If you MUST teach creation myths in science class...

[Stumpy 284]

Then this is the way to do it.

http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/482625c1a69848e1b65e9957e44493b5/IN-XGR--Creationism-Bill/

I think this is a good thing. Hopefully as it says in the article "she believed broadening the subject matter might cause local school boards to hesitate before deciding to insert religion into science classes".

All the creation myths have a similar standing in science so they should all be given equal footing.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[beowulf 1]

I think it's wrong either way.
Mythology should not be included in a science class at all.

I doesn't matter which creation myth is the local favorite it's still not science.

[billvon 2,927]

>I think this is a good thing.

Teach them all in religion class and I would agree.

>All the creation myths have a similar standing in science . . .

I agree - but that standing is "zero." It is similar to the standings that Lysenkoism, geocentrism, spontaneous generation, preformation, Copernicanism, bodily humors and the luminiferous aether have in science. All those subjects might well be included in a history of science class or something, but since they have been discredited, should not be taught _as_ science.

[Stumpy 284]

And I agree - the best result would be that the school boards decide it would be better off in religion class. At least here, one religion is not allowed to impose their views unopposed on kids who could see creationism as science if their teachers spin it that way

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[lawrocket 3]

I remember reading the Odyssey in high school. Turned out such things are a general part of a curriculum. Is there anything more licentious than Greek mythology? Goddesses formed from severed penises and the like? Sex, alcohol and warfare. Valuable themes.

But it's like you put a Bible on the same footing as Greek mythology and it's cause for outrage. Of course, there are the assholes who argue that the Bible should be taught on an even keel with chemistry instead of the iliad, so they bring it on themselves.

I guess I just want to see some more middle ground positions.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>All the creation myths have a similar standing in science . . .

I agree - but that standing is "zero." It is similar to the standings that Lysenkoism, geocentrism, spontaneous generation, preformation, Copernicanism, bodily humors and the luminiferous aether have in science. All those subjects might well be included in a history of science class or something, but since they have been discredited, should not be taught _as_ science.

creationism hasn't been discredited, it just has no evidence to back it. That's in stark contrast to geocentrism or flat earthism, which even centuries ago could be disproven.

seems like philosophy would be the place to stick it, but not a subject that gets a lot of time in school.

[quade 4]

Quote

creationism hasn't been discredited...

It absolutely has, at least any western creation myth which supposedly takes place 6,000 or so years ago.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,927]

>creationism hasn't been discredited

Young earth (i.e. Biblical) creationism has been pretty thoroughly discredited. We can demonstrate that the Earth is more than 6000 years old, that humans and apes share common ancestors etc.

However, many new-age creation theories (intelligent design for example) do indeed fall under your definition - not yet discredited but with no evidence.

>seems like philosophy would be the place to stick it

Also a good idea. Although once people find out that taxes are going towards teaching Islam (as well as aspects of Hinduism, Scientology, Christianity etc) I have a feeling such a course wouldn't survive for long.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

creationism hasn't been discredited...

It absolutely has, at least any western creation myth which supposedly takes place 6,000 or so years ago.

That's a very literal reading of the myth, and even that can't be discredited. We weren't there 6000 years ago. The same God that created the universe can insert fossils into the ground. Or more pragmatically, you don't read this oral history from 2000 years ago so literally.

But it was obvious by observation that the earth wasn't the center of the universe - the objects in the sky weren't in the right places.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

However, many new-age creation theories (intelligent design for example) do indeed fall under your definition - not yet discredited but with no evidence.

>

Intelligent Design is really a God of the Gaps theory. It cannot be disproven because it doesn't really claim any predictive ability (which is why it is not a scientific theory). Instead of being discredited it will slowly shrink away.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Stumpy 284]

Quote

, you don't read this oral history from 2000 years ago so literally.

True - pragmatic people don't. There are those however who would have this taught as "Science"

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[billvon 2,927]

>Intelligent Design is really a God of the Gaps theory.

Forms of it certainly are. Theistic evolution (i.e. "God played some role, not sure what") is often used since it is defensible as long as there is any question at all about the science - which, of course, there always will be.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

That's a very literal reading of the myth, and even that can't be discredited. We weren't there 6000 years ago. The same God that created the universe can insert fossils into the ground. Or more pragmatically, you don't read this oral history from 2000 years ago so literally.

But it was obvious by observation that the earth wasn't the center of the universe - the objects in the sky weren't in the right places.

The same God who can insert fossils in the ground to fool us can also cause the other bodies in the sky to appear in different places than where they really are (in orbit around the earth).

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

>Intelligent Design is really a God of the Gaps theory.

Forms of it certainly are. Theistic evolution (i.e. "God played some role, not sure what") is often used since it is defensible as long as there is any question at all about the science - which, of course, there always will be.

Well, again, this is not defensible as a scientific theory. "not sure what" doesn't qualify as a testable hypothesis.

Are there forms of Intelligent Design that are not a God of the Gaps theory? I've done some reading but not exhaustive.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

creationism hasn't been discredited...

It absolutely has, at least any western creation myth which supposedly takes place 6,000 or so years ago.

That's a very literal reading of the myth, and even that can't be discredited. We weren't there 6000 years ago. The same God that created the universe can insert fossils into the ground. Or more pragmatically, you don't read this oral history from 2000 years ago so literally.

If you're not reading it literally, then you're admitting it's a metaphorical myth.

If you're admitting it's a myth, then it has no place whatsoever in a science class.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,927]

>Are there forms of Intelligent Design that are not a God of the Gaps theory?

Yes, there are a few that are very definitive about how ID works. One I remember claims that God forces human DNA to change differently than, say, primate DNA; this is actually a testable theory.

Intelligent design was initially an attempt to get around Edwards vs Aguillard, the court case that ruled young earth creationism as a religious theory and thus not teachable in public schools. Intelligent design was pretty monolithic for a while until a trial in 2005, which ruled that intelligent design was not science, and it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

Since then a lot of ID proponents have been creating new offshoots of intelligent design, claiming "this is different, it's not really intelligent design so it can be taught in schools." A popular variant of this is "teach the controversy." They claim that while ID is not valid, the argument between IDers and scientists is, and thus can be taught in schools.

[Southern_Man 0]

Thanks Bill, do you have some sources on that? I did not know about these claims of different types of DNA.

My reading kind of stopped at the Edwards case.

I agree w/ the teach the controversy argument if it is taught in the appropriate setting (i.e. not biology class). In fact my interest comes through various classes I've taken in philosophy and history of religion and history of science, along with a fair bit of reading on my own to follow up on those interests. Of course those were all post high school courses.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[beowulf 1]

What middle ground is there?

Creationism doesn't have any scientific backing or scientific evidence.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If you're not reading it literally, then you're admitting it's a metaphorical myth.

If you're admitting it's a myth, then it has no place whatsoever in a science class.

I said it should be treated as philosophy. 'In absence of any observable evidence, how can one debate the core foundations of Christianity, or any other religion based on a deity?' Science requires repeatability, which doesn't exist here.

Did you mean metaphorical or metaphysical? Oral history has always been a bit fuzzy - between generational loss and translation loss, you really can't read them literally. But you don't discount them either - they may be a partial recounting of real events. (ex, the parting of the Red Sea during a spring tide)

[quade 4]

Quote

Did you mean metaphorical or metaphysical?

In the absence of any proof of any metaphysics, I can only assume all creation myths are metaphorical.

In either case, neither should be taught in a science class.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I remember reading the Odyssey in high school. Turned out such things are a general part of a curriculum. Is there anything more licentious than Greek mythology? Goddesses formed from severed penises and the like? Sex, alcohol and warfare. Valuable themes.

But it's like you put a Bible on the same footing as Greek mythology and it's cause for outrage. Of course, there are the assholes who argue that the Bible should be taught on an even keel with chemistry instead of the iliad, so they bring it on themselves.

I guess I just want to see some more middle ground positions.

A middle ground might be to teach about the Bible in a comparative literature course, together and with more or less equivalent treatment of several other religions' principal scriptures.

A middle ground might be to teach about Christianity in Social Studies, as part of a comparative survey of religions, with each of the various religions receiving more or less equivalent treatment.

I remember one course section of a high school social studies class I took in the 70's whose dedicated subject matter was "Communism, Fascism and Democracy". Nobody (AFAIK) challenged the propriety of the subject as tacitly advocating Communism or Fascism. Of course, that was in Upstate New York, where ponds freeze over, but minds generally do not. Perhaps in the Bible Belt such a course would not have been tolerated.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

That's a very literal reading of the myth, and even that can't be discredited. We weren't there 6000 years ago. The same God that created the universe can insert fossils into the ground. Or more pragmatically, you don't read this oral history from 2000 years ago so literally.

But it was obvious by observation that the earth wasn't the center of the universe - the objects in the sky weren't in the right places.

The same God who can insert fossils in the ground to fool us can also cause the other bodies in the sky to appear in different places than where they really are (in orbit around the earth).

Wouldn't that God just make the Earth the center? Once we have it so that it is changing our visual perceptions, we disintigrate quickly to a Matrix world of nothing but brain impulses.

Heliocentrism was more a Church thing than a God thing anyhow. One can find the notion of Adam and Eve and the serpent storyline ridiculous and still believe in a Creation beginning, be it "6000" years ago or as far back as Big Bang.

I don't, due to the lack of any evidence, but for the same reason I can't disprove it either.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I don't, due to the lack of any evidence, but for the same reason I can't disprove it either.

Of course, you acknowledge - don't you? - that the sole intellectual burden of proof is to prove the existence of the supernatural, not to disprove it.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's a very literal reading of the myth, and even that can't be discredited. We weren't there 6000 years ago. The same God that created the universe can insert fossils into the ground. Or more pragmatically, you don't read this oral history from 2000 years ago so literally.

But it was obvious by observation that the earth wasn't the center of the universe - the objects in the sky weren't in the right places.

The same God who can insert fossils in the ground to fool us can also cause the other bodies in the sky to appear in different places than where they really are (in orbit around the earth).

Wouldn't that God just make the Earth the center? Once we have it so that it is changing our visual perceptions, we disintigrate quickly to a Matrix world of nothing but brain impulses.

For the same reason he would insert fossils into the ground and make it appear there is a historical record that is false-- to test the faith of his followers.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[jakee 1,449]

Quote

Quote

Quote

creationism hasn't been discredited...

It absolutely has, at least any western creation myth which supposedly takes place 6,000 or so years ago.

That's a very literal reading of the myth, and even that can't be discredited. We weren't there 6000 years ago. The same God that created the universe can insert fossils into the ground.

In that case, flat earthism and geocentrism haven't been discredited either. God's just fucking with the compasses and the telescopes.

Quote

Or more pragmatically, you don't read this oral history from 2000 years ago so literally.

Pragmatically you ignore it (except for literary and historical value).

Do you want to have an ideagasm?