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

[Woyzeck]

Are they teaching their own beliefs instead of science in science class?

If so, I don't want them teaching my kids fucking retarded bullshit.

A person believe in creation and teach science. I have done just that in the past. Science encompasses many things. My kids were very well informed on how different landforms are made by tectonic plate movement, erosion and glacial activity. I believe you have a lot of anger management and socialization issues, but I can still teach you science.

Creationism is fucking retarded.

 

[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.

I wasn't aware I had explored it dishonestly.

No, no, not you. The people who have peddled ID have been dishonest about their intents and goals.

The whole point is to make it seem like this isn't a religious movement.

That is not what the courts have found. So ID proponents (the professional ones, like the discovery institute) put out talking points to claim that ID is a scientifically valid theory on it's own merits to put up a smoke screen to cover their real agenda, which I suspect most Americans (even those who accept ID) would be opposed too.

The problem is that they have skeletons in their closet.

Wedge strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[geauxtohell]

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:

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.

One thing that tends to give people outside the field of science trouble, I think, is that science is not static in it's thinking and procedures (unlike religion, which is basically inflexible).

The theory of evolution today barely resembles the theory that Darwin proposed. Science is free to adapt and change a theory as newer and better evidence comes forward. As long as nothing comes forward that would invalidate the entire theory (evolution could be invalidated by finding a single fossil in the wrong place in the ground) it is sound. People who are trying to argue against evolution (or don't know better) point to these events as "a ha!" moments, but the whole point of science is to continually move the ball of thought and progress forward.

It's simply a separate venture then religion, which the gospel or whatever holy book is the word and is static in nature. There might be some things that are up for debate, but the book hasn't really changed in centuries, and when it does, it spawns entirely new religions.

 

[goldcatt]

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:

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.

Oh! Maybe it was the way your posts were worded, I was under the impression you favored bringing up creationism or I.D. in the science classroom as an alternative rather than pointing out that there are things we don't know about evolution. Which is true, there are things we do not yet know. I have no problem with that. What I would have a problem with is the teacher teaching his or her specific beliefs on creation in a class on science and calling it an "alternative".

So basically, we agree.

 

[edthecynic]

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

Neither M-Theory, nor String Theory, nor Brane Theory says that you can get something from nothing. The FLoT still stands and Creationism still violates it.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Oh! Maybe it was the way your posts were worded, I was under the impression you favored bringing up creationism or I.D. in the science classroom as an alternative rather than pointing out that there are things we don't know about evolution. Which is true, there are things we do not yet know. I have no problem with that. What I would have a problem with is the teacher teaching his or her specific beliefs on creation in a class on science and calling it an "alternative".

So basically, we agree.

Nope. If you re-read my posts you will see that I in no way suggested that the science teacher should bring up ID or Creationism as an alternative. And in almost every case I explicitly added a separate line that I do not want Creationism or ID taught as science.

But it is likely that sooner or later the teacher will get a student who does reject evolution and insists on the literal Biblical interpretation. All the teacher has to say is that millions of people believe in some form of Creationism and/or I.D. and that is one explanation for how things came to be. However, it is not science and will not be included in the curriculum in this class. I don't insist that you agree with Evolution, but you will have to answer the questions correctly as taught if you want to pass the test.

Any science teacher who tells the student that his/her religious beliefs are wrong should be fired or transfered to shop or typing class or some such.

 

[geauxtohell]

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

Neither M-Theory, nor String Theory, nor Brane Theory says that you can get something from nothing. The FLoT still stands and Creationism still violates it.

Thermodynamics in one sentence:

"You can't win, and you can't break even."

 

[goldcatt]

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.

Oh! Maybe it was the way your posts were worded, I was under the impression you favored bringing up creationism or I.D. in the science classroom as an alternative rather than pointing out that there are things we don't know about evolution. Which is true, there are things we do not yet know. I have no problem with that. What I would have a problem with is the teacher teaching his or her specific beliefs on creation in a class on science and calling it an "alternative".

So basically, we agree.

Nope. If you re-read my posts you will see that I in no way suggested that the science teacher should bring up ID or Creationism as an alternative. And in almost every case I explicitly added a separate line that I do not want Creationism or ID taught as science.

But it is likely that sooner or later the teacher will get a student who does reject evolution and insists on the literal Biblical interpretation. All the teacher has to say is that millions of people believe in some form of Creationism and/or I.D. and that is one explanation for how things came to be. However, it is not science and will not be included in the curriculum in this class. I don't insist that you agree with Evolution, but you will have to answer the questions correctly as taught if you want to pass the test.

Any science teacher who tells the student that his/her religious beliefs are wrong should be fired or transfered to shop or typing class or some such.

I agree there too. However it is addressed, it needs to be neutral.

 

[edthecynic]

I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.

I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.

Talk about being close minded!!!

You would probably have no problem with a committed Capitalist teaching economics!

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.

I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.

Talk about being close minded!!!

You would probably have no problem with a committed Capitalist teaching economics!

A committed capitalist would probably know all the theories of economics out there and would probably teach them competently. If he was of the bent that would teach Marxism as evil rather than as an economic concept, however, then yes, I would object to him as a teacher.

I've never known a committed Marxist however who even understood how capitalism works, much less would be able to teach it objectively. And yes, my opinion about that speaks to my own prejudices as there could be a Marxist out there somewhere who could teach economics competently and objectively. But I've never known one. Nor read one. Nor listened to one. So I'll just hold onto my opinion about that. A Marxist by definition views capitalism as evil.

 

[edthecynic]

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

Neither M-Theory, nor String Theory, nor Brane Theory says that you can get something from nothing. The FLoT still stands and Creationism still violates it.

Thermodynamics in one sentence:

"You can't win, and you can't break even."

That is not the FLoT!

That is the Creationist's PERVERSION of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The actual SLoT says, In a closed thermodynamic system, Entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO zero. When Entropy equals zero you break even. If Entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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

Which questions are those, exactly? You keep making references to holes and unanswered questions, and yet seem incapable of stating what they are. As GTH mentioned, science allows for increased understanding, but we know what evolution is. There is no gap in the theory, although there are certainly genetics questions to answer regarding evolution. So please, identify which questions and holes you continually keep referring to.

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.

You have this tendency of backpedaling away from your initial response, which is that teachers shoudl acknowledge ID as an acceptable explanation that fills in unidentified holes in evolution. In this quote, you once again state that science teachers should be comparing RELIGION and SCIENCE in a SCIENCE classroom. It seems you still haven't learned that RELIGION has NO PLACE in a SCIENCE classroom, neither in acknowledgement nor comparison. If a student brings it up, the SCIENCE teacher should direct their RELIGIOUS inquiries elsewhere and continue teaching SCIENCE. Stop promoting the very wedge strategy GTH just pointed out.

But it is likely that sooner or later the teacher will get a student who does reject evolution and insists on the literal Biblical interpretation. All the teacher has to say is that millions of people believe in some form of Creationism and/or I.D. and that is one explanation for how things came to be.

No, no they should NOT tell the student that whatsoever, because it is not scientifically sound and has no place in a SCIENCE classroom. All the teacher has to say is "please consult your religious authorities, we will not go into that here" while specifically omitting the parts regarding how popular a belief it is or stating is is an explanation for the same topic. From a science standpoint, it's not.

 

[geauxtohell]

Neither M-Theory, nor String Theory, nor Brane Theory says that you can get something from nothing. The FLoT still stands and Creationism still violates it.

Thermodynamics in one sentence:

"You can't win, and you can't break even."

That is not the FLot!

That is the Creationist's PERVERSION of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The actual SLoT says, In a closed thermodynamic system, Entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO zero. When Entropy equals zero you break even. If Entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist.

Well, I heard it from my physics professor and took it to mean you can never get to 100% efficiency when it comes to energy, which encompasses all three laws.

In other words, it took millions of years to form the hydrocarbons that we are going to blow through in a few hundred years.

 

[geauxtohell]

But it is likely that sooner or later the teacher will get a student who does reject evolution and insists on the literal Biblical interpretation. All the teacher has to say is that millions of people believe in some form of Creationism and/or I.D. and that is one explanation for how things came to be. However, it is not science and will not be included in the curriculum in this class. I don't insist that you agree with Evolution, but you will have to answer the questions correctly as taught if you want to pass the test.

Then that is problematic. Even the bolded part, as ID/Creationism are not scientific explanations for anything and shouldn't even be introduced in the classroom.

This speaks to the "sticker" controversy in the state of Texas.

A teacher shouldn't undermine legitimate scientific theories in favor of non-scientific theories in a scientific classroom.

 

[edthecynic]

I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.

I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.

Talk about being close minded!!!

You would probably have no problem with a committed Capitalist teaching economics!

A committed capitalist would probably know all the theories of economics out there and would probably teach them competently. If he was of the bent that would teach Marxism as evil rather than as an economic concept, however, then yes, I would object to him as a teacher.

I've never known a committed Marxist however who even understood how capitalism works, much less would be able to teach it objectively. And yes, my opinion about that speaks to my own prejudices as there could be a Marxist out there somewhere who could teach economics competently and objectively. But I've never known one. Nor read one. Nor listened to one. So I'll just hold onto my opinion about that. A Marxist by definition views capitalism as evil.

Judging from the committed Capitalists on this board, it is highly unlikely they would know any theory of economics, not even Capitalism.

Fortunately you CON$ervative "mind-readers" don't get to control the definitions!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

But it is likely that sooner or later the teacher will get a student who does reject evolution and insists on the literal Biblical interpretation. All the teacher has to say is that millions of people believe in some form of Creationism and/or I.D. and that is one explanation for how things came to be. However, it is not science and will not be included in the curriculum in this class. I don't insist that you agree with Evolution, but you will have to answer the questions correctly as taught if you want to pass the test.

Then that is problematic. Even the bolded part, as ID/Creationism are not scientific explanations for anything and shouldn't even be introduced in the classroom.

This speaks to the "sticker" controversy in the state of Texas.

A teacher shouldn't undermine legitimate scientific theories in favor of non-scientific theories in a scientific classroom.

Well bully for you. I would like to see how you would organize a classroom full of students from a wide variety of backgrounds, experiences, and faiths and ensure that none of them ever ask the awkward question about anything. Perhaps you wouldn't ever allow them to talk or ask questions? Or maybe you would be the science teacher I would recommend to transferred to the shop class?

 

[saveliberty]

How would I feel if a cartoonist taught my kids science? Hmmm...

 

[edthecynic]

Thermodynamics in one sentence:

"You can't win, and you can't break even."

That is not the FLot!

That is the Creationist's PERVERSION of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The actual SLoT says, In a closed thermodynamic system, Entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO zero. When Entropy equals zero you break even. If Entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist.

Well, I heard it from my physics professor and took it to mean you can never get to 100% efficiency when it comes to energy, which encompasses all three laws.

In other words, it took millions of years to form the hydrocarbons that we are going to blow through in a few hundred years.

I would guess that you misunderstood your professor. If you look it up you will see the equation is E ≥ 0. Your version would be E > 0. While there are many examples where E > 0, it is not true in ALL cases.

 

[Foxfyre]

Talk about being close minded!!!

You would probably have no problem with a committed Capitalist teaching economics!

A committed capitalist would probably know all the theories of economics out there and would probably teach them competently. If he was of the bent that would teach Marxism as evil rather than as an economic concept, however, then yes, I would object to him as a teacher.

I've never known a committed Marxist however who even understood how capitalism works, much less would be able to teach it objectively. And yes, my opinion about that speaks to my own prejudices as there could be a Marxist out there somewhere who could teach economics competently and objectively. But I've never known one. Nor read one. Nor listened to one. So I'll just hold onto my opinion about that. A Marxist by definition views capitalism as evil.

Judging from the committed Capitalists on this board, it is highly unlikely they would know any theory of economics, not even Capitalism.

Fortunately you CON$ervative "mind-readers" don't get to control the definitions!!!

But we can argue a point of view without being hateful or ad hominem or personally insulting. Can you?

 

[saveliberty]

I guess as long as the cartoonist doesn't draw pictures of Muhammad in science class we're good.