Creationism/Intelligent Design

[Rubystars]

Maybe I went to a "progressive" school, but I highly doubt it. Nevertheless, we were taught both, just in different classes. SCIENCE classes taught evolution, while SOCIAL STUDIES taught about creationism. Our entire sophomore year of social studies was about religions, all of the major global religions, past & present.

Well only crazy fanatics have a problem with creationism being taught about in social studies. It's just treating it, or its cousin ID as hard science that's the problem.

These aren't ideas that should be presented in a school atmosphere as something in direct opposition to the other. While logically if presented that you must pick A or B, they cannot co-exist, there is a way to present the material without making a child choose their religion or their biology grade. The teen years are confusing enough, there is no reason to throw these kids into a spiritual debate in school, especially PUBLIC schools where religion should not play a part in education.

Evolution is not religious though. It's just a scientific fact. They should be expected to understand that advancements in Biology are often based directly or indirectly upon evolution, such as developing antibiotics which are harder for bacteria to develop resistance to, or how the flu vaccine needs to be updated every year.

Looking back now, after all the arguments of recent, this is a fine way to present both ideas, without the school supporting one over another, or forcing one idea on a student.

When one idea has scientific merit and one idea has NO scientific merit, only the former should be taught as science. This is not forcing it on students, it's teaching them the facts. If the facts conflict with their doctrines, it shouldn't matter. Are we going to stop teaching that pork is a rich source of protein because it might offend Muslim students?

Just like in real life, both ideas exist simultaneously. If you believe in creationism, you just learn the stuff your science teacher wants, just the facts as presented, with an understanding that it is being taught as something that SOME people believe.

Evolution is not a belief. When you have empirical evidence for something, you don't have to have faith in it or believe in it. Scientists don't "believe in evolution". They accept it based on the evidence.

Religion requires belief, science doesn't.

If you are more for evolution, you learn the creationism beliefs as presented regardless of your personal holding, and recognize it for what it is, something that SOME people believe.

Creationism and even creation itself is a belief, not something you can demonstrate empirically or objectively. See the difference?

I promise you it can be done, I'm pretty sure that not a single person in my social studies class is now a faithful Pagan-Catholic-Muslim-Jew-Buddist-Mormon-Communist, yet we studied ALL of these and their beliefs.

It's the way in which the subjects are taught that's important. Social studies class is fine for teaching about creationism, Science class is not.

[rahmota]

Rubystars: You are correct I did misphrase the way that sort of law should be. The way I had it was just as big a knee jerk as the folks who want to have creationism taught as a science.

Banrion: Now that is a good way to have both side tauight. In their respectively appropriate places. Evolution as the science it is and creationism (or whatever other guise it is trying to be hidden as) in social studies as the belief system it is.

And to say this about the two. With a belief the condition of something matters upon which way you belief, with science your personal belief doesnt matter (unless we are talking about quantum physics and wierd particles) as to the condition of something. Ie you may not belief that truck is going to hurt when it hits you but science says its gonna sting quite a bit!

[Seshat]

I would like the philosophy of science to be better taught. Basically, I'd like everyone who is capable of learning it, learning that science is the practice of creating disprovable hypotheses, testing them by an attempt to disprove them, and accepting them as tentatively true until they are disproven - which for things which actually ARE true, will be never.

I'd like the majority of people to understand that that method is the best way mankind has yet come up with to approximate the empirical truth of the world around us.

I'd also like them to understand that faith-based truths, such as God's existence, are unable to be disproven, and thus are outside the realm of science. Similarly, philosophical questions such as 'at what point does an ovum and its fertilizing sperm become a person' are outside the realm of science. Science only covers statements which can be disproven. 'The speed of light in a vacuum is fifty kilometres an hour' is a perfect scientific hypothesis - one just has to measure the speed of light in a vacuum.

I don't know if that's likely to happen, but if it did, it'd sure make a lot of things easier. People wouldn't be so fast to complain about it when a doctor says 'I don't know' or an engineer says 'let's find out'. Yeah, I know - that'll never happen. I'm a dreamer.

But science class - ie 'tentative truth class' - isn't the right place to teach stuff like 'In the beginning, God created ....'. That stuff belongs either in religious class - ie 'we believe because we have faith class'.

Another possible place for 'In the beginning...' sorts of studies is a philosophy, comparitive religion, anthropology or sociology sort of class. Where it's 'some people believe this...'


A few months ago, my father and I had a creation-vs-evolution argument. I told him something like this:
"Dad, I don't know whether there was no intelligence involved in creating the world, or if the world was created half a second ago by a God who has an incredible sense of detail and a weird sense of humour.
Either of those is possible, as is everything in between. Maybe God made the Earth by spinning it out of star matter, maybe He made the dinosaurs while He was figuring out brainstems and anatomical configurations. I don't know. And I'm fine with not knowing.
And if God made me, He made me a questioner and a thinker. I'm sure He'll forgive me for not having blind faith, and for keeping the question unanswered in my mind, because He made me this way. And if He didn't make me, if He doesn't exist, that's fine with me too. God's existence or non-existence is something I can't answer, and will never know the answer to."

My Dad isn't like me. He's a believer. He needs something solid, something he knows to be true. And religion gives him that. I'm happy to stand on the wobbly ground of 'I don't know', but I accept that there aren't that many people who can stand here with me.

I guess I wish there were fewer people on either the solid ground or the wobbly ground who keep trying to pull other people onto their patch.

[Greenday]

If a sociology class teaches a bunch of different religions and cultures, I don't see a problem with that. But if it's a mandatory high school course, and the only thing it talks about is intelligent design, that's well beyond the line of acceptability.

Evolution as a scientific theory must include things that make it falsifiable. Such a law would be going too far because beds of fossils could be found which included human remains in places they shouldn't be, like Cambrian rocks, or birds could lay eggs that puppies hatch out of. You might laugh but either of these things would be scientific evidence that evolution was false.

This doesn't disprove anything. It could just be a perfect example of failed evolution. It doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist.

[CancelMyService]

My main complaint is how the supporters of ID jump through hoops to claim it's not creationism, and it's just so intellectually dishonest. Oh, we aren't saying "God", just an "Intellegent Designer"....what BS.

[Seshat]

My main complaint is how the supporters of ID jump through hoops to claim it's not creationism, and it's just so intellectually dishonest. Oh, we aren't saying "God", just an "Intellegent Designer"....what BS.

It's not just dishonest, it's insulting. Do they really think that
A) we won't notice, or
B) we even CARE?

Whether it's 'god' or an 'intelligent designer', it's not disproveable. So it's STILL NOT SCIENCE, DAMMIT!
Teach it in religion class or a social studies class or something. Don't teach it in 'hypotheses disprovable by empirical experiments' class, aka science.

[AFPheonix]

I would like the philosophy of science to be better taught. Basically, I'd like everyone who is capable of learning it, learning that science is the practice of creating disprovable hypotheses, testing them by an attempt to disprove them, and accepting them as tentatively true until they are disproven - which for things which actually ARE true, will be never.

I'd like the majority of people to understand that that method is the best way mankind has yet come up with to approximate the empirical truth of the world around us.

I'd also like them to understand that faith-based truths, such as God's existence, are unable to be disproven, and thus are outside the realm of science. Similarly, philosophical questions such as 'at what point does an ovum and its fertilizing sperm become a person' are outside the realm of science. Science only covers statements which can be disproven. 'The speed of light in a vacuum is fifty kilometres an hour' is a perfect scientific hypothesis - one just has to measure the speed of light in a vacuum.

I can't remember a single science class that I've taken since High School (and as a Bio major, that's been quite a few) that DIDN'T go over the basic idea of Scientific Method in the first chapter.
I think some of the problem is that the way schools are set up now, kids don't get enough time with science since they're too busy learning to take tests in math and reading. By the time they reach a certain age, science just seems to be a concept that is beyond them. They've lost the desire to learn about the processes going on around them. I've lost track of the number of people that I've run into who just kind of glaze over when any scientific topic comes up, they're that intimidated by it.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the humanities have fallen too far to the wayside in education. We are not teaching children the art of thinking through things.

Ugh. There's just so many interconnected issues in education, and in the meantime, we are falling behind other parts of the world in technical fields, which is unfortunate because our ability to innovate and think outside the box is really what fueled our rise to power.

[DexX]

For a good guide of how various OECD member countries (plus a handful of guest countries) compare in maths, science, and reading, have a look at this. It's the brief summary of a report called PISA, run by the OECD. They tested something like half a million students in fifty-odd countries and did a statistical analysis of the results.

I was very pleased with how my beloved Australia did - always top ten, frequently top five - but it must be disturbing for those Americans who truly value a good education to see how poorly the US did across the board. Something needs to be done in a big hurry.

[AFPheonix]

Yes, it does, before we end up with a generation of dullards.

If I ever squirt out a kid, you can bet that I will be taking an active interest in getting them curious about the world around them, even if it's something as simple as using electrical tape to connect a battery to a wire to a small light bulb.

[susfubb]

Agreed to Seshat & ASP,

My most cherished dream was to become a math & science teacher - preferably to middle school students, because I knew I could inspire them to my love of the subjects - even if I had to raise field trip funds myself.

Unfortunately, my "counselor said the field was already too "overcrowded" and I would never find a job). Nat'l merit Scholar, 99th %ile SAT & ACT/ 1968, senior class officer, 5th highest GPA out of 566 graduating, blah blah. I get heartsick every time I see that science teachers are in drastically short supply, females especially, and the US is falling far behind the rest of the world. Considering the $$ we "throw" at the problem, these problems keep hitting the fan at accelerating rates.

I certainly hope registered voters are paying attention to the campaign promises. ~jill

[Seshat]

I have two names, and one TV program, that you will find interesting. Study the lives of the people named, and the TV program - you may well find that someone is willing to work with you on a mass-media show of some form inspired by the three.

The names are Professor Julius Sumner-Miller, and the late and much lamented Richard Feynman. The TV show is the Curiousity Show, produced by the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

[protege]

Yes, it does, before we end up with a generation of dullards.

It's already happening. Too many stupid people. Some of that is because we *tolerate* and *reward* stupidity. Look at all the attention lavished on idiots like Paris Hilton and Britney. We make excuses for them -- "It's not his fault since he didn't learn that in school" etc. We also put a bit too much emphasis on sports and other activities. I'm not saying that we *shouldn't* have sports teams and clubs, but they shouldn't rule all.

There was a time when Americans were kicking ass in the technology field. Now we're trying to catch up. If something's not done soon, it might be too late!

[Seshat]

It's never too late, but it is true that if you don't reverse the trend, all your current crop of science/math teachers and other specialists will eventually die out or retire out. To recover, you'd need to hire from outside your nation to support your self-taught intellectuals.

But yes, it'd be hugely ironic if that happened. Britain's Victorian expansion and America's dominance are the reasons that the current language of intellectuals is English. Britain's lost its dominance, if America loses its as well, intellectuals will probably start needing to learn German or Japanese.

[DexX]

It's already happening. Too many stupid people.

The frightening thing is that mass stupidity snowballs very quickly, because stupid people with no imaginations often have a tendency to hate smart people. Observe how in many parts of the US the term "college boy" is an insult. Too much pride in "simple-mindedness" and too much resentment of intellectuals fuels a national anti-intellectual political environment. Electing a clown like Bush is only a mild symptom; Pol Pot's killing fields are the ultimate destination.

[BookstoreEscapee]

It's interesting that I came across this topic, since I have been reading the ABC News message board on this story (warning, I have been sucked into this for the past 2 days; there are nearly 800 posts). The story is about the Florida Board of Ed allowing certain phrasing in their science standards, namely "the scientific theory of evolution" rather than vague dance-arounds like "change over time" (which, if you think about it, is really just the simplest definition of evolution there is). Really, I find it rather ridiculous. But the message boards have some really hard-core anti-evolutionists (and one in particular), who keep saying "it's JUST a theory" and who keep insisting there is proof for all the things the Bible says; their proof is, you guessed it, the Bible. For example, dinosaur fossils prove the Bible because of the reference to Leviathan in Job. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Other serious posters attempt to explain where they are wrong, what evidence there is for evolution, what the technical definition of "theory" is, etc. Then of course there are the inevitable smart-asses who are just baiting them and egging them on. It's really quite amusing. But reading the one poster's comments in particular has me going and wondering how it is that people can be that narrow minded and willfully ignorant.

When I was in school, I learned about evolution in biology class. We studied the major religions in social studies (though we learned more of the history and practice of those religions, not necessarily the mythology). I was never aware of any debate over creation vs. evolution, etc. Though I graduated HS in 1993; all this debate over teaching Intelligent Design "theory" has really come to the fore in the last several years. Don't know how long the idea has been around, but I only heard of it within the last 5 years.

Even more interesting, a week or 2 ago there was a story about a dinosaur fossil found recently in Mexico. It said nothing about evolution or creation or anything. Just a short report on this fossil and what the critter probably looked like and that sort of thing. The message boards turned into the same exact debate (with some of the same people, too).