Creationism - should it be taught in schools?

[dorlomin]

Erm scientific ideas cannot be proven, they can only be disproved. Oops.

Where did you read that? On the back of a biscuit wrapper?

Its true though. Maths can be "proven" by science can never be.

It is often said that proof is for alcohol and mathematics, as these are really the only areas where proof has any real meaning. "Proof" is something that the opponents of science are always clamouring for, yet is not actually something that science suggests it will give - specifically in the common sense definition of "proof" that suggests that a claim has been proven 100%.

Surprisingly to some, science does not deal in proof, in spite of the word being associated with science a whole lot more than perhaps it should be. Scientists will throw around phrases like "we've just proved our theory" when they should know better, but this can be excusable human nature. With some theories its very difficult to not think of them as proven (Newton's laws of motion, for instance) which have always and will always describe objects within the limits of those theories. Science as a method, however, deals not in proof but in evidence, and perhaps disproof when the evidence contradicts a hypothesis.

For example, finding a fingerprint at the scene of a crime may be construed by most people as "proof" that the owner of the fingerprint was, at some stage, at that location. Science would say that the fingerprint is "evidence" that somehow a means of leaving that fingerprint was at that location. More evidence can be collected that shows a person was there at the right time, or perhaps some evidence is shown that they weren't there. It is up to someone working in the world of science to put together a hypothesis which is consistent with this evidence when taken together. A scientist hasn't strictly proved anything by putting together this hypothesis, but they have constructed a realistic scenario based on overwhelming evidence.

Anti-evolutionists often ask for proof of evolution, and are triumphant when none is forthcoming. This is perfectly reasonable for science to do, after all, no scientist can even be certain of what evidence will come up in the future that may contradict the current theory. Yet those of the anti-science movement who cling to this detail usually fail to hear the words put in place of "proof" - overwhelming evidence.[1] In a way they know they are being disingenuous, for they understand the way the legal system uses the word proof in that overwhelming evidence is considered to prove a case, yet reject that same usage for when science talks of the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

[jock001]

For anyone interested, the modern popular version of the early universe is not that it came from nothing. But it always existed and is infinite but there was a fluxuation in in that caused part of it to suddenly expand, this expanding part is our universe, other parts expanding are the other universes of the multiverse.

This is a really stripped down version of it though.

'Always' depends on time which is intrinsic to our universe but not nessescarily any others.

Everything we can percieve started at one point in time. None of the dimensions we can prevcieve existed..................................................and then they did.

It didn't come from 'stuff' therefore it must have come from nothing.

[itzdrk]

I am of the opinion a class like RE should be on an opt in basis, religion is an irrelevance and should be treated as such

[Tamdunk]

I am of the opinion a class like RE should be on an opt in basis, religion is an irrelevance and should be treated as such

I'd say re is one of the better ways of discrediting religion. IIf you are taught there is only one religion, you're going to believe it a whole lot more than if you're taught bout all the main ones.

[Gordon EF]

Its true though. Maths can be "proven" by science can never be.

If we take 'proof' to mean 100% certainty, then yes, science doesn't 'prove' anything because there's always the possibility that you're wrong because you just don't know enough. But that goes for 'disproof' as well. If someone comes up with evidence that 'disproves' a hypothesis, who's to say that disproof can't be wrong because we just don't know enough about it yet?

[Granny Danger]

I wonder if we will ever reach a situation where organised religion is treated by society with the disdain it deserves.

It won't be in my lifetime but it would be comforting to think that one day the whole destructive, divisive, intellectually insulting concept is held up to ridicule in history classes.

One can but hope.

[The Saintee]

I wonder if we will ever reach a situation where organised religion is treated by society with the disdain it deserves.

It won't be in my lifetime but it would be comforting to think that one day the whole destructive, divisive, intellectually insulting concept is held up to ridicule in history classes.

One can but hope.

I pray you're right.

[stumigoo]

The original article posted by the OP is pretty terrible, it doesn't say much at all really, despite the shock "this is a problem that can't be ignored" tagline that is widely inaccurate. I talk about creationism in my classes sometimes, mainly because the kids actually ask what it is. So I give them the information and leave them to make their own mind up about their own views on the matter, but I do that with any religion or religious idea that I cover in my courses.

[Elixir]

Tom McB a teacher? That is worrying.

Very.

[Man of Aran]

I am of the opinion a class like RE should be on an opt in basis, religion is an irrelevance and should be treated as such

RE is the only school subject, IMO, where critical thinking is actively taught and encouraged. Actually learning about religion was only a tiny part of it. I remember talking about drugs, politics, ethics, art and all sorts of shite I would otherwise have had no interest in as a 12 year old wee fanny.

For what it's worth, from what I can remember neither creationism nor the big bang theory were taught as fact or in any great detail at any stage of my education.

[Tom McB]

My god, you were a teacher?

Are the school aware of your views on re-integrating rapists into their past careers as if nothing happened?

Hiya, still think that using terms describing mental illness as terms of abuse is morally defensible?

ETA fixed for crap typing.

[paranoid android]

Hiya, still think that using terms describing metal illness as terms of abuse is morally defensible?

Metal illness?

[Tom McB]

Tom McB a teacher? That is worrying.

Not as worrying as a rape enabler who described the raped woman as a drunk burd, and oops that was you.

And no, how could I be posting during the day If I was still teaching.

Retired, my little misogynist.

[Tom McB]

Metal illness?

Again my typing is pish. Thank will.

[LinkinFighter]

Not as worrying as a rape enabler who described the raped woman as a drunk burd, and oops that was you.

And no, how could I be posting during the day If I was still teaching.

Retired, my little misogynist.

Over 60 as well? Makes sense.

[Silvio Tattiescone]

[Hedgecutter]

Living in a country which shares it's name with a bit of poultry is getting the better of the Turks I see.

[Gaz]

RE is the only school subject, IMO, where critical thinking is actively taught and encouraged

What utter bollocks

[dorlomin]

If we take 'proof' to mean 100% certainty, then yes, science doesn't 'prove' anything because there's always the possibility that you're wrong because you just don't know enough.

Science always expects there to be space for doubt because the universe has turned out so much weirder than we ever expected. 110 years ago everyone would have said that Newtons laws were as good as proven, but then we discovered they were only a special case of a much wider set of laws when Einstein demonstrated special relativity then general relativity.

Back then almost everyone would have told you that light was a wave, we had proven it solidly. But in 1904 Einstein demonstrated it was a particle. Later we realised it was both and neither. Then we discovered that electrons were waves and particles and soon everything was really a wave and a particle....

We regard science as being our current best guess at what the universe is like. Some guesses are more cerain to be unlikely to change than others. But almost any scientist will disdainfully tell you that proof is for maths.

[stumigoo]

What utter bollocks

I'm hoping this is a reaction to the 'only subject' bit rather than the RE bit? As an RE teacher I'm always ready to pounce at the slightest hint of RE bashing! All subjects should be teaching critical thinking, it's one of the main principals of education surely?