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

[AllieBaba]

Thanks I think my tone has been okay all along. You go ahead and reset.

But I will mirror...so I'll ask you again but word it a little differently; do you support banning Creationists from teaching science?

I don't think anyone here has said Creationists should be banned from teaching science.

I didn't say they did. I asked if JS did. Try to keep up.

 

[Modbert]

I didn't say they did. I asked if JS did. Try to keep up.

I realize that. However, I'm just pointing out that nobody here is trying to keep creationists out of the classrooms.

 

[saveliberty]

A failed reset should merit Romper room status.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Nope. According to M-Theory, the Universe comes into being when two branes collide. FLoT applies within the universe, but we cannot know the rules that govern the realm of the branes.

According to the God Hypothesis, the Universe was created in whatever medium (perhaps it's a bubble universe? Or perhaps the Strings are the very 'body' of FSM?) by an outside intelligence. Nowhere does it say something came from nothing and nowhere does it violate the laws of physics that apply within the created universe, both because we cannot logically assume that they apply in other universes or outside of the universe at all and because It's never stated explicitly how the universe comes into being following god's speech. For all we know, he spoke to an AI in a laboratory and it automated the processes which manipulated the string ultimately leading to the emergent changes we see in the universe before us.

God creating a cow next to me wouldn't even violate FLoT, as the intervention of an outside agent and introduction of matter/energy (or 'information', if you prefer the term) from outside the universe means the universe isn't a closed system- and FLoT only applies to a closed system.

You're guilty of the same fallacy as those who claim evolution violates FLoT and Earth is a closed system- neglecting the sun and the rest of the universe.

 

[AllieBaba]

I didn't say they did. I asked if JS did. Try to keep up.

I realize that. However, I'm just pointing out that nobody here is trying to keep creationists out of the classrooms.

Er..that would explain why he said it would concern him if one was in one.

Oh, wait, no it wouldn't.

 

[JBeukema]

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

Nope. Rarely have I met someone devoted to capitalism who understood the basics of the Marxian school.

A Marxist by definition views capitalism as evil.

Nope. You probably think Marx advocated communism, don't you?

 

[JScott]

Well I explained it in some detail. If you can't understand the explanation, there isn't much I can do for you I'm afraid.

Any teacher who has a mind so closed as to deny creationism or intelligent design as possibilities has a mind too closed to teach much of anything, much less science.

Point of order: Not personally believing something that has never been proved or disproved and thinking one has enough evidence to deny its existence to somebody else = fundamentalist closed mind.

What has creationism discovered? Are there any theories they can point to they have made?

What technologies can creationism point to that they have created?

What does this have to do with anything though? Science is defined many different ways but most of us have the gist of what it is and what it is not. It is not certainty of anything but is a collection of facts from which a conclusion of probability or possibility can be devised:

Some Definitions of Science
(An addendum to the GEOL 1122 reading on "What is, and isn't, Science")

Each of these sections begins with conventional definitions or comments and moves toward less conventional but perhaps more revealing statements.

Definitions by goal and process:

Science is the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.
Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology



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

Science is an intellectual activity carried on by humans that is designed to discover information about the natural world in which humans live and to discover the ways in which this information can be organized into meaningful patterns. A primary aim of science is to collect facts (data). An ultimate purpose of science is to discern the order that exists between and amongst the various facts.
Dr. Sheldon Gottlieb in a lecture series at the University of South Alabama



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

Science involves more than the gaining of knowledge. It is the systematic and organized inquiry into the natural world and its phenomena. Science is about gaining a deeper and often useful understanding of the world.
from the Multicultural History of Science page at Vanderbilt University.



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

Science consists simply of the formulation and testing of hypotheses based on observational evidence; experiments are important where applicable, but their function is merely to simplify observation by imposing controlled conditions.
Robert H. Dott, Jr., and Henry L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth (2nd edition)



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

Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceeding generation . . .As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Richard Feynman, Nobel-prize-winning physicist,
in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
as quoted in American Scientist v. 87, p. 462 (1999).

What is Science?

Science is the study of what we don't know as much as study of what we already know or think we know.

Speaking as a Creationist/I.D.er who believes herself to be square in the middle of the mainstream of that group, I can say that most Creationists and/or I.D.ers have no quarrel whatsoever with science UNTIL it presumes to know more than is known.

And most of us see the Creator as the author or designer of science and everything else.

Why do you presume theres a creator? It is not known.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

You're repeating yourself, simpleton.

Maybe if we repeat it more slowly, you'll finally get it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I didn't say they did. I asked if JS did. Try to keep up.

I realize that. However, I'm just pointing out that nobody here is trying to keep creationists out of the classrooms.

Er..that would explain why he said it would concern him if one was in one.

Oh, wait, no it wouldn't.

Let's be clear here: I would be concerned if a committed capitalist or a committed communist was teaching economics. I didn't say that a creationist should not teach in a science classroom.

 

[JBeukema]

No, he's not.

As someone who was complaining about others making statements without all the facts recently, it is not surprising to see you making statements without none of the facts.

Do I point out the double negative?

 

[JBeukema]

It's a theory, no need to back it up with facts...

 

[Modbert]

Do I point out the double negative?

Feel free to point out the "without none" part of my post.

I was going to edit it earlier but figure I'd leave it in for posterity and because it had already been pointed out.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, he's not.

As someone who was complaining about others making statements without all the facts recently, it is not surprising to see you making statements without none of the facts.

Do I point out the double negative?

Already did.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Seems like I hurt your feelings pretty bad. You had to comment on it multiple times in the same post. God complex folks use it as a defense for their very insecure feelings. Interesting that you find your arguments logical and rational, when your theory cannot explain in the least where the smallest parts of creation started and what started it in motion. A rational and logical person would not default to chance.

So just because he is training to become a doctor he automatically has a God complex now? Amazing how a 10 pages ago that wasn't the case, but now that you've established that fact, he's that egotistical.

A RATIONAL and LOGICAL person would look at the facts and evidence surrounding evolution, and realize it did not come about by chance, although it does heavily involve randomness. Again, for a trained science teacher, you seem to lack understanding on this topic.

An educated guess based upon the fact that I've never known a medical student who had time to waste on a message board to the degree Goat does...

A gross generalization based on your sample size of ONE person at a different part of their medical career. You have proven to be intellectually bankrupt in more threads than I can count, and I'd say this is one of your more ridiculous unsupported claims, but I'm sad to admit that's not actually the case.

I'm not a medical student, that's for sure.

Yes, we can all tell that.

 

[JBeukema]

Sure, anyone who makes claims on here gets to back them up.

Otherwise I just assume you're full of shit.

I assume you're full of shit.

The burden of proof is on you Allie.

No, it's on the person who made the claim, nitwit.

I don't have to prove a negative. If Goat wants to claim he's a dr, fine, he can back it up..otherwise I will continue to think he's a pimple-faced dweeb.

Where did he make that claim, exactly?

Oh yeah, he didn't. I forgot you're retarded.

 

[Dr Grump]

Telling believers that ID and creationists questions in a biology class should be redirected to the questioners' parents, religious instructors, and humanities classroom is not, repeat, not Christian bashing.

You have to realise that if you even question a diehard follower of any indoctrined religion - you offer up facts etc - it quickly dissolves into name calling and frothing at the mouth by our religious breathren.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

How would you feel if your child's science teacher was a Creationist is a valid question.
How would you feel if your President was a Muslim is a valid question.
How would you feel if your dentist/doctor/nurse/therapist was a recovering alcoholic is a valid question.

All of these questions are answered the exact same way: it doesn't matter so long as their personal issues don't come into their professional responsibilities. You can make the claim all day that people's personalities are based on their beliefs, but there's a distinct cutoff as to whether those beliefs enter the professional realm. It's a yes or no evaluation.

I agree to a degree, but I don't think many Christians believe that God had no part in creation. The issue for me was having to accept somebody else's definition of Creationist given after the fact and not included in the OP.

I am a Creationist because I believe God was involved in Creation. I would not want that taught in Science Class, however, as I do not see it as science as we define science.

I also accept much/most of Evolution theory and would object strongly if that was not taught in Science Class.

So we're back to where I started on this thread. And I didn't think my point of view unreasonable at the beginning. And I don't think it is unreasonable now.

No, where you started in this thread was stating that science teachers need to acknowledge creationism when asked by students as a legitimate alternative to evolution that answers all the unstated questions you felt evolution didn't address. This is STILL a wrong idea, but I appreciate your effort in backpedaling away from it and slowly removing it from your points while not specifically conceding the point.

If a student raised their hand and said they believed the Earth was flat, the science teacher in no way should acknowledge it as an acceptable alternative. It doesn't matter whether the uneducated child's faith is hurt. His ideas are solidly proven incorrect. The teacher should acknowledge the evidence, and instruct the student to see him after class to redirect if needed. Overall, it is the science teacher's responsibility to stick to evidence based knowledge and not claim non-scientific ideas are acceptable alternatives.

I'd ask if you agree or not, but you're still so hurt over the last time I negged you, and I've shot you down so thoroughly, your only recourse at this time is to ignore the things I say because you can't actually bring yourself to face them. Ignorance is helpful like that.

 

[JScott]

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.

I agree with this for the most part because say a devout Christian will be far more likely to be open to ALL possibilities and understand how much that we don't know and should be willing to at least look at. Too many committed and passionate Atheists, especially the anti-Christian types, I think will be too close minded to make good science teachers.

Of course a fundamentalist who refuses to teach Evolution as science and/or that would insert Creationism into the curriculum as science would be as closed minded and also would make a lousy science teacher.

Both, in my opinion, would be wrong.

But I would accept an Einstein type as a science teacher in a heartbeat. He rejected the concept of a personal god, but was open to a concept of some kind of cosmic intelligence guiding the overall process--he saw far too much symmetry, order, and variety in the Universe to accept that it absolutely had to all be just by coincidence, chance, or accident.

An open mind is all I ask of a scientist or science teacher.

Most atheists base their beliefs on science and good observation. Why would you think they wouldnt make good science teachers?

A committed and passionate(devout) anti-Atheist anti-evolution Christian would, theoretically, give credit to God over finding the truth.

A fundamentalist would lose his/her job if they refused to teach the curriculum.

Seems Einstein was an agnostic.

 

[Dr Grump]

Nothing wrong with a creationist teaching science, as long as they stick with the programme...

 

[AllieBaba]

Seems like I hurt your feelings pretty bad. You had to comment on it multiple times in the same post. God complex folks use it as a defense for their very insecure feelings. Interesting that you find your arguments logical and rational, when your theory cannot explain in the least where the smallest parts of creation started and what started it in motion. A rational and logical person would not default to chance.

So just because he is training to become a doctor he automatically has a God complex now? Amazing how a 10 pages ago that wasn't the case, but now that you've established that fact, he's that egotistical.

A RATIONAL and LOGICAL person would look at the facts and evidence surrounding evolution, and realize it did not come about by chance, although it does heavily involve randomness. Again, for a trained science teacher, you seem to lack understanding on this topic.

An educated guess based upon the fact that I've never known a medical student who had time to waste on a message board to the degree Goat does...

A gross generalization based on your sample size of ONE person at a different part of their medical career. You have proven to be intellectually bankrupt in more threads than I can count, and I'd say this is one of your more ridiculous unsupported claims, but I'm sad to admit that's not actually the case.

I'm not a medical student, that's for sure.

Yes, we can all tell that.

Er..not one person. I simply referred to my niece.

And I didn't refer to one point of her career only. Mayhap you should read the post again.