Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Creationism, is it reasonable? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I however many million people on this planet believe that creationism is true surely 10 minutes out of gcse science can be used to point out that these people do believe this. I mean where else is it going to be taught in the compulsary gcse syllabus?
    Religion? Culture? Optional in A levels? Really, there are more important subject which are already optional. IMO if you are to include religion in the teaching a better idea is to spend the time on morals,ethics and tolerance than on some pseudo scientific jiberish developed merely in order to combat evolutionary biology.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Religion? Culture? Optional in A levels? Really, there are more important subject which are already optional. IMO if you are to include religion in the teaching a better idea is to spend the time on morals,ethics and tolerance than on some pseudo scientific jiberish developed merely in order to combat evolutionary biology.
    quite right
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Lies, Damn Lies and Science Lessons

    And also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A730522 a bunch of articles discussing the different sides of the evolution/creation arguement.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Religion? Culture? Optional in A levels? Really, there are more important subject which are already optional. IMO if you are to include religion in the teaching a better idea is to spend the time on morals,ethics and tolerance than on some pseudo scientific jiberish developed merely in order to combat evolutionary biology.
    I don't think that these subjects should be compulsary after year 9. I just think that as creationism is a theory of how we got onto this planet it should be given a mention. I don't think it should be given much more than a mention but I think as with most things it is important that people know that not everyone thinks the same thing. Personally like I have said in the past I don't believe in creationism. I have always thought that evolution was the way things happend (well since I first learnt about it) and that has been reinforced in my lessons this year. I just think that people should be informed of the opposing arguments maybe not in science but personally I can't think of a better place to put it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just to be awkward and because I greatly enjoy getting shot down in flames, thought I might chuck this into the mix... I'm neither a creationist nor a scientist, but here's my 2 cents.

    The problem with science trying to prove/disprove religion is that one must use human logic to explain what is, by definition, beyond the realms of human understanding. If there is a 'god' (i know this is an if), how the hell are we supposed to know exactly what he can/cannot do? If he (or she ) can create the world, it is surely possible for him (or her) to create a world with fossils lying beneath the ground. So to disprove creationism by pointing to things millions of years old is quite possibly trying to describe the superhuman in human terms. Which is rather difficult.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teamvillage)
    Just to be awkward and because I greatly enjoy getting shot down in flames, thought I might chuck this into the mix... I'm neither a creationist nor a scientist, but here's my 2 cents.

    The problem with science trying to prove/disprove religion is that one must use human logic to explain what is, by definition, beyond the realms of human understanding. If there is a 'god' (i know this is an if), how the hell are we supposed to know exactly what he can/cannot do? If he (or she ) can create the world, it is surely possible for him (or her) to create a world with fossils lying beneath the ground. So to disprove creationism by pointing to things millions of years old is quite possibly trying to describe the superhuman in human terms. Which is rather difficult.
    Science does not try to disprove religion. Religion itself is a theory that must be proved, before there is any point in disproving it.

    I might make a totally random statement which no one would be able to disprove. That wouldn't make it true.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teamvillage)
    Just to be awkward and because I greatly enjoy getting shot down in flames, thought I might chuck this into the mix... I'm neither a creationist nor a scientist, but here's my 2 cents.

    The problem with science trying to prove/disprove religion is that one must use human logic to explain what is, by definition, beyond the realms of human understanding. If there is a 'god' (i know this is an if), how the hell are we supposed to know exactly what he can/cannot do? If he (or she ) can create the world, it is surely possible for him (or her) to create a world with fossils lying beneath the ground. So to disprove creationism by pointing to things millions of years old is quite possibly trying to describe the superhuman in human terms. Which is rather difficult.
    are you suggesting carbon dating is flawed? if so how?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    are you suggesting carbon dating is flawed? if so how?
    No, I am merely suggesting that if a god can create the world (again, i emphasise, a huge if) then I'm sure he can beat carbon dating.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldthrashbarg)
    I might make a totally random statement which no one would be able to disprove. That wouldn't make it true.
    Yes, but that is not the point of this thread. We are not asking if creationism is true, but whether it is a reasonable opinion to hold. Although I don't hold it myself, I am not about to criticise others for holding it.

    Having said that, the American creationist who came to talk at our school was a complete weirdo!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    well pointed out, creationism is a joke and i think it says something very profound about religion in america that they are still arguing over whether it should be given class time
    Unfortunately, its not just America. See yesterdays Independent for an article on "Independent Academies" being bought by a millionare who has them teaching creationism as a valid alternative to evolution. The parents are campaigning to stop it (with the backing, of course, of Richard Dawkins), but Blair is backing this guy up. Its extremely worrying.

    All science is theory. Theories are accepted based on evidence - the evidence for evolution is present and correct in the fossil record. Many of the results of other disciplines back up evolution - simulation of evolutionary processes in computer science for example. The theory, properly understood, makes more logical sense than most scientific theories. Creationism should certainly be mentioned in R.S or general studies, but not dwelled on, as it lacks either scientific or even much religious credibility. As for A level chemistry being based on very little evidence, I can't make much comment without knowing the syllabus, but it surprises me, as the workings of individual atoms are extremely well understood - quantum theory is one of the most strongly supported scientific theories around. I assume what you're referring to is at a higher level than this?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teamvillage)
    No, I am merely suggesting that if a god can create the world (again, i emphasise, a huge if) then I'm sure he can beat carbon dating.
    hm, with regards to the creationism arguement, its not mentioned in the bible which would be a curious fact if you were a creationist.
    Its possible to evoke God as a clause an any arguement to explain anything, ie the mircle of the ark was hidden by God clearing up everying and taking away the missing water ect. However since there is little evidence to back up an intervention its should not be inculded in a scientific theory. Evolution, fossils and carbon dating are supported by all the science we know at the moment, and personally i would always choose the thing backed by evidence for any explanation.
    Basically its possible that could happen, but then if you believe that, you may as well beleive in everything.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teamvillage)
    No, I am merely suggesting that if a god can create the world (again, i emphasise, a huge if) then I'm sure he can beat carbon dating.
    Ever had a dream Neo?

    Ockhams razor is a principle much used in science. If there is no way we can distinguish reality from our theory, then we may just as well take our theory to be correct. Of course, you may include all sorts of wierd elements in a creationist theory in order to make it consistent with reality (God is trying to trick us etc) but then you would have an infinity of equally possible (and equally useless) theories. What about the following statements:

    God has a blue beard!
    God has a red beard!
    God has a green beard!
    God has a yellow beard!
    God has a purple beard!

    Neither of these statements can be proved or disproved, so what is the point in discussing their validity? They are irrelevant to the context. The universe and human logic is the context in which we live, and to speculate about entities outside of this context is pointless as there will never be any way to gain a reliable answer. Im sure there are many ways you could construct a theory in which creationism is possible, but neither of these will have any relevance as they will have to be designed to agree with observations (which support evolution). Evolutionary theory is therefore the only real way we have to make predictions about the origin of new species and any creationist theory that is not to be in contradiction with our observations will have to conform to the rules of evolution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    hm, with regards to the creationism arguement, its not mentioned in the bible which would be a curious fact if you were a creationist.
    Its possible to evoke God as a clause an any arguement to explain anything, ie the mircle of the ark was hidden by God clearing up everying and taking away the missing water ect. However since there is little evidence to back up an intervention its should not be inculded in a scientific theory. Evolution, fossils and carbon dating are supported by all the science we know at the moment, and personally i would always choose the thing backed by evidence for any explanation.
    Basically its possible that could happen, but then if you believe that, you may as well beleive in everything.
    I think we are pretty much arguing exactly the same point. The conclusion I draw from it however is that a majority (i think) of people on this planet do believe in God. Thus your perfectly understandable and reasonable choice to use human science to describe everything is not universally shared.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Ever had a dream Neo?

    Ockhams razor is a principle much used in science. If there is no way we can distinguish reality from our theory, then we may just as well take our theory to be correct. Of course, you may include all sorts of wierd elements in a creationist theory in order to make it consistent with reality (God is trying to trick us etc) but then you would have an infinity of equally possible (and equally useless) theories. What about the following statements:

    God has a blue beard!
    God has a red beard!
    God has a green beard!
    God has a yellow beard!
    God has a purple beard!

    Neither of these statements can be proved or disproved, so what is the point in discussing their validity? They are irrelevant to the context. The universe and human logic is the context in which we live, and to speculate about entities outside of this context is pointless as there will never be any way to gain a reliable answer. Im sure there are many ways you could construct a theory in which creationism is possible, but neither of these will have any relevance as they will have to be designed to agree with observations (which support evolution). Evolutionary theory is therefore the only real way we have to make predictions about the origin of new species and any creationist theory that is not to be in contradiction with our observations will have to conform to the rules of evolution.
    Excellent post. Thou shalt be repped
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teamvillage)
    I think we are pretty much arguing exactly the same point. The conclusion I draw from it however is that a majority (i think) of people on this planet do believe in God. Thus your perfectly understandable and reasonable choice to use human science to describe everything is not universally shared.
    no but the alternatively my main message is that creationism should not be taught in science lessons of any sort as it is not science
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    no but the alternatively my main message is that creationism should not be taught in science lessons of any sort as it is not science
    I think what Speciez is trying to say is that you shoul not teach fractional algebra in history lessons, and you should keep religion out of science lessons. I must agree here. If teh creationists want the religion modules to include the creation then thats perfectly fine. What is not ok however is to teach christianity in biology classes. What does 10 minutes of creationism matter? Well, the problem is that you can then also argue in favour of 10 minutes of every subject in any other subject and eventually you get a pretty messed up system. There is a reason why it is not all wrapped up in a single giant module labeled education.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I think what Speciez is trying to say is that you shoul not teach fractional algebra in history lessons, and you should keep religion out of science lessons. I must agree here. If teh creationists want the religion modules to include the creation then thats perfectly fine. What is not ok however is to teach christianity in biology classes. What does 10 minutes of creationism matter? Well, the problem is that you can then also argue in favour of 10 minutes of every subject in any other subject and eventually you get a pretty messed up system. There is a reason why it is not all wrapped up in a single giant module labeled education.
    yes thank you for taking the time to explain, after posting so many posts explaining how it is not a science i thought people would understand, but you have explained it well
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Most people seem to be taking creationism to mean the events re creation as stated in the bible.
    I personally think both creation and evolution are correct. God created the universe (via big bang etc etc) and then caused it to develop and life to evolve on Earth (and who knows on which other planet)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by parvati)
    Most people seem to be taking creationism to mean the events re creation as stated in the bible.
    I personally think both creation and evolution are correct. God created the universe (via big bang etc etc) and then caused it to develop and life to evolve on Earth (and who knows on which other planet)
    Creationists are those who beleive in the creation as described in the bible. If you beleive god created the universe according to the scientific theories existant today you are not a creationist. You cannot simply take a word to mean whatever you want. The commonly accepted definition of creationism is the beleif followed by many cristians that scripture should be interpretated literarely and that evolution is invalid. You may of course be a christian and beleive in some other creation, but that does not make you a creationist.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.