Teaching of creationism and its religous overtones

[otseng]

In the Politics and the teaching of creationism, it has been mentioned that creationism should not be taught as a science class because of its religious overtones.

Jose:

First, the CM does have religious background, and, seemingly, a particular religious background at that. Second--and this is directed at hannahjoy's comment below--the biblical CM is woven into our culture pretty deeply. We can refer to it without even mentioning it by name.

However, the Creation Model itself is based upon religion. It is not a generic model that fits with all religions, but is specific to a relative few. As I see it, if we attempt to eliminate all bias toward any particular religion, and thus teach creationism in a religiously-neutral way, then we will have only a very small statement to make: "maybe, instead of natural processes, a supernatural being created everything." If we invoke timing of the creation event, or locations of events, or the Flood, we necessarily invoke a particular religious viewpoint. [I might summarize this by saying that I've been attempting to show (perhaps with limited success) that creationism is, by definition, religious interpretation.]

Also, it was touched upon in the Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional thread.

bernee51:

What is the original (only?) source of the christian creation theory?
What is the supposed word of god?
What is the basis of the christian religion?

Yep - the bible.

The remaining question - is it a religious or scientific text?

Seems to me to be pretty well religious, but YMMV.

So, for discussion:
Should creationism not be allowed to be taught as a science in public schools because of its religious overtones?

[mrmufin]

When supernatural explanations are posited, when you reach beyond the realm of natural verification, falsification and evidences, you're not doing science anymore. If a subject is currently unexplained or unknown, it should be presented as such; the unknown does not default to the gods, the Junior Design Team, or the garden gnomes that Nyril mentioned earlier.

The case against creationism being taught as a science is not that it has no scientific merit. Again, I have illustrated through a multitude of threads that it can be approached scientifically.

If part of approaching these topics scientifically involves forming testable and falsifiable hypotheses and theories with respect to the available evidences, then the scientific approach used herein is incomplete. What evidences (hypothetical as they may be) would falsify creation theory?

Also, I have brought up many reasons why it should be allowed to be taught in public schools. Furthermore, there are no political restrictions on teaching creationism as we have explored here. This leaves only several arguments against the CM being taught as a science. I believe the main one is that there are religious implications with it.

The religious overtones certainly don't help any. When I consider that the set of all scientists includes individuals from a great diversity of faiths and then consider the almost insignificantly small subset of scientists who propose ID/creationism, the nondiversity of religious demographics within that subset of scientists suggest that they may be driven by religious objectives rather than scientific inquiry.

I would also suspect--since the scientific community doesn't discriminate based on worldview--that if scientific evaluation of the data and resultant theories and hypotheses reflected common interpretation of the scriptures of any major religion, there'd be a few more conspicuous shouts of "Eureka!" from within the larger subset of scientists.

Creationism should be approached not as a way of understanding the creator, but in analyzing the creation.

When you refer to nature as creation you are implying that nature was directed by something, which only begs the questions, "Created by what? How did the creator(s) do it? Where'd they get the materials without a Home Depot? What are the creators doing now?" You can not refer to the universe or nature as creation and expect to handwave away specific questions about the creation process, of which the creators are involved.

Conversely, when nature is simply refered to as such, it begs the more general question, "What are the origins of nature?" This more generalized question does not rule out intentional and/or special creation, membrane collisions in a multiverse, steady state cosmolgy, or a skillfully perpetrated Lokian prank.

Either way, each side reaches a confession point where the most prudent thing to say is, "I don't know." Unfortunately, the implication of creators (or any supernatural agents which elude observation) doesn't help us to better understand anything, especially if were precluded from discussion about how the creators create things.

When it is taught, the subject is the creation, not the god(s) behind the creation.

When teachers are asked what created the universe, how should they respond? If teachers are not prepared to talk about the gods, why bother implying them in the first place by refering to nature as a creation?

I would agree that if a diety was being studied, it should be only in a religious class. But, if the natural world is being studied, should it not be in a science class? Especially if it meets the standards of the scientific method?

If all you're proposing is studying the natural world using natural methodologies within the scientific paradigm, we are doing science. Part of using natural methodologies means forming testable hypotheses, evaluating data, and forming falsifiable theories. What hypothetical evidences, if any, could falsify the creation theory?

In all my posts on supporting the CM, I have only looked at the physical evidence of the world/universe. The scope of my discussions has never been at an attempt to describe the creator, the motivations of it creating, or explaining how things got created. My discussions have only been in the realm of the natural world and in analyzing the evidence before us. I believe this fits within the scientific methodology.

I agree that your discussions never attempt to describe the creator or how things got created; that's part of the problem I have trying to understand it. Science pretty much is concerned with how things happen. When supernatural means are considered valid without the means to verify or falsify, we haven't enhanced our understanding of nature at all. We've put it on a high shelf, out of reach, and have, either tacitly or explicitly, suggested that the subject can not be known.

As to "if a subject is currently unexplained or unknown, it should be presented as such", I could give several examples where such subject matter is taught as science. Take abiogenesis. Has there been any natural verification of life coming from non-life? How can it be explained?

Actually, I'm going to take you up on providing examples of abiogenesis being taught in public school science classes. I don't doubt you, but I am curious as to the classroom content and context. I am aware that experiments have been conducted to try to determine natural mechanisms for creating life. What kind of evidences would falsify abiogenesis?

Do we find abiogenesis in science classes or philosophy classes?

Both. In science class, a chemical and mechanical understanding of abiogenesis is strived for and in philosophy class the ethical implications of our understanding are considered.

It can be argued that one day science will find a naturalistic explanation to abiogenesis. But, how does one know if that day will ever come?

One doesn't know, so one should not rule it out, but instead try to find methods of testing a variety of hypotheses And if, through natural means, life can be made from non-life, is the theory of creation falsified?

I would argue that if one completely believes that naturalism will eventually have an answer to abiogenesis, then that person is simply having faith in science/naturalism.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it faith; just a greater degree of confidence in the swing:hit ratio of methodological naturalism when compared to other means.

The requirement for anything being taught in a science class should simply be - can it fit with the scientific method paradigm?

Yes, and I submit that part of the scientific method involves presenting hypotheses and theories which are testable and falsifiable.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Jose]

It's interesting to look at the GOP platform for the Texas Republican party. It gives us a bit of insight into the religious/political issues at stake here. The pdf file of their platform is here: http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2004.pdf. On page 17, they state this:

The Party supports the objective teaching and equal treatment of scientific strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories, including Intelligent Design – as Texas law now requires but has yet to enforce. The Party believes theories of life origins and environmental theories should be taught only as theories not fact; that social studies and other curriculum should not be based on any one theory.

Gosh, look at that. They now consider environmental science and social studies as "suspect." What is the motivation here?

We can guess: They'll get more fundamentalist votes if they favor ID. By contrast, it seems that evolution is favored more by Democrats, so the GOP won't lose a lot of votes by trashing it. That one's easy. What about their new assault on environmental science and social studies? Well, social sciences include investigation and understanding of human behavior. There's a lot of human behavior that's oriented around sex. We certainly don't want people talking about that!

Environmental science, on the other hand, pretty clearly shows that the current policies of the Bush Administration and its State mimics are wildly inappropriate. The policies may raise millions for the few companies and individuals favored by them, but the environmental toll--and eventual toll on everyone--will be great. But hey, if you can say these are "just theories" and therefore basically irrelevant, then you can go on lining your nest. The stuff won't hit the fan until some other guy is in office.

Linking ID to these other policies somewhat dilutes the integrity of the arguments for teaching ID. The whole package comes across as an attempt to eliminate any science that contradicts the administration's agenda. This view is supported by the observation that the biggest "hits" in the budget were NSF and EPA. NSF seems curious, since the GOP administrations talk about wanting to support and expand "high-growth" industries like biotechnology. However, NSF also is the primary funding agency for research in social and behavioral sciences and environmental science. NSF also funds a huge amount of national initiatives for science education--and they cut NSF's education budget, specifically, by the most of any other program.

So, teaching creationism or ID does, indeed, have religious overtones. The fundamental concepts are, after all, based on the bible. But there seems to be more to it, as evidenced by the expansion of the "it's just a theory" rhetoric. It is a political effort to remove the opposition--which, in this case, is a basic understanding of science.

We should all be extremely worried about this, since our leadership role in the world depends entirely on science and technology. If we water them down in the classroom, we'll wake up some day and wonder why Europe and Asia are calling the shots, and we're standing around waiting for them to tell us what to do.

[YEC]

jose,
Must I remind you that the study of creation/Noahs flood or ID is science.
Scientific studies, ideas, techniques, theories, experiments etc. are employeed when learning of the creationist or ID theories.

To deny our students the ability to learn of these models would be wrong.

[Jose]

jose,
Must I remind you that the study of creation/Noahs flood or ID is science.
Scientific studies, ideas, techniques, theories, experiments etc. are employeed when learning of the creationist or ID theories.

To deny our students the ability to learn of these models would be wrong.

This argument has some validity. It is possible, as you say, to study these things scientifically. I would remind you that The Flood As Science does exactly this. I invite you to join the discussion and help demonstrate its validity.

As with all scientific approaches, there are many ideas, techniques, and experiments. (I leave out theories explicitly). The majority fall by the wayside as new information forces us to replace them. Theories have a longer lifespan, because the definition of "theory" is that it is an explanation that has withstood many tests.

There is one particular feature of scientific explanations that must be met, if the explanations are to earn a treasured spot in the miniscule amount of time available for discussion in public schools. It is that those explanations must explain the data--not just some data, but the preponderance of data. The problem with ID is that it takes up where data leave off. It says "if we don't have data yet, we must conclude that god did it." It does not seek to explain the data we have. Other explanations have been provided that do address the data we have, and that bring in vast amounts of related data. Sure, we can discuss ID in the classroom, but a truly scientific analysis will demonstrate that it has no validity. It is simply a blanket statement that "if I don't understand it 100%, the default is that god did it, and thereofre, I can never understand it."

The study of creation itself is very tricky. I know of no scientific investigations that address it. After all, the only thing we can see is the result. We don't even have evidence of the mechanism, the way we do with evolution (you know, the microevolution stuff that everyone seems so eager to accept).

We're left with the Flood. This is posited to be a real event, initiating the current Age. (that's yom, you know) If it is real, there should be evidence. With otseng's help, and the help of many others, we have thought about the predictions that the Flood Hypothesis makes. Go ahead--treat it scientifically. Adress the predictions in that thread.

If no one is willing to address those predictions here, there's not a very strong argument for putting the same information into science classrooms, where the predictions will be addressed.

[USIncognito]

jose,
Must I remind you that the study of creation/Noahs flood or ID is science.
Scientific studies, ideas, techniques, theories, experiments etc. are employeed when learning of the creationist or ID theories.

To deny our students the ability to learn of these models would be wrong.

1. The study of "creation" belongs in religious, comparative religion or philosophy class, not biology.
2. Noah's Flood was falsified by Christian geologists 180 years ago.
3. ID, since it's premise is God of the Gaps, is inherently unscientific.

and most importantly...

4. Since you advocate students learning all "models," do you similarly support them being taught Holocaust denial in history class, Homeopathy in health class, Communism in economics class and alchemy in Chemistry class? If you're going to be consistent in your "teach the alternative" argument, then you'd better support all of these.