Can science go forward...

[udx]

I would say science needs neither creation nor evolution to go forward. Science go forward by experimental observation, neither theory could be proven or falsify by experimentation.

[udx]

I disagree. "Dispelling creationism" won't fix the curriculum, won't increase interest in science, won't make students actually study, etc.

I live in Maryland - where Creationism is not taught in the science classroom by any means. Can you show me that Maryland high school graduates are doing any better in science that other parts of the country?

I clearly said that dispelling creationism won't fix the curriculum, but it is a step in the right direction. I never said that it would increase interest in science or make students study, those are separate topics. As you yourself said, the entire system is broken, I highly doubt you'll be able to isolate such a variable as creationism/ID being taught, heck it is illegal to teach straight up creationism in public schools. Other factors, like socio-economic status of parents, play a much more immediate role. Creationism/ID is just one out of many things that needs to corrected in order for America to be the best that it can be when it comes to science.

I think the main problem is not what is taught in the science classroom, it is getting more students into the science classroom that is the main issue. The number of people who study science related degrees are steadily decreasing due to lack of interest. Most people would rather go for easier majors.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203733504577026212798573518.html

Edited December 7, 2011 by udx

[nebula]

I disagree. "Dispelling creationism" won't fix the curriculum, won't increase interest in science, won't make students actually study, etc.

I live in Maryland - where Creationism is not taught in the science classroom by any means. Can you show me that Maryland high school graduates are doing any better in science that other parts of the country?

I clearly said that dispelling creationism won't fix the curriculum, but it is a step in the right direction. I never said that it would increase interest in science or make students study, those are separate topics. As you yourself said, the entire system is broken, I highly doubt you'll be able to isolate such a variable as creationism/ID being taught, heck it is illegal to teach straight up creationism in public schools. Other factors, like socio-economic status of parents, play a much more immediate role. Creationism/ID is just one out of many things that needs to corrected in order for America to be the best that it can be when it comes to science.

But you claim it to be a step in the right direction.

I disagree. I fail to see how eliminating the freedom of religion in the field of science is going to improve science education.

[nebula]

D'oh! I walked into that one.

But that still doesn't prove that eliminating Creationism will make any improvements.

As I said, where I live it's evolution all the way. Can you show that our science output is better on account of that?

[Isaiah 6:8]

As I said before, it is one factor out of many. Plus the way the local communities act regarding the issue also plays a role; science teachers have reported that they skip over the section even though it is one of the requirements because they don't want to deal with the tension it brings with students and parents.

I would think, at least in theory, that we should all agree that students will learn the most about science when they learn science in science classrooms, right? So how is teaching non-science in science as if it was science going to improve science education? - in fact I would think it would have a negative impact as students are not only not learning science, but rather are learning a pseudoscience in the place of real science. It would be like teaching astrology in place of astronomy, that is not going to give students the basic knowledge of astronomy needed to be informed citizens, let alone prepare students for careers related to astronomy (while none of us have careers in every subject we learn about in K-12, all of us should have the basic preparations available to us if we decided to go into that particular area, whether it be in the sciences, maths, history, the arts, literature, etc.). The same is true of creationism.

At a minimum, eliminating creationism and fear of teaching evolution will free up class time and chapters/units where teachers can spend that time teaching science rather than pseudoscience, and again I think we should all agree that teaching science rather than pseudoscience in science classrooms is going to improve science education.

I would agree, I thing evolution is non science.

Both should be taught side by side as belief systems.

The premise that not being taught evolution halts or slows down scientific progress is a real stretch. As there is no evidence for that. This even being brought up shows the emotive response vs a rational.

"They are not scientific, they do not know anything they can not be scientific and its all because of there non scientific belief "

Not very scientific would you say?

[Isaiah 6:8]

This is not my point. My point is that the LHC assumes that all scientific theories that support an old universe are true (including atomic fusion principles, which support a very old sun BTW). If they were wrong by a factor 1 million it would be ridiculous to spend so much money to look for Higgs particles and creating the initial conditions at the time of the big bang. It would be like going to war against a nuclear superpower with a Swiss army knife

Ciao

- viole

Only energy for this one.

Fusion principles, do not require evolution to work.

[nebula]

As I said before, it is one factor out of many. Plus the way the local communities act regarding the issue also plays a role; science teachers have reported that they skip over the section even though it is one of the requirements because they don't want to deal with the tension it brings with students and parents.

When I was in high school, evolution took up no more than 2 weeks of the entire school year, if I recall correctly. There was no indication evolution was at the core of everything we learned in biology, as you have been proposing.

Your argument comes across as if science is worthless without evolution.

Yet the majority of high school biology focused on how things work now, with no thought for how things were or adaptation or anything else related to evolution.

[Isaiah 6:8]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/creationists-real-scientists

[udx]

As I said before, it is one factor out of many. Plus the way the local communities act regarding the issue also plays a role; science teachers have reported that they skip over the section even though it is one of the requirements because they don't want to deal with the tension it brings with students and parents.

When I was in high school, evolution took up no more than 2 weeks of the entire school year, if I recall correctly. There was no indication evolution was at the core of everything we learned in biology, as you have been proposing.

Your argument comes across as if science is worthless without evolution.

Yet the majority of high school biology focused on how things work now, with no thought for how things were or adaptation or anything else related to evolution.

My school don't teach evolution. I read that chapter on my own. The only thing relavent in that chapter is microevolution. You don't need theory of evolution to get a 5 on AP Bio.

I studied genetics, and it has nothing to do with evolution either.

Edited December 8, 2011 by udx

[nebula]

And as I'm sure you're aware, they don't teach you everything about biology in high school bio. Like with any subject, you don't want to go too in-depth in any one topic at the expense of learning about other key areas. As I suspect you are aware, teachers complain all the time about not having enough class time to cover all the material they are supposed to. Not to mention the state curriculum, which teachers must abide by, can be strangely.... retarded, for lack of a better word.

And that's why I don't believe teaching evolution is even a "step in the right direction."

As I've said, evolution was taught in my high school biology curriculum. Was the end result any better than the school system that didn't teach evolution?

WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM? Can you provide evidence that the schools systems teaching evolution, as my state, are producing more equipped science students than those that are not? And can you reduce the evolution factor to being the significant difference if there is such evidence?

I'm not saying science is worthless without evolution, rather evolution is a key component of modern biology; "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution". You can certainly learn a lot about biology without knowing evolution, however evolution is like the glue that holds biology together.

...

I can recall that my bio 101 class in college made it clear that evolution is the central theme to modern biology.

By evolution, do you mean all life arising from non-life all on its own? Or do you mean adaptation?

And seriously, D-9. If you claim belief in God as creator in some manner, shape, or form, how can it be truth to remove Him from the equation of life?