how would you feel if a creationist taught your kids science?

[geauxtohell]

What kills me is that I am lambasted for disputing the theory of evolution (I don't, so long as it isn't being used as evidence that there's no Creator). The non-ID crowd brings it up, then jeers when you respond to say that evolution doesn't explain creation...

And what do they say in their taunts?

Oh, that evolution has nothing to do with Creation.

NO SHIT!

Except, as you stated earlier, you dispute that man evolved.

That's disputing evolution.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Any scientist worth his salt would know that scientific theory is just a guess. It is an educated guess. It is not unsupported by observation, testing, empirical evidence. Some theory does contain a very high degree of probability. But certainty is a huge word to a true scientist.

That is why those who say there is no such thing as a Creator or I.D. are close minded religionists operating on pure faith that contains nothing of scientific thought. Believing in a high probability that such does not exist is very different than stating such as an absolute which I believe no competent scientist would do.

You have no clue what you're talking about. The overwhelmingly large majority of the scientific community, specifically biologists, understand that evolution is essentially fact, as far as scientific discovery allows, and is on par with the theory of gravity.

You seem to not only lack an understanding of what "theory" means in scientific terms, but also lack all other understanding of scientific language as well. You describe something as an "educated guess." The scientific word for "educated guess" is hypothesis, not theory. The two are very distinct, and their definitions have already been posted in this thread.

It seems you really have a poor understanding of scientific terms, as well as evolution as a whole, and then you wonder why you get negged. Perhaps you should re-examine your lack of knowledge on the topic before talking about it further.

 

[geauxtohell]

Any scientist worth his salt would know that scientific theory is just a guess.

That's absolutely not a true statement.

It is an educated guess. It is not unsupported by observation, testing, empirical evidence. Some theory does contain a very high degree of probability. But certainty is a huge word to a true scientist.

That's also not a true statement.

And that is why I think a passionate Atheist might make as bad a science teacher as would a Creationist who denied Evolution.

Anyone who can't separate their personal beliefs from their professional duty is bad at what they do period.

 

[Trajan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5ixmLNwF9s&playnext=1&list=PLA3D6C9C847F27E6F

have you seen the movie?

I've seen it. I've also seen the selective editing they did to make people like Dawkins look bad. I think Dawkins is a pretentious asshole; however, that movie is just dishonest.

Ben Stein must have needed money and wanted to cash in on some of the fundamentalist $. That's the only people that buy it.

Furthermore, at the university level, I would fully expect faculty to be excoriated for trying to propel a non-scientific theory (intelligent design) in the biology curriculum. The overwhelming majority of biologists find ID to be laughable. Most of the Ph.D.'s who have flocked to the ID movement were in fields outside biology. Probably the most notable is Behe, who was a biochemist and came up with the non-sense of "irreducible complexity". The idea was so scientifically unsound that a lawyer with no background in sciences made him look like an ass at the Dover trial and also got him to admit that, if ID were accepted as a scientific field, then astrology would have to also be accepted under the new "lax" rules.

All the noise that the Discovery Institute tried to create (i.e. "Expelled", "teach the controversy", etc) quickly fell behind the wayside at the Dover Trial, which was the high water mark for ID. That's why you don't hear much about ID now. Even the Discovery Institute has withdrawn from it's position of trying to have ID taught as a "competing theory".

Ben Stein must have needed money and wanted to cash in on some of the fundamentalist $. That's the only people that buy it.

thats why I asked.

I never saw it as fundamentalist or creationist as it is shaped to stand, theologically per se'. I saw it as an attempt to fill in some blanks. I think that though there is no scientific empirically backed examination that renders a scientific satisfactory result doesn't mean discussion and research into this theory should stop or be denigrated.

In some cases I can see how they that is proponents can become their own worst enemy in that they wish to fashion this in a religiously couched fundamentalist term(s).

I see the apparent, excoriation as no different really from papal edict(s) that stopped scientific theorem from moving forward because the prevailing authority at the time had a vested interest in stopping it or were influenced by bias.

 

[AllieBaba]

What kills me is that I am lambasted for disputing the theory of evolution (I don't, so long as it isn't being used as evidence that there's no Creator). The non-ID crowd brings it up, then jeers when you respond to say that evolution doesn't explain creation...

And what do they say in their taunts?

Oh, that evolution has nothing to do with Creation.

NO SHIT!

Except, as you stated earlier, you dispute that man evolved.

That's disputing evolution.

No, I dispute that man evolved from some other animal.

I bred horses for years. I get basic, standard evolution within a species.

However, one thing doesn't magically evolve into something else. There's no proof for it. That is just a theory.

 

[Foxfyre]

To answer the question posed by the OP, I really don't care about the personal beliefs of the teacher in any science classroom instructing my kids, so long as they are not teaching those beliefs in class.

Until and unless they start indoctrinating my kids, what they believe or do not believe is none of my business and has nothing to do with their job. Neither is what I believe and teach to my children any business of theirs, nor is it their place to teach my kids things that should be taught at home and/or in our chosen place of worship.

For the most part I agree, but I do think teachers should be committed to their subject matter if they are going to teach. I don't want a teacher teaching math who thinks Einstein's theory of relativity is unimportant or who doesn't believe it has any validity.

I don't want a biology teacher who disbelieves in Evolution teaching that subject.

I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.

I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.

I don't want a Holocaust denier teaching history.

I want teachers and professors from pre-school through all levels of higher education to teach information objectively and without prejudice and without dictating absolutes in anything. The best teachers give their students all the available data, statistics, known facts, theories, and possibilities and then encourage the students to use that to draw conclusions or do further research.

If science teachers across the land were teaching their students that there are nine planets in our Solar System, they were all wrong as of 2006 (?) once Pluto was busted back to dwarf planet wouldn't they. A good science teacher now says that we have so far discovered eight planets in our solar system and that is probably all that there is out there.

As I posted earlier, one scientists described science as an evolving process of learning and understanding. Born and Ridley have summarized my personal view thusly:

The fuel on which science runs is ignorance. Science is like a hungry furnace that must be fed logs from the forests of ignorance that surround us. In the process, the clearing that we call knowledge expands, but the more it expands, the longer its perimeter and the more ignorance comes into view. . . . A true scientist is bored by knowledge; it is the assault on ignorance that motivates him - the mysteries that previous discoveries have revealed. The forest is more interesting than the clearing.
Matt Ridley, 1999
Genome: the autobiography of a species in 23 chapters, p. 271.


There is no philosophical high-road in science, with epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by trial and error, building our roads behind us as we proceed. We do not find sign-posts at cross-roads, but our own scouts erect them, to help the rest.
Max Born (1882-1970), Nobel Prize-winning physicist,
quoted in Gerald Holton's Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought

 

[geauxtohell]

No, I dispute that man evolved from some other animal.

I guess you'd have to expand on that. What do you think man evolved from?

I bred horses for years. I get basic, standard evolution within a species.

Except that's "artificial selection" and not "natural selection". Though Darwin bred dogs and that probably laid some of the basis for his theory.

However, one thing doesn't magically evolve into something else. There's no proof for it. That is just a theory.

That's also something that people commonly state evolution claims that it does not claim.

 

[Modbert]

I don't want a biology teacher who disbelieves in Evolution teaching that subject.

I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.

I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.

I don't want a Holocaust denier teaching history.

Hooray! False Equivalences!

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't want a biology teacher who disbelieves in Evolution teaching that subject.

I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.

I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.

I don't want a Holocaust denier teaching history.

Hooray! False Equivalences!

Non sequitur.

 

[geauxtohell]

thats why I asked.

I never saw it as fundamentalist or creationist as it is shaped to stand, theologically per se'. I saw it as an attempt to fill in some blanks. I think that though there is no scientific empirically backed examination that renders a scientific satisfactory result doesn't mean discussion and research into this theory should stop or be denigrated.

If you honestly want to explore the roots of Intelligent Design, which is a political movement designed to try and introduce creationism and God back into public schools, then I recommend this:

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

A lot of us have written about the matter, but they do a better job of summing it up. The roots of intelligent design are not ground in academic thought. They are ground in political activism, and there are the court documents to prove it.

The larger problem with ID is that it is not a scientific theory. It violates the scientific method (the existence of a supernatural force can't be falsified) which means there can be no legitimate scientific research into it. It's a procedural argument more than an argument for or against the concept.

 

[goldcatt]

To answer the question posed by the OP, I really don't care about the personal beliefs of the teacher in any science classroom instructing my kids, so long as they are not teaching those beliefs in class.

Until and unless they start indoctrinating my kids, what they believe or do not believe is none of my business and has nothing to do with their job. Neither is what I believe and teach to my children any business of theirs, nor is it their place to teach my kids things that should be taught at home and/or in our chosen place of worship.

For the most part I agree, but I do think teachers should be committed to their subject matter if they are going to teach. I don't want a teacher teaching math who thinks Einstein's theory of relativity is unimportant or who doesn't believe it has any validity.

I don't want a biology teacher who disbelieves in Evolution teaching that subject.

I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.

I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.

I don't want a Holocaust denier teaching history.

I want teachers and professors from pre-school through all levels of higher education to teach information objectively and without prejudice and without dictating absolutes in anything. The best teachers give their students all the available data, statistics, known facts, theories, and possibilities and then encourage the students to use that to draw conclusions or do further research.

If science teachers across the land were teaching their students that there are nine planets in our Solar System, they were all wrong as of 2006 (?) once Pluto was busted back to dwarf planet wouldn't they. A good science teacher now says that we have so far discovered eight planets in our solar system and that is probably all that there is out there.

As I posted earlier, one scientists described science as an evolving process of learning and understanding. Born and Ridley have summarized my personal view thusly:

The fuel on which science runs is ignorance. Science is like a hungry furnace that must be fed logs from the forests of ignorance that surround us. In the process, the clearing that we call knowledge expands, but the more it expands, the longer its perimeter and the more ignorance comes into view. . . . A true scientist is bored by knowledge; it is the assault on ignorance that motivates him - the mysteries that previous discoveries have revealed. The forest is more interesting than the clearing.
Matt Ridley, 1999
Genome: the autobiography of a species in 23 chapters, p. 271.


There is no philosophical high-road in science, with epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by trial and error, building our roads behind us as we proceed. We do not find sign-posts at cross-roads, but our own scouts erect them, to help the rest.
Max Born (1882-1970), Nobel Prize-winning physicist,
quoted in Gerald Holton's Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought

When we're talking about science classes (trying to stick closely with the OP here), then I have no problem with a science teacher explaining different scientific theories and taking that route.

What I do have a problem with is a teacher indoctrinating my children in religion when in science class. If a student raises their hand and says they believe in creationism and there is no such thing as evolution, the student should simply be told not that creationism is right or wrong, but that it is not a subject for science class. Because it's not.

For all that teacher knows, my children could be any flavor of Christian. Or Jewish. Or Muslim. Or Zooastrian. Or Hindu. Or Buddhist. Or a Native American religion. Or atheist. And what they are taught as far as religious beliefs and values is my decision as the parent, not theirs as the authority figure while they are a captive audience in school.

 

[JBeukema]

And what is someone who calls a science teacher closed minded and unfit to teach because they teach that Creationism violates the First Law of Thermodynamics????? I would guess, hypocrite.

Demonstrate

It should be obvious!

Creationism says that no thing (God) created everything from nothing.
The FLoT says that from nothing, nothing comes.

FLoT applies within a given system: this univese


God, like Branes, exists outside of the system in question


There is no evidence FLoT can be extrapolated to apply outside of this universe, to whatever medium it might itself exist within

Science recognizes this when discussing M-theory and bubble universes

 

[JBeukema]

Well, no. I haven't seen a single person in this thread on "my side" state that creationists can't teach evolution. Once again you are making crap up because you don't have an actual argument. The general consensus here has been that anyone can teach science so long as they do so adequately while remaining within the boundaries of scientific understanding and professionalism. It doesn't matter whether a creationist, Christian, Muslim, or atheist does it, so long as their personal beliefs are kept out of the classroom.

Again I ask: what part of anything I've said thus far do you disagree with?

Major fail on your part. The OP clearly implies that someone who believes in creation should not or cannot teach science. You also seem to think that a person's beliefs are not part of teaching. Who and want a person is helps make up the style of teaching. A strong belief system makes for the best teachers.

As pointed out on page one, the OP was trolling for suckers

 

[JBeukema]

Any scientist worth his salt would know that scientific theory is just a guess. It is an educated guess. It is not unsupported by observation, testing, empirical evidence. Some theory does contain a very high degree of probability. But certainty is a huge word to a true scientist.

That is why those who say there is no such thing as a Creator or I.D. are close minded religionists operating on pure faith that contains nothing of scientific thought. Believing in a high probability that such does not exist is very different than stating such as an absolute which I believe no competent scientist would do.

You have no clue what you're talking about. The overwhelmingly large majority of the scientific community, specifically biologists, understand that evolution is essentially fact, as far as scientific discovery allows, and is on par with the theory of gravity.

You seem to not only lack an understanding of what "theory" means in scientific terms, but also lack all other understanding of scientific language as well. You describe something as an "educated guess." The scientific word for "educated guess" is hypothesis, not theory. The two are very distinct, and their definitions have already been posted in this thread.

It seems you really have a poor understanding of scientific terms, as well as evolution as a whole, and then you wonder why you get negged. Perhaps you should re-examine your lack of knowledge on the topic before talking about it further.

There is also the small matter of our observing evolution.

See: nylonase


Evolution is an observed fact, like gravity

Evolution is not the same thing as the Theory of Evolution, which posit both (A) the mechanisms behind evolution (mutation, selection, genetic drift) and (B) that these same evolutionary forces we observe today gave rise to current species from common ancestors

 

[JBeukema]

What kills me is that I am lambasted for disputing the theory of evolution (I don't, so long as it isn't being used as evidence that there's no Creator). The non-ID crowd brings it up, then jeers when you respond to say that evolution doesn't explain creation...

And what do they say in their taunts?

Oh, that evolution has nothing to do with Creation.

NO SHIT!

Except, as you stated earlier, you dispute that man evolved.

That's disputing evolution.

No, I dispute that man evolved from some other animal.

I bred horses for years. I get basic, standard evolution within a species.

However, one thing doesn't magically evolve into something else. There's no proof for it. That is just a theory.

You're confused, child. The magic hypothesis is called Creationism.

 

[Trajan]

thats why I asked.

I never saw it as fundamentalist or creationist as it is shaped to stand, theologically per se'. I saw it as an attempt to fill in some blanks. I think that though there is no scientific empirically backed examination that renders a scientific satisfactory result doesn't mean discussion and research into this theory should stop or be denigrated.

If you honestly want to explore the roots of Intelligent Design, which is a political movement designed to try and introduce creationism and God back into public schools, then I recommend this:

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

A lot of us have written about the matter, but they do a better job of summing it up. The roots of intelligent design are not ground in academic thought. They are ground in political activism, and there are the court documents to prove it.

The larger problem with ID is that it is not a scientific theory. It violates the scientific method (the existence of a supernatural force can't be falsified) which means there can be no legitimate scientific research into it. It's a procedural argument more than an argument for or against the concept.

I wasn't aware I had explored it dishonestly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Scientific theory is an educated, factual deduction based on the evidence. The theory of evolution is not an airy fairy speculation based on whimsy. That is why it is taught in the biology classroom.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

No, I dispute that man evolved from some other animal.

I bred horses for years. I get basic, standard evolution within a species.

However, one thing doesn't magically evolve into something else. There's no proof for it. That is just a theory.

Breeding horses is not evolution. Again, you don't actually know what the term means. Stop thinking you do. As someone else mentioned, the only magical explanation is produced by religion, not science. There is an overwhelming and undeniable proof for evolution.

For the most part I agree, but I do think teachers should be committed to their subject matter if they are going to teach. I don't want a teacher teaching math who thinks Einstein's theory of relativity is unimportant or who doesn't believe it has any validity.

The theory of relativity is irrelevant to a grade school math classroom, and regardless of what a teacher thinks about it, it is moot so long as it does not inhibit that teacher from effectively conveying their subject, which I've mentioned is the ONLY real issue.

I don't want a biology teacher who disbelieves in Evolution teaching that subject.

I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.

I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.

I don't want a Holocaust denier teaching history.

Again, none of those things matter if those personal beliefs in no way effect that person's effectiveness at conveying the content of their subject. If a religious zealot personally believed evolution to be a fraud left by the devil, but was able to drop those personal beliefs in the classroom and effectively each evolution, there's no problem.

Personal beliefs are NOT the issue here. Personal beliefs that compromise education ARE the issue. You seem to be incapable of understanding how mature adults can distinguish between personal and professional ideas. My guess is that you lack such a capacity, and thus project your deficiency onto everyone else when such is not the case.

I want teachers and professors from pre-school through all levels of higher education to teach information objectively and without prejudice and without dictating absolutes in anything. The best teachers give their students all the available data, statistics, known facts, theories, and possibilities and then encourage the students to use that to draw conclusions or do further research.

What you have also said you want is for teachers to state creation is a possible explanation for the gaps in scientific understanding, which directly contradicts the above quoted excerpt, as such an idea is NOT available data or known fact, but rather unsupported guesswork. [/QUOTE]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Creationism and ID may be taught as unscientific supposition in comparative religions or mythology or philosophy classes, but never in a biology classroom.

 

[Foxfyre]

To answer the question posed by the OP, I really don't care about the personal beliefs of the teacher in any science classroom instructing my kids, so long as they are not teaching those beliefs in class.

Until and unless they start indoctrinating my kids, what they believe or do not believe is none of my business and has nothing to do with their job. Neither is what I believe and teach to my children any business of theirs, nor is it their place to teach my kids things that should be taught at home and/or in our chosen place of worship.

For the most part I agree, but I do think teachers should be committed to their subject matter if they are going to teach. I don't want a teacher teaching math who thinks Einstein's theory of relativity is unimportant or who doesn't believe it has any validity.

I don't want a biology teacher who disbelieves in Evolution teaching that subject.

I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.

I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.

I don't want a Holocaust denier teaching history.

I want teachers and professors from pre-school through all levels of higher education to teach information objectively and without prejudice and without dictating absolutes in anything. The best teachers give their students all the available data, statistics, known facts, theories, and possibilities and then encourage the students to use that to draw conclusions or do further research.

If science teachers across the land were teaching their students that there are nine planets in our Solar System, they were all wrong as of 2006 (?) once Pluto was busted back to dwarf planet wouldn't they. A good science teacher now says that we have so far discovered eight planets in our solar system and that is probably all that there is out there.

As I posted earlier, one scientists described science as an evolving process of learning and understanding. Born and Ridley have summarized my personal view thusly:

The fuel on which science runs is ignorance. Science is like a hungry furnace that must be fed logs from the forests of ignorance that surround us. In the process, the clearing that we call knowledge expands, but the more it expands, the longer its perimeter and the more ignorance comes into view. . . . A true scientist is bored by knowledge; it is the assault on ignorance that motivates him - the mysteries that previous discoveries have revealed. The forest is more interesting than the clearing.
Matt Ridley, 1999
Genome: the autobiography of a species in 23 chapters, p. 271.


There is no philosophical high-road in science, with epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by trial and error, building our roads behind us as we proceed. We do not find sign-posts at cross-roads, but our own scouts erect them, to help the rest.
Max Born (1882-1970), Nobel Prize-winning physicist,
quoted in Gerald Holton's Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought

When we're talking about science classes (trying to stick closely with the OP here), then I have no problem with a science teacher explaining different scientific theories and taking that route.

What I do have a problem with is a teacher indoctrinating my children in religion when in science class. If a student raises their hand and says they believe in creationism and there is no such thing as evolution, the student should simply be told not that creationism is right or wrong, but that it is not a subject for science class. Because it's not.

For all that teacher knows, my children could be any flavor of Christian. Or Jewish. Or Muslim. Or Zooastrian. Or Hindu. Or Buddhist. Or a Native American religion. Or atheist. And what they are taught as far as religious beliefs and values is my decision as the parent, not theirs as the authority figure while they are a captive audience in school.

Which is pretty much what I've been arguing all along and getting blasted (and neg repped) for while you get applauded. LOL.

But the teacher should also not be saying that Evolution is an absolute, because it isn't, but shoud be explaining that it is the best and most credible explanations for the evolvement of various species and the scientific theory that is most credible at this time. But there are many unanswered questions yet within the theory of Evolution and it will be up to your generation--speaking to the students--to carry that further to greater knowledge and understandings. And the students you teach will add even more to the body of knowledge available to us.

As you said, schools should not be indoctrinating students with anything but should be giving them as much information, including varying perspectives, as possible and encouraging the students to think, expand their scope of perspective, ask questions, and believe that for all the great science we have, it is but a tiny fraction of all the science that we will likely one day have.

Had the OP started with the question of whether I want a Creationist teaching Creationism in Science class, that would be an easy no. Also I would not wanting a teacher telling students that Evolution was the only belief worth having and trumps your religious beliefs.
Both would be the same degree of close minded indoctrination.