Evolution vs Creationism

[Coburgtiger]

I agree and that is just my interpretation of his approach (it was a bit tongue in cheek ). I think the accusations of him being 'shrill' or insulting are a little overblown. His books DO expose the elegance of the theory IMO and were very influential in my early education.

I agree, although, when his arguments are framed the way they are, they appeal very much to those who have experienced the same frustrations in their arguments. But they also serve as a personal affront to those with an opposing point of view. Sometimes I wonder whether they do more to set up the conflict between the two camps, than resolve the inaccuracies in both arguments. An objective an impartial reading of his work is a mind expanding insight into the elegance of evolution, but, as a religious person, it would be fairly hard to access when it comes swathed in belittlement.

It's worth reading some of Douglas Adams personal writings on the topic, it's much lighter, yet as pure in logic.

 

[Azza]

I agree, although, when his arguments are framed the way they are, they appeal very much to those who have experienced the same frustrations in their arguments. But they also serve as a personal affront to those with an opposing point of view. Sometimes I wonder whether they do more to set up the conflict between the two camps, than resolve the inaccuracies in both arguments. An objective an impartial reading of his work is a mind expanding insight into the elegance of evolution, but, as a religious person, it would be fairly hard to access when it comes swathed in belittlement.

That's what I meant. A good communicator identifies who their audience is and what they are trying to get across, and shapes the delivery accordingly. If Dawkins is trying to get a message across to bible literalists, he's going about it the wrong way. Mind you, he's fighting an uphill battle anyway. He'd probably be better off not getting into discussion with them at all.

 

[evo]

Now begins the process of explaining the difference between fact and fiction. Would it be wrong of me to tell him God was invented by Pixar ?

Quite a good approach. Then when he realises in a few years Pixar is a fiction-maker, so to God.

It's the same deal with Santa Claus. "Hey Johnny, remember a few years ago when we made up Santa to trick you into being good in the hope of rewards at a later date? Well that's what Christians do with God" ;D

 

[evo]

Students first do Evolution in Yr 10. To me any science subject that is taught need to have a context and beginning. When you teach Chemistry you teach what the pre-scientists like the ancient Greek and Alchemists believed.

I reckon you would have a good point if religious cosmology(cosmogony) was a science. It's not though. It's what Aristotle would've called a 'metaphysic'. Its place is in humanities classes.

 

[Djevv]

Yes Dawkins polarises by actively encouraging ridicule. If he is trying to get people he disagrees with onside and encourage science literacy, i'm not sure this is a good method. The 47%ers (?) he refers to who do not believe in evolution can't possibly all be evangelical church-goers, it is simply not possible. There are not that many. There is something else going on here.

With my list, it garnered the expected :hihi reaction. All I'm saying is IF you want to understand creationism do some reading on those issues. Then you might see where it fits in the whole picture. I don't see how you can put together a rounded thesis without looking at how the other side sees the issues.

To summarise my position I think you could do creationism at the beginning of a unit on evolution. You explain the theories and ideas that Darwins idea replaced, but you can also make the point that there has been a modern day resurgence in it for the reasons I put in the list & look at how each side looks at the evidence. You can even explain that both sides believe in evolution, but just see things differently! The you could then look at creationist/ID criticisms and evolutionary answers and leave it at that.

 

[Baloo]

Then we need to add the Truther 911 theories as well.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

It's worth reading some of Douglas Adams personal writings on the topic, it's much lighter, yet as pure in logic.

Agreed. A big fan.

 

[Djevv]

I reckon you would have a good point if religious cosmology(cosmogony) was a science. It's not though. It's what Aristotle would've called a 'metaphysic'. Its place is in humanities classes.

That is the standard way ALL science teachers introduce most topics. Have a look in any high school science text. A lot of 'pre-science' ideas like Democritus' atom were actually correct in a sense and drove the actual quantitative understanding of the atom which came much later. In the classroom these days we look at how the different disciplines tie together to avoid compartmentalising knowledge in the minds of the students.

 

[evo]

That is the standard way ALL science teachers introduce most topics. Have a look in any high school science text. A lot of 'pre-science' ideas like Democritus' atom were actually correct in a sense and drove the actual quantitative understanding of the atom which came much later. In the classroom these days we look at how the different disciplines tie together to avoid compartmentalising knowledge in the minds of the students.

fair enough I suppose. But it would be a pretty small introduction, wouldn't it? I don't really see the point of teaching biology students that the pre-Socratics thought that man came from Cronos, Rhea, Zeus and his descendents. It is mythology. Interesting in a humanities class not so in science.

 

[Azza]

To summarise my position I think you could do creationism at the beginning of a unit on evolution. You explain the theories and ideas that Darwins idea replaced,

Since this unit you're describing is about science and not about Christianity, I presume you'd suggest covering all the creation stories in the prequel then - the Dreaming particularly as a native Australian story, but also Hindu, Taoist, and others?

 

[Djevv]

fair enough I suppose. But it would be a pretty small introduction, wouldn't it? I don't really see the point of teaching biology students that the pre-Socratics thought that man came from Cronos, Rhea, Zeus and his descendents. It is mythology. Interesting in a humanities class not so in science.

You do it to show how science progressed by overturning older ideas by applying quantitative methods. You are teaching how to do science and how science works in society as well as scientific knowledge. In the modern classroom you are assessing a range of criteria including communication, practical ability, knowedge, assumptions & limitations and reasoning ability. In humanities they do history, geography and society strands. I doubt what you are talking about above would ever be taught.

 

[Djevv]

Since this unit you're describing is about science and not about christianity, I presume you'd suggest covering all the creation stories in the prequel then - the Dreaming particularly as a native Australian story, but also Hindu, Taoist, and others?

I'm not suggesting a history of religion in the science class in any way shape or form. I think that is clear from my writings. I think 'religion' is a red herring in these discussions. I'm focused on evidence and what theory explains it best. Anyway, enough for now. Just my 2c on this issue.

 

[Azza]

I'm not suggesting a history of religion in the science class in any way shape or form. I think that is clear from my writings. I think 'religion' is a red herring in these discussions. I'm focused on evidence and what theory explains it best. Anyway, enough for now. Just my 2c on this issue.

But why include the Judaeo-Christian creation story as one that evolution has replaced as part of the science discussion and none of the others?

Unless of course you're just rationalising bringing your own religious beliefs into a science course...

It's a shame you're leaving the debate just now.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

You do it to show how science progressed by overturning older ideas by applying quantitative methods. You are teaching how to do science and how science works in society as well as scientific knowledge. In the modern classroom you are assessing a range of criteria including communication, practical ability, knowedge, assumptions & limitations and reasoning ability. In humanities they do history, geography and society strands. I doubt what you are talking about above would ever be taught.

I am a little confused here. Creationism "as science" doesn't pre-date Darwin. The "creation myth" does but it is certainly not science. Evolution displaced religious doctrine on the origin of species, not agressively or intentionally but through elegant reasoning and beautifully applied scientific method, it didn't displace creationism as a science and for this reason creationism does not belong in a science curriculum, even in the preamble IMO.

 

[AngryAnt]

I'm not suggesting a history of religion in the science class in any way shape or form. I think that is clear from my writings. I think 'religion' is a red herring in these discussions. I'm focused on evidence and what theory explains it best. Anyway, enough for now. Just my 2c on this issue.

Leaving aside all the mumbo jumbo of religion and the convoluted rationalisations that try to marry the creationist myth of a small minority of humans on the planet with "science", the number one problem with ID as a "theory" is that it is unfalsifiable.

Game over.

 

[Djevv]

I am a little confused here. Creationism "as science" doesn't pre-date Darwin. The "creation myth" does but it is certainly not science. Evolution displaced religious doctrine on the origin of species, not agressively or intentionally but through elegant reasoning and beautifully applied scientific method, it didn't displace creationism as a science and for this reason creationism does not belong in a science curriculum, even in the preamble IMO.

If 'phlogiston', 'spontaneous generation', 'vital force' and 'epicycles' are part of the science course, the creationism deserves its place. I think it is a bit amusing that people think creationism is 'unfalsifiable' given how much verbiage on the net is dedicated to exactly that.

 

[Djevv]

Leaving aside all the mumbo jumbo of religion and the convoluted rationalisations that try to marry the creationist myth of a small minority of humans on the planet with "science", the number one problem with ID as a "theory" is that it is unfalsifiable.

Game over.

Just some questions: is the search for intelligent life in the universe falsifiable? It is considered science and millions are spent doing it. How do you suppose they are going to detect putative alien intelligences?

 

[AngryAnt]

If 'phlogiston', 'spontaneous generation', 'vital force' and 'epicycles' are part of the science course, the creationism deserves its place. I think it is a bit amusing that people think creationism is 'unfalsifiable' given how much verbiage on the net is dedicated to exactly that.

Nice try, but falsifiability of theory has nothing to with philosophical, political, theological, or any other non-scientific critiques of creationism/ID that exist "on the net". That's not falsifiability and you know it.

If creationism or ID is to be considered science, it must be falsifiable in the Popperian sense. Demonstrate this and I'll happily allow it as a competing scientific theory in the science class. In other words, you must specifically define the empirical evidence that would invalidate your scientific theories of either "creation" or ID.

 

[Djevv]

Nice try, but falsifiability of theory has nothing to with philosophical, political, theological, or any other non-scientific critiques of creationism/ID that exist "on the net". That's not falsifiability and you know it.

If creationism or ID is to be considered science, it must be falsifiable in the Popperian sense. Demonstrate this and I'll happily allow it as a competing scientific theory in the science class. In other words, you must specifically define the empirical evidence that would invalidate your scientific theories of either "creation" or ID.

Demonstrate the evolution of a multicellular differentiated organism from a bacterial colony. Show an actual traceable lineage in the fossil record that changes from one kind to another. Demonstrate the 'unassisted' formation of life from chemicals. Demonstrate the evolution of a completely new complex characteristic never before seen in an organism. Any thing along those lines.

 

[Djevv]

Just as an aside you guys did read the positive things I said regarding evolutionary theory?