bluefugue

From the NCSE website:

This is a fool's errand. How can you teach science without philosophic and naturalistic biases or assumptions? The method of science is based on a bias in favor of empiricism, and an assumption of naturalism. There are specific philosophical constraints built into the process of doing science. These biases have caught on for the same reason that an empirical bias has been retained for the method of crossing a street or throwing a baseball: because it's useful.

Creationists should go the whole hog. If they want science to be taken out of public schools because of its naturalistic assumptions, then they can't just single out biology. *ALL* of science has to go. That includes the good stuff, like the science that allows us to build computers on which people can type creationist screeds.

I say go for it. When the religious right has succeeded in removing all science education from our public schools, and we rapidly decline to a third-tier nation as a result, it will serve us right for being so fucking stupid. Maybe Britannia will rule the waves again.

Orpheous99

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IesusDomini:


Hey, January 23rd was my birthday. How ironic.

DireStraits

This is a fool's errand.

DS: No argument there.

How can you teach science without philosophic and naturalistic biases or assumptions? The method of science is based on a bias in favor of empiricism, and an assumption of naturalism.

DS: Well, there are two distinct forms of naturalism. Science only adopts methodological naturalism, limiting itself to the study of the natural. Philosophical naturalism is a more extreme position, stating that there is no such think as the supernatural. PN is not necessary to do science, indeed many scientists do in fact believe in the supernatural.

There are specific philosophical constraints built into the process of doing science. These biases have caught on for the same reason that an empirical bias has been retained for the method of crossing a street or throwing a baseball: because it's useful.

DS: Yup. Science is a PRACTICAL method for finding out about the world. It is also extrmely successful.

Creationists should go the whole hog. If they want science to be taken out of public schools because of its naturalistic assumptions, then they can't just single out biology. *ALL* of science has to go.

DS: Ah, but the only science other than perhaps cosmology that contradicts their interpretation of Genesis is biology. The whole point of this movement is to try to get Genesis back into the public schools.

That includes the good stuff, like the science that allows us to build computers on which people can type creationist screeds.

DS: Well, I reckon evolution is good science. Perhaps you really meant "uncontroversial" rather than "good."

I say go for it. When the religious right has succeeded in removing all science education from our public schools, and we rapidly decline to a third-tier nation as a result, it will serve us right for being so fucking stupid. Maybe Britannia will rule the waves again.

DS: Well, I can think of worse nations to do the job;-)

bluefugue

Right, but that's exactly what's so hypocritical about it. Instead of whining about "philosophic bias" and "naturalistic bias," and raising a false standard of "objectivity" that has nothing to do with the scientific method, why don't they call a spade a spade? Oh yeah... because they don't want to be characterized as "guitar-strumming hillbillies" any longer.

Jimmy Higgins

I have not a single problem of teaching creation in the classroom. However, I believe that you can not monopolize the creation teaching on Christian Creation. You have to give all of the creation stories and myths and stuffs. I don't think you'd see the Christians agreeing with that.

bluefugue

Creationists will of course respond that there is scientific evidence for their story, and not for other creation myths. (Because theirs is, of course, the truth.)

bluefugue

Geology too. In fact "creation science" probably butchers geology at least as much as it butchers biology.

tgamble

probably more. This may sound stupid but what, aside from evolution, do creationists dispute about biology?

schu

Well, that kind of anti-intellectualism scares the heck out of me. I see lots of it here in Texas where seemingly intelligent people will denigrate the idea of evolution. With the public schools indoctrinating more than educating we could have big problems down the road.

phlebas

I have a big problem in teaching creationism in a biology class. If you want to teach Genesis or other creation myths in some kind of ancient lit class, go for it, as long as it's an elective.

Evolution belongs in a science class because it's a science theory arrived at by the scientific method. Whether you agree with it or not, it's still science.

Teaching all the creation myths would eat up valuable school time, which is already used inefficiently around here.

I'd be willing to bend if they'd teach evolution in Sunday school. Do you suppose we can get some of those "no one was there" disclaimer labels for the Bible?