Teaching different theories in our classrooms?

Question

I just read a question regarding creationism being taught in the classroom as 'Religious Freedom of Education'.

But, people fail to realize what a Scientific Theory actually is:

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and attempt to duplicate any experimental procedures involved.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anythin contrary to their sectarian religious beliefs."

What do you think?

I personally believe creationism, as stated above, is nothing more than religious beliefs trying to be taught in public schools.

Answer 1

Teaching all credible theories on a given subject is important.  Creationists imply this when they say equal time should be given regarding life.  However, you are correct; there is only one credible theory that explains life's diversity: evolution.  If creation theories were to be taught alongside evolution, you'd have to include all creation stories (not just the Christian one).  But even this would be silly; science class should teach science, not religion.

Godskid, do you have a problem with the atomic theory, plate tectonics, or gravity?  Afterall, they're "only theories" right?

Answer 2

I have no interest in tolerating something that doesn't even qualify as pseudoscience.  It deserves the full force, brunt, and effect of what contempt I can muster.  It would be best if it were treated with the full contempt of rationally thinking society.

Religion has a disproportionate impact on our laws and education, undeserved and disproportionate respect relative to other items of discussion, and near carte blanche to interfere with people's private lives.

No, sir.  It's time to give it the treatment it has earned and deserves.

Edit for Linda: Theory is questioned all the time by scientists.  I cannot bring myself to believe that you were a teacher for so long and have such a woefully inadequate understanding of what theory means in science.  It's either that or you are deliberately misusing the word.

EDIT for Beowulf: It'd be nice to separate ID from creationism, except that they are the same thing.  What is the nature of the intelligence that designed us?

It is also not a theory in any sense of the word used in science as it is not falsifiable, testable, parsimonious, nor does it make any predictions.

Also, your second point amounts to there being some sort of conspiracy within the scientific community to stifle ID research.  There has yet to be one shred of evidence to support this.  Till then, the "darwinist conspiracy" accusation belongs in the file labeled "Tin Foil Hats."

Answer 3

What can I say but that you are not only quite correct on every point, but that you have done a very good job in explaining the IDiocy that is creationism.

Indeed, it is scary how some people can be so thick, when they claim that they were teachers, and yet, have AbZero understanding of science, scientific theories, or the mountains of evidence for evolution, and the total absence of any such evidence for creationism.

Such ignorant fools should read the judge's decision in the Kitzmiller trial, and remind themselves that this was a Republican judge, appointed by G W Bush:

    "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24)

    "A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)

    "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)

    "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)

    "Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)

    "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)

    "[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case." (pages 86–87)

----

ID/creationism is NOT a theory of any sort, it is, as the judge rightly found, a mishmash of bad religion, and fake science.

Further, even the ID witnesses admitted that they do NO research, so any claim that their work is not published due to "bad Darwinists" is either total ignorance or a total LIE.

"As a primary witness for the defense, (Michael) Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred",[17] and that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[18]"

Answer 4

I agree.

This is also why there is such a focus by the Creationists on the idea of "Darwinism" and its legions of atheists. They know that their Intelligent Design stories are not science, but if they can take evolutionary science and turn it into dogma (Darwinism) that has a leader (Charlie), followers (atheists) and scripture (evolutionary theory), then they can squeeze their stories right alongside it.

It's a scary thought to see people (like Linda J who says she was a teacher (yikes!)) who don't understand the fundamentals of science, who don't understand the fundamentals of evolutionary biology (and the facts) and who embrace ignorance and distort actual hard science.

It's less a threat to have creationism offered in school (go for it, as a humanities class) than it is to have so many people believing that evolutionary biology is some lie or scam or that there is an alternative. Scientific progress (medical, genetic, agricultural, etc.) revolves around the principles of evolutionary biology. Why people think it is some myth or conspiracy is beyond me. It's irritating, frustrating and down right scary.

Answer 5

I think they should teach the stork theory of reproduction alongside the biological theory.  Maybe teach that many people think that the word "prescription" should be spelled "perscription" and let students choose which one they want.   Then history classes could go into why slavery was good and the slaves were much worse off after being freed.   After that, on to math class where they can learn that even though the evil atheist mathematicians think pi = 3.1415926..., there is an alternate theory which teaches that pi = 3.

Why limit it to evolution?

Answer 6

This issue spawned the FSM.

*edit*

RAmen brother! See you at the beer volcano!

Answer 7

As a schoolgirl, I personally have no desire to be taught about unlikely speculations when there are realistic theories out there.  

Answer 8

creationism has no scientific merit at all, since the world was wasn't created in 6 days. it is all based on religion and therefore is unconstitutional to be taught in a government funded public school, due to separation of church and state.

Answer 9

First, you should read some about the philosophy of science. This isn't the neat little box that you have presented.

Second, Creationists do submit their work for peer review. The problem is that the peer review publications are controlled by Darwinists who don't allow non-Darwinian views to be published.

Third, you should also separate out Intelligent Design from Creationism generally. ID is a scientific theory, but because people lump it in with Creationism (because it suggests a designer) it is refused publication as well.  

Answer 10

I have no problem with science for the most part. Also belief in God is not a theory. It's simply faith. Theories in science that have been proven by man may actually be true. The question is did God command those things to happen the way science has proven. It all boils down to whether you faith or not. If you don't have Grace of God you will not understand.

Answer 11

Atheists know FACTS about how life works!  Everyone knows that!

I'm Atheist!

Answer 12

I taught school for many years. I was very uncomfortable with evolution being taught in our American classes without it being explained that it was a theory!

That is wrong, and not to allow people the right to question the THEORY is wrong, unjust and unscientific.

  

Answer 13

You should know (if you don't already) that McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, thinks creationism should be taught in schools.  Having a senile old man and a Christian fundamentalist in the White House is a scary prospect.

Answer 14

I think you did a superb job of summing up this situation.

I believe that if those who adhere to a religious faith follow that faith in a private and personal manner that there would not be this battle against true science.