Does Creation Science Threaten Science Literacy?

[Pah]

The American Institute of Biological Sciences seems to think so.

Just how widespread is science literacy in the United States? That this country is the acknowledged leader of scientific research in terms of quantity and overall quality suggests our scientific enterprise is robust. Nevertheless, there is evidence that most US citizens have a poor understanding of science and only marginal interest in it (see the latest National Science Foundation survey on science indicators at www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/c7/c7h.htm).

These encouraging signs tend to get lost in the ongoing hullabaloo over intelligent design creationism� (IDC). Creationism and this is true of all its guises is an antiscientific worldview. It rejects the fundamental precept of science that phenomena in the natural world should be interpreted through naturalistic explanations that are accepted (always tentatively) or rejected by reference to observation. Followers of IDC are no different from the creationists of old; at some point each wants to back away from rational scientific inquiry and explain phenomena by appeal to supernatural causation.

Although the IDC propaganda machine is focused on getting creationism in the public schools, this Trojan horse hides a more concerted attack against science education in general. As did the creationists before them, IDC adherents use evolution as a �wedge� to dismantle the naturalistic foundation of all science (if this sounds far-fetched, see www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6786_unlocking_the_mystery_of_illus_7_1_2003.asp). Although not all proponents of IDC are biblical fundamentalists, for each some scientific finding will eventually be considered threatening to their religious beliefs. They organize around such threats, misrepresenting contemporary science and manipulating the emotions of others, many of whom do not share their narrow religious viewpoints. To allow their biblical interpretations to be taught as science, however, is an affront to this nation's constitutional protection to worship as one pleases. A religious worldview, under the pretext of science, should not be imposed on children in the public schools hence the need for science education that deals squarely with the nature of scientific inquiry

That certainly does not then belong in a public school classroom. It amounts to a "dumbing down" of students not to mention, as the editorial did, a violation of the separation of church from state.

-pah-

 

[meogi]

This is perhaps the main reason christianity angers me so. Religion is not science, it's faith. Until science discovers a god, or any other religious idea, never the twain shall meet. Religions can not charge into science... science can charge into a religion though, so far it hasn't (and I doubt it ever will) but that doesn't mean it won't.

 

[Economist]

I don't believe so. Rather, I believe it brings some honesty back to the scientific community. It points out the fact that all creation theories are beliefs. If it weren't for creationists, no one would understand that while some of Darwin's theories may have been correct (there are more sight impaired humans today because glasses made it possible for them to survive and procreate), it cannot be extrapolated from there that all life originated in some "primordial soup."

 

[Sunstone]

I have always suspected in my heart of hearts that Creationism hampers scientific literacy. For one thing, I think the rules Creationists play by are different from the rules scientists play by. And I think that Creationists don't usually recognize that fact. Instead, they believe that they are playing by the rules of science. So, if science were football, and Creationism were basketball, then the Creationists are like someone who shows up at a football game carrying a basketball and insisting that the football game be played by the rules of basketball. That can only be confusing to children and other people who do not have a strong grasp of science.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Of COURSE it does! Just as efficiently as teaching incorrect grammar in schools hampers literacy in the English language!

 

[Faust]

At the risk of sounding like I believe myself to be an expert, I am an amateur, I believe from what I have read that creationism is part of a fundamental response. Let me explain myself. Our world continues to advance on all fronts. When it advances beyond any systems ability to explain it to itself the response is to return to the fundamentals of that system by it's adherents. To get back to those basics that made it what it is because it is perceived that straying from those basic tenants has caused a degradation of the system. There is a fear of the collapse of "our way of life". Driven by this fear of annihilation if you will, instead of returning to the original or pure practices or beliefs a new interpretation that better fits the world around us or better describes the world in accordance with our system is achieved. This often involves two distinct paths. One where practitioners remove themselves or attempt to isolate themselves from the offending world around them so as to avoid further contamination and the other where the practitioners attempt to incorporate that which is new into their own system through the prism of their own beliefs in an effort to validate them to everyone else and themselves given the nature of the world they are currently living in. Thus you have new interpretations such as intelligent design which presents itself as "scientific" but is actually an attempt to redeem the beliefs we hold dear and to a large degree identify ourselves by.

 

[painted wolf]

I think that the problems with science illiteracy is in part due to the way science is taught. Teachers need to do more to engage children in learning about science rather than just reciting the 'rules'. Creationists have made it difficult for teachers to engage kids in certen subjects... geology, biology, evolution, plate tectonics just to name a few... its hard to take a subject seriously when you have a very vocal group yelling that kids should ignore you for the sake of thier souls....

but again I think that teachers sould be able to explain the concepts that they are teaching... it amazes me how many people have fundimentaly skewed ideas of basic concepts in science. Perhaps if the ideas were explained in a better way than this wouldn't happin... but hey I'm not a teacher and personally do not have an answer.

wa:do

 

[kbc_1963]

This is perhaps the main reason christianity angers me so. Religion is not science, it's faith.

How many theories (by science) about our beginnings can be backed up by hard scientific evidence? NATURAL ORIGINS IS FAITH!!!!!!

I as a creationist demand that the schools teach only that which is scientificly provable and nothing more. teaching our kids that our beginnings were in a prebiotic soup in school is wrong and untill science can back up their assertions then they are no better than having a religious view taught in the schools.
Many of you believe the crap that has been dished out by the schools and science as fact and use this basis to down grade those with a belief in an intelligent creator but when the light of truth is waved over what is taught in schools it shows many things that are taught as fact are really theory masquerading under the guise of science and can be shown by scientific proof to be impossible.

 

[Pah]

I as a creationist demand that the schools teach only that which is scientificly provable and nothing more.

That's what is being done!!!!! There is no projection to origins in biology or chemistry class rooms

-pah-

 

[Ceridwen018]

You're right, pah.

I'd like to add though, that nothing can be fully 'proven' by anyone, let alone science. Therefore, science desires to teach that which has the strongest empirical foundation, and which is most accepted within the scientific community.

teaching our kids that our beginnings were in a prebiotic soup in school is wrong and untill science can back up their assertions

Newsflash--they can.

Many of you believe the crap that has been dished out by the schools and science as fact and use this basis to down grade those with a belief in an intelligent creator but when the light of truth is waved over what is taught in schools it shows many things that are taught as fact are really theory masquerading under the guise of science and can be shown by scientific proof to be impossible.

Okey dokey.

 

[kbc_1963]

teaching our kids that our beginnings were in a prebiotic soup in school is wrong and untill science can back up their assertions

Ceridwen018 says;
Newsflash--they can.

would you like to prove that?

 

[Pah]

would you like to prove that?

Backing up assertions is not the same as proving the assertion. You provide plenty of evidence for your opinion but they do nothing to prove the intelligent design as derived from Biblical source.

-pah-

 

[kbc_1963]

kbc says:
teaching our kids that our beginnings were in a prebiotic soup in school is wrong and untill science can back up their assertions

Ceridwen018 says
Newsflash--they can.

Ceridwen018 also says
I'd like to add though, that nothing can be fully 'proven' by anyone, let alone science

so which is it can they prove it or can they not? there is a bit of confusion in your post

It is my assertion as a creationist that only that which can be proven absolutely should be taught in school, so what is wrong with that? If they want to teach unproven things then abiogenesis/ evolution should be taught along with religious concepts since neither is empiricly proven by science but both sides have a huge following. what could be wrong with just telling the truth:
"We don't know how we got here but there are 2 schools of thought and we believe it was either evolution from chemicals or GOD did it and let the children choose their own way by their own reasoning". Is that too much to ask or what?

 

[kbc_1963]

Backing up assertions is not the same as proving the assertion. You provide plenty of evidence for your opinion but they do nothing to prove the intelligent design as derived from Biblical source.

-pah-

the basis of evolution and abiogenesis rests in the area of science, science is the empirical proving of assertions so by rights I should be able to ask for proof from science in regard to those BELIEFS.
The Bible will always be either believed or not as is with no scientific backup since it didn't come saying it was backed by anything. Only those who find that science has no backup for their beliefs try to apply the same level of proof to another belief.
So I recommend that if you believe in science then let it do its job of proving what its supposed to and if it doesnt fit your beliefs then make a choice of what to believe without the backing of science.
As for backing vs. proving I think they are the same, hydrogen and oxygen form water it can be proven by the reproducible experiments of science, pretty simple I would think.

 

[Pah]

the basis of evolution and abiogenesis rests in the area of science, science is the empirical proving of assertions so by rights I should be able to ask for proof from science in regard to those BELIEFS.

Why? There is nothing better to present.

The Bible will always be either believed or not as is with no scientific backup since it didn't come saying it was backed by anything. Only those who find that science has no backup for their beliefs try to apply the same level of proof to another belief.

Exactly!!!

So I recommend that if you believe in science then let it do its job of proving what its supposed to and if it doesnt fit your beliefs then make a choice of what to believe without the backing of science.

exactly!!! Which is why in this case, Inteligent Design has no business in science.

As for backing vs. proving I think they are the same, hydrogen and oxygen form water it can be proven by the reproducible experiments of science, pretty simple I would think.

I distinguish evidence (which is given in court) from proof. Testimony can be a lie, a misunderstanding of the facts, or the actual facts themselves. It's all evidence. Guilt is not even proof but only an opinion of a unanimous jury or a single judge.

-pah-

 

[Mr Spinkles]

When I was in public school, they taught us that scientists think life started in some kind of primordial soup, but they aren't sure exactly how this happened. Evolution from common ancestors, however, since it is overwhelmingly evidenced, is taught as fact, as it should be.

There is no mention of an Intelligent Designer in public schools because science has nothing to do with a transcendent God--God could have established the laws that made primordial soup turn into life as easily as he could have sculpted it from heavenly clay.

One more thing kbc--there are not two schools of thought. There is a scientific school of thought, and there are many, many diverse religious schools of thought. Let the religious schools of thought be taught in philosophy/religions courses.

 

[Ceridwen018]

so which is it can they prove it or can they not? there is a bit of confusion in your post

No confusion if youtake your time and read it through. Science can provide evidence for evolution until your ears turn blue, however the theory is still incomplete, and as a whole, cannot be regarded as indisputable fact. Components of the evolutionary theory ARE regarded as fact though, and so the entire theory is considered more accurate than creationism, which is not factual in the least.

In schools, we teach that which has the highest probability of being true. This probability is discerned through rational empirical evidence. After analyzing said evidence, it is clear that evolution is much more probable than creationism.

 

[Raphael]

The fact of Creation as taught by the Catholic Church does not include any teaching on the time involved in the accomplishment of God creating the universe. Second it is benefical to know that the Theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of energy or matter. Evolution exists throughout the universe at many levels. A cup evolves. It was once clay, that was taken and shaped by man or machine and from their it evolve from user to user until the end of its story. Evolution is the existance of a story of the observed changes that matter takes throughout history. Evolution can only exist where there is already observable matter. Creation explains that the first motion within existance had to be accomplished by something not in motion having the power to cause the first motion. "Intellectual Motion," explains that the complexity of the end result of that oringinal motion, which is the entire universe and all existance on the physical plain, is sufficent proof that the something which caused the first motion is intelligent. "Immutability," shows us that all attributes of this intelligent being that caused that first motion are infinite or that being would be in motion, (growth, developement, loss) and that being would have to have been created by something else existing from all eternity not in motion. The something that existed from all eternity not in motion which had the power to cause the first motion we call God.

 

[kbc_1963]

I distinguish evidence (which is given in court) from proof. Testimony can be a lie, a misunderstanding of the facts, or the actual facts themselves. It's all evidence. Guilt is not even proof but only an opinion of a unanimous jury or a single judge.
-pah-

reproducible experiments = emprical evidence

Do we not understand this term or what? how hard is it to look at what I wrote and understand that if you can reproduce the same results every time from an experiment you prove something and it becomes empirical proof by science. there can be no comparison to testimony by a witness, otherwise we may read something like this;

...Well Mr. Urey we are satisfied with the oral EVIDENCE you have brought us so don't worry about doing any real experiments we will have faith in the evidence as presented.......

 

[kbc_1963]

Science can provide evidence for evolution until your ears turn blue

If science can show uncontested proof then that would be great however you can't prove that we evolved from lesser to greater, I could just as easily say that we are devolving from perfection to more and more imperfection.
My GOD could very well have made everything perfect and when we disobeyed him he took away his protection and everything has been devolving since then

I like this analogy that I saw somewhere recently and it apropriaate here and now:

Imagine you have a computer program that does simple math calculations now imagine that every so often there is a copy mistake as we copy it an pass it from person to person how long would it be before we would get a copy of Windows XP?

Not understanding exactly how cells work from the inside out is a reason why most people think that everything is evolving, but a simple cell tells volumes since at any point in time even the simplest cell is more complex than the most complex computer on our planet. in order for evolution to be factual then it must be proven that we began as chemicals and that chemicals became cells otherwise we can argue all day as to whether evolution as you call it is a fact of science theory or a fact of the creation of GOD that can adapt or are possibly devolving and appearing evolutionary.