Evolution, scientific methods, and reason are losing in America's classrooms

[Skwim]

Social adjustment.

Kids need to know about creationism to be socially adjusted? C'mon, you've got to be kidding us.

That doesn't prevent them from believing what they do. Which, after all, is a very significant fact.

And just how does this justify a belief in creationism?

I didn't say it should be given any credibility. The theory of evolution should not be given any credibility either.

Well I'm happy to see that you don't think creationism should be given any credibility, but on what grounds do you deny the credibility of evolution?

This is the problem with the whole education system these days. Everybody wants to use it as a vehicle to tell people what to think.

You mean like, the area of a circle = πr^²? Or that the Earth circles the Sun, and not the other way around? Or that the U.S.A. is a federal constitutional republic? Or that adverbs modify any part of speech or other verbs other than a noun? The fact is, evolution is "as fully a fact as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun." (Douglas Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology.)

Just let everything stand or fall on its own merits.

And as it turns out, evolution stands whereas creationism falls. Simple as that.

 

[Skwim]

It's weird how when my general science teacher taught me the theory that massive objects are attracted to each other no one decried her for using gravity to tell me what to think, but when my biology teacher taught me the theory that diversity in life is the result of cumulative changes in allele frequencies over subsequent generations suddenly he's a monster.

Ah yes.

​

 

[kylixguru]

Kids need to know about creationism to be socially adjusted? C'mon, you've got to be kidding us.

Leaving them totally ignorant of what a very large portion of people in society believe is helpful? It is a very significant FACT that a large number of people in society believe in creationism. Understanding what that entails helps them know what they are dealing with.

And just how does this justify a belief in creationism?

The point isn't to justify it. The point of an educational system is to present beneficial factual information for the purpose of helping people function in the society. It is a fact that many people believe in creationism. What a person believes for themselves is their own personal choice.

Well I'm happy to see that you don't think creationism should be given any credibility, but on what grounds do you deny the credibility of evolution?

What doesn't deserve credibility is the presumptions that go hand in hand with evolutionist rational. Simply teaching the scientific evidences showing the evolution of life is as far as it should go. Everything beyond that is in the realm of conjecture.

You mean like, the area of a circle = πr^²? Or that the Earth circles the Sun, and not the other way around? Or that the U.S.A. is a federal constitutional republic? Or that adverbs modify any part of speech or other verbs other than a noun? The fact is, evolution is "as fully a fact as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun." (Douglas Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology.)

Of course true facts stand out as indisputable. The trouble starts when people start presuming things beyond those facts.

Also, you are flipping nuts to deny that the sun rotates around the earth. It just depends upon which point of view you are taking. If you are standing on the earth, the sun indeed goes around and around us. If you are standing about 100 million miles above the sun and are looking down you will see two things. First, the reason the sun appears to revolve around the earth is because the earth itself is spinning upon its own axis. Second, that the earth also orbits around the sun as well, which is an entirely different matter and affects the seasons. So, it isn't just the simple "its the other way around" its that it spins on its own axis.

What I have presented here is a fuller and more comprehensive understanding of the matter instead of your contracted, over simplified, incomplete, wrong depiction of things.

And as it turns out, evolution stands whereas creationism falls. Simple as that.

Well, if it was that simple for you, why would you deny others the opportunity to make that choice for themselves?

Again, public education should merely present factual information in an objective manner so that peole can come out of it still thinking for themselves. From my point of view, diehard evolutionists are worse than fundamentalist Christians where disrespect of the human mind is concerned. At least religious people distinguish their world view as a matter of faith instead of proping up their world view on what they think are correct presumptions from a scanty few facts they are privy to that religious people are a bit behind the curve on.

 

[outhouse]

I didn't say it should be given any credibility. The theory of evolution should not be given any credibility either

this is a great reason to outlaw religion, it has a direct negitive impact on humanity.

Look at you~! you want myths to be taught and you want reality denied ONLY because of your closed mind.

 

[outhouse]

Leaving them totally ignorant of what a very large portion of people in society believe is helpful?

creation was outlawed from public schools for a reason

I myth does not advance education or prepare children for the real world.

Humanity is advancing without you or your ancient beliefs.

Evolution is fact and theory, there is no debate about evolution among scientist. ONLY denial by those born into a religion based on geographic location only

 

[kylixguru]

creation was outlawed from public schools for a reason

I myth does not advance education or prepare children for the real world.

A real world full of large numbers of people who believe in creationism?

Humanity is advancing without you or your ancient beliefs.

Humanity is about to hit a very solid brick wall because it mocks and derides my ancient beliefs.

Evolution is fact and theory, there is no debate about evolution among scientist. ONLY denial by those born into a religion based on geographic location only

Where have I denied any facts of the theory of evolution?

You are who is denying very relevant and important truths that are encoded into the myths and legends you mock.

 

[Gunfingers]

A real world full of large numbers of people who believe in creationism?

You're making a great argument for schools having a bible literature class, but not much of one for the teaching of creationism in a science class.

 

[David M]

You're making a great argument for schools having a bible literature class, but not much of one for the teaching of creationism in a science class.

Its an argument for having a religious literature class where all religions are examined.

 

[Alceste]

Its an argument for having a religious literature class where all religions are examined.

Yes, context is key. You don't see biology teachers storming churches to preach from the pulpit that belief in evolution is divinely commanded, and you shouldn't see religious scholars arguing that there is empirical evidence for an intelligent designer in a science class. Preachers can preach that belief in creationism is divinely commanded while biology teachers teach that evolution is supported by empirical evidence. A religion class would go a long way toward resolving the current ludicrous situation where religionists see science class as a viable avenue for sharing their religious teachings.

 

[LuisDantas]

I didn't say it should be given any credibility.

Ok. It will fit just fine, then, in some sort of class about religious beliefs, as already mentioned.

The theory of evolution should not be given any credibility either. This is the problem with the whole education system these days. Everybody wants to use it as a vehicle to tell people what to think.

I most emphatically disagree. You say it as if you believed the ToE to be an article of faith, and it is anything but. To misrepresent scientific fact would be a very grave mistake indeed.

As I envision a responsible and respectful educational system, it should present all information objectively, as well as teach people how to think, and then let them think for themselves.

Of course.

It is a fact that many people hold to an unsubstantiated interpretation of the Bible. In my opinion, those false interpretations would be chased away faster if they were given more sunlight, not less.

Sure.

That which you resist, you cause to persist.

Just let everything stand or fall on its own merits.

And how does that translate into not giving the Theory of Evolution its due recognition as a proven fact?

 

[Skwim]

Leaving them totally ignorant of what a very large portion of people in society believe is helpful? It is a very significant FACT that a large number of people in society believe in creationism.

So I assume we should also devote an equal amount of class time going over astrology and why it's so foolish. Or how about squandering time on alien abductions, which 20% of the people believe to be a fact? Or how about devoting class time to biorhythms? Or perhaps to parapsychology and the bending of spoons by thought waves?

Understanding what that entails helps them know what they are dealing with.

And how many times would any student have to "deal with" creationism in the future? Evolution, because it's one the backbones to subsequent biological studies, is an obvious need, but creationism? It's dismissed out of hand.

The point isn't to justify it. The point of an educational system is to present beneficial factual information for the purpose of helping people function in the society. It is a fact that many people believe in creationism. What a person believes for themselves is their own personal choice.

I agree, but what was the salient point of your "That doesn't prevent them from believing what they do. Which, after all, is a very significant fact"?

What doesn't deserve credibility is the presumptions that go hand in hand with evolutionist rational.

Well, the presumptions of the evolutionist rational is that the scientific method is a viable one, and one that has proven itself to be the best approach to extracting facts from the evidence.

Simply teaching the scientific evidences showing the evolution of life is as far as it should go. Everything beyond that is in the realm of conjecture.

And in science classes teachers, if they're any good at all, will be sure to differentiate between what is fact and what is conjecture. In creationism there is no room for conjecture---admitting that not everything is a known for certain. In creationism everything is expressed as absolute truth.

Of course true facts stand out as indisputable. The trouble starts when people start presuming things beyond those facts.

It all depends on the presumption and the weight given it. If it wasn't for presumptions theories and hypotheses would never exist and science would come to near stand still. Some presumptions are quite justified and necessary. It all depends on what is being presumed and why. So don't be so quick to write them off.

Also, you are flipping nuts to deny that the sun rotates around the earth. It just depends upon which point of view you are taking. If you are standing on the earth, the sun indeed goes around and around us.

And I suppose that when you get in your car and drive away, the Earth is spinning in the opposite direction of your travel, and when you turn a corner it's the earth that is really changing its direction of spin, and not you changing your relationship to your previous direction. Is that how you see things. The fact is, the Earth spins around the Sun, and not vice versa, because the Sun has a far greater gravitational effect on the Earth than the Earth has on the Sun. It's a matter of simple physics, one in which it is far more sensible to assign relative forces according to their strengths than not. But go ahead and believe the Sun orbits the Earth.


But simply consider:

VS

Which do you think is the more parsimonious?

If you are standing about 100 million miles above the sun and are looking down you will see two things. First, the reason the sun appears to revolve around the earth is because the earth itself is spinning upon its own axis.

Come again! The Earth's 24 hour axial spin only creates day and night. It has nothing to do with the relative positions of the Sun and Earth.

To believe that a mass as large as the Sun could orbit a mass as small as the Earth in 24 hours is incredibly absurd. You would be laughed out of a freshman physics class in a matter of minutes, and rightfully so.

Second, that the earth also orbits around the sun as well, which is an entirely different matter and affects the seasons.

Well, welcome to the world of the rest of us. Glad to see that you now agree the Earth orbits the Sun and not the other way around.

So, it isn't just the simple "its the other way around" its that it spins on its own axis.

Once again. The Earth's 24 hour axial spin only creates day and night. It has nothing to do with the relative positions of the Sun and Earth. If the Earth never moved around the Sun its spin would still produce day and night.

What I have presented here is a fuller and more comprehensive understanding of the matter instead of your contracted, over simplified, incomplete, wrong depiction of things.

As I understand "the matter" here, it's the need for including the teaching of creationism in public schools, and so far you really haven't shown any understanding of it, much less presented such. And exactly what have I misrepresented, "incomplete, wrong depiction of things"?

Well, if it was that simple for you, why would you deny others the opportunity to make that choice for themselves?

For a few reasons.

1. Children are in no position to maturely weigh and evaluate conflicting ideas, which is why we stick to presenting facts and clearly identified presumptions and suppositions.

2. It's a waste of time. Class time is better spent on presenting the facts than what is not the facts, which is why we also don't teach astrology, numerology, phrenology, dowsing, and alchemy.

3. Ignoring such pseudosciences prevents the impression they merit consideration.

From my point of view, diehard evolutionists are worse than fundamentalist Christians where disrespect of the human mind is concerned. At least religious people distinguish their world view as a matter of faith instead of proping up their world view on what they think are correct presumptions from a scanty few facts they are privy to that religious people are a bit behind the curve on.

Clearly then you have never examined the facts supporting evolution. No surprise, but so be it.

 

[kylixguru]

So I assume we should also devote an equal amount of class time going over astrology and why it's so foolish.

You are being silly.

Or how about squandering time on alien abductions, which 20% of the people believe to be a fact? Or how about devoting class time to biorhythms? Or perhaps to parapsychology and the bending of spoons by thought waves?

My point is whatever is taught should be presented objectively. Obviously there must be prioritization as to what is in a student's best interests.

And how many times would any student have to "deal with" creationism in the future? Evolution, because it's one the backbones to subsequent biological studies, is an obvious need, but creationism? It's dismissed out of hand.

I have dealt with it MANY times in my life. Our world is suffering because of it.

I agree, but what was the salient point of your "That doesn't prevent them from believing what they do. Which, after all, is a very significant fact"?

As I have said, just give me the facts and I shall decide.

Well, the presumptions of the evolutionist rational is that the scientific method is a viable one, and one that has proven itself to be the best approach to extracting facts from the evidence.

You are tripping all over yourself. I am not speaking out against truths scientists discover. They should be presented. I am saying if the Creationist view is allowed to stand along side of it then people will make their OWN decision about it.

And in science classes teachers, if they're any good at all, will be sure to differentiate between what is fact and what is conjecture.

That is the root of what I am saying. They should be objective. If and when they speak of Creationism they present it as "There are those who believe..." As opposed to "There are foolish and ignorant people who actually still believe the Bible..."

It is conjecture that the Bible is false because there are strong evidences of evolution. It could just as easily be that people do not know how to decipher what it is talking about.

In creationism there is no room for conjecture---admitting that not everything is a known for certain. In creationism everything is expressed as absolute truth.

There's a gap you have crossed the line on you didn't catch. You didn't realize the baby was going out with the bathwater.

It all depends on the presumption and the weight given it. If it wasn't for presumptions theories and hypotheses would never exist and science would come to near stand still. Some presumptions are quite justified and necessary. It all depends on what is being presumed and why. So don't be so quick to write them off.

I am the one who is saying an individual in the field of public education should rigorously eliminate all conjecture possible. This is in fact at the heart of good scientific research. Hubris manages to find its way into everything man tries to do and I am merely advocating it be eliminated as much as possible.

And I suppose that when you get in your car and drive away, the Earth is spinning in the opposite direction of your travel, and when you turn a corner it's the earth that is really changing its direction of spin, and not you changing your relationship to your previous direction. Is that how you see things.

Your analogy is flawed.

The fact is, the Earth spins around the Sun, and not vice versa, because the Sun has a far greater gravitational effect on the Earth than the Earth has on the Sun.

The pure unadulterated fact is to one degree or another, even if one is very miniscule in comparison, they are rotating around one another. What do you do in the case of a double star solar system. One star is slightly bigger than the other so the other one rotates around it? No, of course not. They have a central foci they both rotate around. Just because the foci point for our earth and the sun remains within the space of the sun doesn't rule out the same principles applying to some degree.

It's a matter of simple physics, one in which it is far more sensible to assign relative forces according to their strengths than not. But go ahead and believe the Sun orbits the Earth.

But, if you over simplify and talk like things are absolute and cut and dry then you stiffle others from making additional contributions.

But simply consider:
Which do you think is the more parsimonious?

Come again! The Earth's 24 hour axial spin only creates day and night. It has nothing to do with the relative positions of the Sun and Earth.

This is where your hang up is. I said you need to put your words in context. From a person's point of view standing on the surface of the earth the sun does in fact appear to rotate around them. That's a truth and if you are discussing things with a person unacquainted with kepler's laws and such, you can acknowledge to them the truth of what they believe they see and then add upon their understanding even more. Which, when that understanding clicks for them, then they will see FOR THEMSELF how silly their original perspective was.

To believe that a mass as large as the Sun could orbit a mass as small as the Earth in 24 hours is incredibly absurd.

Duh! That's why I said it isn't "just the other way around" which is what you implied. The literal implications you made is that the earth is not spinning on its own axis but that it is the earth that is very quickly rotating around the sun in a 24 hour period instead of in an annual period. You have an over-simplified disconnect going on with this issue.

You would be laughed out of a freshman physics class in a matter of minutes, and rightfully so.

Actually, I was the highest student in my honors physics class. You are the dimwit that would be like many others who coveted study-time with me.

Well, welcome to the world of the rest of us. Glad to see that you now agree the Earth orbits the Sun and not the other way around.

If that's what you think, that its "merely the other way around", then you would be among those responsible for galileo being burned at the stake. It's that the earth is rotating upon its own axis, not that the earth is rotating around the sun to explain their perspective. The fact that the earth also rotates around the sun has to do with the years, not the days, which has no immediate bearing on the sun appearing to rotate around the earth.

Once again. The Earth's 24 hour axial spin only creates day and night. It has nothing to do with the relative positions of the Sun and Earth. If the Earth never moved around the Sun its spin would still produce day and night.

Of course. You are not getting what I'm saying.

As I understand "the matter" here, it's the need for including the teaching of creationism in public schools, and so far you really haven't shown any understanding of it, much less presented such. And exactly what have I misrepresented, "incomplete, wrong depiction of things"?

College professors make no bones about trashing the Bible. Going that far is conjecture. That's my point.

For a few reasons.

1. Children are in no position to maturely weigh and evaluate conflicting ideas, which is why we stick to presenting facts and clearly identified presumptions and suppositions.

Have you not yet figured out that this is what I am advocating? It is entirely possible to spend about 10 minutes or so to sum up what Creationists presume or suppose is true. As long as it is presented as their presumptions then it is useful. If a teacher presents it as "this is absolute truth because its in the Bible" then they are doing violence to a child's mind and in my opinion doing violence to the Bible itself.

2. It's a waste of time. Class time is better spent on presenting the facts than what is not the facts, which is why we also don't teach astrology, numerology, phrenology, dowsing, and alchemy.

I couldn't disagree more. There are truths in all of those fields that can be presented in an objective manner. They tend to bring you into a different paradigm than newtonian mechanics but they are valuable and useful fields of understanding. We need to be developed in our understanding of our emotional, spiritual, energetic forces to navigate ourselves in an open society. Getting a rocket to Mars does not fall upon a very wide segment of society to worry about. However, having good relationships and a healthy sense of spiritual balance in life are quite valuable to people. If you had your way, you would have the soul sucked right out of the whole educational system.

3. Ignoring such pseudosciences prevents the impression they merit consideration.

And, do you have the right to impose those constraints upon others?

Clearly then you have never examined the facts supporting evolution. No surprise, but so be it.

Huh? Where have I argued against any of the truths it brings to light? I have merely argued for nonbiased information be made available and for people to quit trying to pass their conjecture over onto others as absolute fact.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I couldn't disagree more. There are truths in all of those fields that can be presented in an objective manner. They tend to bring you into a different paradigm than netonian mechanics but they are valuable and useful fields of understanding. We need to be developed in our understanding of our emotional, spiritual, energetic forces to navigate ourselves in an open society. Getting a rocket to Mars does not fall upon a very wide segment of society to worry about. However, having good relationships and a healthy sense of spiritual balance in life are quite valuable to people. If you had your way, you would have the soul sucked right out of the whole educational system.

Problem is we're talking about science, and science is not responsible, nor should it be responsible, for giving students a sense of "spiritual balance". Science is, and always has been, the study of facts, and creationism does not fall into that category. Not by a long shot.

If you wish for creationism to be presented in such classrooms for the sake of developing "better understanding", then you might as well have science also present theories on flat earth. In fact, you might as well have teachers quickly run through every single disproven or outright absurd notion that has ever attempted to pass for science, in the interests of a "better understanding" of them.

Sorry, but no matter how hard you try to say the opposite, it simply isn't useful to any student, anywhere, to learn about creationism. Being open-minded or understanding of the world does not require you to be presented with every ludicrous notion just because a lot of people believe it. People are more than well equipped to do these things on their own and in their own time, and the education system should have absolutely no right or say in who is qualified to count as "spiritually balanced", nor should they - or you, or anyone else - be able to quantify exactly what claims or ideologies need to be presented in order to further enhance such qualities in children. Such an idea is not just absurd, it's contrary to the entire point of education and education systems.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

To be honest I had biology and advanced biology in High school and I may remember evolution being metioned. It wasn't until college that we actually went over it in any detail. I do not remember creationism at all. I only found out about creationism and ID here at RF. It doesn't come up in my area of life.

I find this interesting as I learned biology in middle school and evolution was a big part in understanding the natural world. May be I just had one of the decent teachers out of the bunch. Before we even got into experiments in the classroom we focused on understanding evolution and how the scientific method works. I learned more of evolution throughout middle school as well as high school. It's without a doubt it was taught in college. I find it interesting to have Biology as well as Advanced Biology and evolution to NOT be covered extensively.

 

[kylixguru]

Problem is we're talking about science, and science is not responsible, nor should it be responsible, for giving students a sense of "spiritual balance". Science is, and always has been, the study of facts, and creationism does not fall into that category. Not by a long shot.

I wasn't arguing that it is fact. My point was if it was mentioned in an objective manner as what many people believe and put along side the facts evolution presents then it will accellerate the process of people making their own choice between the two.

If you wish for creationism to be presented in such classrooms for the sake of developing "better understanding", then you might as well have science also present theories on flat earth. In fact, you might as well have teachers quickly run through every single disproven or outright absurd notion that has ever attempted to pass for science, in the interests of a "better understanding" of them.

Yes, I understand your point. At what time would something move over to the history department. But, don't forget, I too am OPPOSED to mainstream Creationism.

Sorry, but no matter how hard you try to say the opposite, it simply isn't useful to any student, anywhere, to learn about creationism. Being open-minded or understanding of the world does not require you to be presented with every ludicrous notion just because a lot of people believe it. People are more than well equipped to do these things on their own and in their own time, and the education system should have absolutely no right or say in who is qualified to count as "spiritually balanced", nor should they - or you, or anyone else - be able to quantify exactly what claims or ideologies need to be presented in order to further enhance such qualities in children. Such an idea is not just absurd, it's contrary to the entire point of education and education systems.

Actually, my opinion is a uniform public education system is detrimental all the way around. It becomes moreso when students are told what to think instead of objectively being presented information and being allowed to freely think things through for themselves.

 

[camanintx]

Leaving them totally ignorant of what a very large portion of people in society believe is helpful? It is a very significant FACT that a large number of people in society believe in creationism. Understanding what that entails helps them know what they are dealing with.

Fine, then teach it in a philosophy class. Science class is for teaching facts and theories, not beliefs.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I wasn't arguing that it is fact. My point was if it was mentioned in an objective manner as what many people believe and put along side the facts evolution presents then it will accellerate the process of people making their own choice between the two.

I never said that's what you were arguing. My point was that science is for teaching facts, not opinions. Creationism is irrelevant, because it isn't a fact, nor is it science, and presenting it (objectively or otherwise) alongside evolution in a science class room does nothing but distort this simple fact and give the impression that creationism, as a concept, has or deserves scientific merit. It does not. Evolution is science, and it is a fact, therefore it should be taught in science class rooms. Creationism is not science, nor is it a fact, and therefore has no place in science classrooms, period.

Classrooms are not the places where these decisions are made. Whether or not creationism or evolution are true is not a decision that should or could be made by mere students. It is decided in the academic arena, through extensive research and careful scrutiny by a parade of peers. The position which holds true to such scrutiny, examination and testability, has earned the right to be taught. The one that does not hold true has not earned that right, and should not be presented to students in any scientific context. To suggest creationism should be presented in order for students to "make up their own mind" on the matter is ludicrous. Students have a right to their own beliefs, but they do not have the right to determine what is science and what isn't. Presenting them with creationism in such a way does not educate anyone, it just confuses the issue and gives ear to the false notion that there is a controversy in science between evolution and creationism.

Yes, I understand your point. At what time would something move over to the history department. But, don't forget, I too am OPPOSED to mainstream Creationism.

Then what kind of creationism would you like to see presented in schools?

Actually, my opinion is a uniform public education system is detrimental all the way around. It becomes moreso when students are told what to think instead of objectively being presented information and being allowed to freely think things through for themselves.

Again, that's fine for a philosophy or english class. It's not alright in science. In science, facts are based on years of research, hard-earned credibility and peer review. Science is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of facts, and what those facts say. Again, if this is truly your position, then you couldn't possibly be against the idea of teaching alchemy as well as chemistry, or teaching flat-earthism in geography. Both alchemy and flat-earthism have as much factual support and relevance in the education system today as creationism does.

As said above, students do not have a right to their own facts. Science is, and always has been, entirely based on objectively verifiable facts, and presenting something which has no factual basis in any kind of scientific concept is not only wrong, it is contrary to the entire point of teaching science. You might as well teach a maths class by saying "2 + 2 could equal 4, but it could also equal 68 if you wanted it to - it's entirely up to you!"

 

[kylixguru]

I never said that's what you were arguing. My point was that science is for teaching facts, not opinions. Creationism is irrelevant, because it isn't a fact, nor is it science, and presenting it (objectively or otherwise) alongside evolution in a science class room does nothing but distort this simple fact and give the impression that creationism, as a concept, has or deserves scientific merit. It does not. Evolution is science, and it is a fact, therefore it should be taught in science class rooms. Creationism is not science, nor is it a fact, and therefore has no place in science classrooms, period.

You have succeeded to convince me the ideal is to keep the focus on observable facts and not parade beliefs around in a science room. But, I hope you also will admit, evolution is yet a theory. So, while there are some things that appear self-evident, the jury is still out on actually observing a total jump of species.

Classrooms are not the places where these decisions are made. Whether or not creationism or evolution are true is not a decision that should or could be made by mere students.

I think you and I hold a fundamentally different idea of what classrooms are for.

It is decided in the academic arena, through extensive research and careful scrutiny by a parade of peers. The position which holds true to such scrutiny, examination and testability, has earned the right to be taught. The one that does not hold true has not earned that right, and should not be presented to students in any scientific context. To suggest creationism should be presented in order for students to "make up their own mind" on the matter is ludicrous. Students have a right to their own beliefs, but they do not have the right to determine what is science and what isn't. Presenting them with creationism in such a way does not educate anyone, it just confuses the issue and gives ear to the false notion that there is a controversy in science between evolution and creationism.

My beef is that IF a teacher ventures to make references to Creationism that they say something to this effect: "I don't concern myself with religious matters and decline to respond." vs. "Creationists and Bible believers are ignorant and deluded fools." While this may be true, it is equally arrogant and foolish for him to presume in the entire field of religion there are no truths of vital importance. That's like a religious person totally denouncing the scientific method.

Then what kind of creationism would you like to see presented in schools?

My only concern is that whatever is taught in public schools that it be taught in an objective manner. Frankly, I don't even subscribe to the whole public education process to start with.

Again, that's fine for a philosophy or english class. It's not alright in science. In science, facts are based on years of research, hard-earned credibility and peer review. Science is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of facts, and what those facts say. Again, if this is truly your position, then you couldn't possibly be against the idea of teaching alchemy as well as chemistry, or teaching flat-earthism in geography. Both alchemy and flat-earthism have as much factual support and relevance in the education system today as creationism does.

In my previous comments I wasn't fully constraining my thoughts to the context of a public science class. I home school my children and I am giving them opportunities to learn everything they have an incling of curiosity about.

Where you are coming from is promoting a model that makes everyone's box for them and then to educate them in a way to stay in that box. You imply "Thinking is only for Phd's so go back to your video games and sports viewing..."

As said above, students do not have a right to their own facts.

You are damned scary. I wouldn't let my children anywhere near someone so full of themself as you appear to be. You would rob them of their own sense of discovery and just turn them into non-thinking drones.

Science is, and always has been, entirely based on objectively verifiable facts, and presenting something which has no factual basis in any kind of scientific concept is not only wrong, it is contrary to the entire point of teaching science. You might as well teach a maths class by saying "2 + 2 could equal 4, but it could also equal 68 if you wanted it to - it's entirely up to you!"

That was a cheap shot.

I'll be going now. I'm done here.

 

[outhouse]

What is it about science that draws the ignorant in like a moth to a light ????

 

[Revoltingest]

What is it about science that draws the ignorant in like a moth to a light ????

Cuz we find it really really interesting....nay, fascinating.