In a now-closed thread, Tall Man, Short Hair made the response. I will place my response to him in my next message.

"The idea of a truly liberal education is to have the freedom to openly address ideas and allow students to engage them logically and based upon evidence.

If you read the text of the Texas law, you'll note that advocacy is not part of the regimen. It's simply allowing discussion. Those of you horrified by the possibility that some topic you oppose may actually be discussed are the ones who frighten me. You're advocating the very thing you accuse the creationists of doing. The definition of "indoctrination" is to force a set of beliefs to be embraced uncritically. Do you really want to change minds regarding a young earth or rejection of evolution? It's not going to happen in churches. You need to engage those ideas in open discussion. Blocking opposing views is indoctrination, not education.

You also need to come to terms with the fact that for every "God of the gaps" answer you cringe about, there are a dozen "science of the gaps" answers out there as well. If the US is falling behind in math and science, it's likely due to deficient teaching in those topics, not due to competition from ignorant theists.

Watch a few minutes of this Ray Comfort video. I know you may hate him, but he asks questions that many evolutionists simply have never grappled with. And when they don't know the answers, they almost all consistently fall back on "science will provide the answers." They are really no different than theists in that respect. Science is not a religion, but many who claim to adhere to it follow it as if it were an article of faith. Want to have a better equipped science foundation? Teach students how to integrate ethics and reasonable thought in a broader context instead of simply studying to pass a test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

Also, recognize there is not a one-to-one relationship between the teaching of ID or creationism and poor math and science scores. South Korea, Germany, and Australia are just a few examples of countries that excel in math and science while having a more open engagement of creationism in schools.

The way to combat ideas you disagree with is not to lock them out. Invite them in and openly examine them for all to see. The magic of "The Emperor Has No Clothes" was not found in forcing everyone to believe he was clothed and blocking any contrary suggestions. It was allowing them all to see for themselves whether or not he was."

I'm not trying to "lock out" any ideas.
What I'm opposed to is the discussion of "creationism" ideas as valid alternatives in *science* class. They're not science.

Discuss the ideas in history classes when discussing the stories of ancient people. Discuss them in comparative religion classes. Discuss them in philosophy classes. They have no place in science classes, as they're not science, they're not "alternatives" to scientific data, they don't challenge science, they have nothing whatsoever to do with science.

As for the rest of your post -- you're flat-out wrong when you say the "Ray Comfort video...asks questions that many evolutionists simply have never grappled with." And by the way, "evolutionist" implies a belief in evolution, which isn't the case, making your statement dishonest right from the get-go, and ignorant or dishonest (I can't tell which) when you make the claim above.

Science classes are for teaching science. They're not for teaching religion, they're not for teaching mythology, they're for teaching science and the scientific method.

By the way, since science doesn't involve beliefs, the teaching of it -- even excluding non-scientific drivel like creationism -- does not fit the definition of "indoctrination" you gave.

Creationism drivel *is* openly engaged, widely and regularly.
It has no business being engaged in classes that teach the scientific method, and how to use it.

edit: by the way, I'm most certainly *NOT* OK with science teachers using science class time to point out how un-scientific, irrational, proven-false, and ignorant both ID and creationism are, either. Creationism and ID are *religious* topics. They have no place in science class, period. No place to make a "pro" argument, no place to make a "con" argument. No place in science class whatsoever. If a student brings up either in a science class, a teacher should inform them that they should discuss those religious topics with their pastor or their parents, they have no place in a science class.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2017 10:58AM by ificouldhietokolob.

Now for my responses.

1) While it is true that some debates about ideas are allowed in the college classroom, these debates have not, to my knowledge, been extended to the elementary and secondary schools discussed in the original thread. While I graduated from high school some 36 years ago, I can assure you that debating what the teachers said was not allowed in any of the four types of schools I attended: a day school for the blind, a state boarding school for the deaf and blind, a public elementary school, and a parochial, Jesuit-run, college prep high school. More generally, the primary purpose of elementary and secondary education is not to debate ideas; rather, these places serve to distill basic factual information to students that may/may not conflict with religious ideals they are being taught at home. Put another way, the purpose of elementary and secondary education is to indoctrinate students in what they need to know to get along in society: reading, writing, arithmetic, and the sciences.

2) While it is true that there are some "holes" or areas about evolution that the sciences do not yet have answers for, nevertheless those "holes" (or gaps as you refer to them) are much smaller in number and scope than the gaps found in Creationism. I would also hasten to add that much of our modern knowledge in everything from genetics to medicines to space travel would not work if the basic theory of evolution wasn't true.

3) Along the same lines, the sciences, though not faultless, have turned out to be much better predictors of natural events than religious-based Creationism. Put another way, the Mormon prophet and his ilk do a much poorer job of predicting the weather than professional forecasters trained in the climate sciences.

4) My brother lives in New Zealand and his fiancé lives in Australia, and both have assured me that Creationism is *not* taught as part of the science class. True, the schools over there do allow specific religious dogma to be taught but not as part of any science classes. To me, this makes sense. Do you really want Daniel Peterson (or his elementary/high school equivalents) to be inserting his religious philosophy into the science class? I think not.

Finally, I hope you realize by now that I disagree with both of your starting assumptions; namely, 1) the sciences and religions are thought coequals and should be treated as such by the education establishment; and 2) the main purpose of elementary and secondary education is for students to debate different ideas with their teachers.

I'm not so concerned about creationism/ID being taught, so long as it isn't to the exclusion of established scientific theories, such as evolution and (science-based) cosmology.

I remember being taught religious-based alternatives to evolution in school. When it came to cosmology, we were introduced to Genesis, as well as, the myths that had come and gone over the millennia. What struck me most was how the primitive theories of the origin of the universe and the varied species were not significantly different in nature than what was taught by creationists and ID advocates. One was as fantastical and fanciful as the other, so I was left with the scientific theories if I wanted something that made rational sense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2017 04:09PM by GregS.

Good post!

I don't remember being indoctrinated in ID/creationism or evolution during my grammar school years - it was as blind guy states - we were taught the basics of reading/writing/arithmetic and the skills to get along in society.. And that was in the Morridor where the vast majority of my schoolteachers were LDS.

The values they sought to instill no doubt emulated their own. But they didn't try to convert anyone to their religion, or teach creationism over evolution. In that sense it was value neutral. In fact I don't remember any of them preaching their beliefs, despite their avowed religion.

The closest we came to that was my third grade teacher who openly defied the 1960's Supreme Court order banning prayer in public school. She had always prayed to start each day with her homeroom class, and she wasn't about to change on account of a Supreme Court decision. We said the Lord's Prayer every single morning, and had silent meditation for a few moments following.

She was by far the best teacher I ever had, with a passion for teaching. She loved her students, and dedicated herself to teaching us basics over and beyond the morning prayers. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2017 07:21PM by Amyjo.

A long time ago I remember seeing a newspaper cartoon of the ayatollah Khomeini pulling the hands of a clock back to Middle Ages. Returning to the past will not solve the problems of the future.

Kids in school can pray on their own if they wish.

That particular schoolteacher was positively futuristic. She taught us more in the space of an academic year what others try and fail to do. She also taught with a great love for her students.

She made a huge impact for the better on the many lives she touched.

Well in my view the days in Genesis goes along pretty well with the time periods of the earth that scientists describe. Sea creatures and creeping things were created before the beasts of the field. The waters were divided in the beginning. It all fits together pretty well with what science says?

The bigger issues that I see where science gets off course is how it all actually occurred. In creationism god creates, mixes and puts things together, and organizes. In Science it's all explosions tearing apart electrons from atoms and destruction. This is the big mistake in science but scientists haven't figured that out yet?... (in my view).

poopstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well in my view the days in Genesis goes along
> pretty well with the time periods of the earth
> that scientists describe. Sea creatures and
> creeping things were created before the beasts of
> the field. The waters were divided in the
> beginning. It all fits together pretty well with
> what science says?

a) nothing was 'created'
b) it happened over millions to billions of years, not 'days'
c) Genesis has plants and 'day and night' on the earth before the sun existed.
d) none of it fits together with what we've discovered as fact using the scientific method at all. Not one bit.

> In Science it's all
> explosions tearing apart electrons from atoms and
> destruction. This is the big mistake in science
> but scientists haven't figured that out yet?...
> (in my view).

The "big mistake" is that you don't seem to know a thing about science, or the facts we've discovered using the scientific method. And that despite that ignorance, you seem to be "okay" with making completely wrong pronouncements about "in science it's all" x, when it's not any of x.

It's OK to not know the facts we've learned using the scientific method. Sad, but OK. Just admit you don't know, or go learn the facts. Either one beats making stuff up.

Are you a scientist? No?

Then your opinion doesn't matter.

Loyalexmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you a scientist? No?
>
> Then your opinion doesn't matter.

That would be a fallacious appeal to "authority."
"Opinions" are valid or not depending on evidence for or against them. Not depending on who says them, or what the "credentials" are of the person who says them.

In poopstone's case, the voiced opinions aren't valid because massive evidence shows them false -- not because he's not a scientist.

Of all western industrialised nations America is first in denial of evolution and climate change and last in science and math education:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Public_support

https://ejas.revues.org/10305


https://www.skepticalscience.com/

This entire debate is based on the belief of the primacy of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic version of Creation. I have attempted to debate creationists in the past and found out (the hard way) that you can't. All of this is based on adult fear of "godless" youth. The underlying messsage for students is "Science isn't right, religion is." In this day and age it just confuses students. America is the only leading nation with a high percentage of people who deny evolution and anthropogenic climate change.

There is no place for religious instruction in science class and creationism, intelligent design, etc are not competing scientifc theories but religious dogma.

It's the twenty-first century, not the seventeenth century.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2017 05:17AM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of all western industrialised nations America is
> first in denial of evolution and climate change
> and last in science and math education:
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for
> _evolution#Public_support
>
> https://ejas.revues.org/10305
>
>
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/
>
> This entire debate is based on the belief of the
> primacy of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic version of
> Creation. I have attempted to debate creationists
> in the past and found out (the hard way) that you
> can't. All of this is based on adult fear of
> "godless" youth. The underlying messsage for
> students is "Science isn't right, religion is." In
> this day and age it just confuses students.
> America is the only leading nation with a high
> percentage of people who deny evolution and
> anthropogenic climate change.
>
> There is no place for religious instruction in
> science class and creationism, intelligent design,
> etc are not competing scientifc theories but
> religious dogma.
>
> It's the twenty-first century, not the seventeenth
> century.

Do you even read the sources you cite? In a previous thread you claimed to be scientist. Will you let us all know your area of expertise? You're unlike any person of science I've ever met.

Can you provide any documentation to support your claim that the fear of "godless youth" is what motivates creationists?

And the "fear of youth becoming godless" and rest is my opinion. And I am like only one person...me



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2017 11:16PM by anybody.

I like the idea of science fiction being taught. The Bible could be taught along with Asimov's Foundation Trilogy or some Philip K. Dick or Harlan Ellison or Ursula K. Leguin.

The Bible is, after all, science fiction. It would only confuse young minds if it's taught as part of the wrong genre.

getbusylivin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Bible is, after all, science fiction.

Fiction, yes.
Where's the science? ;-)

Creationism has been debunked a million times over by every scientist on the planet except a select few with an explicitly religious agenda who have never published in peer-reviewed journals. It has no place in public school. Teach myths/religious beliefs in church or religious schools. That's what they're for.


This idea that 'all opinions are valid' is simply untrue. I can believe that 2+2=5 but it never will and it's not a valid opinion, and I don't 'deserve' to have that opinion taught in schools even if I say it's because of Jesus/Allah/Buddha that I believe it. Teachers don't have to cater to my personal delusions to protect my feelings.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2017 02:33PM by Loyalexmo.

Loyalexmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Creationism has been debunked a million times over
> by every scientist on the planet except a select
> few with an explicitly religious agenda who have
> never published in peer-reviewed journals.

I swoon at your ability to so accurately describe those with whom you disagree. Your thoughtful analysis of competing data puts the full measure of your intellect on display for all of us to marvel. Every scientist on the planet smiles when they think of you.

Please, don't ever change.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2017 10:14PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

And you can't see that. Teaching science isn't about right or wrong or any other moral judgment or opinion. What we call "science" is just the best current set of ideas that explain the observable universe. Creationsm is not science. It's religion. America is a secular country, not a Christian state.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2017 11:24PM by anybody.

Instead of an emotional rant meant to give personal insults, which adds zero credibility to your argument, it would be better to provide a single example of a scientist who has published a pro-creationist study or article in a peer-reviewed journal. Where is these competing data? Where has it been published? By whom? If you don't have a scrap of evidence, I understand why you would resort to whining and pontificating. But if you have some, please share. That would make this an actual dialogue.

And again, no, it's not 'my opinion'--it is fact. Again, if you have any evidence to the contrary from known experts, please do share. Otherwise I will expect more emotional rants.

Next-- creation 'science' is a fairly new idea that emerged in the '50s and '60s. It's certainly not some historical concept that has recently been debunked by The Evil Liberals. It was invented by evangelicals a few decades ago. Also, teaching both creationism and intelligent design have been found to be unconstitutional because of their lack of evidence. To date no pro-creationist studies have been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal (unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary...). So the Supreme Court is wrong, all scientific institutions are wrong, and some ideas that evangelicals whipped up in the '60s are right, but I'M the one going only by my personal opinion? Yeah, no.

Finally, yes, I would guess that scientists do smile when they think that people support their findings:

"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view. It fails to qualify as a science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes. Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts. It is viewed by professional scientists as unscholarly,and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences."



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2017 12:32AM by Loyalexmo.