Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr Rick · 10-08-2002, 12:22 PM

...and if you were teaching geography, would you round-out the little ones' education with some "alternative" flat-earthism?

Rick

lpetrich · 10-08-2002, 12:31 PM

Or Lamarckism as an alternative to genetics?

Or vitalism as an alternative to biochemistry and molecular biology?

Or demonic possession and exorcism as an alternative to the germ theory of disease?

Or astrology as an alternative to astronomy?

Or the theory that eclipses are caused by monsters eating the Sun and the Moon as an alternative to the theory that eclipses are caused by one object casting a shadow on another?

Or ESP as an alternative to psychology?

RufusAtticus · 10-08-2002, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sciteach:
Actually Albion, the first thing I will teach them is CREATIONISM as an alternative THEORY. Soemthing that should be in the books all along. Wanna coteach?

Oh please. Creationism is not an alternative theory. It is a hypothesis (I'll be generous here) that was disguarded by science along time ago, along with stuff like maggots coming from rotting meat. Not to mention the fact that in Edwards v. Aguillard SCOTUS affirmed that creationism was a religious belief and thus cannot be taught as an alternative to secular scientific theories, such as evolution.

From Levine's & Miller's High School Biology textbook, second edition:

Quote:

From the time of the Greeks, most Western philosophers viewed the material world as rigid, static, and innately flawed. To Plato and Aristotle, both living organisms and inanimate objects were inferior mimics of perfect models called ideal types. Ideal types, found only in the transcendent world of ideas, were perfect and unchanging. But their imperfect copies on Earth were full of flaws that human naturalists saw as variations among members of plant and animal species.

Later, Western philosophers combined many Platonic and Aristotelian ideas with Christian thought to create a world view that encompassed religion, science, and society. Two beliefs in particular constrained the natural sciences. First, theologians believed that because God was perfect, all of His work had to be perfect. Second, philosophers asserted that perfection necessarily implied stability; this that were divine and perfect should not change.

For those reasons, orthodox Christian philosophy taught that after God create the first ideal types, species were fixed for all time. Imperfections appeared in living things because the material world, unlike the spiritual world, is corrupt and imperfect. But because the original Creation was complete and perfect, no organisms had appeared or disappeared, and the type for each species did not change.

Furthermore, each living species had a permanent place in the divine order of things called the Great Chain of Being. Derived form Aristotle�s Scala Naturae, the Great Chain of Being stretched from nonliving matter, through lower forms of life, to humans at the top of the earthly chain. Most important, nearly all European scientists shared the belief that because humans were created in God�s image, our species was unique and essentially different from all the other forms of life. Together, these beliefs formed the original doctrine of creationism.

Albion · 10-08-2002, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Actually Albion, the first thing I will teach them is CREATIONISM as an alternative THEORY. Soemthing that should be in the books all along. Wanna coteach?

Actually Sciteach, creationism isn't a theory. You really don't know the first thing about science, do you?

scigirl · 10-08-2002, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sciteach:
Actually Albion, the first thing I will teach them is CREATIONISM as an alternative THEORY.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html" target="_blank">Which version?</a>

My favorite creation story is the one from finland:

Quote:

A teal flew over the primeval waters but could find no place to land. The Mother of the Water raised her knee above the water, and the teal made a nest on it. It laid six golden eggs and one iron egg, and then it sat warming them. The heat became so intense that the Mother of the Water twitched her knee. The eggs dislodged and broke. The earth formed from one half of a shell, and the sky from the other half. The sun formed from the top half of one yolk, and the moon from the top half of the white. Stars and clouds also formed from parts of the egg.

I'll co-teach with you, sciteach!

scigirl

P.S. sciteach - how would you handle students who were skeptical of creationism or the Bible? Would you treat them less fairly, or give them worse grades, if they believed in evolution?

pangloss · 10-09-2002, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz:


You have avoided the central issue here: what right does any student have to demand a letter of recommendation? I say it is perfectly legitimate for a professor of biology to put any conditions he wants on whether he will give a student his personal (and that's what this is about -- a personal decision) vote of confidence.

You can make all the excuses you want that a creationist might be able to make some contribution to biology. It's entirely possible, but it will be in spite of his demonstrable incompetence in the field. Perhaps the professor should be compelled to write a recommendation against his wishes, in which he says, "This student is palpably ignorant of basic principles of biology. However, he might be highly competent at rote learning, and might be able to master the mechanics of medicine. There is even a one in a million chance that he'll get lucky and accomplish something substantial in the field." Or would you only be satisfied if he had to write nothing but superlatives? That would certainly diminish the value of all recommendations from that professor or institution.

Problem is, word has it that writing a negative letter - even if accurate - has been used as grounds for a law suit. And stupid, self-important people that jurors (that is, us) are, I have little doubt that they would side with the dumb student.

I don't know if this happens in academia, but one of my former employers refused to provide anything but dates of employment for employees changing professions because of such a lawsuit.

It is a hard question, frnakly.

sciteach · 10-09-2002, 01:41 PM

Scigirl, I would be honored to have you coteach. I would learn a lot of Biology. I do love biology, the living world fascinates me because I see so much beauty there. But, no matter how many facts I learned that could be used to imply evolution, I would never do so. They would only serve to strengthen my faith in the Great Designer. By the way, I am reading an interesting book on ID. I would like to see what your opinion is on some of the issues raised.

Albion · 10-09-2002, 02:01 PM

Quote:

But, no matter how many facts I learned that could be used to imply evolution, I would never do so. They would only serve to strengthen my faith in the Great Designer.

Why would evolution and the Great Designer be such mutually exlusive concepts? Most Christians don't seem to have this need to force an either-or attitude based on denying that all the facts that appear to imply evolution actually do imply evolution.

pz · 10-09-2002, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sciteach:
But, no matter how many facts I learned that could be used to imply evolution, I would never do so. They would only serve to strengthen my faith in the Great Designer.

Nice confession of an unscientific commitment to dogma there.

Dr Rick · 10-09-2002, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sciteach:
...no matter how many facts I learned that could be used to imply evolution, I would never do so. They would only serve to strengthen my faith in the Great Designer.

Only irrational thought processes could lead one to dismiss facts prior to knowing them.

Rick

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-08-2002, 12:22 PM	#81
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	...and if you were teaching geography, would you round-out the little ones' education with some "alternative" flat-earthism? Rick

10-08-2002, 12:31 PM	#82
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Or Lamarckism as an alternative to genetics? Or vitalism as an alternative to biochemistry and molecular biology? Or demonic possession and exorcism as an alternative to the germ theory of disease? Or astrology as an alternative to astronomy? Or the theory that eclipses are caused by monsters eating the Sun and the Moon as an alternative to the theory that eclipses are caused by one object casting a shadow on another? Or ESP as an alternative to psychology?

10-09-2002, 01:41 PM	#87
sciteach Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 36	Scigirl, I would be honored to have you coteach. I would learn a lot of Biology. I do love biology, the living world fascinates me because I see so much beauty there. But, no matter how many facts I learned that could be used to imply evolution, I would never do so. They would only serve to strengthen my faith in the Great Designer. By the way, I am reading an interesting book on ID. I would like to see what your opinion is on some of the issues raised.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.