• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Teaching Of Creationism

Originally posted by Emperor
And that is really telling - "both"? There are hundreds of theories about evolution but we surely can't give them equal weighting or the whole the whole school year would be full - "this week we'll be doing Vedic creationism and next week we'll covering the Interventionist Theory".

That's just what I was thinking when I read that bit. I had this image in my head of every possible explanation being taught, including the idea that we're the hybrid offspring of monkeys and aliens, and that perhaps a shadow government of lizard people is controlling us all ;)
 
I've got nothing against open mindedness being excercised in the teaching of 'Evolution'. In fact trying to figure out how it's possible to get from one form of life form to another, is a lot of the fun.

I'm still holding out for some form of 'neo-Lamarkian' inheritance of acquired characteristics to take some of the randomness out of the equation.

And, I do see a place for 'Creationism' and 'Intelligent Design', but the science underpinning those theories is just not up to scratch. There's too much bad science, and empty rhetoric being passed off as science, involved in Creationist Theory.

If 'Creationism' is taught in classrooms, then a law should be passed insisting that all Creation myths from around the World are given equal time.

You have to wonder about the World's most Materialist Culture being so desperate to cut away the very Materialist foundations and roots upon which it has been built.

e.g. A culture where the techniques of genetic manipulation are used almost unrestrictedly up and down the food chain, as well as in the creation of medicines, exotic materials and new bio-industrial processes, whilst at the same time, children in schools are being taught that God made everything that exists now, in it's finished form, in a one off, in Six Days and that the Whole Universe is only about 6,000 Years old.

Have they gone mad? Or, do they one day expect those children to look at the World they inherit as if it all exists by God's Will and the use of inexplicable scientific magics?


:confused:
 
Emperor said:
I don't want anybody taking care of me in a nursing home some day to think I came from a monkey

I certainly wouldn't want anyone working for a pharmacological firm creating new medicines who had such a fundamentally flawed grasp of science!!

And this came up at the start of 2003 but I didn't find a mention of it here - basically a biology Professor, Michael Dini, stated three criteria for getting a letter of recomendation from him and the third really got under people's skins and what hit the headlines (and it is what I had in mind when i posted the above):

Criterion 3

If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?" If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation.

Why do I ask this question? Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology prominent among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. Someone who ignores the most important theory in biology cannot expect to properly practice in a field that is now so heavily based on biology. It is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make poor clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance may partly be the result of such decisions. For others, please read the citations below.

Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known; just as one can refer to the "fact" of gravity, even if all of the details of gravitational theory are not yet known. One can ignore this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and the scientific method. Scientists do not ignore logical conclusions based on abundant scientific evidence and experimentation because these conclusions do not conform to expectations or beliefs. Modern medicine relies heavily on the method of science. In my opinion, modern physicians do best when their practice is scientifically based.

The designated criteria for a letter of recommendation should not be misconstrued as discriminatory against anyone's personal beliefs. Rather, the goals of these requirements are to help insure that a student who wishes my recommendation uses scientific thinking to answer scientific questions.

http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
'non denominational' is almost always a euphemism for fundementalist charismatic.

that rings a bell...

creationism. REALY!
 
One thing that is frequently neglected is that the creationist perspective doesn't only affect evolutionary biology. It pretty much affects the whole of science. In many creationist cosmologies:
  • The big bang is out
  • The size of the universe is smaller
  • Stellar distances are screwed up
  • The speed of light changes considerably
  • Gravity is modified
  • Nuclear reactions have time dependant cross sections
  • And anything that depends on the above is open to challenge...
It's a miracle that anything works. ;)
 
Emperor said:
Perhaps we could campaign to get a sticker put on all copies of the Bible? ;)
WARNING
Belief in the contents of this book alone does not guarantee eternal life. Other side effects may include reincarnation as a lower life form, failure to be rescued by alien spacecraft at Armageddon, and countless other punitive punishments should this faith not turn out to be correct.

Contains: Violence, Adult Concepts, and Sexual Scenes.
 
The Virgin Queen said:
you make it sound so inviting...
After reading the Song of Solomon I'll never look at fawns in the same way ever again. ;)
 
Fortis said:
After reading the Song of Solomon I'll never look at fawns in the same way ever again. ;)

The Song will do that to you...:)
 
Hi

more

source:
----------------

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/10162609.htm

quote:
----------------

Posted on Fri, Nov. 12, 2004

School Mandates Alternate Evolution Theory

MARTHA RAFFAELE

Associated Press

DOVER, Pa. - When talk at the high school here turns to evolution, biology teachers have to make time for Charles Darwin as well as his detractors. With a vote last month, the school board in rural south-central Pennsylvania community is believed to have become the first in the nation to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an unspecified higher power.

Critics call the change in the ninth-grade biology curriculum a veiled attempt to require public schoolchildren to learn creationism, a biblical-based view that credits the origin of species to God. Schools typically teach evolution, the theory that Earth is billions of years old and that life forms developed over millions of years.

The state American Civil Liberties Union chapter is reviewing the Dover Area School District case. Its Georgia counterpart, meanwhile, is fighting a suburban Atlanta district's decision to include a warning sticker in biology textbooks that says evolution is "a theory, not a fact."

"What Dover has done goes much further than what's happened in Georgia," said Witold Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania ACLU. "As far as we can tell, Dover is the first school district that has actually mandated intelligent design."

The district enrolls about 2,800 students. It encompasses the small, rural community of Dover borough, about 20 miles south of Harrisburg, and a patchwork of farmland and newer suburban developments in several surrounding townships.

The revision was spearheaded by school board member William Buckingham, who heads the board's curriculum committee.

"I think it's a downright fraud to perpetrate on the students of this district, to portray one theory over and over," said Buckingham. "What we wanted was a balanced presentation."

Buckingham wanted the board to adopt an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins," as a supplement to the traditional biology book, but no vote was ever taken. A few weeks before the new science curriculum was approved, 50 copies were anonymously donated to the high school.

Although Buckingham describes himself as a born-again Christian and believes in creationism, "This is not an attempt to impose my views on anyone else," he said.

Two of the dissenting board members, Carol Brown and her husband, Jeff, were so upset that they resigned after the 6-3 vote on Oct. 18.

"We have a vocal group within the community who feel very strongly in an evangelical Christian way that there is no separation of church and state," Carol Brown said. "Our responsibility to is to represent the viewpoints of all members of the community."

Statewide science-curriculum standards approved by Pennsylvania's state Education Board merely ask students to "analyze data ... that are relevant to the theory of evolution."

When the standards were revised three years ago, the board considered language that would have required students to consider evidence that did not support evolution, but the board dropped the idea after critics alleged it would have led to the widespread teaching of creationism in public schools.

Critics of intelligent design contend it is creationism repackaged in more secular-sounding language.

"Creationism in a cheap tuxedo," said Nicholas Matzke, project information specialist for the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif., which advocates for the teaching of evolution.

Even the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports scientists studying intelligent-design theory, opposes mandating it in schools because it is a relatively new concept, said John West, associate director of the institute's Center for Science and Culture.

"We're completely against anyone who says you should downgrade or limit the teaching of evolution," West said.

Dover biology teacher Jennifer Miller said the curriculum changes have left her uncertain about how to approach her evolution lesson.

"If you put the words 'intelligent design' into my curriculum, then I have to teach it," said Miller, a 12-year veteran. "I'm not sure what that means as to how in-depth we have to go. ... I'm looking for more direction from the school board."

Neither Assistant Superintendent Michael Baksa, who oversees the district's curriculum, nor Superintendent Richard Nilsen responded to telephone calls and e-mail messages.

Jonathan Tome, whose three sons attend Dover schools, applauded the measure.

"You can't be hypocritical with these kids, teaching them one thing but not another," said Tome, 43.

But sophomore Courtney Lawton said she didn't have a problem learning only about evolution in biology class last year.

"I just think they should keep it the way it is, and they shouldn't add anything about a higher power," said Lawton, 15. "People who believe differently, they might feel like they're being segregated."

--------------------------

endquote

Mal F
 
Mal Function said:
..."intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an unspecified higher power...
As the unspecified higher power must be somewhat more complex than the universe it has created, what do the people who believe in 'intelligent design' hold created this unspecified higher power?
 
Filcee said:
As the unspecified higher power must be somewhat more complex than the universe it has created, what do the people who believe in 'intelligent design' hold created this unspecified higher power?
Shhhhh!

Don't go poking holes in it.
 
I was amused the other day by the current edition of National Geographic. Standing in line to go through security at Heathrow I noticed the cover proclaiming 'Was Darwin Wrong?'. I bought the magazine and turned to the page and it read 'No - the evidence for evolution is overwhelming'. I can imagine Creationists flocking to read an article poking holes in the theory only to be disappointed. Good to know not all American institutions have gone 'Neo Con'.

One thing that puzzles me slightly is why religious people don't make more of the fact that in order for evolution to occur, the universe had to be set up in a way that life could originate and adapt etc. The idea of a God who could create that, rather than one who constantly has to intervene to 'design' organisms seems more appealing. During my formative years I was always driven by a strong desire to go back into an exploration of the nature of things. The thing that strikes me most profoundly is how simple many of the principles are and how complexity can derive from basic rules. I suspect that the rejection of this is based on the fact that the further back you take the need for 'intervention', the more difficult it is to tie things like personal morality to a notion of the divine. Also, understanding evolution correctly does require effort in understanding.

At the same time as being completely non-religious I do understand people's frustration with elements of the scientific establishment which seem to echo the dogma of the fundamentalists. The reason I love Forteana is that whilst 99 percent of the phenomena can be explained (although the stories and reasons why people believe are themselves fascinating), I believe we glimpse things that point to as yet unknown knowledge about the universe in these experiences. To dismiss everything that does not fit the current theory is following the lead of the Creationists.

What I do think however is that scientists do not always communicate well the 'joy of understanding'. My own passion for fields as diverse as genetics, natural history, geology and pure mathematics probably stirs similar emotions to those of religious experience in others. I remember standing on the Norfolk coast, on the path between Cley and Blakeney, looking at the sea and marshes and the diversity of bird life. I reflected on the fact that this scene was passing - the area was dry land close to the bank of a river delta into which the Rhine and Thames flowed a mere few thousands of years before. Before that it had been desert and shallow sea and soon it would be sea again. All of this will continue when our species has gone. To be there, to appreciate it and to perish, seemed more than enough to me. To be part of some apocalyptic opera of a purposeful universe seemed deeply unappealing. To have glimpsed a small fragment of this wider existence and to have understood a little seemed enough reward without wishing for universal purpose or 'eternal life'.

The culture of science has to acknowledge the deep human desire for 'meaning' to existence. I don't think this can only be satisfied by recourse to the supernatural, but the emphasis on a bleak, deconstructivist view of the world fuels the appeal of the fundamentalists.
 
Filcee said:
As the unspecified higher power must be somewhat more complex than the universe it has created, what do the people who believe in 'intelligent design' hold created this unspecified higher power?
Clearly it's us. Somewhere towards the end of the universe, the n-dimensional space squids that humanity has evolved into, send one of their number back in time to kick the whole thing off. Simple really. ;) :)
 
Dear All

As I have a beard, I am therefore, GOD (as discussed elsewhere on this board).

I'm sorry about the Universe and all that - it was just an accident, really.

I'd had too much Guinness and, erm, well just farted, like - and lo! there was light.

Sorry - didn't mean to spoil it.

As it happens; Darwin, Dawkins et al, they're not far off the mark really. Now that's settled then, I'll have another pint!

love

BazizGODuno
 
ideasman said:
The culture of science has to acknowledge the deep human desire for 'meaning' to existence. I don't think this can only be satisfied by recourse to the supernatural, but the emphasis on a bleak, deconstructivist view of the world fuels the appeal of the fundamentalists.

I agree with this, that we have this desire for giving our existence a meaning, but I feel that if science were to start integrating such a factor into their system, then we'd fall back. The science process would be stunted (IMEO) and the entire direction of research as well as perspective on new matters would be changed. While the current one may or may not be correct, the new one would be most decidedly biased!

You may know that science and spirituality were very 'together' up to a few hundred years ago. However, they had a divorce for a reason, because of progressive advances in our scientific framework. It was bound to occur, I'd suppose. Their own evolutions led them in different directions.

It's up to individuals to think for themselves and give themselves their own meaning, which is what you did there.

Here's why I feel a fundamentalist's view is appealing: It gives the meaning, without the individual having to exercise brain cells. That's where religion and patriotism would stem from. Easy way out, isn't it?
 
Yup. that's the reason why my BIL blows us out for Sunday lunch cos he's got an Alpha Course meeting to attend...


:mad:

Xtian family values? What a bunch of arse.
 
ideasman said:
One thing that puzzles me slightly is why religious people don't make more of the fact that in order for evolution to occur, the universe had to be set up in a way that life could originate and adapt etc. The idea of a God who could create that, rather than one who constantly has to intervene to 'design' organisms seems more appealing. During my formative years I was always driven by a strong desire to go back into an exploration of the nature of things. The thing that strikes me most profoundly is how simple many of the principles are and how complexity can derive from basic rules. I suspect that the rejection of this is based on the fact that the further back you take the need for 'intervention', the more difficult it is to tie things like personal morality to a notion of the divine.

Most religions are founded on 'interventions' by God. The idea of a deity billions of years distant simply isn't acceptable. God must have a personality and take an active interest in us. It's too difficult for most people to connect with an abstract which is why 'modern' religions are still so similar to so-called 'primitive' religions. With most religions you still have the devotee yammering into the void, imploring their God to intervene on their behalf. For short-lived beings like ourselves, seeking communion with a subtle creator God seems to be beyond our intellectual capabilities.
 
ideasman said:
One thing that puzzles me slightly is why religious people don't make more of the fact that in order for evolution to occur, the universe had to be set up in a way that life could originate and adapt etc. The idea of a God who could create that, rather than one who constantly has to intervene to 'design' organisms seems more appealing.
Some of them do. I have had a Religious Education teacher (who also taught PE and Science, oddly enough) explain to me how the co-incidences involved in life starting, and propogating could be seen as a clear sign of a higher power. (Sort of a weak intelligent design idea.) He also made some odd statements that didn't quite sit right with the idea he might be teaching people biology...

Of course, the argument is a bit of a blind. If things were different, it is possible (but not necessary) that life would still evolve, and the beings in that universe would be going on about how lucky they were that things were set up exactly right for them. Imagine intelligent life on Europa explaining how they're lucky they don't live closer to the sun, as the protective layer of hydrocarbon ice would evaporate, and expose them to blasts of radiation from Jupiter. Or something like that.
 
Thanks for all the information

I don't have anything really to add, as I'm not in any way informed about evolution, etc.

I've just been following the story with interest -- mainly because most high schools in America don't go in depth with their discussions of evolution. It might've been a day, at most, in my schooling. A quick ask around the office confirms evolution wasn't a huge part of their scientific schooling ...

.. which is why it's all the more funny to watch a bunch of fundamentalists get their unflattering panties in a wad about it. At the end of the day, it probably doesn't matter. The kids are probably nodding off and not paying attention anyway*

* This is in no way meant to reflect my own values about learning, etc. I strongly feel that students should have an opportunity to learn far, far more than just what's on the standardized tests, but I know in America these days, this isn't the case.*
 
"The culture of science has to acknowledge the deep human desire for 'meaning' to existence."

I know exactly what you mean. I think the problem is, as people have pointed out, that scientists are people who find out patterns in the world. Not people who have to 'sell' those patterns to the public. I think most scientists become bewildered when their newly discovered truths (or at least elegantly applicable theories, to be correct) aren't accepted by the public.

The poor boffins haven't been taught how to make it all sound appealing - why would they be? After all, many scientific conclusions are very stark and hardly reassuring.

This was all brought home to me recently, quite literally. I was shocked and appalled to find a member of my extended family - a teacher for 40 years, no less - has read and accepted Darwin's Black Box, which outlines a lot of the problems with Darwinism and concludes that the natural world must have been intelligently designed.

I was very nearly about to explode in rage - when I remembered that if you're in the service of reason, you have to be reasonable! We don't get to turn to the dark side and use fear, anger or hate - it's tough sometimes...

But suddenly, I wanted to yell one line which seems to me to sum up the whole debate:

"YOU DON'T GET TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH BITS OF REALITY YOU LIKE!"

But I didn't.
 
Pi

The bible states that the value of Pi = 3! Down with the maths textbooks which sy Pi = 22/7! Demand that they all carry a sticker!

BTW the new US Senator for South Dakota, John Thune, is a creationist.
 
Well if it's in the bible it must be true.

Better correct those text books.
 
Lobby Senator Thune! Get him to sponsor legislation to force Ford and GM to fit cars with ellipsoid wheels!
 
Ramon, are you just joking, or is there some long-forgotten corner of Ecclesiastes where this is affirmed?
 
No... it's to do with the construction of a bronze bath or something, outside Solomon's Temple. Apparently the measurements don't add up. I don't remember the mathematics now though.
 
Its for real

Cant remember exactly where in the bible. Arthur C. Clarke mentions it in his book: 1984: Spring.
 
Fundies Already Have The Value Of Pi Covered

PI in the Bible
By Jochen Katz

1 Kings 7:23
He [Solomon] made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim [diameter = 10] and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. [circumference = 30]

Since circumference = PI x diameter as any elementary geometry book will tell you, but the Bible "seemingly" tells us that PI = 3. Since "this is obviously false, therefore the Bible cannot be from God..." is how some people like to reason.

But obviously the wisdom of God is greater than the wisdom of man:

In this case the word for circumference = "line" ( in Hebrew)
But in this verse "line" is written with an extra letter ( ).

Since Hebrew has no digits, all letters are also numbers, we can take the ratio of (the gematriacal value of) the unusual word form ( ) to the regular word form ( ). Given that the gematrial letter values are = 100, = 6, and = 5 we find that:
++ +
Ratio
5 + 6 + 100 = 111 6 + 100 = 106 111/106 = 1.0471698

False number for PI Ratio TOTAL
3 multiplied by
1.0471698 = 3.14150943...

The real value: PI = 3.1415926...

The difference between 3 x 111/106 and PI is 0.0000832 which is only an error of 0.00026%.

It is interesting to compare the "Solomonic" approximation of PI with the approximations used by the Babylonians and Egyptians.

PI = 3.1415926... Error

Babylon : 3 1/8 = 25/8 = 3.125 0.0165926
Egypt : 3 13/81 = 256/81 = 3.16049382... 0.0189012
"Solomon": 333/106 = 3.14150943... 0.0000832

Since the ancient Egyptian or Babylonian approximations are much older than the time of Solomon it might be interesting find out what the usually used approximation of PI was at that time (Solomon was King around 1000 B.C.) in this or other parts of the world. Any helpful information on this question would be very much appreciated.

....
So there. :p
 
Cheers for that... although in light of Solomon's blatantly mythical demon-using exploits, I'd suggest to the fundies that the easiest way to explain it is to say 'in the old days, Pi had a different value to what it does today... and therefore it's worthless trying to argue about it.'

Which is of course deeply unscientific. One of the central tenets of science is that the past operated under the same physical rules as the present. Otherwise the whole concept of 'proof' that's so central to scientific endeavour is wrong.

(Did Sol talk to the dead too, or was that someone else?)
 
Back
Top