Creationism as science?

[Ozzie]

Completely agree with you...:clap .

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/

Is this equivalent to not submitting to a materialistic philosophy alone when it comes to forming beliefs explaining what they see around them?

 

[Runlikethewind]

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...

I must admit that it was not how I was taught evolution either, I had a very good teacher who took great pains to allow everyone the ability to think for themselves. I also agree that often times it is in the students head and not the teacher which is why I think it might be apropriate to get into the philosophical issues. But perhaps I was making some assumptions about how evolution is taught, thanks for pointing that out.

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.

In the class on evolution that I took (entitled evolutionary concepts a 300 lvl college geology course at Portland State) we spoke quite a lot about the philosophical issues and that is one reason I think that it can be disscused in a science setting because at times the two (philosophy and science) become blurred especially in the minds of young students. But thenm again it may have been apropriate in that particular course it may not be as appropritate in a high school biology class.

I also think that philosophy should be a required class in high school, then again as a philosphy major I am a little biased....

 

[Quiddity]

Is this equivalent to not submitting to a materialistic philosophy alone when it comes to forming beliefs explaining what they see around them?

Sure...we all have a bias and psychological state that forms how we see and interpret things. I submit that one allows for both, while the other is exclusive to materialism.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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 would say yes to this.

Here's the thing...Scientist.....will express their theories using a multitude of methods to explain why they claim the things they do. (testable claims)

Creationist....will express their assertions using a multitude of more assertions to explain why they claim what they claim. (untestable claims)

I don't want to look at something and wonder only to have some one person to tell to have faith that my god did it.

I feel as though it only leads to more and more questions that eventually they will not be able to to continue to answer with "God did it"....

I find answers like these to be futile.

We have discovered so much in our short span of time on this planet. With scientific theory....that can be tested....we have learned a lot.

So Yes....I believe they will have to take a scientific attitude but i'm quite sure they won't.......:sorry1:

 

[religion-science]

Someone said that creationism cann't be disproven and therefor holds equal merit as evolution, but there is strong evidence for evolution therefor it has more credability than creationism. I am assuming the original poster isn't talking about fundamental creationism because that CAN be disproven.

 

[UnTheist]

The simple answer is no. Creationism is NOT a science. And it should never be treated as such.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

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?

This is already a non-issue!

Courts have already ruled that "creationism" is religion and therefore MAY NOT be taught in science classes!

End of story.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[uumckk16]

In the class on evolution that I took (entitled evolutionary concepts a 300 lvl college geology course at Portland State) we spoke quite a lot about the philosophical issues and that is one reason I think that it can be disscused in a science setting because at times the two (philosophy and science) become blurred especially in the minds of young students. But thenm again it may have been apropriate in that particular course it may not be as appropritate in a high school biology class.

I think it would be great to go into the philosophy in a college course. There the students are a bit more mature and more likely to be taking the class because they want to. I thought you were talking about high school biology, where I don't think it's appropriate, because at that level the distinctions between different courses are normally much more concrete...so bringing up those issues might confuse the (less mature) students into believing that creationism is a science, which I think it quite clearly isn't.

I also think that philosophy should be a required class in high school, then again as a philosphy major I am a little biased....

I don't know if it should be required - not all high school students are capable of that kind of depth of thinking - but I definitely think it should be offered. You're a philosophy major? That's so cool!

 

[Runlikethewind]

I think it would be great to go into the philosophy in a college course. There the students are a bit more mature and more likely to be taking the class because they want to. I thought you were talking about high school biology, where I don't think it's appropriate, because at that level the distinctions between different courses are normally much more concrete...so bringing up those issues might confuse the (less mature) students into believing that creationism is a science, which I think it quite clearly isn't.


I don't know if it should be required - not all high school students are capable of that kind of depth of thinking - but I definitely think it should be offered. You're a philosophy major? That's so cool!

All good points that I agree with. And when I said philosophy should be required in high school I was thinking along the lines of logic, critical thinking, structure of argumentation, introductory stuff that would be usefully in all aspects of life.
</IMG>

 

[uumckk16]

All good points that I agree with. And when I said philosophy should be required in high school I was thinking along the lines of logic, critical thinking, structure of argumentation, introductory stuff that would be usefully in all aspects of life.

Well that certainly sounds like a good required class to me! You're right, it would be useful.

 

[Ozzie]

Greetings!



This is already a non-issue!

Courts have already ruled that "creationism" is religion and therefore MAY NOT be taught in science classes!

End of story.

Peace,

Bruce

Thats an interesting POV Bruce. Funny it came down to a court decision to rule on the scientific validity of creationism or not. I think this decision is more about what may or may not be taught as science in schools, but has little to do with whether or not creationism is valid science. The OP is more about whether or not creationists ought to adopt the principles of scientific proof in considering whether their outlook is scientific or not. However, your point raises the wider question of whether religion ought to be taught in schools or not.

Another POV is that creationism as a movement is a reaction to the imposition of secular values to education. Is it correct that religion cannot be taught in public schools in the US? If so, in order to express a Christian worldview in public education, creationism has developed as "science", which may be taught. I think education systems which ban religion in the syllabus are likely to increase conflict between science and religion, and produce an impoverished/incomplete worldview in students, not reflecting knowledge of religious frameworks in culture.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

If creationism wants to be considered science and taught in schools, . . .

A non-issue: courts have already ruled that creationism and "Itelligent desigen" are religious doctrines and therefore MAY NOT be taught in science classes!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Ozzie]

Greetings!



A non-issue: courts have already ruled that creationism and "Itelligent desigen" are religious doctrines and therefore MAY NOT be taught in science classes!

Peace,

Bruce

Thats a very narrow definition of what is science Bruce. Would you accept that Bahai is not religion if the court said so?

 

[UnTheist]

Thats a very narrow definition of what is science Bruce. Would you accept that Bahai is not religion if the court said so?

Why would the court bother doing that? Religion is not science. They were right to declare ID non-acceptable in science class.

The short answer to the OP is no. Because ID does not explain natural phenomena of the universe. It just makes up answers. The most popular one being "Goddidit."