Creationism/ID is Irish Schools

Conor108

Just wondering what peoples opionions are on this. For or against? I'd be very strongly against it tbh

Karoma

You should probably state explicitly whether you mean it should replace the theory of evolution or be taught alongside it.

PDN

I think the poll probably needs a few more options.

I would suggest the following options might produce results that are more informative.
1. Creationism or ID should be taught in Science classes instead of evolution.
2. They should be taught in science classes alongside evolution.
3. They should be taught in Religious education classes but not in Science classes.
4. They should not be taught at all.

Personally i would go for Option 3. I don't think they should be taught in Science classes in schools that receive State funding. I do think that they should be presented in RE classes as they are religious viewpoints that are held by quite a few people.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I think the poll probably needs a few more options.

I would suggest the following options might produce results that are more informative.
1. Creationism or ID should be taught in Science classes instead of evolution.
2. They should be taught in science classes alongside evolution.
3. They should be taught in Religious education classes but not in Science classes.
4. They should not be taught at all.

Personally i would go for Option 3. I don't think they should be taught in Science classes in schools that receive State funding. I do think that they should be presented in RE classes as they are religious viewpoints that are held by quite a few people.

I'd also go with 3. In some sense, I'd favour extending that to all schools, privately funded or not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JC 2K3

I've always wondered, how the hell would you teach Intelligent Design? I mean there isn't all that much to say on the subject from a secular perspective. Personally I probably wouldn't have a problem with teaching kids that many people believe that we were all created by an intelligent, supreme being, but not with teaching them a course "debunking" evolution or teaching the bible as scientific fact.

Conor108

Okey Dokey, How do I edit the poll?

hairyheretic

As part of a religious class, fine. As part of a science class, not a chance.

Is someone really considering bringing this Id nonsense onto the school ciriculum:eek:

philologos

It's already taught for RE classes, well the Genesis narrative was dealt and we looked at other creation myths from other cultures.

mcgarnicle

Like most here I'd agree that it should be taught in an RE class to the extent that the kids may be told that some people believe in creationism. It should not be proposed as a viable alternative to evolution, especially for younger kids who obviously won't have any real understanding of biology and could see each argument as equally compelling and plausible.

Fanny Cradock

I'd go with 3 myself. However, I'd be concerned that the creationist belief (in this specific context) could become synonymous with the only valid interpretation open to Christians - which it's not of course. There is probably too much focus put on this issue.

Zombrex

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I've always wondered, how the hell would you teach Intelligent Design?

Was thinking the exact same thing.

It has been established in the US that to actually accept "Intelligent Design" as science in the first place one has to change the common definition of science.

As we are hashing out in the Creationist thread there are no actual scientific theories of "Intelligent Design" (anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand what a scientific theory is, and if they think I'm wrong feel free to present an actual scientific theory modeling intelligent design)

Instead what you have is this wishy washy claim that certain aspects of biological systems suggest that they could only have been produced through some unknown and undefined application of some unknown and undefined super intelligence. Which is not science. Its guessing.

So even if I agreed that ID should be taught in science class I've no idea how anyone would actually do that.

Dave!

Definitely not, thank you please.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is probably too much focus put on this issue.

Amen to that. i went to a catholic school and it went like this.

Religion. creation thought. But believe it or not a de la salle brother thought us that Adam and Eve was a parable for God creating through evolution.

Science. Evolution. Teacher was quite engaging at times when I used to annoy him about it.

The pupils. Those who believed in God, discerned things for themselves, trying to reason the two. Those who didn't, just learned what they had to and took the notes to pass the exams.

The only issue I would have, is if it was compulsory to have to take the evolution question in exams. We had a choice, think thats still the case. As someone who doesn't believe in evolution(not militantly though), I would be quite uncomfortable presenting answers as facts, when I really don't believe them. Thats my 2 cent anyway.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

The only issue I would have, is if it was compulsory to have to take the evolution question in exams. We had a choice, think thats still the case. As someone who doesn't believe in evolution(not militantly though), I would be quite uncomfortable presenting answers as facts, when I really don't believe them. Thats my 2 cent anyway.

You think students should be free to simply not answer questions in official state exams that they don't want to?

I can see that working well ....

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

You think students should be free to simply not answer questions in official state exams that they don't want to?

I can see that working well ....

Yes, Yes I do. You got exactly what I was saying. 10 out of 10 Wicknight.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes, Yes I do. You got exactly what I was saying. 10 out of 10 Wicknight.

Oh right .. so students shouldn't have to answer questions about things you personally don't believe in, like evolution ...

Right got you. This isn't a general assertion (that would be of course completely ridiculous, you would have students across the country refusing to answer questions from maths to history). It was an assertion specifically about evolution, because evolution is really really important (to you)

Nonsense :rolleyes:

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh right .. so students shouldn't have to answer questions about things you personally don't believe in, like evolution ...

Right got you. This isn't a general assertion (that would be of course completely ridiculous, you would have students across the country refusing to answer questions from maths to history). It was an assertion specifically about evolution, because evolution is really really important (to you)

Nonsense :rolleyes:

Ok.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh right .. so students shouldn't have to answer questions about things you personally don't believe in, like evolution ...

Right got you. This isn't a general assertion (that would be of course completely ridiculous, you would have students across the country refusing to answer questions from maths to history). It was an assertion specifically about evolution, because evolution is really really important (to you)

Nonsense :rolleyes:

Er, on most exam papers, you'd be doing, say, 5 questions out of a dozen. Obviously you can therefore avoid questions about evolution (assuming there are 7 or less!).

What JimiTime is referring to is presumably the practice of making some questions compulsory - as in "you must answer questions 1, 2, and 3, and any two other questions".

For the record, I don't agree. In a general biology exam, it would be ridiculous for all the obligatory questions to avoid evolution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

For the record, I don't agree. In a general biology exam, it would be ridiculous for all the obligatory questions to avoid evolution.

Of course it would be, which is why I said "nonsense"

The point is why evolution?

Surely a someone would be equally justified in his "discomfort" to say he doesn't want any of the obligatory questions to include questions on, say, female reproduction or blood transfusions or anything else someone can think of that might conflict some religious teaching out there some where.

There is no actual reason why evolution should be considered a tip-toe issue over anything else. If one applies this to other science subjects such as physics you have to remove pretty much everything from the obligatory questions, since it all conflicts with religion

As I said, nonsense :rolleyes:

bonkey

JimiTime wrote: »

The only issue I would have, is if it was compulsory to have to take the evolution question in exams.

Why? Science exams don't question your belief.

I would be quite uncomfortable presenting answers as facts, when I really don't believe them.

Scientific language is very precise. With respect, its correct usage would almost certainly avoid this problem in the first place.

The problems arise when people - scientific or not - start trying to equate (for example) the word 'theory' with 'just an idea' or 'fact' (to take the two typical extremes). Scientifically, it means neither, nor are either appropriate ways of understanding the term.

I would maintain that only after someone has started accepting these misunderstandings of scientific language as being valid can one arrive at the type of situation you describe.

ETA:

On-topic...I agree that ID should, if so desired, be permissable in the religion class, with certain caveats. The entire "its a science, but there's a conspiracy against us keeping us out of the science class" for example, would have to be abandoned.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course it would be, which is why I said "nonsense"

The point is why evolution?

Surely a someone would be equally justified in his "discomfort" to say he doesn't want any of the obligatory questions to include questions on, say, female reproduction or blood transfusions or anything else someone can think of that might conflict some religious teaching out there some where.

There is no actual reason why evolution should be considered a tip-toe issue over anything else. If one applies this to other science subjects such as physics you have to remove pretty much everything from the obligatory questions, since it all conflicts with religion

As I said, nonsense :rolleyes:

Fair enough. I enjoyed biology and physics in school. Personally, I'd have hated not to do them because of this subject, but that is what I would likely have done. But if thats the way the schooling goes, I suppose we can't stop the wheels of 'progress'. I think the world is going to get harder for Christians because of such attitudes, but there you go. The thing is, its currently not obligitory. If it did become obligitory, i would have to ask why. Currently, for those like you, you can embrace it, those like me can reject it. I don't mind learning about it, but don't tell me to present answers in an exam as though they were factual. There could possibly be some workaround, whereby I could say at the top of the answer that I no way endorse such and such. Again, though, I'm not asking for anything to be changed, the current system is what i endorse. All i can say, is that i pray you never have power.

JimiTime

bonkey wrote: »

Why? Science exams don't question your belief.

It would be more of the presenting an answer that i believe is incorrect or dubious, just for the sake of passing an exam.

Scientific language is very precise. With respect, its correct usage would almost certainly avoid this problem in the first place.

The problems arise when people - scientific or not - start trying to equate (for example) the word 'theory' with 'just an idea' or 'fact' (to take the two typical extremes). Scientifically, it means neither, nor are either appropriate ways of understanding the term.

I would maintain that only after someone has started accepting these misunderstandings of scientific language as being valid can one arrive at the type of situation you describe.

TBH, Wicknight just blew it out of proportion. I'm open to seeing how it would work. i wouldn't make a big song and dance about it. As i said 'I would be quite uncomfortable presenting answers that stated something that I really thought was false'. The discomfort for me is that if the answer was insinuating that we came from apes, then I would be lieing in presnting it as my answer. I don't really want to discuss it any more tbh, it was just an afterthought. No biggie. Completely hypothetical, and I really wouldn't know what I thought until the hypothetical scenario presented itself and I assesed it. i regret I even said it now. It was just a bit whimsical. I thought that because i seconded Fanny Craddocks 'too much focus on the issue' point, folk would not see it i such an extreme way. But there u go.

bonkey

JimiTime wrote: »

Completely hypothetical, and I really wouldn't know what I thought until the hypothetical scenario presented itself and I assesed it.

So you don't believe it should be prevented from being a mandatory issue.

Excellent

I thought that because i seconded Fanny Craddocks 'too much focus on the issue' point, folk would not see it i such an extreme way.

You had one issue, so there was only one issue for people to discuss with you. I certainly didn't take it as extreme, rather as the only point controversial enough to discuss thus far!

You've now clarified that and said you may not have that issue at all...which leaves with nothing really to discuss, and thus in agreement with Fanny's position

Giblet

JimiTime wrote: »

The pupils. Those who believed in God, discerned things for themselves, trying to reason the two. Those who didn't, just learned what they had to and took the notes to pass the exams.

Those who didn't did the discerning much younger! Really though, that's a pretty loaded statement there.

Rev Hellfire

JimiTime wrote: »

It would be more of the presenting an answer that i believe is incorrect or dubious, just for the sake of passing an exam..

You're not asked to state that evolution is fact, but rather you are tested on your knowledge of evolution as accepted by current scientific thinking.

TheThing!

PDN wrote: »

I think the poll probably needs a few more options.

I would suggest the following options might produce results that are more informative.
1. Creationism or ID should be taught in Science classes instead of evolution.
2. They should be taught in science classes alongside evolution.
3. They should be taught in Religious education classes but not in Science classes.
4. They should not be taught at all.

Personally i would go for Option 3. I don't think they should be taught in Science classes in schools that receive State funding. I do think that they should be presented in RE classes as they are religious viewpoints that are held by quite a few people.

ID should not be taught in any class because it is a false set of beliefs. It is put forward as science when it is clearly not. Schools should be free from such idiotic thinking

amadain17

Why would you believe in Creationism? Is it solely because it says it in the Bible? Even on this board athiests and thiests alike agreed that the Bible only contains pharables to help a small desert tribe with no education or knowledge of science survive in the world 2000 years ago. See http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055171162

Mrs. MacGyver

As a former religion teacher I would think that both evolution and creationism can be taught together (learn't both together in college and both compliment themselves in a way in revealing the glory of God).

Ciaran500

Mrs. MacGyver wrote: »

As a former religion teacher I would think that both evolution and creationism can be taught together (learn't both together in college and both compliment themselves in a way in revealing the glory of God).

In RE or Science class?

amadain17

they are not complementary. They are conflicting. Evolution states that we evolved over time by a process of natural selection. Creationism states that a higher being created us and shuns the question 'who created the creator'.

amadain17

Creationism creates more questions than it tries to explain and answers with simply 'that is the wonder of God'.

JoeB-

I personnally would be sick if ID was to be taught in science class as it clearly isn't science.

If it is to be taught in religion class in Catholic schools that'd be ok. I don't think religion is tested in state exams so no problem.

If the only schools available to non religious parents are Catholic schools then we have a problem. It would be a problem of the governments making.

If it is to be taught in religion class in multi denominational schools then it is ok as long as the many hundreds of other (tribal) creation myths are also given equal or preportional time.

In the program called 'Lost Tribes' on Discovery the natives believe their forest was created and they have myths around it, they don't describe the creation of the Earth as they have no concept of the Earth. They also believe that people can be 'killed' by magic... if a sick person claims their sickness was caused by a 'witch' of some sort and they make an accusation naming the witch, then the witch is killed, there is no trial and no evidence, once the accusation is made the person must die... two brothers described how a member of another tribe accused their brother and they had to bind up their brother and deliver him to them to prevent a war, his fate was to be killed and his internal organs eaten, it was very sad... I will never forgot how the brothers said what happened when they bound up their own brother, he said 'My brothers, don't do this', they said 'we have no choice' and delivered him into certain death.

I see no difference between these irrational beliefs and those of any of the major religions.

JimiTime

Giblet wrote: »

Those who didn't did the discerning much younger! Really though, that's a pretty loaded statement there.

loaded how? those who believed in god had issue and had to reason things out in their head. those who didn't believe in God, just took the lesson on board like they were in history class etc. Whats loaded?

revhellfire wrote:

You're not asked to state that evolution is fact, but rather you are tested on your knowledge of evolution as accepted by current scientific thinking.

And if it could be stated in such a manner fair enough. I'd still hate to be forced to waste my time with it though. not in an i hate maths type way. just in a, 'i think this is wrong' type way. I'd find it hard to be motivated to learn it tbh. It'd be like learning history from an Israeli when your a palestinian or vice versa IMO. But thats just my feelings, as i said, I wouldn't make a huge fuss about it. I like to have it so its not mandatory, like it is presently.

professore

Conor108 wrote: »

Okey Dokey, How do I edit the poll?

You can't - I got flamed in another thread for putting up a joke poll but wanted to change it afterwards and couldn't - so had to apologise to everyone who complained about it.

JimiTime

bonkey wrote: »

So you don't believe it should be prevented from being a mandatory issue.

Excellent

not sure what you're saying? I'd very much like it if one did not have to answer the evolution question on exam papers, like it is currently. If they made it mandatory, I'd have to see the whys, and how the questions/answers are presented before I conclude what my feelings would be.

You had one issue, so there was only one issue for people to discuss with you. I certainly didn't take it as extreme, rather as the only point controversial enough to discuss thus far!

You've now clarified that and said you may not have that issue at all...which leaves with nothing really to discuss, and thus in agreement with Fanny's position

I'm open to reason on the matter. Its not a big deal, and there is way too much emphasis on the matter, thats not to say i haven't got a view or reservations. As i said, if it was made mandatory, I'd have to weigh up the facts and make an informed decision.

professore

TheThing! wrote: »

ID should not be taught in any class because it is a false set of beliefs. It is put forward as science when it is clearly not. Schools should be free from such idiotic thinking

I would disagree - it is a scientific theory with no possibility of ever being proven or disproven (unless God comes down and intervenes). "The Earth is Flat" is a scientific theory. It is a theory made to fit the biases of the people promoting it rather than the facts as they are known to us.

On the poll I voted "No" - I have no problem with religion being taught but not creationism - it is disastrous for kids' understanding of science.

amadain17

"I would disagree - it is a scientific theory with no possibility of ever being proven or disproven (unless God comes down and intervenes). "

It is NOT a scientific theory. It is a story in a discredited book written long ago to control people in a desert tribe by deluding them into thinking that their Religious Leader had power of knowledge from some bad-tempered, jealous, petty, unjust, unforgiving, control-freak, vindictive, bloodthirsty, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, meglomaniacal, sadomasochistic, bully-diety and therefore should be followed.

Ciaran500

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."

ID isn't a scientific theory.

Scofflaw

professore wrote: »

I would disagree - it is a scientific theory with no possibility of ever being proven or disproven (unless God comes down and intervenes). "The Earth is Flat" is a scientific theory. It is a theory made to fit the biases of the people promoting it rather than the facts as they are known to us.

I would have said that the fact that it is neither provable nor disprovable (unfalsifiable) and requires the supernatural, means that it is anything but a scientific theory. It is a theory about the natural world, certainly, but virtually the definition of an unscientific one.

professore wrote: »

On the poll I voted "No" - I have no problem with religion being taught but not creationism - it is disastrous for kids' understanding of science.

Depends who teaches it!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

It would be nice if the general term 'creationism' wasn't so readily confused with young earth creationism. I can't see how Christian could deny creationism in it's broad sense and remain a Christian. However, one doesn't have to believe in a 6000 year old earth to be a Christian. I believe that some people are deliberately obtuse on this matter.

amadain17 wrote: »

they are not complementary. They are conflicting. Evolution states that we evolved over time by a process of natural selection. Creationism states that a higher being created us and shuns the question 'who created the creator'.

Humm.. I'm not sure about shunning - your clearly too lazy or disinterested to go looking for an answer. That aside, it begs the question why a belief in the spontaneous existence of the universe is somehow more valid than that of God's eternal existence.

amadain17 wrote: »

It is NOT a scientific theory. It is a story in a discredited book written long ago to control people in a desert tribe by deluding them into thinking that their Religious Leader had power of knowledge from some bad-tempered, jealous, petty, unjust, unforgiving, control-freak, vindictive, bloodthirsty, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, meglomaniacal, sadomasochistic, bully-diety and therefore should be followed.

*Yawn*

Yes, we get you vitriolic blow-in types from time to time. Have a read of the charter, Bub.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That aside, it begs the question why a belief in the spontaneous existence of the universe is somehow more valid than that of God's eternal existence.

Well firstly it is the Creationists who claim that everything must have a specific "cause" ... everything except God for some strange reason. They are prefectly happy to reason that this super intelligence just exists and has always just existed, yet have trouble with the idea that something like the universe or the cause of the universe could just exist.

Secondly God is by definition a complex entity by the fact that he possesses ultimate power and intelligence.

On the other hand there is little reason to believe that the elements that triggered the Big Bang were particularly complex, in fact they were probably at a very low fundamental level.

Spyral

I voted no as literal 6 day creationism cannot be proved by science.
However evolution is still only a theroy in the sense of 'we evolved from apes' and so on.

I've yet to see a fish evolve into a goat but hey.

Wicknight wrote: »

Secondly God is by definition a complex entity by the fact that he possesses ultimate power and intelligence.

actually Aquinas states that God is infintley simple in the summa

On the other hand there is little reason to believe that the elements that triggered the Big Bang were particularly complex, in fact they were probably at a very low fundamental level.

the issue of how they got there and who set it off. Einstein said that every experiment needs an initiator.

Also big bang aslo = big bang theory

keyword begins with 'th' and ends in 'eory'

Ciaran500

Spyral wrote: »

However evolution is still only a theroy in the sense of 'we evolved from apes' and so on.

Why do people say this like it makes evolution less valid? Gravity is just a theory, plate tectonics is just a theory, everything used to display this message on you screen is based on theories.

Spyral

Why do people say this like it makes evolution less valid? Gravity is just a theory, plate tectonics is just a theory, everything used to display this message on you screen is based on theories.

well whatever is using to display things on my screen is being proven to work. Evolution cannot make that claim currently. Neither can 6 day creationism.

Gravity can be tested and measured it is not a theory. It's a law.

Scofflaw

Spyral wrote: »

well whatever is using to display things on my screen is being proven to work. Evolution cannot make that claim currently. Neither can 6 day creationism.

You are confusing "proven to me, Spyral" with "proven to people working in the field". Evolution provides testable predictions (such as what will happen to a small population), and every prediction made by the theory has been borne out.

Spyral wrote: »

Gravity can be tested and measured it is not a theory. It's a law.

This is the equation you're referring to:



Newton's Law of Gravity? Yes, the Theory of Evolution does not have a mathematical expression - and that's the difference between a Law and a Theory. As far as understanding the two of them goes, we know how evolution works, and what it is, but we don't know how gravity does, or what it is - so I would say that the latter is on shakier ground. All we've got is a convenient (and possibly approximate) arithmetical rule - but we don't know how it works.

The more I think about this, the more I am in favour of them teaching science in Irish schools.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Spryal wrote:

I've yet to see a fish evolve into a goat but hey.

Well, if you've never seen spontaneous creation like that, then maybe creationism is a crock?

robindch

Spyral wrote:

whatever is using to display things on my screen is being proven to work. Evolution cannot make that claim currently.

Have a read of this:

http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/BUGL/immune.htm#adapt

Natural selection working to protect you, 24x7.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, we get you vitriolic blow-in types from time to time. Have a read of the charter, Bub.

i stand by my opinion, that this is to be the attitude of the future. I really think that this new breed of 'intellectual' is what we have to look forward to.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote: »

i stand by my opinion, that this is to be the attitude of the future. I really think that this new breed of 'intellectual' is what we have to look forward to.

I blame the schools.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote: »

I blame the schools.

cordially,
Scofflaw