hannahjoy wrote:So if, due to the progress of science, Creationism comes to be the accepted theory, would you object to its being taught? Or do you think that no theory should be taught in school, only scientific methods?
Teaching only scientific methods without theory is like teaching only keyboarding without language. The methods are how data are accumulated. The purpose of getting the data is to analyze them and figure things out. The theories are the best-tested explanations. People often go through science classes thinking these are "facts."
If, in the progress of science, it became clear that Creation was superior to evolution, then it would be obvious that Creation should be taught. There is no particular reason to favor any particular theory in science, except insofar as it is the best theory, supported by the most evidence, consistent with all of the evidence, and not yet shown to be wrong. Evolution meets these criteria presently, but maybe in the future, additional data will come to light that indicate that Creation is more accurate. We don't know at this point--which is why we call evolution a theory.
przemeknowicki wrote:My response was intended to clarify one point. You accused me of double standards regarding how I feel about the education versus how the creationists feel about it. I was trying to explain that I hold both sides to the same standards: know your field of competency and stay there. One more important point. I didn't consider the issue which side knows the truth (or the Truth). I only consider the issue of competency.
But determining "competency" is tricky. There are creationists who suggest that scientists are not competent to speak about origins because they are biased and use inappropriate methods. One can also argue that creation is in the very field that evolution addresses, so we can't separate them into different disciplines. They have different criteria for being considered valid--revealed truth vs inference from evidence--but they address the same aspect of the world. I'm not sure I can separate them as you have suggested. Hence, I separate them on the basis of the logical thought processes used to arrive at inferences. Science begins with evidence and observation, develops explanations, then tests those explanations to the extent possible. Creation begins with biblical inerrancy, whether the evidence in the world matches or not.
Corvus wrote:My point is that by allowing any conscientious objector to dictate their children's curriculum, we are undermining the foundations of knowledge and turning it into something that is relative, that one can just ignore if they don't agree with. I am trying to tiptoe carefully here, because I do not want to turn this into a C vs E debate.
Tiptoe quite carefully, my friend, because you approach the eggshells. Recently, I read that Texas seeks to treat evolution
and environmental science as "just a theory" and "controversial" and therefore "not yet settled." The idea, presumably, is to avoid having to face CO2 emissions standards, and pollution standards, in the face of global warming and environmental degradation. That is, continue business as usual (or even backtrack by throwing out regulations). We can think, perhaps, of global warming as the theory that some might want to throw out, and maybe get past the eggshells.
I would argue that, whether you agree with the conclusions about global warming or not, you need to present your kids with the evidence. You need to give them practice reasoning from data, so that they can come to their own conclusions, not only about global warming, but about things we haven't yet faced. Our obligation to our children, and to everyone's children, is to give them as much preparation as possible for the world they will have to live in. That means they have to be able to access information and sort it effectively, because there are vast amounts of information available. They need to be able to assess whether some report about something is valid, believable, or contradictory of established mechainsms. They need to be able to think for themselves, and not have politicians or snake-oil salesmen tell them what to think or do. To prepare them, we may have to face the prospect of discussing scientific or historical or sociological issues that we'd rather did not exist. But since they do exist, and since our children will live in a world containing these things, our children need to know about them.
.
