Should Creationism be given EQUAL TIME?

[misterman]

I don't need to prove it wrong. The world is a better place when we can tolerate each other and not just think "I'm right" all the time.

Sure, but not in a science class. There, you teach science.

 

[RadicalModerate]

I don't need to prove it wrong. The world is a better place when we can tolerate each other and not just think "I'm right" all the time.

Translation: "My fact-challenged position is just a valid as those fact-based positions."

Uh...nope!

 

[Jryan]

I'd be okay with them teaching this in our schools but NOT in science class. Electives FTW.

 

[Wessexman]

How would one go about teaching evolution? Would you have a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence, even if the curriculum came down in favour of it? And would you teach philosophy of science to go along with understanding complex areas of science, like evolution?

The problem with debating evolution is that it is a technical area and you have to read up on all the evidence, even if you were making rational and logical points that don't change simply because there is a new, small bit of evidence you are unaware of, because otherwise you can be sidestepped, like in all such technical areas, by 'evidence' that looks good but is actually irrelevant. So I enter with trepidation and only partially to ask this question.

 

[Jryan]

How would one go about teaching evolution? Would you have a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence, even if the curriculum came down in favour of it? And would you teach philosophy of science to go along with understanding complex areas of science, like evolution?

The problem with debating evolution is that it is a technical area and you have to read up on all the evidence, even if you were making rational and logical points that don't change simply because there is a new, small bit of evidence you are unaware of, because otherwise you can be sidestepped, like in all such technical areas, by 'evidence' that looks good but is actually irrelevant. So I enter with trepidation and only partially to ask this question.

That is the problem with debating ALL science good sir.

 

[Dittohead not!]

How would one go about teaching evolution? Would you have a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence, even if the curriculum came down in favour of it? And would you teach philosophy of science to go along with understanding complex areas of science, like evolution?

The problem with debating evolution is that it is a technical area and you have to read up on all the evidence, even if you were making rational and logical points that don't change simply because there is a new, small bit of evidence you are unaware of, because otherwise you can be sidestepped, like in all such technical areas, by 'evidence' that looks good but is actually irrelevant. So I enter with trepidation and only partially to ask this question.

You would start with the known facts, review the fossil evidence, and, once the student had a grasp on what is known, then perhaps a discussion about the unknown could be had.

For example, once the DNA evidence had been reviewed and understood, then a discussion could be had about whether the chimpanzee or the orangutan is the closest human relative. Maybe then a discussion could be held about whether bipedalism predated intelligence, and whether it may have been a necessary step to human intelligence.

Once the students know the facts, and how they were found, then they won't be disputing known science and wanting to substitute creation myths.

That's the effect education has.

 

[Wessexman]

You would start with the known facts, review the fossil evidence, and, once the student had a grasp on what is known, then perhaps a discussion about the unknown could be had.

For example, once the DNA evidence had been reviewed and understood, then a discussion could be had about whether the chimpanzee or the orangutan is the closest human relative. Maybe then a discussion could be held about whether bipedalism predated intelligence, and whether it may have been a necessary step to human intelligence.

Once the students know the facts, and how they were found, then they won't be disputing known science and wanting to substitute creation myths.

That's the effect education has.

But surely you have to intellectually examine the evidence in the broadest sense and see how it fits with the theory, again in a complete, intellectual sense? So for instance you'd have to examine what the fossil record shows in a truly comprehensive way, such as examining the ways it can causally be interpreted? Or for example when it comes to DNA and the nearest relatives to humans you'd have to examine just what we know about DNA and whether or not it, understood in a naturalistic or materialistic sense, it can be said to account for everything that is human.

What I really means is, it seems to me, if you do not keep naturalistic, materialistic and scientistic assumptions to an absolute minimum when teaching evolution, then surely you are propagandising as much as any creationist? And such assumptions are rarely kept under check by the most enthusiastic proponents of evolution.

 

[Dittohead not!]

But surely you have to intellectually examine the evidence in the broadest sense and see how it fits with the theory, again in a complete, intellectual sense? So for instance you'd have to examine what the fossil record shows in a truly comprehensive way, such as examining the ways it can causally be interpreted? Or for example when it comes to DNA and the nearest relatives to humans you'd have to examine just what we know about DNA and whether or not it, understood in a naturalistic or materialistic sense, it can be said to account for everything that is human.

What I really means is, it seems to me, if you do not keep naturalistic, materialistic and scientistic assumptions to an absolute minimum when teaching evolution, then surely you are propagandising as much as any creationist?

If you posit from the beginning that evolution disproves anything but a materialistic and naturalistic assumption, then sure.

The first step, however is understanding the fossil record, what it proves and does not prove, and just how the process works.

 

[rocket88]

There is no gravity. The thing we call "gravity" is us being held down by the fingers of God. I demand this theory be given equal time in physics classes.

 

[Wessexman]

If you posit from the beginning that evolution disproves anything but a materialistic and naturalistic assumption, then sure.

The first step, however is understanding the fossil record, what it proves and does not prove, and just how the process works.

I have trouble understanding how the fossil record can prove much. It can point in certain directions, but seeing as it can only give circumstantial evidence and its interpretation has a lot to do with the causal and other assumptions one makes to begin with, it seems to me it can very much only point in certain ways and even then it generally matters most which assumptions you start off with to which conclusions you will come up with. Does the teaching of evolution usually proposed put over this, complete, perspective on the issue?

 

[Dittohead not!]

I have trouble understanding how the fossil record can prove much. It can point in certain directions, but seeing as it can only give circumstantial evidence and its interpretation has a lot to do with the causal and other assumptions one makes to begin with, it seems to me it can very much only point in certain ways and even then it generally matters most which assumptions you start off with to which conclusions you will come up with. Does the teaching of evolution usually proposed put over this, complete, perspective on the issue?

You keep bringing up "causal".

Evolution simply describes how the process took place, not why or what caused it, other than the cause for a particular trait to have continued is that it helped the organism to survive.

 

[teamosil]

This may already have been mentioned, but the OP is false. Not only don't the Swedish public school system teach creationism, but Sweden actually went so far as to ban private religious schools from teaching it in their science classes (although they can teach it during religious classes).

 

[Wessexman]

You keep bringing up "causal".

Evolution simply describes how the process took place, not why or what caused it, other than the cause for a particular trait to have continued is that it helped the organism to survive.

You sort of answered your own question. Evolution, as generally advocated, tends to assume only efficient and horizontal causality. Indeed the only fixed view of evolution that survives all its alterations seems to be an entirely naturalistic explanation of the origins and development of life and therefore one with only efficient and horizontal causality. It is also what seems to give it its social and intellectual force; one final and vertical causation is ruled out then what other choice is there, except perhaps some one-dimensional 'creationism'.

 

[Dittohead not!]

You sort of answered your own question. Evolution, as generally advocated, tends to assume only efficient and horizontal causality. Indeed the only fixed view of evolution that survives all its alterations seems to be an entirely naturalistic explanation of the origins and development of life and therefore one with only efficient and horizontal causality. It is also what seems to give it its social and intellectual force; one final and vertical causation is ruled out then what other choice is there, except perhaps some one-dimensional 'creationism'.

which is something to discuss in philosophy class after the basic mechanics of evolution are fully understood.

Evolution does not address the issue of the origin of life. That is still an unknown.

 

[Wessexman]

which is something to discuss in philosophy class after the basic mechanics of evolution are fully understood.

Evolution does not address the issue of the origin of life. That is still an unknown.

How can you understand the basic mechanics of evolution without understanding its intellectual and philosophical basis first? We cannot understand our observations unless we can intellectually and discursively evaluate and categorise them. Without understanding the full implications of the assumptions, such as on causality, that the basic mechanics of evolution require then we can't really under these mechanics.

What you are really doing is assuming it is correct first, and then filling in the holes afterwards.

 

[Boo Radley]

How can you understand the basic mechanics of evolution without understanding its intellectual and philosophical basis first? We cannot understand our observations unless we can intellectually and discursively evaluate and categorise them. Without understanding the full implications of the assumptions, such as on causality, that the basic mechanics of evolution require then we can't really under these mechanics.

What you are really doing is assuming it is correct first, and then filling in the holes afterwards.

I don't think that is quite true. Observation and study can tell us much. And we can take that knowledge and make some ereasonable assumptions. True, we may get more information. But we have a wealth of history and observation to draw from. Science requires a very different set of standards than religion does. There is a place for both, and many scientists have faith, but each has their separate arena.

 

[Wessexman]

I don't think that is quite true. Observation and study can tell us much. And we can take that knowledge and make some ereasonable assumptions. True, we may get more information. But we have a wealth of history and observation to draw from. Science requires a very different set of standards than religion does. There is a place for both, and many scientists have faith, but each has their separate arena.

How do you evaluate and categorise observations without attending to the intellectual and philosophical basis of these first? It simply doesn't make sense. Unless we know what to make of observation then it is useless. Not only can be not use the observations without getting our reasoning right first, but we certainly cannot make reasonable assumptions, or extrapolations, of the basic observations without thinking right first.

 

[Boo Radley]

How do you evaluate and categorise observations without attending to the intellectual and philosophical basis of these first? It simply doesn't make sense. Unless we know what to make of observation then it is useless. Not only can be not use the observations without getting our reasoning right first, but we certainly cannot make reasonable assumptions, or extrapolations, of the basic observations without thinking right first.

Easy. I just report what I observe. I neither have to believe in or God or not believe in God. What I see and report is not based on either. When I see a child grow, for example. I measure each months height and weight, I note them, and reach conclusions based on what I observe. If I observe enough, I can get a feel for what is normal and what isn't. I don't have to start with any preconceptions.

 

[tryreading]

There is no gravity. The thing we call "gravity" is us being held down by the fingers of God. I demand this theory be given equal time in physics classes.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[Dittohead not!]

How can you understand the basic mechanics of evolution without understanding its intellectual and philosophical basis first? We cannot understand our observations unless we can intellectually and discursively evaluate and categorise them. Without understanding the full implications of the assumptions, such as on causality, that the basic mechanics of evolution require then we can't really under these mechanics.

What you are really doing is assuming it is correct first, and then filling in the holes afterwards.

No.
The "intellectual and philosophical basis" of evolution, like that of any scientific theory is the scientific method, which is the polar opposite of assuming an hypothesis is correct first, then filling in the holes afterward.

 

[Wessexman]

Easy. I just report what I observe. I neither have to believe in or God or not believe in God. What I see and report is not based on either. When I see a child grow, for example. I measure each months height and weight, I note them, and reach conclusions based on what I observe. If I observe enough, I can get a feel for what is normal and what isn't. I don't have to start with any preconceptions.

Then how do you organise and categorise your observations. In the most basic sense if you do not know that effect follows cause, or that things that share the same properties, like two humans, in some sense share the same quality or nature, then how can you use your observations?

 

[Wessexman]

No.
The "intellectual and philosophical basis" of evolution, like that of any scientific theory is the scientific method, which is the polar opposite of assuming an hypothesis is correct first, then filling in the holes afterward.

What is the scientific method? Except a phrase for observations rationally assessed and categorised?

Are you saying that evolution doesn't assume, for instance, that effects regularly and orderly follow from efficient causes? Or that causality is totally horizontal or from one corporeal or material thing to another and not from any vertical plane of existence? Or that it doesn't assume, or tries to, that these efficient or immediate causes don't follow a purpose or final cause? Or that it tends to have a nominalist, mechanistic, positivistic and Cartesian perspective?

 

[RadicalModerate]

What is the scientific method? Except a phrase for observations rationally assessed and categorised?

Just FYI...

 

[Wessexman]

That seems to be more a proof of both my points, that the scientific method is a rational categorisation and assessment of observation and that it does have a lot to do with the basic intellectual and philosophical assumptions one makes, than is proof against them.

 

[Dittohead not!]

That seems to be more a proof of both my points, that the scientific method is a rational categorisation and assessment of observation and that it does have a lot to do with the basic intellectual and philosophical assumptions one makes, than is proof against them.

When the hypothesis is tested, it is assumed that it is wrong, or at least probably wrong. Only after it has been proven over and over, and every possible way of falsifying it has failed, is it accepted as a theory.