It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

page: 1
42
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+31 more 
posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Many seem to think that the idea of Creationism is a comparable theory to the the theory of evolution, so much so that it can be taught as "valid" science in a science class side-by-side with evolution. However this isn't the case, and to show that I will bring up a thread I made a while back demanding evidence from Creationists to prove Creationism similar to how Creationists constantly try to demand evidence for Evolution. I have posted the thread in question below in case you want to familiarize yourself with it.

Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

In this thread I made the mistake of lumping all Creationists into the same pot, and it is with this mistake that I am going to show why Creationism isn't a valid science topic. You see, by saying that not all Creationists and creation accounts are the same, you can't have a unified idea of what the curriculum for that class would even LOOK like. There are old earth creationists, young earth creationists, creationists that believe that god works through evolution, creationists who believe that god pushed a button then let scientific processes take over, and THESE are just within the Christian religion.

So it reasons, what EXACTLY should we teach here? Genesis? Well what if Genesis is an allegory and not the literal account of creation? For the literalists, what about the contradictions within the account?

Now contrast this with the theory of evolution and you will see that there is a unified idea of what scientists consider about how evolution works. If the theory needs to be changed or updated, the information has to be vetted by a rigorous process of peer review to make sure the presenting scientist didn't miss anything. This results in an over-arching idea that is easy to teach to grade schoolers since all the contentious material is within the minute details that are unimportant to students of science at that educational level. You aren't going to find very many scientists, for instance, that will tell you that evolution says that a monkey gave birth to a human one day, because they've all agreed that that isn't how evolution works.

Therefore, disregarding the whole "catering to one religion" argument, there is no possible way to present a valid course on Creationism, because no one can decide on which version is the most correct (even among Christians) and there is no way to teach all of them.




posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If we're talking public school, I agree. Separation of church and state.

Not opening that can of worms any further.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
whenever such discussions come up about evolution v creationism, I am reminded of the family guy bit going on about it.



Ahh Jeannie, look what you've done!


+5 more 
posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

We are talking in science class in general. Creationism isn't science even if they want to call it that in a religious school. I wouldn't try to restrict a private, religious school from teaching it as science. I'm just pointing out the GLARING contradiction on why it isn't and should never be IN a science class for intellectual honesty's sake.
edit on 6-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'll buy that for a dollar.



However, any school which purports to be a respected educational facility should be very careful about the frivolous and inappropriate use of the word "science" in their course titles in general.

Only methodologies which adhere to the scientific method can be considered such. I believe it is an even greater threat to rationality as many of those pseudo-sciences are falsely celebrated to the point of wide recognition.

I have come up with a bar by which to measure such fields. If the class could be likened to phrenology, it isn't a science and ought not to be called one.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: intrptr

We are talking in science class in general. Creationism isn't science even if they want to call it that in a religious school. I wouldn't try to restrict a private, religious school from teaching it as science. I'm just pointing out the GLARING contradiction on why it isn't and should never be IN a science class for intellectual honesty's sake.


Well in church school they believe whatever they want to, no proof required.

Both sides lose. To me the beauty of life (created, evolved or brought here) is the science. I can't imagine anything that sophisticated going poof from nothing or poof from electric mud puddles either.

As far as teaching science, stick to what we know and have proven. So I again, agree with you.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Give some examples so I know what you are talking about. I mean I know that Phrenology itself is a pseudo-science, but are you referring to psychology in general here?


+4 more 
posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
There hasn't been an actual debate in generations and the only reason that willfully ignorant Creationists are still being coddled is political correctness.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Heh. That's an interesting take on it. Ironically, the same people demanding Creationism be taught in science class are probably some of the very same people who complain about PC on the regular, not realizing that they are trying to take advantage of it too.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Give some examples so I know what you are talking about. I mean I know that Phrenology itself is a pseudo-science, but are you referring to psychology in general here?


Yes, psychology in particular does not pass muster.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

It occurs to me that seeing proof of a monkey suddenly becoming a human like Creationists like to demand of evolution would be more akin to proof of god than evolution.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
The most common issue I have, which is brought up in the OP, is that religious people make these demands without realizing that the terminology that they use applies to thousands of other religions and denominations within their own.

No one in Religion agrees on anything, even within their own religion! Unlike science, they will readily reject any external information that doesn't abide by their religious ideologies, instead of realizing that the new information really does counteract the old theories, therefore it is the theories themselves that need to change, not the information we found.

These individuals going in not to demand that "Creation should be taught in schools", but that "My individual perspective on my particular religion is the only form of truth, and all the other 40,000+ denominations are incorrect, therefore my position and only my position should be taught as science!"

How pompous, arrogant and ignorant, all in one.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
But...faith is replicable. So all versions of creationism have to be correct.

S&F. Well done.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: intrptr

It occurs to me that seeing proof of a monkey suddenly becoming a human like Creationists like to demand of evolution would be more akin to proof of god than evolution.

To me its DNA, cell division, a seed, an egg, the womb. These are beginnings, not adaptation like monkeys to humans in your example.

And again, just my opinion.

Did I say I wouldn't open this can of worms…

my bad, intrptr out.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Many seem to think that the idea of Creationism is a comparable theory to the the theory of evolution, so much so that it can be taught as "valid" science in a science class side-by-side with evolution.


That's because most people don't even know what "science," or scientific theory and method, actually is.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Did I say I wouldn't open this can of worms…

my bad, intrptr out.



Don't you hate it when you get sucked in?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Many seem to think that the idea of Creationism is a comparable theory to the the theory of evolution, so much so that it can be taught as "valid" science in a science class side-by-side with evolution. However this isn't the case, and to show that I will bring up a thread I made a while back demanding evidence from Creationists to prove Creationism similar to how Creationists constantly try to demand evidence for Evolution. I have posted the thread in question below in case you want to familiarize yourself with it.

Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

In this thread I made the mistake of lumping all Creationists into the same pot, and it is with this mistake that I am going to show why Creationism isn't a valid science topic. You see, by saying that not all Creationists and creation accounts are the same, you can't have a unified idea of what the curriculum for that class would even LOOK like. There are old earth creationists, young earth creationists, creationists that believe that god works through evolution, creationists who believe that god pushed a button then let scientific processes take over, and THESE are just within the Christian religion.

So it reasons, what EXACTLY should we teach here? Genesis? Well what if Genesis is an allegory and not the literal account of creation? For the literalists, what about the contradictions within the account?

Now contrast this with the theory of evolution and you will see that there is a unified idea of what scientists consider about how evolution works. If the theory needs to be changed or updated, the information has to be vetted by a rigorous process of peer review to make sure the presenting scientist didn't miss anything. This results in an over-arching idea that is easy to teach to grade schoolers since all the contentious material is within the minute details that are unimportant to students of science at that educational level. You aren't going to find very many scientists, for instance, that will tell you that evolution says that a monkey gave birth to a human one day, because they've all agreed that that isn't how evolution works.

Therefore, disregarding the whole "catering to one religion" argument, there is no possible way to present a valid course on Creationism, because no one can decide on which version is the most correct (even among Christians) and there is no way to teach all of them.


Wow valid point, its amazing, you saying creation by God is a faith, congratulations.


1 question, has evolution got all the answers, do all the scientists on earth agree that its all now rock solid and without issue?

Evolutionists need to get there house in order before running around dictating how others should act.

Post the evidence

Its pompous arrogant and ignorant to suggest scientists all agree and its a fact

Hey look a mirror, hypocrisy
edit on b2015Mon, 06 Jul 2015 10:59:53 -050073120151am312015-07-06T10:59:53-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Give some examples so I know what you are talking about. I mean I know that Phrenology itself is a pseudo-science, but are you referring to psychology in general here?


Yes, psychology in particular does not pass muster.


I disagree. I think that psychology is a sound science, it is just not a very old science like many of the other fields. So the gaps in our basic knowledge of the field are larger and thus we are more prone to believe unsubstantiated assumptions because we haven't show any traditional and testable patterns to develop sound ideas to describe things.

Keep in mind, our knowledge base in the field of Psychology has improved IMMENSELY since Freud and his dream analysis, Phrenology, and other hokey Psych theories. For instance, it should be noted that Freud didn't base any of his pyschoanalysis theory on really ANYTHING. He just invented it based off of anecdotal evidence and said it was true.

Now, I can see the reprehension of trusting where this science has gone since him, since he IS considered one of the fathers of that field of science, but keep in mind, he isn't the first scientist to push anecdote as fact, and we haven't discarded any of the other sciences where this has been attempted.

So in other words, I just think that Psychology just needs more time. It'll probably make much more sense to us with more evidence collected and analyzed. After all, that is how we overturned Freud's hokum.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
1 question, has evolution got all the answers, do all the scientists on earth agree that its all now rock solid and without issue?

Evolutionists need to get there house in order before running around dictating how others should act.

Post the evidence


It's not about having all the answers. That's impossible, even for religion. It's about having the SAME answers. I should be able to go to any Creationist and ask them how it happened and get the same (or mostly the same) account as the next guy, as is the case for the theory of evolution. But that isn't the case for Creationism. Depending on who I ask, I could have two COMPLETELY different accounts of things, and that's without even factoring in if they believe in various scientific theories like the Big Bang or Evolution.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Here we have it:


1 question, has evolution got all the answers, do all the scientists on earth agree that its all now rock solid and without issue?


At the risk of offending a bunch of people (actually I don't care), I'd like to point out that it's no coincidence that Creationists (aka "Evolution deniers") sound an awful lot like Global Warming deniers.

All opinions do not merit equal consideration and it is the height of BS political correctness that we keep pretending as though they do.




top topics



 
42
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join