Creation in the classroom

[The_Evelyonian]

I have a question for those of you who want to see creationism/ID in school classrooms.

What exactly would the students be taught?

Creationism/ID has no theoretical model outside of "goddidit" (that I'm aware of) and the barring of religion in schools would likely prevent the teachers from using the Bible as a source reference so, really, I have to wonder what exactly creationism/ID would have to offer as a subject.

Would the students just be learning "goddidit" or do you think there would be more to it?

 

[Atomist]

Oooh I know... that the evidence suggests that there is a creator like how the eye couldn't have developed by random chance and the flaws in evolution. I mean you don't need to teach the biblical account, although it wouldn't hurt if you want to save the children's souls.

 

[DarkSun]

Oooh I know... that the evidence suggests that there is a creator like how the eye couldn't have developed by random chance and the flaws in evolution.

That's pretty much goddidit in a nutshell...

 

[Venatoris]

the flaws in evolution.

You said it in 4 words. The only problem with the "teach the controversy" slogan is; any legitimate controversial theory in the scientific community pertaining to evolution is already being taught. The idea that poking holes in evolution will validate creation is so stupid that I'm starting to get a tension headache from doing this-> too much. It doesn't matter how many random holes you poke in bubble wrap, it will still function the way it is supposed to.

 

[Noaidi]

Try this:

Truth In Science

or for those in the UK:

Truth In Science - Home

All biology teachers in the UK were sent free copies of two Discovery Institute DVDs for classroom use. Of course, they basically consisted of "well, we / evolution can't explain it, so an Intelligent Designer must have done it" types of commentary. However, the graphics are great, so I use it with the sound turned off and provide my own narration!

In terms of teachable content- there is none. ID has a hypothesis and a conclusion, but no important in-between bit (you know, that pesky research and experimental stuff that may get in the way of the conclusion you have already reached).

 

[Skwim]

Try this:

Truth In Science

Yeah that would go over.

 

[Noaidi]

Yep, science teaching at its best...

 

[tumbleweed41]

But the sly Creationists keep trying to sneak in little bits of pseudoscience and misinformation into state approved textbooks.....

A sidebar in a marine science textbook recommended for approval in Florida is "packed with good ol' fashioned creationist language," Florida Citizens for Science charges. The text in question, Life on an Ocean Planet (Current Publishing, 2011), was recently recommended for state approval by the state's instructional materials adoption committee on a 7-2 vote, according to the education blog of the St. Petersburg Times (September 22, 2010). But as FCFS's president Joe Wolf wrote to Florida Department of Education Commissioner Eric Smith, the sidebar on "Questions about the Origin and Development of Life" is "simultaneously actively misinforming, at odds with state standards, and ultimately irrelevant to marine science." Smith has the final say in the textbook adoption process, and Wolf recommended that the sidebar "should be removed entirely, as there is so little information that is either correct or useful to make it worth retaining."
Antievolutionism in a marine science textbook | NCSE

 

[Noaidi]

No responses from any ID advocates so far...

If any do reply, could you address the OP? Too often, these sorts of discussions degenerate into criticisms of evolution, which don't address the question at hand (see 'Creationists, please provide evidence' for example). There are plenty of other threads where the mechanics of evolution are debated, so let's not allow this one to go down the same road.

ID proponents are keen to slot their view of science into mainstream science classes, so the question is: what is it you propose teachers should teach? Can you provide us with a suitable textbook, for example? Or any examples of research that could be discussed within the classroom?

Again, let's not get into how right or wrong ToE is - this thread is about classroom resources and approaches for the teaching of ID.

 

[waitasec]

I have a question for those of you who want to see creationism/ID in school classrooms.

What exactly would the students be taught?

Creationism/ID has no theoretical model outside of "goddidit" (that I'm aware of) and the barring of religion in schools would likely prevent the teachers from using the Bible as a source reference so, really, I have to wonder what exactly creationism/ID would have to offer as a subject.

Would the students just be learning "goddidit" or do you think there would be more to it?

what happened to the separation of church and state?

religion is a belief, it cannot be proved because it is a belief

i can understand having comparative religion courses in school discussing the different interpretations of the creation story, that is perfectly legit as an elective course, however as a part of the curriculum it is an abomination to the study of science and to our constitution
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

I have a question for those of you who want to see creationism/ID in school classrooms.

What exactly would the students be taught?

Creationism/ID has no theoretical model outside of "goddidit" (that I'm aware of) and the barring of religion in schools would likely prevent the teachers from using the Bible as a source reference so, really, I have to wonder what exactly creationism/ID would have to offer as a subject.

Would the students just be learning "goddidit" or do you think there would be more to it?

I was just imagining the test and the end of term. You just write 'goddidit' on the paper and get an A+.

 

[Noaidi]

what happened to the separation of church and state?

religion is a belief, it cannot be proved because it is a belief

i can understand having comparative religion courses in school discussing the different interpretations of the creation story, that is perfectly legit as an elective course, however as a part of the curriculum it is an abomination to the study of science and to our constitution
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

IDers get round this problem by not specifying who the designer is, thus removing the religious element from the subject. Of the ID books I've read, they are careful not to explicitly identify the designer. This is in contrast to traditional creationism, which openly identified the christian god as being responsible. ID is a bit more shrewd than that. Leaving the identity open means that it could be anything from a deity to extra-terrestrials (but, honestly, we ALL really know who the implied designer is...)

 

[waitasec]

IDers get round this problem by not specifying who the designer is, thus removing the religious element from the subject. Of the ID books I've read, they are careful not to explicitly identify the designer. This is in contrast to traditional creationism, which openly identified the christian god as being responsible. ID is a bit more shrewd than that. Leaving the identity open means that it could be anything from a deity to extra-terrestrials (but, honestly, we ALL really know who the implied designer is...)

it is so blatantly caught up in the language to not expose "god" as the creator, but yet it is called intelligent design...


if it walks like a duck

 

[Shadow Wolf]

IDers get round this problem by not specifying who the designer is, thus removing the religious element from the subject. Of the ID books I've read, they are careful not to explicitly identify the designer. This is in contrast to traditional creationism, which openly identified the christian god as being responsible

I think due to the merit of the ideas of aliens create life on earth, someone having wrote the universe as a computer program of sorts, and for other such theories the ID movement needs to be taken over. It never does mention who are what as the creator, but we all know who it's supposed to be. But when you look at the alternatives, such as aliens, clearly for the sake of logic, and reason the ID movement needs to be hijacked and shipped to the philosophy classes.

 

[gnomon]

What get's me is that those who might defend a student fighting on religious belief grounds to be able to punch holes in their face won't fight on religious belief grounds for creationism taught in the classroom?

 

[Skwim]

What get's me is that those who might defend a student fighting on religious belief grounds to be able to punch holes in their face won't fight on religious belief grounds for creationism taught in the classroom?

If I understand you, and I'm not at all sure I do, you're asking why people, who defend students fighting for their right of religious expression, aren't defending the teaching of creationism in the classroom. Please don't tell me this is correct.

 

[gnomon]

If I understand you, and I'm not at all sure I do, you're asking why people, who defend students fighting for their right of religious expression, aren't defending the teaching of creationism in the classroom. Please don't tell me this is correct.

My argument is that if people defend for the First Amendment to extend to religious practice in public schools....such as people claiming to follow the Church of Body Modification, bowing to Mecca during the course of school, etc. than they must also logically defend those whose religious teachings include creationism as a science.

If religious beliefs are exempt from total government interference, which is not an actual part of our civic history, is to be expected as a the modern liberal progressive view than one must conclude that teaching creationism as a science is protected under the First Amendment.

To clarify, my post is a dig against those who believe that a student using a religious exemption clause for body modification is logically sound but I know those same people do not support teaching creationism as a science.

 

[Skwim]

My argument is that if people defend for the First Amendment to extend to religious practice in public schools....such as people claiming to follow the Church of Body Modification, bowing to Mecca during the course of school, etc. than they must also logically defend those whose religious teachings include creationism as a science.

If religious beliefs are exempt from total government interference, which is not an actual part of our civic history, is to be expected as a the modern liberal progressive view than one must conclude that teaching creationism as a science is protected under the First Amendment.

To clarify, my post is a dig against those who believe that a student using a religious exemption clause for body modification is logically sound but I know those same people do not support teaching creationism as a science.

Why, under any circumstance should hogwash be taught as science in a public school, nose rings or not? The point being, the two are not equivalent issues, so why expect them to be treated that way?

 

[gnomon]

Why, under any circumstance should hogwash be taught as science in a public school, nose rings or not? The point being, the two are not equivalent issues, so why expect them to be treated that way?

They are equivalent issues.

First, before I go any further, let me state that you and I are probably on the same side of this issue. I do not believe in teaching creationism beyond an elective comparative religious course. Never in a science classroom.

But considering the recent nose ring issue of a kid trying to get her religious belief exempting her from rules the same rule of religious beliefs must apply to those who believe in teaching creationism and oppose teaching evolution in a public school.

If one believes that if they follow a particular religion and that religion's precepts excludes them from the general laws than the rule must apply across the board. If it does not than what we encounter is cultural discrimination.

My comment wad directed towards those who believe that upholding a student's right of individual expression on religious grounds must be upheld is observed upon the fact that those same people do not uphold students of parents who believe that creationism, upon religious grounds, must be taught as an alternative to evolution.

Where is the line drawn?

But remember this. I agree with you. Hogwash should never be taught as a science.

 

[Venatoris]

They are equivalent issues.

First, before I go any further, let me state that you and I are probably on the same side of this issue. I do not believe in teaching creationism beyond an elective comparative religious course. Never in a science classroom.

But considering the recent nose ring issue of a kid trying to get her religious belief exempting her from rules the same rule of religious beliefs must apply to those who believe in teaching creationism and oppose teaching evolution in a public school.

If one believes that if they follow a particular religion and that religion's precepts excludes them from the general laws than the rule must apply across the board. If it does not than what we encounter is cultural discrimination.

My comment wad directed towards those who believe that upholding a student's right of individual expression on religious grounds must be upheld is observed upon the fact that those same people do not uphold students of parents who believe that creationism, upon religious grounds, must be taught as an alternative to evolution.

Where is the line drawn?

But remember this. I agree with you. Hogwash should never be taught as a science.

The difference is, the young girl's nose ring doesn't affect anyone else. Changing the curriculum in a science class affects every single student. I wouldn't have a problem if creationists wanted to use the same system that we use for sex-ed. Send home a form with students for their parents to sign and when evolution comes up in science class those students can go to another room where the janitor will teach them Creationism. This way, everyone can be happy. Regular students can get an unhindered education and creationists can continue to marry their cousins in total ignorant bliss.