Do you believe Creationism should be taught in public schools

[TJ in Oregon]

Yes, for Religious/Philosophical Classes, not in Science which would be insane. They should also say, that it is an opinion, point of view that is is not proven by science.

The catch here is that virtually no schools have a religion/philosophy class. But I do think a chapter or two in social studies about what different religions think about evolution would be a good idea. Preferably it would be timed with when evolution is taught in science class. If not, then there should probably be some sort of 'discussion' on evolution as it relates to philosophy when evolution is discussed simply because without it, many of them are going to tune it out.

Creationism, however, is not science as modernly conceived and should not be taught as such. It would be a good opportunity to discuss what types of questions can be answered by the scientific method and what types cannot, although that might be a bridge too far for a public school.

[TJ in Oregon]

The catch here is that virtually no schools have a religion/philosophy class. But I do think a chapter or two in social studies about what different religions think about evolution would be a good idea. Preferably it would be timed with when evolution is taught in science class. If not, then there should probably be some sort of 'discussion' on evolution as it relates to philosophy when evolution is discussed simply because without it, many of them are going to tune it out.

Creationism is far from the first topic that I'd pick to argue the point, but why shouldn't science lessons be more informed by the historical and philosophical underpinnings of their subject matter? To leave this context out is to leave students with an impoverished understanding of the topic. It may even be nonsensical, analogous to explaining science to someone with no understanding of measurement or basic algebra.

Science often does get taught along with the historical context. For example, we all learned about Bohr's model of the atom even though it turned out not to be correct. There is something of a weighing game between spending more time teaching the history of science versus more time teaching what science tells us about things. Truthfully, a historical account of evolution is probably one of the more pertinent history of science topics to cover if we want people to understand evolution.

The problem we get into here is that there is a large temptation to engage in some sort of social engineering with the subject for one cause or another. I am personally of the view if we want more people to "believe in evolution" then the best way to do that is to teach them about various religions (particularly Christian denominations/Biblical interpretations) that have accepted it. On the other hand that may be untenable for various reasons: are we brainwashing the students to be particular denominations? Hold a view that Christianity and evolution aren't contradictory? If approached neutrally and well that sort of knowledge could be quite beneficial.

[TJ in Oregon]

I'd favor some weird, Joseph Campbel-esque amalgam of history, anthropology, philosophy, and literature where students are coerced into contemplating how experience might have shaped these views (Christian creationism being one), how these views in turn shaped and reflected society, what they mean metaphorically, if there is any "truth" (in the Big sense) in them, and how they compare to others, etc.

A course in natural philosophy would be wonderful, though I don't see public schools going that route any time soon. Catholic schools really ought to though, if for no other reason than to decompartmentalize these types of thought. Albeit, it obviously would be from a different perspective than Campbell.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[TJ in Oregon]

As far as becoming like Bushie, I'm not in danger of failing out of school or becoming morbidly obese at the moment, so I don't think that's a huge concern.


I admit my logic may be hard-line; I'm definitely pretty fundamentalist, though I do respect more liberal Christianity, as espoused by BRTD and Madeline.  The approach others are suggesting to reading the Bible (at equal weight with science or alongside history) is an approach that I just have to reject.  Another thing covered during Bible study was not succumbing to "false neutrality" - i.e., looking at historical issues outside the lens of the Bible.  If you cede a "neutral territory," then you've already lost.  Instead, we should just take the Bible at face value as the #1 authority and then scientific findings can be re-interpreted in light of that.

But which parts ought we take at face value? Are we to assume, for instance (to give a really crazy example), that the master of the vinyard in Mark 12 was a real person? How about the sower? What about Christ's words in John 6 when he declares "Amen, Amen I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you"?

In the New Testament, apart from Revelation, it is usually fairly straightforward what is written to be taken literally and what isn't. But what about the Old Testament? What about the Book of Job? Did God and the devil really have that conversation? How about Esther? Most scholars seem to think that one is allegorical (and the Protestant version of it doesn't even mention God). Why should we assume all of Genesis ought to be taken literally?

St. Augustine wrote 1600 years ago:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TJ in Oregon]

This is a good response.  The issue I have though, is that the issue of original sin becomes a lot more complicated without an original Adam/Eve.  The other issue is that the Biblical writers of the time most certainly believed in a literal Adam and Eve.  So the problem becomes, if we can't trust Genesis on origins, why can we trust it on salvation?  This is sort of a corrolary to Augustine's statement, assuming Christians cede origins issues to the scientific community.  Genesis isn't written as poetry; it is considered historical narrative in style, so this seems problematic to me.  I am certainly not saying that theistic evolution is inviable as a position, just that the YEC position seems most consistent with a straightforward reading of the text and the rest of the Bible.

The other issue is that many atheists would say concepts like a soul or life after death are 'unscientific,' so it seems like there can be some difficulty with drawing a line where science answers the question or where the Bible does if we interpret Genesis too liberally.

You hit on a point here that is inevitably problematic when discussion non-literal Biblical interpretations: that once we start accepting that certain things are allegorical it is not necessarily apparent where we should stop. I would say to start we ought to consider how Genesis is written as a historical narrative. While the original writers probably believed in a literal Adam and Eve, having a literal Adam and Eve does not preclude theistic evolution and does not necessarily mean the Earth was created in six days or that the chronologies of descent given are correct. For theistic evolutionary ideas, we do have reason to believe that humans have several common ancestors, so it would not be absurd to simultaneously believe in something qualitatively similar to the Adam and Eve story. I agree that eliminating Original Sin from the Genesis narrative renders the whole thing nonsensical. More importantly, I think the question we ought to be asking is: What is the writer trying to communicate? By that I do not mean "the writer is trying to say we should love our neighbor and work for social justice and forget about all the rest!!". The writer is saying that humanity was created in the image and likeness of God and that our ancestors, through their free will, chose to reject God's gift by original sin. The writer is not trying to argue about whether or not there were dinosaurs in the garden with Adam or how long a day of God's time is compared to our time or how large of a flood Noah survived (other than that it was big). While we may expect that sort of literal historical accuracy from newer writers who had views of literature more akin to our understanding of what we get out of a history textbook, the ancients had no understanding of such a concept. That is not to say necessarily that a very literal interpretation is inconsistent with the text obviously, but that it might not really be what the author expected of its readers.

As it pertains to ceding origins to the scientific community and its effects on our understanding of salvation, when we pose that as a question, we're drawing misleading distinctions about what science can tell us regarding these things. Fundamentally (and I know I've harped on this before but it's such an important point I will continue to do so ), when we ask these sorts of questions we're trying to discern the truth, ie. what actually happened or will happen. Science is a process by which we make falsifiable hypotheses and try to test them. It does not appear we are able to answer questions about the nature of salvation by such a method, nor should we expect to be able to. There are always some who believe that only falsifiable things can be true, but that statement is, ironically, either false or self-contradictory. It is a polemic rather than a serious complaint. More broadly, Christians have traditionally held that there is more to an event that what processes physically occurred. For example, scholastic philosophy holds that we are simultaneously dependent on God for our continued existence. It is, of course, completely unfalsifiable (there are philosophical arguments but they are probably beyond my Engineer's skill in philosophy to lucidly regurgitate). Putting all of this together, I think we ought to be able to see some clear distinctions.

[TJ in Oregon]

Absolutely not.  It's not like teaching evolution is the same as teaching that there is no God ... farm from it, actually.

Really? How so?

If something has a physical explanation does that mean God could not have caused it?