Jump to content

Option of teaching creationism in science classes is establishing a state religion


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Such a teacher would recognize that creationism is just religion masquerading as science.

That would depend on which definition of creationism one was using.

Link to post
29 minutes ago, Calm said:

That would depend on which definition of creationism one was using.

Can you provide a definition that does not involve some sort of deus ex machina explanation?

Edited by CA Steve
Link to post
5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

As I pointed out before, I teach English at a public high school. I am not a Marxist, nor are any of the teachers I know (I suppose there could be some closet Marxists among the faculty, but I would really be surprised). My curriculum is not Marxist. The English department curriculum is not Marxist. I know the teachers of US history and world history, and they are not Marxists, either.

I suppose you could say our school is "godless" because God is not worshipped there, but that is how it should be. Among my students there are Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims. Atheists, too.

But I'd also say our school is not "godless" because the work of God goes on there. The sheer number of families that our school has supported during the pandemic would probably blow your mind. I live in a high poverty area, and for many students school is the only place were they find safety and stability. When the schools shut down, we had to take our resources to them. Food boxes, clothing, internet, computers. We got it to them. We fed the hungry and clothed the naked. One of my students wrote a journal entry about how her father had lost his job and the only thing she had for dinner the night before was white rice with garlic powder. I immediately contacted our staff member in charge of the food pantry and that very day she delivered food boxes to my student's house. I think Christ was very pleased with that.

Thank you for the work you do. You make a great point about the fact that we don’t have to teach religion, or have spoken prayers at school to do God’s work. He is the God of everything in this world and it is up to us to help him care for it. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
13 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It sounds to me like you are saying that, since it's not advocating the entirety of one specific religion, just a generic creation science, that you don't see that as establishing a state religion. Is that accurate?

There are many creation stories from many cultures. So creationism is not per se Christian.  Or even necessarily religious. 
It’s an alternative that could be presented as an alternative to evolution. Not that it’s any more believable. 

Link to post
9 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Can you provide a definition that does not involve some sort of deus ex machina explanation?

I am talking about a view of divine creation that understands one can’t use science to explore it. 

Link to post
10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

As I pointed out before, I teach English at a public high school. I am not a Marxist, nor are any of the teachers I know (I suppose there could be some closet Marxists among the faculty, but I would really be surprised). My curriculum is not Marxist. The English department curriculum is not Marxist. I know the teachers of US history and world history, and they are not Marxists, either.

I suppose you could say our school is "godless" because God is not worshipped there, but that is how it should be. Among my students there are Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims. Atheists, too.

But I'd also say our school is not "godless" because the work of God goes on there. The sheer number of families that our school has supported during the pandemic would probably blow your mind. I live in a high poverty area, and for many students school is the only place were they find safety and stability. When the schools shut down, we had to take our resources to them. Food boxes, clothing, internet, computers. We got it to them. We fed the hungry and clothed the naked. One of my students wrote a journal entry about how her father had lost his job and the only thing she had for dinner the night before was white rice with garlic powder. I immediately contacted our staff member in charge of the food pantry and that very day she delivered food boxes to my student's house. I think Christ was very pleased with that.

Look, who is he supposed to believe? On one hand here is a person actively engaged in doing the actual job and on the other a bunch of ‘bought and paid for’ propagandists spinning a narrative for their own enrichment. Who would dare to guess which is right?

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

As I pointed out before, I teach English at a public high school. I am not a Marxist, nor are any of the teachers I know (I suppose there could be some closet Marxists among the faculty, but I would really be surprised). My curriculum is not Marxist. The English department curriculum is not Marxist. I know the teachers of US history and world history, and they are not Marxists, either.

 

I'm pretty sure you don't teach in san Diego.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-federal-civil-rights-complaint-san-diego-school-district

Link to post
5 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

There are many creation stories from many cultures. So creationism is not per se Christian.  Or even necessarily religious. 
It’s an alternative that could be presented as an alternative to evolution. Not that it’s any more believable. 

Creation science is religious by definition.

Link to post
30 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Um, that article doesn’t say anything about Marxism or godlessness... 

Pretty sure Marxism and godlessness are just an incorrectly used blanket term for “things I do not like” in this context.

Hopefully teachers like you are ensuring that the rising generation is more accurate and less lazy in their word use.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Creation science is religious by definition.

Nonsense. Many cultures have creation myths. Why is that less scientific than anything else?

Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Creation science is religious by definition.

Are you equating “creation science” with “creationism”, because I am not seeing that in the definitions I am reading. 
 

It might be defined as a subcategory of it,**** but please don’t confuse the topic of this thread by using the terms interchangeably.

****for example, wiki:

Quote

Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.

I prefer to define creation science as trying to prove creationism with science, but that does not make creationism inherently pseudoscientific in itself, but I am okay if people prefer to define it as a subcategory. 
 

To claim all creationism as a Christian pseudoscience comes across as provincial, ignoring how others approach nonscientific theories of creation. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you equating “creation science” with “creationism”, because I am not seeing that in the definitions I am reading. 
 

It might be defined as a subcategory of it,**** but please don’t confuse the topic of this thread by using the terms interchangeably.

****for example, wiki:

I prefer to define creation science as trying to prove creationism with science, but that does not make creationism inherently pseudoscientific in itself, but I am okay if people prefer to define it as a subcategory. 
 

To claim all creationism as a Christian pseudoscience comes across as provincial, ignoring how others approach nonscientific theories of creation. 

Is it your opinion that this law is not talking about teaching the “theory” of creationism as science? Because that’s exactly what it looks like to me. 

Link to post
12 hours ago, Calm said:

I am talking about a view of divine creation that understands one can’t use science to explore it. 

Then why should it be taught in a science class?

Edited by CA Steve
Link to post
Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is it your opinion that this law is not talking about teaching the “theory” of creationism as science? Because that’s exactly what it looks like to me. 

 I think the law is definitely intended to allow teaching a particular form of creationist belief and the pseudoscience that has been built up to support and I think like it is important to fight that attempt. 
 

But unless the law comes out and specifies that it is meant to teach that subcategory, the law itself appears to me to be much broader.  Now this may be intentional in hopes that vagueness avoids the establishment of a state religion...or it could just be it never occurred to those involved that there is any other form worth thinking about, they are so focused on their goal.  But if the last is why, I don’t think that justifies those who recognize there are many forms of creation belief systems in the world and even in the US...though possibly fewer in Arkansas as I am not familiar with their demographic...being required to allow the one sect’s definition to overrule any other. 
 

I am a nitpicker in many things and from what I understand, it is important to be nitpicky in law to avoid unintended consequences. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

 I think the law is definitely intended to allow teaching a particular form of creationist belief and the pseudoscience that has been built up to support and I think like it is important to fight that attempt. 
 

But unless the law comes out and specifies that it is meant to teach that subcategory, the law itself appears to me to be much broader.  Now this may be intentional in hopes that vagueness avoids the establishment of a state religion...or it could just be it never occurred to those involved that there is any other form worth thinking about, they are so focused on their goal.  But if the last is why, I don’t think that justifies those who recognize there are many forms of creation belief systems in the world and even in the US...though possibly fewer in Arkansas as I am not familiar with their demographic...being required to allow the one sect’s definition to overrule any other. 
 

I am a nitpicker in many things and from what I understand, it is important to be nitpicky in law to avoid unintended consequences. 

That helps me understand where you are coming from. 

Link to post
34 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Nonsense. Many cultures have creation myths. Why is that less scientific than anything else?

Creation myths are not equivalent to creation science, which is a specific movement that began in the sixties.

But to answer your question, beliefs about creation based on science alone are just science. Those that are based on beliefs are not science.

  • Like 1
Link to post
30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you equating “creation science” with “creationism”, because I am not seeing that in the definitions I am reading. 
 

It might be defined as a subcategory of it,**** but please don’t confuse the topic of this thread by using the terms interchangeably.

****for example, wiki:

I prefer to define creation science as trying to prove creationism with science, but that does not make creationism inherently pseudoscientific in itself, but I am okay if people prefer to define it as a subcategory. 
 

To claim all creationism as a Christian pseudoscience comes across as provincial, ignoring how others approach nonscientific theories of creation. 

Why are you addressing me with this? I did not conflate the two:

mrmarklin  365

  On 4/18/2021 at 11:55 AM, Meadowchik said:

It sounds to me like you are saying that, since it's not advocating the entirety of one specific religion, just a generic creation science, that you don't see that as establishing a state religion. Is that accurate?

There are many creation stories from many cultures. So creationism is not per se Christian.  Or even necessarily religious. 
It’s an alternative that could be presented as an alternative to evolution. Not that it’s any more believable. 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73682-option-of-teaching-creationism-in-science-classes-is-establishing-a-state-religion/?do=findComment&comm

 

 

Link to post
On 4/17/2021 at 2:48 AM, teddyaware said:

I believe the fear of the anti creationists is that as the years go by science itself is demonstrating, more and more each day, just how hard it is to believe that the creation of life happened by mere happenstance. The anti creationists know intelligent design provides a attractive and reasonable alternative explanation for how life came into existence, as an ever increasing number of scientists are admitting the chances for an accidental creation of life, through some sort of serendipitous cosmic accident, are now considered to be infinitesimally small, even a virtual impossibly.

Hardly. Just the opposite in fact.

Link to post

If the intent of the law is to expose students to other religion-based theories, then the mandate should be to have a module for some period (one class? one week?) that covers all the religious and philosophical theories about how the earth may have come to be. So you would have a science teacher talking about Biblical creationism, Native American myths, eastern philosophy etc. At that point, how is that appropriate for a science class, and how would a science teacher even be qualified to teach these different philosophies?

And why would this be limited to the origin of the Earth? Should biology students have a module on the different philosophical theories on the origin of the human body? ("Hey, LDS believe there was no blood in the human body until Adam fell...").

Edited by cinepro
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Then why would it be taught in a science class?

Iam talking about two different topics in this thread...the first and one I wanted information about was how such a vague law could be claimed to be unconstitutional, to establish a state religion since no specific religious belief framework was identified...simply a word that can be used from what I have documented for pretty much any belief in a divine method of creation.

Though I do and always have realized the intent was to get a certain form of fundamentalist Christian belief being taught as a scientific theory...which it is not. 

A side topic developed when I talked about how I could see how creationism could be in a small way incorporated into a science class, but not intending to imply that meant it was therefore science. I have given a few posts of how I would see for more advanced students (minimum high school I am thinking) a more holistic, but very limited application of discussion of a general creationism as part of providing a philosophical and historical framework of the development of science, NOT as part of teaching science itself.  
 

Like Robert mention Newton was an alchemist, etc. Not all who participated in science saw science in the same way we do, and I think it a useful addition to the curriculum to teach how we came to this current viewpoint because it shows how thought developed, how science has affected our culture and culture affected science, etc. 

Science does not exist in a vacuum and there are many moral implications of science and I believe understanding this greater context will not only help students and former students to understand the complicated interaction, but be better prepared to understand and address moral discussions and equally important may be able to see themselves as becoming scientists themselves rather than scientists being some sort of a different human being who only think and act a certain way.
 

Think of my approach similar to—but a bit more advanced—textbooks that provide biographies of scientists or historical events in the margins of the text to add interest and to hopefully help students grow in understanding how and why science has developed over the years. 
 

But the reality is that it would take an excellent teacher and relatively advanced students to handle this in high school I am guessing. I would hope college age kids could, but they already have classes that reference philosophy and history of science, so wouldn’t need to include it in science courses themselves. Would be nice if they were required so as to push science students out of the typical box...at least how physics was taught in university in my day from what I saw and heard. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Why are you addressing me with this? I did not conflate the two:

Because I don’t see the thread as a discussion of creation science and so when someone else mentions it up, it appears to me as if they are conflating the two 

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because I don’t see the thread as a discussion of creation science and so when someone else mentions it up, it appears to me as if they are conflating the two 

Why not? You quoted the use of the term in your OP and referred to that article as what raised your questions on the topic.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Iam talking about two different topics in this thread...the first and one I wanted information about was how such a vague law could be claimed to be unconstitutional, to establish a state religion since specific religious belief framework was identified...simply a word that can be used from what I have documented for pretty much any belief in a divine method of creation.

Though I do and always have realized the intent was to get a certain form of fundamentalist Christian belief being taught as a scientific theory...which it is not. 

A side topic developed when I talked about how I could see how creationism could be in a small way incorporated into a science class, but not intending to imply that meant it was therefore science. I have given a few posts of how I would see for more advanced students (minimum high school I am thinking) a more holistic, but very limited application of discussion of a general creationism as part of providing a philosophical and historical framework of the development of science, NOT as part of teaching science itself.  
 

Like Robert mention Newton was an alchemist, etc. Not all who participated in science saw science in the same way we do, and I think it a useful addition to the curriculum to teach how we came to this current viewpoint because it shows how thought developed, how science has affected our culture and culture affected science, etc. 

Science does not exist in a vacuum and there are many moral implications of science and I believe understanding this greater context will not only help students and former students to understand the complicated interaction, but be better prepared to understand and address moral discussions and equally important may be able to see themselves as becoming scientists themselves rather than scientists being some sort of a different human being who only think and act a certain way.
 

Think of my approach similar to—but a bit more advanced—textbooks that provide biographies of scientists or historical events in the margins of the text to add interest and to hopefully help students grow in understanding how and why science has developed over the years. 
 

But the reality is that it would take an excellent teacher and relatively advanced students to handle this in high school I am guessing. I would hope college age kids could, but they already have classes that reference philosophy and history of science, so wouldn’t need to include it in science courses themselves. Would be nice if they were required so as to push science students out of the typical box...at least how physics was taught in university in my day from what I saw and heard. 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I believe such a topic would be better suited in a history or a philosophy class and it would probably not be appropriate for high school for several reasons, not the least of which is the potential for it to be abused as a reason to promote fundamental Christianity.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...