Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

a reply to: greencmp

I'd say the process used to disprove psychoanalysis is rather scientific at the least.

a reply to: Ghost147

Heck the entire diagnostic manual of mental disorders consistently continues to resist integration with research findings, and a lot of the views within the DSM can still be argued that they exist only through societal views, rather than scientific ones.

"Psychology" as a 'science' is still growing. That's why the DSM is updated every few years.

"Psychology" is also an 'art form'.

Yes, it is very much acknowledged that 'cultural' and 'societal' influences are very much important. That doesn't change the fact that clients seeking treatment are all different....and where they are and what their circumstances are, and were, when they were 'growing up' ..... are all unique.

The practice of Diagnosis takes all of that into consideration - it isn't a simple thing. There are five Axes that are taken into account - physical health (head injury? organic disease?), subjective suffering (if the person seeking assistance finds their situation no longer workable), circumstances (are they currently grieving, homeless, abused?) and also takes into consideration the views of the people with whom they interact.

"Psychiatry" is a completely different thing. That's when you get into pharma
"doctors" who see mental anguish as a 'disease' and themselves as the 'experts' who present themselves as able to 'cure' what ails the client. They are concerned about appropriate 'medical intervention'.

SOME psychologists work under the mantle of that 'medical attitude'. Clinical SOCIAL WORKERS are taught to address the immediate issues and assist the client in identifying what they are - or might - be doing to exacerbate the problem, what their environment and social situation prompts them to do, what they are comfortable doing, and whether or not that 'strategy' is helping them. Often times clients realize that they are contributing in equal measure to their own situation. Other times they realize they have to extract themselves from counter-productive relationships - and to respond differently to social and cultural factors than they HAVE BEEN DOING.

When 'coping mechanisms' learned from childhood, or in difficult situations, are determined (by the CLIENT) to be no longer working , the practitioner works to help the client identify options, goals, and counter-moves that can assist them in feeling more balanced and in control of their OWN lives.

"Talk therapy" is a well-established intervention, but it takes a practitioner who sees the client as the expert on themselves and is willing to listen to 'informants' (employers, friends, family members, etc) perspectives.

Anyway -
I understand that many people feel that the Mental Health industry is fraudulent quackery. I also know that I have had many very substantial cases where clients were able to learn about themselves by studying their own histories and reactions to others, their backgrounds and family systems and how others react to them, and trying to decipher what is NOT WORKING in their efforts to lead more balanced, comfortable lives - and how they can CHANGE those circumstances, reactions, or behaviors that are dragging THEM down.

originally posted by: Ghost147
The point is, it is not entirely accurate to claim that Psychology is definitely scientific, or definitely not scientific. It clearly shows that it has traits from both ends of the spectrum. It's just not exclusively one or the other yet (but definitely moving towards total Scientific reasoning)

But that is the thing about scientific disciplines in their infancy. They usually start out with a lot of assumptions based on anecdotes, but as the science goes on, those assumptions are discarded for valid reasoning based on the best evidence available.

It's not like psychologists are going down the ghost hunter methodology where they just SAY that ghosts exists and start re-purposing technology designed for something else to "find" ghosts. Then never admit to their deviences from the scientific method. Now, my study in psychology is rather limited (I only took a college course on it and it was psych 101), but the stuff I've seen suggests that there is a legitimate attempt to actually utilize the scientific method as best as possible to develop the field.

Out of curiosity (and I guess this can be leveled at greencmp as well), do you think that ALL the social sciences are flawed?

Good thread. Yes, this reminds me of the thread started a week or 2 ago about the UK law that cuts funding for schools that teach faith as science. It's funny that nobody is complaining about the law except a select group of fundamentalist Christians in the US. They will argue all kinds of things, but beat around the bush and will not directly acknowledge or accept the fact that faith is not science or fact. Since it is not science or fact, it should not be taught in science class or as an alternative to science. If anybody disagrees they are welcome to present the scientific evidence for creation. Unfortunately none exists and creationists really dislike that fact so they make all kinds of appeals and fallacies to support their view instead of direct objective evidence, like the rest of science.

99% of these fundamentalist Christians would be outraged if another religion was taught as science (ie Islam, Hinduism), yet hypocritically advocate for theirs to be taught as an alternative to science just because they have strong faith. They would also be outraged if science was taught in religious classes as an alternative to religion. They just believe their view is true, and have zero empathy so they can't understand how anybody could NOT believe in an ancient story book. They feel like if they believe it, it has to be true and the ego propels them to fight for it, tooth and nail. Too bad there isn't even a fight or debate in regards to evolution. You can't win a race if you don't have a horse in it and right now the creationists are acting like they have already won the race without even entering it. They are fighting an unsubstantiated war and attacking people who don't share their worldview. This is bad. Jesus taught empathy. It's about time Christians start acting like it. I just don't see why the hardest core Christians blatantly ignore what Jesus taught when they believe a literal version of genesis. It makes no sense to me at all.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: intrptr

We are talking in science class in general. Creationism isn't science even if they want to call it that in a religious school. I wouldn't try to restrict a private, religious school from teaching it as science. I'm just pointing out the GLARING contradiction on why it isn't and should never be IN a science class for intellectual honesty's sake.

Uh.......o.k., I buy the argument, but.....where ever in the world would anyone teach "Creationism" in a Science class? As crappy as the public schools are today, they can't even teach science in science class, much less "Creationism". And as dumbed down as the kids are today, I'm not really sure why they teach "science" anyway. When your only interest in life is playing video games, doing drugs and getting your rocks off, there's no room left in their broken skulls for "science". What a waste of time and money.

originally posted by: TonyS
where ever in the world would anyone teach "Creationism" in a Science class?

Texas, Arkansas, etc. It's mostly a US bible belt thing. They have been fighting to get it taught as science for a while now, but the official court decision has ruled it out as viable science. I know it's the most illogical thing ever, but folks have very strong faith, and they consider their dogma absolute truth, so they want it taught in science class as science. Yeah it's sad and sounds silly, but folks do it.

a reply to: TonyS

where ever in the world would anyone teach "Creationism" in a Science class?

Kansas, and Texas, for starters.

a reply to: TonyS

A Map Showing Which U.S. Public Schools Teach Creationism to Kids

Notice any patterns in that map?

Slate put together this map, as well as an accompanying state-by-state breakdown, of what's going on in science classes around the country — and the laws and ordinances that govern them. Louisiana and Tennessee both have state laws allowing public schools to opt out of teaching evolution, but, as the map shows, that's not the only way that creationism can make it into the classroom. The public schools teaching creationism are shown in green — but there's also charter schools (shown in red) and private schools that receive tax-funded vouchers (in orange).

Because of COURSE Louisiana and Tennessee have those laws on the books...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I completely agree with both of you. Psychology is most definitely in it's infancy, which is why we see some inconsistencies with what would normally be applied to other Scientific Fields. As you know, Science requires the Scientific Method in order to really be considered science in it's conclusion. Psychology has the ability to apply the Scientific Method to a number of phenomena, it's just that many of it's current claims are based on older research, which we all know "Old-Psychology" was very primitive, if not barbaric at times. Which is where the whole "Almost, but not yet science" concept comes in.

Out of curiosity (and I guess this can be leveled at greencmp as well), do you think that ALL the social sciences are flawed?

Honestly, I'm not very well versed on social sciences, so I couldn't comment on that with any accuracy

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This coming from the guy who clearly just described evolution as silly as possible to gain sympathy votes for his position.

Sympathy votes? Are you, sympathy votes! What the, Oh hey
I see what you're do'in. Ha ha ha you ! You almost had me with that.
Sympathy votes, look at you.......with your ....sympathy votes.

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I completely agree with both of you. Psychology is most definitely in it's infancy, which is why we see some inconsistencies with what would normally be applied to other Scientific Fields. As you know, Science requires the Scientific Method in order to really be considered science in it's conclusion. Psychology has the ability to apply the Scientific Method to a number of phenomena, it's just that many of it's current claims are based on older research, which we all know "Old-Psychology" was very primitive, if not barbaric at times. Which is where the whole "Almost, but not yet science" concept comes in.

But see, that isn't proof that the discipline isn't scientific, but more that our understanding of the broad concepts that make it up aren't fully fleshed out yet. They used to believe that blowing tobacco smoke up someone's ass was a good means to resuscitate a drowning victim (no joke), but that doesn't mean that medicine wasn't a real science in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Honestly, I'm not very well versed on social sciences, so I couldn't comment on that with any accuracy

Well, when all your evidence is subjective and can be seen as a compilation of famous people's thoughts and opinions (which is what history mostly is), it goes without saying that some deviances from the scientific method need to be made.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This coming from the guy who clearly just described evolution as silly as possible to gain sympathy votes for his position.

Sympathy votes? Are you, sympathy votes! What the, Oh hey
I see what you're do'in. Ha ha ha you ! You almost had me with that.
Sympathy votes, look at you.......with your ....sympathy votes.

Well you certainly haven't put forth a valid rebuttal to anything in this thread yet, just working with what you are giving me. When you and borntowatch can settle on a universal account of Creationism that all Christians can agree to, let me know.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TonyS

A Map Showing Which U.S. Public Schools Teach Creationism to Kids

Notice any patterns in that map?

Slate put together this map, as well as an accompanying state-by-state breakdown, of what's going on in science classes around the country — and the laws and ordinances that govern them. Louisiana and Tennessee both have state laws allowing public schools to opt out of teaching evolution, but, as the map shows, that's not the only way that creationism can make it into the classroom. The public schools teaching creationism are shown in green — but there's also charter schools (shown in red) and private schools that receive tax-funded vouchers (in orange).

Because of COURSE Louisiana and Tennessee have those laws on the books...

Ha, ha.....yea....I see a pattern alright. And that pattern really kinda makes me wonder....why in the world do you care what they teach in Louisiana? I mean....I don't intend to get ugly about this, and I've lived in Louisiana and its home to many sweet and wonderful folk who cook really well and know how to party, but.......for the average person in Louisiana, (read between the lines here), the penultimate experience of success is to own your own fireworks stand, a good boat and a Chevy El Camino. Why would anyone care what they teach in the schools? And the news gets better.....most NEVER leave Louisiana. So assuming your a "Coastie", you don't have to worry about them visiting your area and polluting minds with their beliefs.

Put another way.....you might really find a better use for your efforts, work and worry than contemplating what they teach in Louisiana.

It takes absurd levels of denial to negate evolution. There's boat loads of evidence supporting it while creation has zero amount of evidence supporting it. Thus it should not be taught in school. Save it for Sunday School or religious schools. It is sadly being taught in science classes in some states... even in public schools, chock full of conservative political correctness too. Sadly a shrinking minority of Christians with super loud voices are affecting thousands and thousands of children's educations. Luckily they are shrinking.

I never understood nor will I ever, denying science. It's like denying something will fall if you drop it. It doesn't mean losing your religion or doesn't have to anyway. Almost all people know that the Bible (or whatever Holy Book) is full of metaphors, why couldn't Creation be seen as a metaphor? I mean all living things have to participate in their procreation and survival, why would it be different in the beginning? All living things have to adapt now, why not then? How is it less miraculous, less divine than God snapping His fingers?

a reply to: TonyS

List of states I've lived in before graduating high school:
South Carolina
Pennsylvania
Indiana
Mississippi
Maryland
Post High School:
Oklahoma (for the army)

You may recognize a few of those as being Bible Belt states and thus ones likely to teach Creationism as science.

I've gotten a feel for what various states teach and I care DEEPLY for what is taught in these schools. We are doing our children a GRAVE misservice teaching them crappy education, and that goes for more than just teaching Creationism in schools. You just get done talking about our crappy education standards in our country then proceed to dismiss this entire argument because a state YOU don't care about is teaching crappy education.

Well did it ever occur to you that one of the reasons the country is SO behind in the science education department is because of classes like the ones in Louisiana?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well you certainly haven't put forth a valid rebuttal to anything in this thread yet, just working with what you are giving me. When you and borntowatch can settle on a universal account of Creationism that all Christians can agree to, let me know.

Ya, okay shot, get right on that one. Here's a Krazyshot for ya.
The ideas you and you're little sewing circle of science vie
for.
Are going to leave you holding a bag full of evidence, when all is
said and done. I don't mean that threateningly. But what you're
asking, you're going to get. But you should be mindful when you've
made yourselves the only game in town. You think this country,
this world, is better off today than it was yesterday? You think
you're going to make it better tomorrow than it is today?
Well put down the yarn and get on with you're bad selves.

Personally, I have no faith in you. I think you'll blow it all to hell.
But I can't stop you, so have at it. Take us to where you want us
to go.

Wear those daddy pants.

originally posted by: randyvs
Ya, okay shot, get right on that one. Here's a Krazyshot for ya.
The ideas you and you're little sewing circle of science vie
for.
Are going to leave you holding a bag full of evidence, when all is
said and done. I don't mean that threateningly.

Science is a really just a product of man's curiosity anyways. It's not like it is actually NECESSARY for survival. So no problems here.

But what you're
asking, you're going to get. But you should be mindful when you've
made yourselves the only game in town. You think this country,
this world, is better off today than it was yesterday?

Uh... yeah... Or do you prefer living in a country where women can't vote, black people can't use the same facilities as white people, gay people "don't exist", etc?

You think
you're going to make it better tomorrow than it is today?

That's always the goal. Sometimes we end up making mistakes and missteps, but the idea is to recognize them for what they are and overcome them.

Well put down the yarn and get on with you're bad selves.

I do my small part.

Personally, I have no faith in you. I think you'll blow it all to hell.
But I can't stop you, so have at it. Take us to where you want us
to go.

Wear those daddy pants.

Well if I or someone else blows it all to hell, then the only thing left to do is to rebuild and try again, and hopefully avoid the mistakes made on the way to make it blow up in our faces. I'm not perfect, nor do I think I'd ever be able to make things perfect. Mistakes happen, sometimes they are VERY disastrous, but you'll never know until you try. Of course the alternative is to just keep believing in 2000 year old myths that have had all of humanity at each other's throats since they were created. That appears to be working SOOOO well for us.

Nope. I'm not going to cry.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Did you notice the first comment on the iO9 link with the map?

"I'm a proponent of teaching both sides, Creation and Evolution, *fairly* and letting kids make up their own minds."

I point it out because it typifies the sort of completely irrational political correctness that drives this completely unnecessary debate. It's only "fair" to teach science when an alternative religious explanation is also offered? Imagine if the same criteria was applied to every topic in science!

"Today class we're going to discuss electricity or what might have been referred to as 'magic' in biblical times."

a reply to: randyvs

Can you offer anything up that would support Biblical creationism?