Do you believe Creationism should be taught in public schools

[bedstuy]

Human evolution is falsifiable. As Bedstuy points out we could potentially find fossils that would contradict it.

But Bedstuy, when you say that you have the commonly accepted understanding of what science is, what is it? I am not entirely convinced that there is a commonly accepted definition. I would mostly agree with Ernest's (though I also think it includes  a certain degree of deductive reasoning from falsifiable hypotheses) but do think it is misapplied here.

No, I just mean the definition that we all agree on.  Nobody is imposing this restriction on schools that they shouldn't teach anything outside Ernest's pedantic solipsistic definition of science. 

Dictionary.com on biology:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dictionary.com on science:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I won't quite say the dictionary definition is wrong, but it's missing some key things that are important to the discussion. For instance, with those requirements, one could very easily argue that creationism is science. The only hitch would be the experimentation clause of #2, and if one requires that clause specifically then one must also say that the descent of man by evolution is not science. What's missing here is falsifiability. Without that criterion, there really isn't a good reason to teach evolution and not teach creationism as science in public schools.

When I said I'm not sure we actually have a clearly agreed upon definition of science, what I meant was whether or not deductive reasoning is included. The scientific method is structured to foster inductive reasoning, which pretty much everyone agrees is science. What is less clear is whether or not we can take those conclusions and synthesize other ideas from them and still have that be considered science if the final conclusions are not testable. The majority opinion seems to be yes, but that isn't really settled. The crux of Ernest's argument is that, no, we can't take untestable deductive claims and call them science. I disagree with him. I think evolutionary theories in general are falsifiable since, as you stated, we could find evidence in the course of fossil excavation that would contradict them.

You're being extremely dense to the point I don't know if you're kidding or not.  This is totally pointless semantics.  When we say evolution, we can mean several different things.  You and Ernest are trying to use that ambiguity to purposefully misunderstand subject in an incredibly annoying, pedantic and stupid way.  It's amazing.  If you're joking, please tell me.

Let's differentiate the following:

Evolution:  The processes of evolution, sex, genetic drift in animal populations, genetic mutation, the survival of creatures with certain traits, the sexual selection of organisms. 

Would you disagree that it's possible to study or experiment in any of those fields?  No, right?

Evolution:  The record of evolution that has already occurred, fossils, cladistics, geology, paleontology. 

Now, this is stuff you can't do an experiment with.  It already happened...  You're basically asking for something that makes no sense and is impossible.  Like, would you say we can't teach the atomic theory because we don't know if atoms existed 500 mya?  We can't go back and do experiments 500 mya so no physics then? 

[TJ in Oregon]

Human evolution is falsifiable. As Bedstuy points out we could potentially find fossils that would contradict it.

But Bedstuy, when you say that you have the commonly accepted understanding of what science is, what is it? I am not entirely convinced that there is a commonly accepted definition. I would mostly agree with Ernest's (though I also think it includes  a certain degree of deductive reasoning from falsifiable hypotheses) but do think it is misapplied here.

No, I just mean the definition that we all agree on.  Nobody is imposing this restriction on schools that they shouldn't teach anything outside Ernest's pedantic solipsistic definition of science. 

Dictionary.com on biology:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dictionary.com on science:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I won't quite say the dictionary definition is wrong, but it's missing some key things that are important to the discussion. For instance, with those requirements, one could very easily argue that creationism is science. The only hitch would be the experimentation clause of #2, and if one requires that clause specifically then one must also say that the descent of man by evolution is not science. What's missing here is falsifiability. Without that criterion, there really isn't a good reason to teach evolution and not teach creationism as science in public schools.

When I said I'm not sure we actually have a clearly agreed upon definition of science, what I meant was whether or not deductive reasoning is included. The scientific method is structured to foster inductive reasoning, which pretty much everyone agrees is science. What is less clear is whether or not we can take those conclusions and synthesize other ideas from them and still have that be considered science if the final conclusions are not testable. The majority opinion seems to be yes, but that isn't really settled. The crux of Ernest's argument is that, no, we can't take untestable deductive claims and call them science. I disagree with him. I think evolutionary theories in general are falsifiable since, as you stated, we could find evidence in the course of fossil excavation that would contradict them.

You're being extremely dense to the point I don't know if you're kidding or not.  This is totally pointless semantics.  When we say evolution, we can mean several different things.  You and Ernest are trying to use that ambiguity to purposefully misunderstand subject in an incredibly annoying, pedantic and stupid way.  It's amazing.  If you're joking, please tell me.

Let's differentiate the following:

Evolution:  The processes of evolution, sex, genetic drift in animal populations, genetic mutation, the survival of creatures with certain traits, the sexual selection of organisms. 

Would you disagree that it's possible to study or experiment in any of those fields?  No, right?

Evolution:  The record of evolution that has already occurred, fossils, cladistics, geology, paleontology. 

Now, this is stuff you can't do an experiment with.  It already happened...  You're basically asking for something that makes no sense and is impossible.  Like, would you say we can't teach the atomic theory because we don't know if atoms existed 500 mya?  We can't go back and do experiments 500 mya so no physics then? 

I was referring to the second definition of evolution you gave. I thought that was pretty clear but I apologize if it wasn't. I'm pretty sure Ernest is too.

I am not saying we shouldn't teach evolution. Or that we should teach Creationism. I am bewildered by your response here I am not trying to "purposely misunderstand the subject" or whatever the heck you are accusing me of. My post wasn't even primarily about evolution but about the definition of science. I would think we ought to have a definition of science that includes the record of evolution but disincludes creationism, no?

[bedstuy]

1.  Why are you arguing with me if you think evolution should be taught in schools?  That was the point, Ernest is saying no because who the hell knows.

2.  We should include studying creationism within science actually.  It's just that there's no evidence or theoretical basis for creationism.  But, theoretically you could find evidence for it and it would be science. 

[TJ in Oregon]

1.  Why are you arguing with me if you think evolution should be taught in schools?  That was the point, Ernest is saying no because who the hell knows.

I'm arguing with you because I disagree with something you posted

The entire topic isn't reducible to a box-checking Yes/No answer to the subject as that would make for a very boring thread.

I don't think Ernest has actually stated he doesn't believe evolution should be taught in public schools. His argument is more subtle than that but he can speak for himself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here I disagree. I would like some philosophical discussion of creationism to occur somewhere within the curriculum, but I do not think finding evidence for it would make it scientific. Ultimately, I do not think it is possible in principle to disprove creationism. That (according to my definition ) would mean that it is not science.

[bedstuy]

You can't disprove the concept of God.  I agree.

But, you could find evidence that a God created the earth and that human beings began with two original creatures not produced from evolution.  I guess if you're saying that God's powers would by necessity be magical and impossible to perceive as humans, that's a different story.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As TJ pointed out I hadn't said whether I thought what you referred to as the "record of evolution" should be taught as part of biology. I didn't bother to refute your assumption because I was fairly sure whatever I said, especially since it wouldn't boil down to a simple yes/no, you'd send some more invective my way, but since it appears you can always find things to invect...

First off, cladistics these days is based so heavily on genetics, to the point of overriding in some surprising ways earlier views based on morphology and the fossil record, that I wouldn't include it as part of the "record of evolution" but as part of what I've been referring to as "genetics" which largely includes what you refer to as "the processes of evolution" since those are applied genetics.

Second, we don't need to know what atoms did 500 mya to teach atomic theory. We have atoms right here.

Third, you seem to be reducing "creationism" to solely YEC which has so many scientific flaws beyond incompatibility with the "processes of evolution" that using it as your counterexample is using a strawman. Consider for example "directed evolution", which is often put forth by creationists trying to have their cake but eat it too. Philosophically, it doesn't appeal to me, but the fossil record doesn't speak as to whether natural selection or divine selection took place.

Lastly, my point was not that the "record of evolution" should not be taught as part of the science of biology but that it wasn't a part of the subject necessary to be able to work with biology. We include a number of non-essentials in the curriculum, for a variety of reasons, but there also are time constraints so we can't include everything. There might be better uses of the time, at least at the grade school level. If it is included, it needs to be taught in a way that does not advocate a deistic/atheistic viewpoint.

[bedstuy]

Third, you seem to be reducing "creationism" to solely YEC which has so many scientific flaws beyond incompatibility with the "processes of evolution" that using it as your counterexample is using a strawman. Consider for example "directed evolution", which is often put forth by creationists trying to have their cake but eat it too. Philosophically, it doesn't appeal to me, but the fossil record doesn't speak as to whether natural selection or divine selection took place.

You could add God to any scientific theory then, no?  Then, we can't teach whether or not gravity only works because Poseidon makes it so.  We can't teach whether or not we get sick because of germs, and also God's wrath.  The theory, as we have it, does not require God.  If you're religious, obviously you believe God somehow has its hands in everything that takes place.  You can always say, "God acts through nature" and that doesn't make God/nature processes in any way distinguishable from nature by itself.

See, that question is not within science.  There is no evidence God existed and used artificial selection techniques to direct evolution.  We don't know what divine selection would look like so we really can't take a position on it.  Talking about that stuff is always going to be irrelevant to the subject.  The religious question "Why did God makes this happen?" is not a scientific question.

So, how would you find evidence that natural selection did not happen, and instead it was divine selection as you say?

Lastly, my point was not that the "record of evolution" should not be taught as part of the science of biology but that it wasn't a part of the subject necessary to be able to work with biology. We include a number of non-essentials in the curriculum, for a variety of reasons, but there also are time constraints so we can't include everything. There might be better uses of the time, at least at the grade school level. If it is included, it needs to be taught in a way that does not advocate a deistic/atheistic viewpoint.

Sure, you could selectively delete some major pieces of evidence from your knowledge and still retain the whole.  But, that's sort of irrelevant to the question at hand, which is what is necessary to teach in a biology class to high school kids?

The fossil/genetic evidence for evolution in the past is necessary in that class.  It would be a glaring admission not to mention that it exists.  It's not something you need to dwell on in any way, but it's a piece of the picture.  And, just given what the average kid knows, how do you present evolution while remaining agnostic about whether fossils exist?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You do enjoy making strawmen out of what I say, don't you? I believe I've made my views clear and I have no wish to continue the process of deconstructing your strawmen by giving further details you would only make more strawmen out of.

[bedstuy]

You do enjoy making strawmen out of what I say, don't you? I believe I've made my views clear and I have no wish to continue the process of deconstructing your strawmen by giving further details you would only make more strawmen out of.

You had no point.  You usually don't have a point, you just find a semantic argument and repeat it over and over again.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You do enjoy making strawmen out of what I say, don't you? I believe I've made my views clear and I have no wish to continue the process of deconstructing your strawmen by giving further details you would only make more strawmen out of.

You had no point.  You usually don't have a point, you just find a semantic argument and repeat it over and over again.

I had a point, but it wasn't one that you wished to debate, so instead you provided points for us both. Your "debating" style is to put words in the mouths of those you argue with and then attack the strawmen you've built.

[bedstuy]

You do enjoy making strawmen out of what I say, don't you? I believe I've made my views clear and I have no wish to continue the process of deconstructing your strawmen by giving further details you would only make more strawmen out of.

You had no point.  You usually don't have a point, you just find a semantic argument and repeat it over and over again.

I had a point, but it wasn't one that you wished to debate, so instead you provided points for us both. Your "debating" style is to put words in the mouths of those you argue with and then attack the strawmen you've built.

I looked back at your initial post.

Is it just that you're saying that we can tell students you can be agnostic about whether or not there is some kind of magic that allowed evolution to happen in the past?  What is the practical meaning for a high school biology class of your theory?

What do you delete from the textbook in your world?

[JackV982]

It should be discussed as a belief in history class, especially in regards to the Scopes trial and whatnot. But keep it far away from science classes.

[RINO Tom]

Obviously not, as that would be teaching a specific religion at a public school ... pretty clearly un-Constitutional...

[Enduro]

No. Creationism is not fact, nor is it another "side of the argument". If there was a religion that was spewing that "2 + 2 = 5" and that both should be taught, wouldn't that be counterproductive? People have a right to teach and learn what they want in their own homes, not mine. If you have a moral objection to being taught, or having your child taught evolution, find a private school. Public schools are to inform, not to indoctrinate personal views.

Except Macroevolution is also a personal view.

It's a personal view like 2 + 2 is 4. It's fact.

Alright prove it's a fact. Where you there? Did you see the beginning of time?

I wasn't there, but neither was a floating sky god. If you would like proof of evolution, look up a book. Check out some biology textbooks or read the Smithsonian's Natural History page. Personally, I care very little of what people believe about Evolution, just as long as it doesn't affect education or my personal well being.

Oh, I hadn't realized that you had spoken to "floating sky God" and asked Him if He was there. I also hadn't realized He told you He wasn't there. I also hadn't realized that books written by humans who were not also there held all the answers. I also hadn't realized that the all knowing lower case g god that is the Smithsonian was at the beginning of time and told you how the world began, despite being younger than America.
By the way, I have read many biology textbooks. Those that support Creationism, though I still recognize that they could be just as wrong as your Evolutionist textbooks.

First off, I haven't spoken to the "floating sky god" because he doesn't exist. Secondly, books written by people who weren't there is really the basis of literature, I mean was any Modern Historian alive for Julius Caesar? We have a incredible amount of proof of The Big Bang, Lucy, and the lead-up to who we are today. The difference between Evolution and Creationism is facts pure and simple. I would be extremely willing to accept Creationism/God in my heart if they had facts our their side. I wish they had the same attitude, but today we face polarization and the reluctance to look at the other side. It's sad really.

What facts do you have on your side?! The difference between Evolution and Creationism is Creationism has a better explanation for the world. Even the smallest living things are to complicated for the world to be an accident. Where's your incredible amount of proof? Mine is the world we live in.

[Goldwater]

So your "proof" for creationism is that things exist? How exactly does that disprove evolution?

[Cassius]

Certainly.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No. Creationism is not fact, nor is it another "side of the argument". If there was a religion that was spewing that "2 + 2 = 5" and that both should be taught, wouldn't that be counterproductive? People have a right to teach and learn what they want in their own homes, not mine. If you have a moral objection to being taught, or having your child taught evolution, find a private school. Public schools are to inform, not to indoctrinate personal views.

Except Macroevolution is also a personal view.

It's a personal view like 2 + 2 is 4. It's fact.

Alright prove it's a fact. Where you there? Did you see the beginning of time?

I wasn't there, but neither was a floating sky god. If you would like proof of evolution, look up a book. Check out some biology textbooks or read the Smithsonian's Natural History page. Personally, I care very little of what people believe about Evolution, just as long as it doesn't affect education or my personal well being.

Oh, I hadn't realized that you had spoken to "floating sky God" and asked Him if He was there. I also hadn't realized He told you He wasn't there. I also hadn't realized that books written by humans who were not also there held all the answers. I also hadn't realized that the all knowing lower case g god that is the Smithsonian was at the beginning of time and told you how the world began, despite being younger than America.
By the way, I have read many biology textbooks. Those that support Creationism, though I still recognize that they could be just as wrong as your Evolutionist textbooks.

First off, I haven't spoken to the "floating sky god" because he doesn't exist. Secondly, books written by people who weren't there is really the basis of literature, I mean was any Modern Historian alive for Julius Caesar? We have a incredible amount of proof of The Big Bang, Lucy, and the lead-up to who we are today. The difference between Evolution and Creationism is facts pure and simple. I would be extremely willing to accept Creationism/God in my heart if they had facts our their side. I wish they had the same attitude, but today we face polarization and the reluctance to look at the other side. It's sad really.

What facts do you have on your side?! The difference between Evolution and Creationism is Creationism has a better explanation for the world. Even the smallest living things are to complicated for the world to be an accident. Where's your incredible amount of proof? Mine is the world we live in.

Evolution is not an "accident" it's a process, which has been extensively documented, observed and theorised upon.

[RINO Tom]

I'm also assuming "Creationism" refers to a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation story ... because there are tens of millions of people in this country who believe entirely in evolution and also in a higher intelligence/being/creator of some sort.

[This account no longer in use.]

Only if they also teach Pastafarian beliefs.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Only if they also teach Pastafarian beliefs.

They should only do that on days they are serving spaghetti in the cafeteria.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

What kind? YEC? OAC? Theistic Evolution?

[Enduro]

No. Creationism is not fact, nor is it another "side of the argument". If there was a religion that was spewing that "2 + 2 = 5" and that both should be taught, wouldn't that be counterproductive? People have a right to teach and learn what they want in their own homes, not mine. If you have a moral objection to being taught, or having your child taught evolution, find a private school. Public schools are to inform, not to indoctrinate personal views.

Except Macroevolution is also a personal view.

It's a personal view like 2 + 2 is 4. It's fact.

Alright prove it's a fact. Where you there? Did you see the beginning of time?

I wasn't there, but neither was a floating sky god. If you would like proof of evolution, look up a book. Check out some biology textbooks or read the Smithsonian's Natural History page. Personally, I care very little of what people believe about Evolution, just as long as it doesn't affect education or my personal well being.

Oh, I hadn't realized that you had spoken to "floating sky God" and asked Him if He was there. I also hadn't realized He told you He wasn't there. I also hadn't realized that books written by humans who were not also there held all the answers. I also hadn't realized that the all knowing lower case g god that is the Smithsonian was at the beginning of time and told you how the world began, despite being younger than America.
By the way, I have read many biology textbooks. Those that support Creationism, though I still recognize that they could be just as wrong as your Evolutionist textbooks.

First off, I haven't spoken to the "floating sky god" because he doesn't exist. Secondly, books written by people who weren't there is really the basis of literature, I mean was any Modern Historian alive for Julius Caesar? We have a incredible amount of proof of The Big Bang, Lucy, and the lead-up to who we are today. The difference between Evolution and Creationism is facts pure and simple. I would be extremely willing to accept Creationism/God in my heart if they had facts our their side. I wish they had the same attitude, but today we face polarization and the reluctance to look at the other side. It's sad really.

What facts do you have on your side?! The difference between Evolution and Creationism is Creationism has a better explanation for the world. Even the smallest living things are to complicated for the world to be an accident. Where's your incredible amount of proof? Mine is the world we live in.

Evolution is not an "accident" it's a process, which has been extensively documented, observed and theorised upon.

The definition of accident is: "an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause." Let's say Evolution is real, it's an event, it also happened by chance, it also happen without a deliberate cause. What part of the definition doesn't scream Evolution? I can try to study falling down the steps, but it would still be an accident. I can theorize why I fell down the steps, but that doesn't make it any less an accident.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

It depends on how it's taught.  We clearly descended from our primitive ancestors.  How would we propose to teach this?

[Enduro]

It depends on how it's taught.  We clearly descended from our primitive ancestors.  How would we propose to teach this?

If we were clearly descended from apes, where is your evidence?

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

No. Creationism is not fact, nor is it another "side of the argument". If there was a religion that was spewing that "2 + 2 = 5" and that both should be taught, wouldn't that be counterproductive? People have a right to teach and learn what they want in their own homes, not mine. If you have a moral objection to being taught, or having your child taught evolution, find a private school. Public schools are to inform, not to indoctrinate personal views.

Except Macroevolution is also a personal view.

It's a personal view like 2 + 2 is 4. It's fact.

Alright prove it's a fact. Where you there? Did you see the beginning of time?

I wasn't there, but neither was a floating sky god. If you would like proof of evolution, look up a book. Check out some biology textbooks or read the Smithsonian's Natural History page. Personally, I care very little of what people believe about Evolution, just as long as it doesn't affect education or my personal well being.

Oh, I hadn't realized that you had spoken to "floating sky God" and asked Him if He was there. I also hadn't realized He told you He wasn't there. I also hadn't realized that books written by humans who were not also there held all the answers. I also hadn't realized that the all knowing lower case g god that is the Smithsonian was at the beginning of time and told you how the world began, despite being younger than America.
By the way, I have read many biology textbooks. Those that support Creationism, though I still recognize that they could be just as wrong as your Evolutionist textbooks.

First off, I haven't spoken to the "floating sky god" because he doesn't exist. Secondly, books written by people who weren't there is really the basis of literature, I mean was any Modern Historian alive for Julius Caesar? We have a incredible amount of proof of The Big Bang, Lucy, and the lead-up to who we are today. The difference between Evolution and Creationism is facts pure and simple. I would be extremely willing to accept Creationism/God in my heart if they had facts our their side. I wish they had the same attitude, but today we face polarization and the reluctance to look at the other side. It's sad really.

What facts do you have on your side?! The difference between Evolution and Creationism is Creationism has a better explanation for the world. Even the smallest living things are to complicated for the world to be an accident. Where's your incredible amount of proof? Mine is the world we live in.

Evolution is not an "accident" it's a process, which has been extensively documented, observed and theorised upon.

The definition of accident is: "an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause." Let's say Evolution is real, it's an event, it also happened by chance, it also happen without a deliberate cause. What part of the definition doesn't scream Evolution? I can try to study falling down the steps, but it would still be an accident. I can theorize why I fell down the steps, but that doesn't make it any less an accident.

This is true only if one believes in atheistic evolution.  If one believes evolution is real and is a process guided by God, then human evolution wouldn't be an accident but rather God-directed.