Creationism vs. Evolution in the Classroom (Page 2)

There are a variety of courses that could contribute to one's knowledge of the evolution theory.  How can you just compare one course, and conclude a teacher's knowledge based on just one course?  Perhaps that teacher took a geology or botany course that also touched on the theories of evolution.

I am just saying that drawing a conclusion based on insufficient information is misleading.

Coming at this from a slightly different angle... (first admission -- I haven't read the article, and I guess my comments really don't address that article so much as addressing opinions expressed in this thread)

I've read the comments that "evolution is science, creation is theology", and to me I see them both as theories. Why can they not both be presented as possibilities? The real crux of the matter is "which is fact".

"Science" with the stance presented here so far would really look stupid if creation was eventually proven as fact.

I guess, though, I'm more of the intelligent design, or "directed evolution" camp -- I don't see these theories as being mutually exclusive.

Coming at this from a slightly different angle... (first admission -- I haven't read the article, and I guess my comments really don't address that article so much as addressing opinions expressed in this thread)

I've read the comments that "evolution is science, creation is theology", and to me I see them both as theories. Why can they not both be presented as possibilities? The real crux of the matter is "which is fact".

"Science" with the stance presented here so far would really look stupid if creation was eventually proven as fact.

I guess, though, I'm more of the intelligent design, or "directed evolution" camp -- I don't see these theories as being mutually exclusive.

I find it significantly more distressing that subjects like music, art, and P.E. are wholesale getting yanked from the curriculum.

...and here lies my biggest problem with religious-based theories like ID.  They start with an assumption, in this case that God created life, then seek to explain how this occurred.  The goal is to support the hypothesis. 

In science, one starts with the assumption that we do not know the answer.  When hypotheses are generated, we test these hypotheses by attempting to disprove them. 

Religion-based (or morality-based) theories and policies are inherently anti-scientific, and therefore inappropriate in a science classroom.

I think I tend to lean in the direction of most of these posts by saying that the religious or "creation" aspects to origin is better left outside the classroom.  One of my professors in college, for evolution no less ( a biology core class btw) made mention that religion is not very good at causal explanations, and is better left outside the box in this arena.  I agree with that whole heartedly, but one point even further is that religion in most instances fights science and reason. It is a shot in the dark to not understand something and say, "Oh well... it must be due to God." But next, we find a cause for the situation, and God is no longer in the picture for that issue. It is increasingly difficult to argue a position in favor of a creator nowadays.

Teaching children today, ID or creationism is doing them an injustice on levels of hindering their ability to critically think as well as indoctrinationg them to a point. While there are dogmas in religion, people can gloss those over and treat it as divine and pass on, but at least teh dogma of science is replaced with better truths that are founded in logic, reason, tests and proof. It is much easier to lean on than leaving it up to something we cannot define exists.

Exactly. You end up with a God of the Gaps. If everything unknown is put down to "God did it", and reason/logic/questioning are discouraged, the human knowledge base stagnates and regresses.  Not immediately of course, but eventually.

Okay... so... for those of you who are saying Creationism = Religion and Evolution = Science.... Well, you are wrong. Yup.. just flat out wrong. Hmm, neither are either and both can be easily swapped around just depending on who you are talking to and that individual's frame of reference.

Science in itself has a myriad of definitions associated with it. In this case there are two that are important. First, the scientific process. The scientific process is a series of steps that we can take to attempt to explain what we can observe. The problem with any talk about origins is that we cannot observe the original event, we can only observe the effects of that event. Any application of the scientific process to the question of origin requires the one studying the question to make some basic assumptions. The basic assumptions made about the original event will ultimately skew the process. In the end, any "theory" created to explain our origin will be suspect because of those basic assumptions. Ultimately, our origin can never be 'proven'. We are each left to rely on a bit of faith whether it is creationism or evolution that we "believe" in.

The next definition of science is that group of things which are commonly accepted as fact based on the scientific process. Things such as terminal velocity, the boiling point of water at sea level, and the like. These are simple facts that are still subject to the environment in which they are studied. Evolution or Creation can never fit into this category.

Religion, now, is a set of beliefs, ideas, and rules that individuals or groups use to guide their lives. Religion is pretty much based solely on faith. So, tell me, if you believe Evolution just because you were always told to believe it... isn't that just as much religion as any other belief based only on faith?

Anyway, I should get back to work now... I just couldn't resist putting in my .02 cents here...
 

Okay... so... for those of you who are saying Creationism = Religion and Evolution = Science.... Well, you are wrong. Yup.. just flat out wrong. Hmm, neither are either and both can be easily swapped around just depending on who you are talking to and that individual's frame of reference.

Science in itself has a myriad of definitions associated with it. In this case there are two that are important. First, the scientific process. The scientific process is a series of steps that we can take to attempt to explain what we can observe. The problem with any talk about origins is that we cannot observe the original event, we can only observe the effects of that event. Any application of the scientific process to the question of origin requires the one studying the question to make some basic assumptions. The basic assumptions made about the original event will ultimately skew the process. In the end, any "theory" created to explain our origin will be suspect because of those basic assumptions. Ultimately, our origin can never be 'proven'. We are each left to rely on a bit of faith whether it is creationism or evolution that we "believe" in.

The next definition of science is that group of things which are commonly accepted as fact based on  the scientific process. Things such as terminal velocity, the boiling point of water at sea level, and the like. These are simple facts that are still subject to the environment in which they are studied. Evolution or Creation can never fit into this category.

Religion, now, is a set of beliefs, ideas, and rules that individuals or groups use to guide their lives. Religion is pretty much based solely on faith. So, tell me, if you believe Evolution just because you were always told to believe it... isn't that just as much religion as any other belief based only on faith?

Anyway, I should get back to work now... I just couldn't resist putting in my .02 cents here...

Difference is we can still witness evolution today and with the evidence gathered we can make pretty sound assumptions of what happened back then due to what we see happening today. There is evidence of animals changing to adapt to their habitat in recorded history and I don't see any good reason that we cannot assume the same processes have happened throughout time.

I have no problem with the idea that science is pretty much faith based. Science is a belief in an observational method of viewing and explaining the world. You have to have faith in the that the method to believe the outcomes of scientific research. However this is a "science class" so what is taught should conform to the principles of science. Creationism does not and I'm not sure how anyone could make the argument that it is science.

The key point you are missing is that evolution, like all scientific principles is observable, and repeatable. The method of testing hypotheses is standardized. Religion is none of these, it is based on ineffable concepts like faith, and on Dogma that must be "believed" if one wants to join a particular church.

But thanks for playing.

What has changed since the last time we had a thread about why creationism is not science?  Hmmmm... nothing.

Creationism - a story originally found in the Torah, written somewhere between the 10th and 5th centuries BCE by peoples who inhabited the Middle East and who worshipped the god, El.

Evolution - a scientific theory which holds that "the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.

Creationism - a story originally found in the Torah, written somewhere between the 10th and 5th centuries BCE by peoples who inhabited the Middle East and who worshipped the god, El.

Evolution - a scientific theory which holds that "the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.

I don't understand why people who profess their religious doctrine want to mask their religious doctrine as science. Why pretend it's something it's not?