3 ms·

It's fine to teach creationism... just not in a science class. What the majority of the creation supporters don't get is that creationism isn't a science, it's

It's fine to teach creationism... just not in a science class. What the majority of the creation supporters don't get is that creationism isn't a science, it's a philosophy. There's nothing constructive or tangible about the theory. You can't test it in a lab, you can't observe it in nature--unless you think irreducible complexity (aka "we don't understand how this could come about, therefore it must be divinely created") is a sound scientific theory. (BTW most of Behe's original examples of "irreducibly complex" biological phenomena have since been reduced.) I went to a very Christian liberal arts college and creationism was only taught in particular classes like Theories of Origins or theology courses. Biology classes only taught evolution. There might be one day that included a broader survey of creation theories, but that was it. That being said, both the biology and theology departments were majority evolutionist. Go figure.

mikeash 11y ago
In my experience (of which I unfortunately have far too much), creationists fundamentally don't understand what science is, which is why they think their ideas qualify. They simply don't grasp the depth or the quantitative nature that underlies statements like "the universe is 13 billion years old" or "humans evolved from single-celled organisms." It's basically cargo-culting popular science articles. They see something like "continental drift is demonstrated by how the coastlines of Africa and the Americas fit so neatly together." They then come up with something that sounds similar, like, "the Grand Canyon could have been carved by a huge and sudden deluge, demonstrating Noah's Flood." The fact that the Africa/Americas thing is just a brief summary of mountains (sometimes literally so) of data is completely lost.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Its worse than that. They're deliberately hijacking the catchphrases of science to appear legitimate, so they can insert their religious message into classrooms. Its as cynical as can be. No need to impute goodwill or mistaken good intentions; they have an agenda.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    They truly believe that their opposition is doing the exact same thing. They're being underhanded because they believe that evil scientists (no doubt guided by Satan) make up clever-sounding non-God theories of the world to appear legitimate and thus push their non-religious message into classrooms. We see this as people pushing fairy tales over truth. They see their actions as a small battle in a great war between God and the Devil.
    - kendallpark 11y ago
      Yes, yes, all of these observations are true. The best remedy to this that I've found is simply more education. The majority of the freshman class were creationists in my college, but the majority of the senior class ended up evolutionists. It just takes thinking and exposure, especially from other Christians. Someone might grow up in a small world where to be Christian is to be creationist. Then he meets thoughtful, well-educated devoted Christians that aren't creationists and it opens his mind to other possibilities. You really can't argue with creationists. I've gotten to the point where I don't argue with anyone that doesn't have a sufficient scientific background and shift the discussion toward whether they're knowledgeable enough to have such opinions. Then I challenge them to take some basic biology 101 coursework so we can actually have a real discussion.
- kendallpark 11y ago
  The funny thing is, it was actually creationists that convinced me that evolution was true. I grew up in a fundamentalist Baptist church. Used to drive my biology teachers nuts regurgitating the arguments I'd read against evolution. Then toward the end of high school I went to a "Science Class" at my church. It was lead by some church dude that had little to no college education in the sciences. He started reading through some creation arguments from a book and it occurred to me how flimsy they were. So I started debating with him (I was just an argumentative kid and loved to play devil's advocate) and his reasoning just fell apart. I left that class immensely perturbed by my church's attempt to masquerade creationist propaganda as a "science" class. Clearly they didn't know what "science" actually entailed. My biggest takeaway was that most of the people preaching against evolution are not even qualified to have an informed opinion on the subject. By college I had flipped camps.
JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Creationism isn't even a philosophy. Its a cynical attempt to inject religion into the classroom by masquerading as another subject. Its not 'fine to teach'; its deliberate quackery that should be rejected.
- kendallpark 11y ago
  No, it is fine to teach and it IS a philosophy. Objectivism is a BS philosophy, but we still teach it. Freudian psychology is a bunch of unsubstantiated BS, but there are still entire classes devoted to it. There are still people that specialize in it.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    It is not a serious philosophy - it was constructed cynically with the goal of fooling people. An entirely different class of thing that those others.
kazinator 11y ago
> It's fine to teach creationism If by "teach" you mean anything resembling "present a subject as if it were factual, and rooted in evidence", then no. It's okay to inform students about creationism.

mikeash 11y ago

In my experience (of which I unfortunately have far too much), creationists fundamentally don't understand what science is, which is why they think their ideas qualify. They simply don't grasp the depth or the quantitative nature that underlies statements like "the universe is 13 billion years old" or "humans evolved from single-celled organisms." It's basically cargo-culting popular science articles. They see something like "continental drift is demonstrated by how the coastlines of Africa and the Americas fit so neatly together." They then come up with something that sounds similar, like, "the Grand Canyon could have been carved by a huge and sudden deluge, demonstrating Noah's Flood." The fact that the Africa/Americas thing is just a brief summary of mountains (sometimes literally so) of data is completely lost.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Its worse than that. They're deliberately hijacking the catchphrases of science to appear legitimate, so they can insert their religious message into classrooms. Its as cynical as can be. No need to impute goodwill or mistaken good intentions; they have an agenda.
- mikeash 11y ago
  They truly believe that their opposition is doing the exact same thing. They're being underhanded because they believe that evil scientists (no doubt guided by Satan) make up clever-sounding non-God theories of the world to appear legitimate and thus push their non-religious message into classrooms. We see this as people pushing fairy tales over truth. They see their actions as a small battle in a great war between God and the Devil.
  - kendallpark 11y ago
    Yes, yes, all of these observations are true. The best remedy to this that I've found is simply more education. The majority of the freshman class were creationists in my college, but the majority of the senior class ended up evolutionists. It just takes thinking and exposure, especially from other Christians. Someone might grow up in a small world where to be Christian is to be creationist. Then he meets thoughtful, well-educated devoted Christians that aren't creationists and it opens his mind to other possibilities. You really can't argue with creationists. I've gotten to the point where I don't argue with anyone that doesn't have a sufficient scientific background and shift the discussion toward whether they're knowledgeable enough to have such opinions. Then I challenge them to take some basic biology 101 coursework so we can actually have a real discussion.
kendallpark 11y ago
The funny thing is, it was actually creationists that convinced me that evolution was true. I grew up in a fundamentalist Baptist church. Used to drive my biology teachers nuts regurgitating the arguments I'd read against evolution. Then toward the end of high school I went to a "Science Class" at my church. It was lead by some church dude that had little to no college education in the sciences. He started reading through some creation arguments from a book and it occurred to me how flimsy they were. So I started debating with him (I was just an argumentative kid and loved to play devil's advocate) and his reasoning just fell apart. I left that class immensely perturbed by my church's attempt to masquerade creationist propaganda as a "science" class. Clearly they didn't know what "science" actually entailed. My biggest takeaway was that most of the people preaching against evolution are not even qualified to have an informed opinion on the subject. By college I had flipped camps.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

Creationism isn't even a philosophy. Its a cynical attempt to inject religion into the classroom by masquerading as another subject. Its not 'fine to teach'; its deliberate quackery that should be rejected.

kendallpark 11y ago
No, it is fine to teach and it IS a philosophy. Objectivism is a BS philosophy, but we still teach it. Freudian psychology is a bunch of unsubstantiated BS, but there are still entire classes devoted to it. There are still people that specialize in it.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  It is not a serious philosophy - it was constructed cynically with the goal of fooling people. An entirely different class of thing that those others.

kazinator 11y ago

> It's fine to teach creationism If by "teach" you mean anything resembling "present a subject as if it were factual, and rooted in evidence", then no. It's okay to inform students about creationism.