Should Teachers be Allowed to Mock Creationism?

[averageJOE]

Can somebody explain to me what scientific evidence suggests that God did not create the world? Such seems to be a recurring theme of some of the posts here. I would agree that we can't use science to prove that there IS a God. So, if you are unwilling to believe in something that can't be proven in the laboratory, that's fine with me. But, in what way can science possibly demonstrate that God did not create the universe? That's impossible to prove.

Because that's not how it works. The burden to proof falls on the one making the claim. You claim that god created the world. Also, what your doing here is starting with the conclusion and then looking for loose facts to back it up. Thats completly backwards.

 

[Firstborner]

What is the "differing philosophical basis" of this science?

All sciences and scientist bring with them fundamental assumptions. Creationists for example look for external causes that organize, evolutionist for internal properties that organize. Empirically all science can do is quantify, not necessarily qualify. It is interesting to me that even physics , biology, and psychology base themselves upon contradictive assumptions and theorems.

but religion created creationism

....and natural philosophy created science, so what's your point?

Because that's not how it works. The burden to proof falls on the one making the claim. You claim that god created the world. Also, what your doing here is starting with the conclusion and then looking for loose facts to back it up. Thats completly backwards.

That is a cop out. I have heard it a million times by persons who defend the initial claims of others and it is hypocritical. If a person makes the negative assertion first, then he/she is obligated to possess the burden of proof. Re read the posts, it's on your court this session.

 

[BruceDLimber]

I don't know that "mocking" it is apropos, but the fact stands that in the US, creationism has been ruled by courts to be religion and therefore may NOT be taught in public-school science classes!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[jarofthoughts]

Look, let's not make this into another Evolution VS Creationism tread please.
We already have several.
For the purpose of this tread it is assumed that Creationism(especially the YE version)/ID is unscientific and complete and utter nonsense.
Which it is.
There. Done with.
If you have a problem with that go make your own tread.

Now let's move on.

 

[SPACKlick]

All sciences and scientist bring with them fundamental assumptions. Creationists for example look for external causes that organize, evolutionist for internal properties that organize.

Ok, the use of the term evolutionist marks this out as a post the almost certainly had an agenda to being with, however, the point your making is false.

While it is true that there are assumptions made in all the sciences the difference in the type of assumption made between science and creationism is key. Scientists look at all the facts they can get their hands on that bare any relevance. They assume that there is an external world that in some way caused those facts. They then try to work out how that happened. Creationists assume the conclusion first. It's incredibly different.

Empirically all science can do is quantify, not necessarily qualify. It is interesting to me that even physics , biology, and psychology base themselves upon contradictive assumptions and theorems.

The assumptions of Physics, Biology, Chemistry and all the sciences are the same. Their assumptions are that there is an external world that in some way causes what we experience. And I'd be extremely surprised to find theories accepted in two different fields that contradicted but if you could point to an example I'd happily be educated.

I have heard it a million times by persons who defend the initial claims of others and it is hypocritical. If a person makes the negative assertion first, then he/she is obligated to possess the burden of proof. Re read the posts, it's on your court this session.

No, you do not understand the default position. All claims of existence or of causation are more likely false than true because there are an infinite (or near infinite) number of possible claims and a relatively small finite number of those are true. Therefore the burden of proof is always with the person proposing one of the following;
x exists
x causes y
x is impossible
And never with the person proposing
x does not exist/is not shown to exist
x did not cause y/is not shown to cause y
x is possible
The standing assumption for ALL x is that it does not exist, does not cause anything but is possible until it can be demonstrated otherwise.

 

[SPACKlick]

In answer to the OP. I think a teacher needs to be careful with mocking beliefs. Even when those believes are absurd to the point of self ridicule.

Stating the facts "No scientists accept creationism", "Creationism is a veiled attempt by the religious to subvert science" etc. and possibly a small amount of commentary along the lines of a disparaging, "nobody who actually looks at the evidence could still believe that"

It's a matter of delicacy and knowing your audience. A child of creationists who had subscribed to the belief probably would get offended, but the ridicule can help shield others from falling into the trap.

 

[Skwim]

All sciences and scientist bring with them fundamental assumptions. Creationists for example look for external causes that organize, evolutionist for internal properties that organize. Empirically all science can do is quantify, not necessarily qualify. It is interesting to me that even physics , biology, and psychology base themselves upon contradictive assumptions and theorems.

As I thought, you don't have the first idea of what constitutes science. And as has been alluded to, creationism is nowhere near being science. In fact, it could be said that it's the antithesis of science.

No doubt you've seen this cartoon before, but it is so apt to your position that it begs to be displayed again.

​

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm a science teacher and living in Norway the question of Creationism is indeed a rare one, so I'm not so much asking for practical reasons as I am for reasons of principle.
And while I would not condone the ridicule of religion as such, seeing as Creationism/ID seems intent on imposing their 'theory' into science classes and comparing it to one of the best established sciences we have, is it reasonable to make fun of Creationism?

Why yes, of course it is!

Although I suppose that in classroom environment there might be specific considerations that trump that inherent right. It depends on how young and emotionally fragile the students are.

Generally speaking, protecting Creationism from criticism is a form of religious privilege that shouldn't be tolerated in otherwise non-religious environments.

 

[Riverwolf]

But how easy is it to offend people these days. I mean seriously speaking, some people just cannot take any kind of criticism. If we are that worried, no debates can happen in the classroom and kids learn empiricism and are not taught to be critically minded.

The use of potentially degrading in this sense is a problem. Wouldn't it mean teaching creationism and then evolution to ensure a "fair go" for superstitious and unsubstantiated beliefs in the sense of "not being offensive?

I didn't say teachers couldn't challenge ideas or declare them wrong. I said "make fun of". There's a difference.

 

[Me Myself]

Allowed? It should be a requierement.

Seriously though, they should at least make clear that those kind of heartfelt assumptions don´t in the slightlest resemble actual knowledge and that evolution is not a theory because a lot of people are happy thinking about it, but because it is what actual facts point towards so far.

Creationism should be treated as any ilogical assumption a student may have: It should be corrected, and the proper form to face the dillema should be thaught.

 

[YmirGF]

And while I would not condone the ridicule of religion as such, seeing as Creationism/ID seems intent on imposing their 'theory' into science classes and comparing it to one of the best established sciences we have, is it reasonable to make fun of Creationism?

IF it came up, I'd be inclined to just smile and ignore it. Would rolling ones eyes be offensive? Why should a teacher have to comment on something that is perfectly obvious to anyone with a brain? Silence on the matter could be the ultimate contempt.

 

[fantome profane]

I'm a science teacher and living in Norway the question of Creationism is indeed a rare one, so I'm not so much asking for practical reasons as I am for reasons of principle.
And while I would not condone the ridicule of religion as such, seeing as Creationism/ID seems intent on imposing their 'theory' into science classes and comparing it to one of the best established sciences we have, is it reasonable to make fun of Creationism?

I think you have to be very careful in delineating exactly what it is you are mocking. You should not be mocking religion. You should not be mocking belief in “God”, belief in the “Creator” or even the belief certain things in nature were deliberately and directly created. But the pseudo-scientific garbage that some people present to support these beliefs can be mocked, but only if you are confident that you have made the distinction clear in the minds of your students. If you are not sure the line has been clearly drawn I would recommend avoiding any mocking as it is likely to be misconstrued.

 

[averageJOE]

That is a cop out. I have heard it a million times by persons who defend the initial claims of others and it is hypocritical. If a person makes the negative assertion first, then he/she is obligated to possess the burden of proof. Re read the posts, it's on your court this session.

First off, I've made NO claim.

Second, if you've "heard" about people defending initial claims "a million times" then perhaps you can provide us with some examples of this.

Last, give an example of a "negative assertion".

 

[Scott C.]

100 short years ago it was thought god created man, now that myth has pushed back god as only a possibility of a creator of the universe. this is only because we dont know and have a gap in our knowledge.

You dont need science to prove god did not create the world, you need history to understand how man creates deities and then attributes how much they did, based on what they didnt know.

God is the master scientist of eternity, the creator of natural law and the moving cause behind creation. The more we learn from science, the more we learn about how God works. How can science possible disprove that? I don't care if God created man initially as male and female adults or if he started the process by which they evolved. In any case, God is behind it all. Again, how can science possible disprove that?

Obviously history shows that man has had a lot of ideas of god(s) from the beginning. Those notions have evolved over time and such has proven that all of these ideas can't be correct, since they contradict one another. But, none of that disproves that there is a God and that God has revealed certain truths about who and what he is.

Again, I'm baffled by this whole thread. There is not a single shred of scientific evidence that God does not exist. There are many highly intelligent people who conclude that God exists, based on reason, observation, and personal spiritual experience (which can't be observed in the laboratory).

Can science prove that nothing exists which can't be detected through the natural senses or scientific equipment? Why should I believe that if something exists, then it must be scientifically detected? I detect the existence of God through spiritual evidence, clearly presented to me, of which I have certainty equal to that which comes from the scientific method. Can science disprove that? I think not.

 

[Skwim]

Again, I'm baffled by this whole thread. There is not a single shred of scientific evidence that God does not exist. There are many highly intelligent people who conclude that God exists, based on reason, observation, and personal spiritual experience (which can't be observed in the laboratory).

Whaaa? The thread is about teachers mocking creationism, not your god. God wasn't brought up in the thread until post #25, and this was done by none other than yourself. Seems you're just looking to derail the discussion.

 

[averageJOE]

God is the master scientist of eternity, the creator of natural law and the moving cause behind creation. The more we learn from science, the more we learn about how God works. How can science possible disprove that? I don't care if God created man initially as male and female adults or if he started the process by which they evolved. In any case, God is behind it all. Again, how can science possible disprove that?

Obviously history shows that man has had a lot of ideas of god(s) from the beginning. Those notions have evolved over time and such has proven that all of these ideas can't be correct, since they contradict one another. But, none of that disproves that there is a God and that God has revealed certain truths about who and what he is.

Again, I'm baffled by this whole thread. There is not a single shred of scientific evidence that God does not exist. There are many highly intelligent people who conclude that God exists, based on reason, observation, and personal spiritual experience (which can't be observed in the laboratory).

Can science prove that nothing exists which can't be detected through the natural senses or scientific equipment? Why should I believe that if something exists, then it must be scientifically detected? I detect the existence of God through spiritual evidence, clearly presented to me, of which I have certainty equal to that which comes from the scientific method. Can science disprove that? I think not.

Why do you think science is out to disprove anything? Also, like Skwim said, YOU brought up the subject of your own god, no one else.

 

[Noaidi]

As a biology teacher, I agree with the majority here that creationism should not be mocked in the classroom. Many pupils hold the beliefs and views of their parents, and often have not fully explored what these beliefs mean. A teacher mocking a particular stance could be construed by the pupil as a verbal attack on not just them, but their parents.

If we openly mock the views of our pupils, then this creates a classroom environment where pupils may be reluctant to express views on any topic for fear of ridicule.

Kinda defeats the purpose of learning through enquiry.

 

[Scott C.]

Whaaa? The thread is about teachers mocking creationism, not your god. God wasn't brought up in the thread until post #25, and this was done by none other than yourself. Seems you're just looking to derail the discussion.

The thread is about whether science teachers should mock "Creationism". Creationism is the belief that deity created the universe/world. Many of these posts riducule creationism and imply that science disproves such. I'm not sure how my posts have deviated from that subject.

 

[Scott C.]

Because that's not how it works. The burden to proof falls on the one making the claim. You claim that god created the world. Also, what your doing here is starting with the conclusion and then looking for loose facts to back it up. Thats completly backwards.

That's not what I'm doing. My belief in God/creation comes independently of scientific research. Science neither proves nor disproves Creationism. So once again, why would a scientist ridicule Creationsism, as if their profession has proven it false?

I will say that science might disprove some narrow aspects of what some people believe concerning divine creation. If your faith hinges on the belief that God created the world as a flat planet, then science will cause you grief. If you believe that God instantaneously created the world/universe/man in their current form, and out of nothing, and this all happended 6000 years ago, science may cause you grief. But if you believe that God created the world and science helps us to understand the process better, then science is your friend.

 

[Scott C.]

Why do you think science is out to disprove anything? Also, like Skwim said, YOU brought up the subject of your own god, no one else.

Wow, this is hard to communicate my point. Once again, why would a science teacher want to mock Creationism, when science in no way contradicts creationism? Is that question on topic? I guess if a science teacher were asked if God created the world, an appropriate response would be (whether the teacher believes in Creationism or not): "I have my own beliefs on that subject, but I'm here to tell you what scientific research evidences concerning the process of creation. I have no scientific evidence to support or refute the belief that there is a divine intellligence behind that process."