientific experiment etc. etc doesn't allow for examination of specifics, which is vital when actually critically evaluating a topic.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 21, 2012 14:05:06 GMT
If creationism isn't looked at critically, that means that the only way to encounter the subject is as it's usually presented, ie uncritically. And then no one ever makes any progress and no one ever learns anything.
|
|
|
Post by Magilla on Mar 10, 2012 6:29:04 GMT
ID is not science, because it does not fit into the criteria of what constitutes science. It is not a theory which tries to explain anything, but rather an ideology which is trying to dismantle the Theory of Evolution. As far as I know, ID has never been proffered in any other light.
However, evolution is a well established Theory, with a great deal of supporting evidence, and it plays an important role in the fields of science which rely upon it for their current state of knowledge, (eg. medicine, biology, anthropology, forensics &c.).
As a scientific Theory, evolution is not refuted by ID. On the contrary ID has been refuted many times and in many ways. Court cases in the U.S., about whether or not ID ought to be taught in science classes, have so far come up with the determination that it should not. These court cases have used expert witnesses from the field of science, and it should be scientists who investigate whether or not ID is a valid proposition in the field of science. Certainly ID could be studied in schools, but better in philosophy or religious classes.
If ID does come into a science course, it should be there as a minor footnote, to indicate that it has been proposed, and rejected as a valid scientific theory. And that is all the attention it should get, with some brief mention as to why that status for ID exists. I agree that we should not pretend that ID has not been put forward as a serious scientific proposition, but it has been found to be wanting. Its continued thrusting into the arena is a great annoyance, since it should really be considered 'done and dusted'.
As a student, I do not want to know all the ins-and-outs of all of the crackpot suggestions which might have been put forward throughout the history of science, which have been cast aside along the way as invalid or false as far as science is concerned. I in fact want to know what is true, and not have all of the baggage of what is false. For that, I'd look to philosophy to do the job.
|
|
|
Post by black36 on Mar 10, 2012 21:35:41 GMT
I wish atheists would accept that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory. Creationism (Intelligent Design) is not a valid scientific theory. If anything it's philosophy, not science. What does ID scientifically bring to the table? I'm serious. What does it offer up other than "God might have done all this." That isn't science. You can't use ID to explain the natural world at all. Give me one example of a discovery or study that has been beneficial to humanity through the use of ID theory. spraidor, what does ID tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did to create nature? No. Does it tell you how the designer created it? No. Does it tell you what the designer used to design it? No. Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing it? No. Does it tell you when the designer did it? No. Does it even tell you why? No. So it doesn't explain any of these things. ID isn't a science, it rests in the realm of philosophy because it's nothing more than the question "Did God do this? Yeah, God might have done it." FYI - ID does not promote who the Designer might be. It just shows that it is reasonable to conclude that there is a Designer based on certain tangible clues. Once one posits a description of the Designer, one has vacated the subject of ID and entered another topic.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Mar 10, 2012 21:42:26 GMT
Aaah, but there are some atheists who don't want people to know about ID let alone have it discussed, because they know where it can lead. Some atheists try to shut the door on any line of enquiry in which there's even the possibility that it could lead to G*d. Isn't it so ironic that they think of themselves as scientific, yet they desperately don't even want ideas which don't fit into their worldview to get a look in. That is not what real scientists do. Real scientists look at the evidence, and then they make up their minds, while keeping it open. And they don't try to get ideas banned. Deep down atheists do know that there is plenty of evidence that could lead to the possibility that there's a god, but in their desperation they don't want you to even hear about them. Don't listen to them when they say that it's because it's not real science. The real reason is that they want to manipulate everyone into their narrow worldview.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Mar 19, 2012 10:04:50 GMT
Aaah, but there are some atheists who don't want people to know about ID let alone have it discussed, because they know where it can lead. Some atheists try to shut the door on any line of enquiry in which there's even the possibility that it could lead to G*d. Isn't it so ironic that they think of themselves as scientific, yet they desperately don't even want ideas which don't fit into their worldview to get a look in. That is not what real scientists do. Real scientists look at the evidence, and then they make up their minds, while keeping it open. And they don't try to get ideas banned. Deep down atheists do know that there is plenty of evidence that could lead to the possibility that there's a god, but in their desperation they don't want you to even hear about them. Don't listen to them when they say that it's because it's not real science. The real reason is that they want to manipulate everyone into their narrow worldview. Produce some please. (evidence that is)
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Mar 19, 2012 11:30:21 GMT
Aaah, but there are some atheists who don't want people to know about ID let alone have it discussed, because they know where it can lead. Some atheists try to shut the door on any line of enquiry in which there's even the possibility that it could lead to G*d. Isn't it so ironic that they think of themselves as scientific, yet they desperately don't even want ideas which don't fit into their worldview to get a look in. That is not what real scientists do. Real scientists look at the evidence, and then they make up their minds, while keeping it open. And they don't try to get ideas banned. Deep down atheists do know that there is plenty of evidence that could lead to the possibility that there's a god, but in their desperation they don't want you to even hear about them. Don't listen to them when they say that it's because it's not real science. The real reason is that they want to manipulate everyone into their narrow worldview. Produce some please. (evidence that is) Only if it's on topic.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Mar 21, 2012 17:20:45 GMT
Produce some please. (evidence that is) Only if it's on topic. Yep, some evidence of creationism or intelligent design would be lovely.
|
|