[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
I never said science was an ideology. Don’t put words in my mouth. Creationist ideology is the ideas and or concepts surrounding creationism and a creator. Not to be confused with the science of creation.[/quote]
There is no “science of creation”. Like I said creation implies a violation in the rules of the universe. That is anti- scientific by definition.
But if you aren’t for confusing the 2, why put creation in a science class at all?
I wasn’t taught evoloution/big bang theory as a mutally exclusive answer in my schooling and I think should be kept that way. My science teachers never preached in class or taught and explained creationism, but at least they did present that as a way of thinking some people believe. Thats FACT. It has nothing to do with teaching creationism and everything to do with displaying a simple FACT that many people view creationism as an answer to the existence of life.
I even remember there being a short paragraph in my text book in middle school about creationism. It didn’t attempt to teach it, it was just mentioned as what “some” people think about creation.
Philosophy and Theology classes don’t have to be as strict with their discussions because those subjects don’t hold any of those bounds. Logic and science are always discussed in some way in conjucture with philosophy and theology. I haven’t had a philosophy or theology type class where that wasn’t true.
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Evolution and god are separate things. Just like the big bang and god.[/quote]
No. I don’t believe they are. Evolution and God and the big bang and god are not mutually exclusive of each other because you can’t have an explanation of one without the other. Both are involved in the discussion of creation, you can’t present one without the other.
This is why science classes should present both evolution/big bang theory and the “IDEA” of creationism together.[/quote]
I agree that big bang and evolution are not separate things in that one had to happen first for the other. But I am not sure where you are going with creationism. Creationism is a religious argument not a scientific one. Unless you are referring to cosmology, then it can fall under that realm, but it is also quite an advanced concept for the average high school and below student…
There is no confusion whilst disscussing creation and or big bang/evolution in my mind. There is one without the other or the melding of both.
There is science of creation. The words and phrases are used all the time. “The universe was [created] by the big bang”
Creation: The act of producing or causing to exist
There are many contexts of creation as a definition, but the one context I was using refered to the above definition. I didnt think I confused that but forgive me for not explaining it better.
Science=in science classes
Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy=in Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy classes
Creationism has been scientifically disproven. (fossil records don’t indicate a great flood, dating techniques don’t suggest a world that is only a few thousand years old, etc)
Evolution has the possibility of being disproven (give me a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian era and the theory is dead), but it has not.
So if you want to talk about creationism in a SCIENCE class, the only reason for doing so would be to point out how it isn’t science and how science refutes many of its beliefs.
The Al Gore video was interesting, do you have any more like that?
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
There is no confusion whilst disscussing creation and or big bang/evolution in my mind. There is one without the other or the melding of both.
There is science of creation. The words and phrases are used all the time. “The universe was [created] by the big bang”
Creation: The act of producing or causing to exist
There are many contexts of creation as a definition, but the one context I was using refered to the above definition. I didnt think I confused that but forgive me for not explaining it better.[/quote]
You are still talking about different things between scientific and religious creation. in science you are talking about the physical cause. the big bang caused space-time-energy. it isn’t talking about initial existence.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Science=in science classes
Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy=in Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy classes
Creationism has been scientifically disproven. (fossil records don’t indicate a great flood, dating techniques don’t suggest a world that is only a few thousand years old, etc)
Evolution has the possibility of being disproven (give me a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian era and the theory is dead), but it has not.
[/quote]
I think it would be fun if Push chimed in here on this one. He certainly has some opinions on this matter.
I’m saying that there is a culture around both Creationism and Big Bang/Evolution that follow both in a large way. To present one in a discussion, without noting the a reference to the other is factually irresponsible. Thats IMO. I don’t see them as mutually exclusive because in order to discuss one to full length, it seems amicable to at least mention the other as a seperate way of thinking.
If either were 100% accepted as fact and there wasn’t the existence of the other, you could sytematically and provincially claim either or in its own territory of thought without the other.
BUT, since there are more ways of thinking, it should be mentioned. Not explained in depth, but mentioned as another way of thinking. Science is involved in proving many things unscientific in nature, so the same could be said of creationism and presented in that manner.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Science=in science classes
Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy=in Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy classes
[/quote]
yes
No. You obviously don’t understand the concept of creation. Creation itself is an acceptance that scientific laws were violated. You cannot disprove it with scientific laws.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Science=in science classes
Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy=in Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy classes
Creationism has been scientifically disproven. (fossil records don’t indicate a great flood, dating techniques don’t suggest a world that is only a few thousand years old, etc)
Evolution has the possibility of being disproven (give me a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian era and the theory is dead), but it has not.
[/quote]
THis goes back to my previous post about trying to systemise creation in some shape or manner and disprove it with logic and science. Its all about divine occurance. It won’t make logical sense to a scientific mind but it doesn’t have to. Its glorious occurance.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
So if you want to talk about creationism in a SCIENCE class, the only reason for doing so would be to point out how it isn’t science and how science refutes many of its beliefs.[/quote]
BINGO. But to not mention it at all…is a complete faliure and extremely falliable in nature to not present it to the student mind. Because the two are discussed both in extreme detail by different parties as FACT.
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
Although science cannot explain religion or creationism, to teach evolution and big bang theory as a mutually exclusive answer, absent from the ideaology that there might be a different way of thinking isn’t fair to a students mind.
You don’t have to teach a class on creationism, but you should present the idea to students, because telling them everything about the science of creation and giving them nothing on Creationist ideaology is like saying there is only ONE right answer.
Classes dealing in science should teach it like this…Blah blah blah evolution and big bang thoroughly explained and then: Oh by the way, some people don’t believe this, they belive in creationism. You can research that on your own time. Next chapter, the planets.
Thats how it should be done. It’s not about saying what is right or wrong, its about presenting the heavy hitters on the subject in a fair manner. Its not a Theology class so don’t teach it, but you do have to present it. Even in theology classes the big bang theory and science is lightly discussed.[/quote]
Honestly, that sounds more the realm of “Social studies”. Creationism is a religious explanation, not a scientific one. I am all for AP Cosmology though…that can qualify as science and is rooted firmly in logic.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
There is no confusion whilst disscussing creation and or big bang/evolution in my mind. There is one without the other or the melding of both.
There is science of creation. The words and phrases are used all the time. “The universe was [created] by the big bang”
Creation: The act of producing or causing to exist
There are many contexts of creation as a definition, but the one context I was using refered to the above definition. I didnt think I confused that but forgive me for not explaining it better.[/quote]
You are still talking about different things between scientific and religious creation. in science you are talking about the physical cause. the big bang caused space-time-energy. it isn’t talking about initial existence. [/quote]
Its not meant to. Its simple maniplation of english contextual language. Creation used in that form is simply meant as a different word to describe the comings about of the big bang/evolution. You could throw in conception, orgination or begining if it makes you feel more at ease.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Science=in science classes
Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy=in Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy classes
Creationism has been scientifically disproven. (fossil records don’t indicate a great flood, dating techniques don’t suggest a world that is only a few thousand years old, etc)
Evolution has the possibility of being disproven (give me a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian era and the theory is dead), but it has not.
[/quote]
Fossil records indicate many big floods and many mass extinctions of many varieties. Creationism wasn’t meant to be a matter of historical and archeological fact. It’s not a history book.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Science=in science classes
Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy=in Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy classes
Creationism has been scientifically disproven. (fossil records don’t indicate a great flood, dating techniques don’t suggest a world that is only a few thousand years old, etc)
Evolution has the possibility of being disproven (give me a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian era and the theory is dead), but it has not.
[/quote]
Fossil records indicate many big floods and many mass extinctions of many varieties. Creationism wasn’t meant to be a matter of historical and archeological fact. It’s not a history book. [/quote]
Tell that to the young earth creationists
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Science=in science classes
Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy=in Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy classes
Creationism has been scientifically disproven. (fossil records don’t indicate a great flood, dating techniques don’t suggest a world that is only a few thousand years old, etc)
Evolution has the possibility of being disproven (give me a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian era and the theory is dead), but it has not.
[/quote]
I think it would be fun if Push chimed in here on this one. He certainly has some opinions on this matter.[/quote]
Already done for you. Just look down to my post on the page and you’ll see the start of it.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Science=in science classes
Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy=in Religion/Metaphysics/Philosophy classes
Creationism has been scientifically disproven. (fossil records don’t indicate a great flood, dating techniques don’t suggest a world that is only a few thousand years old, etc)
Evolution has the possibility of being disproven (give me a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian era and the theory is dead), but it has not.
[/quote]
Fossil records indicate many big floods and many mass extinctions of many varieties. Creationism wasn’t meant to be a matter of historical and archeological fact. It’s not a history book. [/quote]
single great flood, my bad
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
I’m saying that there is a culture around both Creationism and Big Bang/Evolution that follow both in a large way. To present one in a discussion, without noting the a reference to the other is factually irresponsible. Thats IMO. I don’t see them as mutually exclusive because in order to discuss one to full length, it seems amicable to at least mention the other as a seperate way of thinking.
If either were 100% accepted as fact and there wasn’t the existence of the other, you could sytematically and provicially claim either or in its own territory of thought without the other.
BUT, since there are more ways of thinking, it should be mentioned. Not explained in depth, but mentioned as another way of thinking. Science is involved in proving many things unscientific in nature, so the same could be said of creationism and presented in that manner.
[/quote]
Then why restrain it to discussions of evolution? Shouldn’t the notion that god made it that way enter into every subject in science? Shouldn’t teachers mention it with every lesson?
Why not mention all the other notions on origin? Mother earth and whatnot?