Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 425: Line 425:  
From what I understand from the ongoing debate, scientists/evolutionists take the stand that a theory cannot be considered scientific if it cannot be falsifiable, or proven wrong. For example, the current theory of evolution could be proven wrong if in the future we excavate human bones in a jurassic layer. (Actually, wouldn't that just push the time frame back a bit?) Therefore evolution theory is scientific. Evolutionists say that since there is no way to disprove whether God created the world, the theory of intelligent design is not science, and cannot be taught in science class. In fact, there is one way to falsify the theory of intelligent design, isn't there? What if, someday, we run into God, and He denies having created the world? That would falsify the theory of intelligent design, making ID, by definition, science.  {{unsigned|Jimtitcomb}}
 
From what I understand from the ongoing debate, scientists/evolutionists take the stand that a theory cannot be considered scientific if it cannot be falsifiable, or proven wrong. For example, the current theory of evolution could be proven wrong if in the future we excavate human bones in a jurassic layer. (Actually, wouldn't that just push the time frame back a bit?) Therefore evolution theory is scientific. Evolutionists say that since there is no way to disprove whether God created the world, the theory of intelligent design is not science, and cannot be taught in science class. In fact, there is one way to falsify the theory of intelligent design, isn't there? What if, someday, we run into God, and He denies having created the world? That would falsify the theory of intelligent design, making ID, by definition, science.  {{unsigned|Jimtitcomb}}
 
: As you said, they might just put the time frame back a bit.  Or they might claim it to be an intrusive burial.  Or they might claim that it's not actually Jurassic after all.  Whichever it is, they can find ''some'' excuse, so it wouldn't falsify it at all, which means that the theory as a whole (as distinct from some details) is [[falsifiability of evolution|not falsifiable]].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
 
: As you said, they might just put the time frame back a bit.  Or they might claim it to be an intrusive burial.  Or they might claim that it's not actually Jurassic after all.  Whichever it is, they can find ''some'' excuse, so it wouldn't falsify it at all, which means that the theory as a whole (as distinct from some details) is [[falsifiability of evolution|not falsifiable]].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
 +
==Implementation: A question for those who support Creationism in the classroom==
 +
 +
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that you had the power to implement the changes you wanted.  This still leaves a problem: large numbers of science teachers who are not qualified to teach Creationism (certainly not from a strictly Biblical standpoint) and who may be strongly motivated not to teach Creationism.
 +
 +
Now: it's been my experience that having a teacher who is ignorant and/or actively hostile to a concept "educate" children is frequently worse than simply not teaching the concept at all.  Such a teacher can easily impart ideas that are inaccurate or downright wrong.
 +
 +
That being the case, how would you propose dealing with this problem?  I see a few options:
 +
 +
A. Leave it up to individual teachers whether or not to teach Creationism
 +
B. Require teachers, regardless of their personal beliefs, to teach Creationism according to a curriculum approved by Biblical experts, with penalties if they fail to do so.
 +
C. Implement a code of conduct requiring all teachers to be good Christians.  (Not as far-fetched as it sounds; such codes of conduct were common in this country up until the second half of the twentieth century.)
Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,253

edits

Navigation menu