Should Teachers be Allowed to Mock Creationism?

[linwood]

On second thought creationism does`t need to be ridiculed by it`s opponents.

Simply allowing it`s proponents a forum to voice their ideas is more than enough to show it for the delusion that it is.

Kinda like this thread.

 

[linwood]

Creationism mocks itself; it does not need any teacher to mock it.

You said it far better than I.

(Must remember to read entire thread before replying)

 

[Acim]

There is also the distinction that while people should receive a minimum of respect, the same is not true of ideas.
Ideas should stand or fall on their own merits, and they should be ruthlessly examined, criticised and demolished if they do not hold up to scruteny.

I tend to agree. I also think this is unavoidable, as in it will never stop being this way for as long as false ideas permeate consciousness.

But do keep in mind I am one who will mock idea that physical world is real, that it exists independent of mind. When I see humanity is able to get around this, by providing objective evidence for physical, I'll perhaps no longer conclude this as false idea. For the record, I still do. And is also underlying thought that trumps 'observable fact.'

It is at least not terribly difficult and you need no special education and/or access to fancy equipment to do so.
I'm assuming at this point that you know what alleles are and what they do (if not, let me know and I will be happy to explain), so for instance, the change in frequency in the population of, say, people with blue eyes would constitute a change in allele frequency. It's really that simple.

I get this, but it seems observation made 'after the fact.' As in, if that is evolution as 'observable fact,' I would say, and would hope you agree, that religious zealots would have no issue concluding this 'fact' without any inkling of science of the biological kind. Simply that change in the physical appears to happen, and thus things evolve.

The 'observable fact' seems overarching and too simplistic. While the theory seems, from what I understand, to be attributing change to something that is not so readily acceptable. Not even sure of how to put this without either showing up a bit ignorant and/or over hyping my point. Like ignorant point strikes me as, theory of evolution doesn't seem all that predictable going forward. Over hyping my point is me perhaps saying that the attributed change is only a given if you conform to understanding and have special tools to validate findings.

The laws of physics appear to be, if not absolutely constant, then at least very very consistent. As we know from Einstein's work, they change under certain specialised circumstances (but in a predictable way) and they also 'switch' when going to subatomic levels, where Quantum Theory takes over from Relativity.

I still try to grasp why some (scientific) laws are 'at least very very consistent' and also seemingly underlying all existence, yet other theories are putting forth notion that life as we know it (in forms) is constantly changing and offering us continuous variation. I think I understand how the two are reconciled, but it would just seem that the physics understandings would trump the biological data, even though I realize this is (pretty much) not the case.

The level of Scientific Theory is the highest level of explanation we have about an aspect of the Universe, be it germs and disease (Germ Theory), atoms and atomic bindings (Atomic Theory), gravity (The Theory of Gravity) or the development and diversity (but not the origin) of living things (The Theory of Evolution).
This means that a Scientific Theory has to take into account all the facts, observations, evidence and laws included in that aspect of our understanding of the Universe. It is, if you like, the box into which all of these things have to fit. And if it doesn't fit we have to either modify the box so that it conforms to the data we have, or change it altogether for a better box.
So when we say that Evolution is both a Theory and a Fact, we mean exactly that, and the same goes for, for instance, Gravity. Both terms apply both to a Scientific Theory AND to an Observable Fact.

The 'fact' though seems attributable to the theory. As in, without the theory, we wouldn't understand evolution to be fact, other than in very simplistic way I was getting across before. But to say allele frequencies change over time, is not, 'simple observation.' From within paradigm that is biological research and education, I realize it is 'common observation.' This is one point in larger discussion, and is one that I kinda sorta feel like I can get through on my own. I realize you may wish to explain it differently than I would put it, but I will tell you bluntly, that I would put it as one learns to conform to this idea as 'common observation' even if they've never observed it (consciously).

The larger point, which matters to context of this ongoing debate, is how the theory is operating as model of reality. For most part, there is too much to be said here for one post, or one point I could possibly make, and is being addressed at several junctions by 'all parties.' Though the one point I am compelled to make is what I stated already, which is presumption of physical as real is, in my understanding, false idea. This doesn't really take away from work or effort that is TOE (it really doesn't), but does, at least for me, provide perspective within the larger debate.

And there in the middle, between these two previously mentioned points, is the drama that is this debate. The one where perspective of each side is lost to the other. The one that concludes (from both sides) that the two models cannot be reconciled, and should not be. Again, I'm not old school creationist, and don't think I could ever go back to that position (actually not sure I ever was there). But it really does seem to me given the fundamental logic of each model, that the two are saying very similar things, yet just attributing perceived points to different causes. One attributing everything to supernatural being (believed to be) outside of the model; the other attributing everything to natural cause(s) (believed to be) devoid of the supernatural agent. While that may seem vastly different, all it would really take to reconcile the two is to understand the natural cause(s) are the essence of the supernatural being (thus not really outside the model); and is in fact cause and effect within the model. Plus wouldn't hurt to realize on honest scientific level that we are the effect of that perceived cause, now self aware of ourselves as effect. Anyway, I'm saying the two are reconcilable, and yet both are seemingly ignorant of idea that the model is model, and not reality.

 

[jarofthoughts]

But do keep in mind I am one who will mock idea that physical world is real, that it exists independent of mind. When I see humanity is able to get around this, by providing objective evidence for physical, I'll perhaps no longer conclude this as false idea. For the record, I still do. And is also underlying thought that trumps 'observable fact.'

Yeah, well science appears to have more results to show for itself than this Deepak Choprah nonsense, so until you guys provide some evidence of your own, I'll stick with science.
Sorry, but I really can't take this 'everything is consciousness and I'm oh so mysterious' manure seriously. :sarcastic
But hey, knock yourself out if it's your cup of tea.

I get this, but it seems observation made 'after the fact.' As in, if that is evolution as 'observable fact,' I would say, and would hope you agree, that religious zealots would have no issue concluding this 'fact' without any inkling of science of the biological kind. Simply that change in the physical appears to happen, and thus things evolve.

And that's why we have the Theory behind the observation explaining why we see what we see, and we can confirm the mechanisms and observe them more directly on a molecular biological level. But since you asked for something that was easy to observe, that is what you got.

The 'observable fact' seems overarching and too simplistic. While the theory seems, from what I understand, to be attributing change to something that is not so readily acceptable. Not even sure of how to put this without either showing up a bit ignorant and/or over hyping my point. Like ignorant point strikes me as, theory of evolution doesn't seem all that predictable going forward. Over hyping my point is me perhaps saying that the attributed change is only a given if you conform to understanding and have special tools to validate findings.

The Theory of Evolution, like any Scientific Theory, has plenty of predicable power.
I recommend reading Neil Shubin's book 'Your Inner Fish' for an enlightening and entertaining read about one aspect of that predictablity.

I still try to grasp why some (scientific) laws are 'at least very very consistent' and also seemingly underlying all existence, yet other theories are putting forth notion that life as we know it (in forms) is constantly changing and offering us continuous variation. I think I understand how the two are reconciled, but it would just seem that the physics understandings would trump the biological data, even though I realize this is (pretty much) not the case.

Life is subject to the exact same physical laws as the rest orf the universe, and it is because of, not contrary to, these laws that life has evolved the way it has.
The is no need to 'reconcile' the two as they are already interconnected.

The 'fact' though seems attributable to the theory. As in, without the theory, we wouldn't understand evolution to be fact, other than in very simplistic way I was getting across before. But to say allele frequencies change over time, is not, 'simple observation.' From within paradigm that is biological research and education, I realize it is 'common observation.' This is one point in larger discussion, and is one that I kinda sorta feel like I can get through on my own. I realize you may wish to explain it differently than I would put it, but I will tell you bluntly, that I would put it as one learns to conform to this idea as 'common observation' even if they've never observed it (consciously).

All science is based ultimately on what has been and are being observed, either directly or indirectly. The observation comes before the Theory, and so it is with the Theory of Evolution. It was Darwin's attempt to explain the things he observed, as many had attempted to before him. It was just that his attempt made for a better fit with the avaliable evidence than any competing ideas (for instance Lamarckianism) and thus it was accepted. Over the years since the Theory has of course been refined, corrected and updated, and while of historical interest, 'On the Origin of Species' is not a very good representation of our current understanding of Evolution. But now, as then, Science depends on repeatable objective observations for its Theories about nature and the universe.

The larger point, which matters to context of this ongoing debate, is how the theory is operating as model of reality. For most part, there is too much to be said here for one post, or one point I could possibly make, and is being addressed at several junctions by 'all parties.' Though the one point I am compelled to make is what I stated already, which is presumption of physical as real is, in my understanding, false idea. This doesn't really take away from work or effort that is TOE (it really doesn't), but does, at least for me, provide perspective within the larger debate.

Again, if that's your cup of tea, far be it from me to deny you your point of view.
But until that view actually has some demonstrable practical effects on our lives or on the universe as such, it is, in my opinion, irrelevant.

One attributing everything to supernatural being (believed to be) outside of the model; the other attributing everything to natural cause(s) (believed to be) devoid of the supernatural agent. While that may seem vastly different, all it would really take to reconcile the two is to understand the natural cause(s) are the essence of the supernatural being (thus not really outside the model); and is in fact cause and effect within the model. Plus wouldn't hurt to realize on honest scientific level that we are the effect of that perceived cause, now self aware of ourselves as effect. Anyway, I'm saying the two are reconcilable, and yet both are seemingly ignorant of idea that the model is model, and not reality.

As has been mentioned many times before, there is no inherent problem with accepting Evolution and remaining a Theist at the same time.
Ken Miller is a perfect example of this, both a brilliant Evolutionary Biologist and a Roman Catholic, and if he can see no conflict why should we?

 

[DarkSun]

I think I can see the general consensus here that Creationism is unscientific and shouldn't belong in a science classroom. That's pretty much how I've seen this argument end. I don't see any reason to keep contributing to an argument I already think has ended... so... I'll just post funny pictures.