Creationism as science? (evolution)

[yuvgotmel]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

If creationism wants to be considered science and taught in schools, should its advocates be compelled to adopt a scientific attitude towards it and consider it falsifiable?

I'm confused on the question. Are you asking if the people--who WANT creationism taught in schools--should also have to declare creationism to be false?

[astarath]

Ahh but if creationist were to prove creation through methods pleasing to ....scientists?(is this a name of belief?) Would it be accepted or rather displaced because originally it stood as a principle of faith before it was proven as an article of scientific fact?

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by astarath

Ahh but if creationist were to prove creation through methods pleasing to ....scientists?(is this a name of belief?) Would it be accepted or rather displaced because originally it stood as a principle of faith before it was proven as an article of scientific fact?

The problem with this is that it simply can't. Creationism rests on the idea of god. Without god in the theory, it ceases to be creationism. God is supernatural and unscientific, adns since he cannot be tested, proven or disproved by science, the whole premise behind creationism can never stand on real scientific merit.

[astarath]

Science's foundation lies on physical proofs essentially. So if one day we can show God to the world, science will have to accept the sight of his as reality will it not? Sight of him would be proof of existence and as such would this not constitute as scientific proof?

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by astarath

Science's foundation lies on physical proofs essentially. So if one day we can show God to the world, science will have to accept the sight of his as reality will it not? Sight of him would be proof of existence and as such would this not constitute as scientific proof?

How do you go about scientifically proving that something is God?

[Majikthise]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

If creationism wants to be considered science and taught in schools, should its advocates be compelled to adopt a scientific attitude towards it and consider it falsifiable?

Yes , they should. But common sense is not a strong point with these people, and neither is reality.

[Runlikethewind]

To answer the question one must first establish what is meant by creationism. This can range on a spectrum from those who believe a 'literal' interpretation of genesis and claim the earth to be only 6000 yrs old to those theists who claim that God set off the big bang and then left nature to do the rest. Generally what is being presented as a scientific theory under the title intelligent design claims that the complexities in nature cannot be explained as arising from purely mechanistic, unintelligent, unguided, etc, process. The problem here is that, unless one are talking about extraterrestrial intelligence (at least that has the possibility of empirical proof as a scientific theory) which generally one is not, then the intelligent designer or creator is by nature beyond the scope of the study and observation of the natural sciences and therefore has no place in the science class.

My problem is that since the theory of evolution by natural selection does not require recourse to any kind of metaphysical, divine, creator/intelligence, it is often taught either explicitly or implicitly that there is no metaphysical, divine, creator/intelligence. Just because the origin of life and especially complex systems does not require recourse to a creator it does not follow necessarily that there is none. It is valid to conclude that since one is not needed there is none, but it is just as valid to say that the process makes more sense when thought of as being guided or directed by an intelligence. The thing is that, as far as observations of the natural world go, the two look identical; evolution, genetic drift, and natural selection. As to whether this is influenced by a metaphysical intelligence or is completely materialistic rests on the philosophical or theological understanding that one interprets the observations under. A materialist will look at evolution and natural selection and say thats all there is while a metaphysical realist might look at the exact same thing and say that God is involved somehow.

I think that since science is the study of the natural world that more often then not, evidence is interpreted under a materialistic philosophy, that matter is the beginning and end of reality. I think that it would be beneficial to at least elaborate on the philosophical issues involved in the interpret of science in science classes so that students can work out for themselves how they wish to interpret the observations. That way teachers can focus on the science and not have to worry about the ultimate driving force behind it, be that God or matter and natural laws of physics.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Runlikethewind

To answer the question one must first establish what is meant by creationism. This can range on a spectrum from those who believe a 'literal' interpretation of genesis and claim the earth to be only 6000 yrs old to those theists who claim that God set off the big bang and then left nature to do the rest. Generally what is being presented as a scientific theory under the title intelligent design claims that the complexities in nature cannot be explained as arising from purely mechanistic, unintelligent, unguided, etc, process. The problem here is that, unless one are talking about extraterrestrial intelligence (at least that has the possibility of empirical proof as a scientific theory) which generally one is not, then the intelligent designer or creator is by nature beyond the scope of the study and observation of the natural sciences and therefore has no place in the science class.

My problem is that since the theory of evolution by natural selection does not require recourse to any kind of metaphysical, divine, creator/intelligence, it is often taught either explicitly or implicitly that there is no metaphysical, divine, creator/intelligence. Just because the origin of life and especially complex systems does not require recourse to a creator it does not follow necessarily that there is none. It is valid to conclude that since one is not needed there is none, but it is just as valid to say that the process makes more sense when thought of as being guided or directed by an intelligence. The thing is that, as far as observations of the natural world go, the two look identical; evolution, genetic drift, and natural selection. As to whether this is influenced by a metaphysical intelligence or is completely materialistic rests on the philosophical or theological understanding that one interprets the observations under. A materialist will look at evolution and natural selection and say thats all there is while a metaphysical realist might look at the exact same thing and say that God is involved somehow.

I think that since science is the study of the natural world that more often then not, evidence is interpreted under a materialistic philosophy, that matter is the beginning and end of reality. I think that it would be beneficial to at least elaborate on the philosophical issues involved in the interpret of science in science classes so that students can work out for themselves how they wish to interpret the observations. That way teachers can focus on the science and not have to worry about the ultimate driving force behind it, be that God or matter and natural laws of physics.

Completely agree with you... .

Just know there is well to do and respected theistic scientist who do not submit to a materialistic philosophy alone when it comes to explaining what they see around them.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

[uumckk16]

Originally Posted by Runlikethewind

To answer the question one must first establish what is meant by creationism. This can range on a spectrum from those who believe a 'literal' interpretation of genesis and claim the earth to be only 6000 yrs old to those theists who claim that God set off the big bang and then left nature to do the rest. Generally what is being presented as a scientific theory under the title intelligent design claims that the complexities in nature cannot be explained as arising from purely mechanistic, unintelligent, unguided, etc, process. The problem here is that, unless one are talking about extraterrestrial intelligence (at least that has the possibility of empirical proof as a scientific theory) which generally one is not, then the intelligent designer or creator is by nature beyond the scope of the study and observation of the natural sciences and therefore has no place in the science class.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Runlikethewind

My problem is that since the theory of evolution by natural selection does not require recourse to any kind of metaphysical, divine, creator/intelligence, it is often taught either explicitly or implicitly that there is no metaphysical, divine, creator/intelligence. Just because the origin of life and especially complex systems does not require recourse to a creator it does not follow necessarily that there is none. It is valid to conclude that since one is not needed there is none, but it is just as valid to say that the process makes more sense when thought of as being guided or directed by an intelligence. The thing is that, as far as observations of the natural world go, the two look identical; evolution, genetic drift, and natural selection. As to whether this is influenced by a metaphysical intelligence or is completely materialistic rests on the philosophical or theological understanding that one interprets the observations under. A materialist will look at evolution and natural selection and say thats all there is while a metaphysical realist might look at the exact same thing and say that God is involved somehow.

That's not how I was taught evolution. I didn't get a sense that my teacher was subtly invoking atheism. She just said, this is the evidence, this is what science says. Of course, a student with a religious upbringing would probably feel that she was trying to contradict their beliefs. In that case it's in the student's head and not the fault of the teacher...

Originally Posted by Runlikethewind

I think that since science is the study of the natural world that more often then not, evidence is interpreted under a materialistic philosophy, that matter is the beginning and end of reality. I think that it would be beneficial to at least elaborate on the philosophical issues involved in the interpret of science in science classes so that students can work out for themselves how they wish to interpret the observations. That way teachers can focus on the science and not have to worry about the ultimate driving force behind it, be that God or matter and natural laws of physics.

I see your point, but I'd have to disagree. I don't think the philosophical issues should be brought into science class - simply because it's not a philosophy course, it's a science course. But the philosophical/religious outlook can be considered too - in the appropriate classroom. Many high schools offer philosophy and/or world religions classes. I don't know about others, but in my 10th-grade English classroom we studied several creation stories, and the one we did most in-depth was Genesis. So from my personal experience, I was presented with both views, but in the appropriate settings. I think that's the best way to deal with it.