Creationism vs Evolution in public schools

[freethinker83]

This is a question for those who think creationism should be taught in the science classroom.

Why do you think a science teacher would be better qualified to teach about creation than a philosophy or religion teacher? I would think they would be far better qualified. I wouldn’t want a history teacher giving me algebra instruction.

 

[PbloPicasso]

“Creationism only (I include intelligent design here)”
This is a problem, you should have included ID in a separate category because its not the same as Creationism. Look for a movie called “Expelled: No Intellegence Allowed”. It will explain why I say this. It’s very good and shows that not even Richard Dawkins rejects this being taught. I believe both should be taught. However, I do have a problem with evolution theory being taught with the mandate that God does not exist. That’s my largest problem because Science is really based on a philosophical concept that everything can be explained without discussing the existence or influence of a mover.

 

[kbachler]

This is a question for those who think creationism should be taught in the science classroom.

Why do you think a science teacher would be better qualified to teach about creation than a philosophy or religion teacher? I would think they would be far better qualified. I wouldn’t want a history teacher giving me algebra instruction.

You misunderstand the issue.

I think a science teach is better qualified to discuss the scientific aspects of creation. That is what is taught in science class.

The Biblical story of creation is not, in any sense of the word, science, any more than it is algebra. Please, try to apply the scientific method to it.

A qualified science teacher would therefore be far better qualified.

Please keep in mind that I do believe that God is our Creator and I do believe that the Biblical story is a truthful telling of the story (albeit in a way designed to be told to a scientifically illiterate group - the ancient Israelites.)

 

[kbachler]

Mathematics does not make claims about how the universe or life arose. Physics makes a claim about how the Universe arose: the Big Bang. But most physicists and physics books are honest and admit that they do not know what caused the Bang. If they are really honest they will admit that there is an unknown pre-temporal First Cause.

Why don’t we ask for the same honesty from biologists?

I never asked for creationism to be taught. I asked for theistic evolution to be taught. In other words, I want evolution to be taught but not atheism.

Sorry, if they are really being honest, which they ARE, they would state that there is no REASON to assume a “pre-temporal First Cause”. You’re assuming something that there is no need to assume. If you made a Physicist look at this question - they would do so scientifically - and the assumption that “well then there must be a God” would simply cause the scientific question - “Well then, who made God?” From a SCIENCE perspective, there is no requirement for a “God assumption” to explain how things happened.

That doesn’t mean that scientists don’t believe in God. It means that they are explaining HOW things happened, WHEN they happened, not “WHO MADE” them happen. Who made is a RELIGION QUESTION, NOT in the realm of science.

If I ask the question in math class “Why does 2 + 2 = 4” the answer we look for is never “Because God made it so.”

And the biologists are being just as honest.

And sorry, there are fundamental areas of mathematics that do focus on the derivation of one mathematical form from another. There are even forms of mathematics dealing with information that argue that the universe is nothing but information.

The arrogant assumption that physicists or biologists are “lying” is the height of a non-Christian approach, in my opinion.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Speaking scientifically I don’t see how the best answer for “we don’t know” automatically equals a God.

But the answer is not “we don’t know,” but rather “Something caused it.” Science can enumerate some of the properties of the Something by inference from physics as described above. And there science ends.

All I am asking is for science curricula to be consistent with the scientific method: all effects have causes, therefore the Bang has a cause. Naming the Cause is outside the realm of the lab.

As far as the Church inventing science, I don’t know how you can say that.

Please review the linked thread above as I don’t want to derail this one.

I just want my future children to be educated to think critically and base their thinking on evidence and not assumptions.

I do too, which is why I gave you the evidence.

Also, please do not take any of this as a personal attack on you or your beliefs, it is not at all.

No worries.

 

[freethinker83]

Sorry, if they are really being honest, which they ARE, they would state that there is no REASON to assume a “pre-temporal First Cause”. You’re assuming something that there is no need to assume. If you made a Physicist look at this question - they would do so scientifically - and the assumption that “well then there must be a God” would simply cause the scientific question - “Well then, who made God?” From a SCIENCE perspective, there is no requirement for a “God assumption” to explain how things happened.

That doesn’t mean that scientists don’t believe in God. It means that they are explaining HOW things happened, WHEN they happened, not “WHO MADE” them happen. Who made is a RELIGION QUESTION, NOT in the realm of science.

If I ask the question in math class “Why does 2 + 2 = 4” the answer we look for is never “Because God made it so.”

And the biologists are being just as honest.

And sorry, there are fundamental areas of mathematics that do focus on the derivation of one mathematical form from another. There are even forms of mathematics dealing with information that argue that the universe is nothing but information.

The arrogant assumption that physicists or biologists are “lying” is the height of a non-Christian approach, in my opinion.

Thank you. You more or less said what I was trying to say in a much clearer way. Science very much has to do with “how,” while philosophy and religion deal with the “why.” These are two seperate realms in my opinon.

 

[kbachler]

But the answer is not “we don’t know,” but rather “Something caused it.”

I’m sorry, you are assuming that is the answer. Scientists DO NOT assume that something caused it. It’s this assumption that is clouding your thinking.

There is no reason to assume (if we accept) the Big Bang theory as correct, that there was a cause to Big Bang. The laws of physics as we know them likely would not have existed prior to Big Bang. There would not be time as we know it prior to Big Bang. Therefore, there is no reason to require cause and effect as we know it prior to Big Bang. Hence, there is no reason to assume first cause.

Mathematically, it is possible to show that Big Bang can occur from nothing. The answer to proving God exists, is not coming from this line of inquiry.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Sorry, if they are really being honest, which they ARE, they would state that there is no REASON to assume a “pre-temporal First Cause”.

There most certainly IS a reason and that is this: the scientific method requires all observable effects to have a cause. If an observable effect has no cause, then science is engaging in special pleading (“all effects have a cause… except this one!”) and is thus a flawed epistemology.

What about the First Cause? Well…

You’re assuming something that there is no need to assume. If you made a Physicist look at this question - they would do so scientifically - and the assumption that “well then there must be a God” would simply cause the scientific question - “Well then, who made God?” From a SCIENCE perspective, there is no requirement for a “God assumption” to explain how things happened.

To refresh your recollection: from Einstein and Hawking we know time and thus causality began at the Bang. Hence the Bang’s cause must be pre-temporal, and since there is no causality without time, there and only there can we have an uncaused cause.

That doesn’t mean that scientists don’t believe in God. It means that they are explaining HOW things happened, WHEN they happened, not “WHO MADE” them happen. Who made is a RELIGION QUESTION, NOT in the realm of science.

I agree. But saying nothing caused the Big Bang wrecks science as a consistent epistemology. Science should acknowledge the Cause exists. That is all I am asking for.

The arrogant assumption that physicists or biologists are “lying” is the height of a non-Christian approach, in my opinion.

If they are claiming there is no God, they are not telling the truth. Claiming emergence or natural selection to the exclusion of God is the same. If they are aware of the evidence to the contrary and are doing either, then they are lying.

Shooting the messenger is not going to change the message.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’m sorry, you are assuming that is the answer. Scientists DO NOT assume that something caused it. It’s this assumption that is clouding your thinking.

There is no reason to assume (if we accept) the Big Bang theory as correct, that there was a cause to Big Bang. The laws of physics as we know them likely would not have existed prior to Big Bang. There would not be time as we know it prior to Big Bang. Therefore, there is no reason to require cause and effect as we know it prior to Big Bang. Hence, there is no reason to assume first cause.

Mathematically, it is possible to show that Big Bang can occur from nothing. The answer to proving God exists, is not coming from this line of inquiry.

I think you’re referring to Hawking who is now taking the position that gravity caused the Big Bang. But then that raises the question of what caused gravity. Moreover if there was no time before the Bang then gravity, being a force that acts on space-time, would have no ability to exert a force.

Again, this line of argument wrecks science as a consistent epistemology.

 

[EasterJoy]

The public schools do not force graduates to register as Democrats or force the band to play Bing Crosby to the exception of all other artists.

However, many force the students to write “man evolved over millions of years through natural selection alone” as their exam answer and penalize or otherwise disallow the STUDENT’S freedom of expression to add God to the answer.

I do not know a single science teacher who would not accept “Scientists currently believe that man evolved over millions of years via a process called natural selection” for full credit. You could even say “In this course, we were taught that…” You do not have to say natural selection is the only mechanism involved, and you do not have to say that you personally believe it. You only have to demonstrate that you understand and can explain the current state of scientific thought.

To say that you must be allowed to put God into your answer to a question concerning the origin of humans on a science exam is like saying that if your chemistry teacher asks how water boils, you’re going to feel put out if you’re not allowed to say that someone has to desire to make tea in order to get the whole process started. True or not, it is outside the scope of the question.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I disagree. If non-theistic evolution is taught, atheism is not established. Not talking about God is not tantamount to denying him. If I talk about Macintosh/Apple products without mentioning Steve Jobs, I’m not denying he’s the president. If I mention the U.S. government and state of affairs without mentioning Obama, it doesn’t mean I deny he’s president.

Non-theistic evolution doesn’t deny a creator behind it, just teaches a theory about how it came to be.

Public schools are not allowed to establish any form of religion, including atheism.

If non-theistic evolution is taught alone, atheism is established.
If creationism is taught, theism is established.

The only solution is to teach theistic evolution (“some other theory”) and use a neutral term like “First Cause” or “Prime Mover” to refer to God.

 

[EasterJoy]

There most certainly IS a reason and that is this: the scientific method requires all observable effects to have a cause. If an observable effect has no cause, then science is engaging in special pleading (“all effects have a cause… except this one!”) and is thus a flawed epistemology.

What about the First Cause? Well…

To refresh your recollection: from Einstein and Hawking we know time and thus causality began at the Bang. Hence the Bang’s cause must be pre-temporal, and since there is no causality without time, there and only there can we have an uncaused cause.

I agree. But saying nothing caused the Big Bang wrecks science as a consistent epistemology. Science should acknowledge the Cause exists. That is all I am asking for.

If they are claiming there is no God, they are not telling the truth. Claiming emergence or natural selection to the exclusion of God is the same. If they are aware of the evidence to the contrary and are doing either, then they are lying.

Shooting the messenger is not going to change the message.

Why are you insisting that science cannot be taught without including theology or philosophy?

You can learn how a Ford works and discuss the technical reasons for the evolution in engine design without dragging market research into it. Of course it made a difference whether the automakers thought they could make a profit from a particular engine design at a particular point in time. Of course you could include this in the course if you wanted to. Having said that it is not intellectually dishonest to limit the scope of the course to exclude the extent to which market forces drove engine design. You have to limit your course somewhere.

The lack of a consensus among both scientists and the parents of public school students concerning the relationship between theology and biology is an excellent reason to exclude that discussion from an introductory course.

 

[kbachler]

There most certainly IS a reason and that is this: the scientific method requires all observable effects to have a cause. If an observable effect has no cause, then science is engaging in special pleading (“all effects have a cause… except this one!”) and is thus a flawed epistemology.

I’m sorry, you’re simply incorrect here. Please read up on modern cosmology before making statements that aren’t real. As noted, the current laws of physics do not exist prior to Big Bang (and actually begin breaking down as symmetries rebuild when running Big Bang backwards) hence there is no reason to assume a first cause.

Even if one is assumed, it doesn’t have to be God.

And if God is assumed, then one asks “What created God?” You have exactly the same problem you have now.

What about the First Cause? Well…

To refresh your recollection: from Einstein and Hawking we know time and thus causality began at the Bang.

Thank you for refreshing me on something we dboth on’t know to be true, and that isn’t related to either scientist above. In fact, under Quantum Electrodynamics the entire concept of causation is turned on its head - and these concepts date back to Heisenberg, Schrodinger, etc.

Hence the Bang’s cause must be pre-temporal, and since there is no causality without time, there and only there can we have an uncaused cause.

Again, none of the above is know to be true. We do not know (and likely cannot know) if there was time before Big Bang. If there is a pre-temporal period as you argue, the fact that nether the current laws of physics nor time exist under your argument, one cannot assume that there must be a cause, because that assumption is made ONLY UNDER the current laws of physics.

I agree. But saying nothing caused the Big Bang wrecks science as a consistent epistemology. Science should acknowledge the Cause exists. That is all I am asking for.

Actually it does nothing that you claim. It is possible to show mathematically that no cause is necessary. Hence, there is no reason to acknowledge that a cause exists.

Your arguments are based both on incorrect facts, and faulty assumptions. I’m sorry, I appreciate the zeal that you have, but there is no requiremen for a first cause. In fact, a mathematical proof exists that there is no requirement. Hard to get more definitive than that.

If they are claiming there is no God, they are not telling the truth. Claiming emergence or natural selection to the exclusion of God is the same. If they are aware of the evidence to the contrary and are doing either, then they are lying.

No one is claiming there is no God. The claim is that there is no science which demonstrates that there is a God or that a God assumption is necessary. You’re trying to require them to admit what they have already proven they canot admit.

Shooting the messenger is not going to change the message.

That’s ok. No need to shoot the messenger, because the message you have is easily demonstrated to be false, even using your own logic as a starting point - as I did above.

 

[EasterJoy]

Obviously, I think evolution, which is an important and widely-held theory concerning how to explain the range of similarities and differences in modern and ancient life forms, ought to be taught in public schools.

I don’t want a public school teacher giving my kids lessons on theology, thank you very much, unless perhaps it is a descriptive course in comparative religion. I think it highly unlikely that the prevailing majority theological opinions that would be approved by most school boards would be either fully correct or remotely complete, when compared to the theology taught by the Catholic Church. I’d rather they stay off the topic entirely.

 

[kbachler]

I think you’re referring to Hawking who is now taking the position that gravity caused the Big Bang. But then that raises the question of what caused gravity. Moreover if there was no time before the Bang then gravity, being a force that acts on space-time, would have no ability to exert a force.

Again, this line of argument wrecks science as a consistent epistemology.

No, I’m not referring to Hawking.

The Hawking hypothesis you refer to is not generally accepted by scientists today. Under his model, there are many universes, and gravity flowed/is flowing from another universe into ours. It’s not that the model is wrong, there is just scant evidence that it is right.

Again - none of that requires God. In this instance what came before the Big Bang in our universe is - another universe.

A scientist would not, on that basis, allow you to bully him/her into a “God hypothesis.”

 

[kbachler]

Obviously, I think evolution, which is an important and widely-held theory concerning how to explain the range of similarities and differences in modern and ancient life forms, ought to be taught in public schools.

I don’t want a public school teacher giving my kids lessons on theology, thank you very much, unless perhaps it is a descriptive course in comparative religion. I think it highly unlikely that the prevailing majority theological opinions that would be approved by most school boards would be either fully correct or remotely complete, when compared to the theology taught by the Catholic Church. I’d rather they stay off the topic entirely.

I think this is a really good comment.

 

[freethinker83]

I don’t want a public school teacher giving my kids lessons on theology, thank you very much, unless perhaps it is a descriptive course in comparative religion. I think it highly unlikely that the prevailing majority theological opinions that would be approved by most school boards would be either fully correct or remotely complete, when compared to the theology taught by the Catholic Church. I’d rather they stay off the topic entirely.

That is a good point. I’m sure that in most cases they would not be qualified to get into the specifics. I do personally believe that a comparative religion class of some sort should be a requirement. After all, we live in a global world today and it is important to have an understanding of those you will interact with on a day-to-day basis.

 

[mdrummer5]

It’s been 14 years or so since I graduated but we did learn about evolution and I think I’d have liked it if they offered a theology class covering “the basics” of different belief systems.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’m sorry, you’re simply incorrect here. Please read up on modern cosmology before making statements that aren’t real.

I cited the journal Nature and Time Magazine. Clearly you did not bother to investigate before condemning.

As noted, the current laws of physics do not exist prior to Big Bang (and actually begin breaking down as symmetries rebuild when running Big Bang backwards) hence there is no reason to assume a first cause.

This may be true of thermodynamics because of the oddities of quark-gluon soups, but it isn’t true of causality because, again, time began at the Big Bang.

Even if one is assumed, it doesn’t have to be God.

I didn’t say it had to be. All along I have said that the identities and extrascientific properties of the First Cause are not matters for a science class.

And if God is assumed, then one asks “What created God?” You have exactly the same problem you have now.

Everyone agrees there is no time and thus no causality before the Bang.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I suggest we move the existence of God sub thread to this new thread so that this one can focus on public policy.