Teaching creation science

Captain !! The hyperbole detector is blowing a gasket !! She won't hold much longer !!

 

Meatros:

We should teach students that there are very
valid arguments both for and against evolution and uniformitarianism and that they should be
encouraged to reinvestigate ALL the known data
and reexamine ALL the hypotheses. We should
teach them that they should not bend to ANYONE's intimidations but realize that men make mistakes
and men also share agenda. We should let them
know that the road of least resistance isn't
necessarily the right road, and that they will face opposition. However, the ONLY thing that matters is finding the TRUTH and not the furthering of one's career. We should supply our
students with as much documented information as
possible no matter the implications. Information
should NEVER be withheld simply because it may
cause conflict----that is part of the learning
process. The information should not be blended
to present authoritative speculation as
unchallenged when clearly is. It is that
challenge that make learning interesting and
worthy of pursuit...

 

Actually, I think we should 'teach' creationism in upper level science classes. At the high school level, I don't think it is possible for students (in general) to have the logical or scientific background to recognize fallacious arguments. However, students with some college level instruction in science can easily grasp the scientific fallacies that are often masquerading as creationism. I've personally found it to be a very useful exercise and discussion.

EF

 

I agree Elena, [...if you are going to teach creationism ...] "'teach' creationism in upper level science classes". High School may be too early but it's when kids are still very impressionable but curious too, and able to think. High school should be a time when we delve into 'how to reason' and 'how to recognise faulty reasoning'. Issues of our faith need to be taught just as strongly during this time for these very reasons.

Rob

[ July 03, 2003, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]

 

Gina

I would invite to read through the thread "What did change your mind" ( http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000258 ) started by Andy recently. From what I remember, there has yet to be anyone who has converted from theistic evolution to YEC post, but there have been several who went from YEC to evolution. It goes off topic a bit but if you keep reading through you can pick out the ones that are on topic.

What you will find largely is people who were brought up conservatively and believing in YEC who converted when they were exposed to the evidence. Everyone who is still here were able to weather the conversion and are still Christians and are involved in a Christian board such as this. But I fear that there will be those who when they learn about evolution and such will rebel against God because it is such a shift from what they have been taught by those they trusted.

I think you will also find that those of us here who accept the evidence for creation do not find that this contradicts the Bible. The Bible should not (and will not) contradict what we find in nature.

Good luck in your search. Sorry I don't have a good book to recommend.

 

Elena wrote:

If you mean that children should be taught that some people believe in young earth creationism during their later high school years I agree. It is appropriate that students be exposed to a wide range of current opinions.

At the same time, upper high school is a time when students must begin to discern the difference between opinion and elite opinion. They need to begin to learn that while it might be true that nearly half of Americans polled believe in some form of young-earth creationism that that does not hold among those with scientific education. Students ought to learn that many people believe in young earth creationism for religious reasons. They should also be made to understood that there is scientific consensus that evolution of some kind has occurred and is responsible for the diversity of life we observe, and that this happened over some billions of years.

Scientifi creationism flourishes only outside of science. Under no circumstances should students of any age in any class be subjected to it as science of any sort. Although many honorable citizens of this great land hold to young-earth creationism, young earth creationism has absolutely no place in the study of science, and that needs to be made clear wherever young earth creationism is discussed.

This might appear heavy-handed, but I think you are right that most high school students cannot distiguish between science and pseudoscience. They are still largely in the factual stage of learning science. Many will fail to distinguish between science and such fields as parapsychology, UFO studies, homeopathy, Vellikovskiism, etc. If they cannot handle those non-threatening "isms" how will they handle young earth creationism, which may involve some in religious conflict? If students must be exposed to pseudoscience, then I think young earth creationism ought to be one of the last pseudosciences young people are exposed to.

 

>>>>>Meatros, why should we not believe the bible first at face value and base what we look for on that?<<<<<<<

That was tried a couple of hundred years ago and was found to be an inadequate method. The problem is that there is a stark conflict between a literal interpretation of the bible and a straight forward reading of nature's bible. By nature's bible, I mean a reading of the history of the earth as found in the earth. To many of us, it seems more likely that a literal interpretation of the bible is in error, rather than the obvious reading of nature that is provided by nature.

 

This has been an interesting thread, Gina! Going back to your original question about teaching creation science to children (students and others), it is best to keep in mind the goals you have. The goal is not just knowledge, but to encourage continuing curiosity and the ability to think and discern in science and in all of life. I'm not discounting simple knowledge of something -- that's pretty necessary -- but it's not the goal when teaching the kids. The goal is to encourage them to keep going long after, and how to keep going.

Something I noticed with the students I taught either in the public setting or who were coming out of it, as well as in many of the people posting here (on both sides of the issue) was/is the inability to separate fact from opinion; to separate data from interpretation. This is a major lesson which should be taught.

With young children, such as yours, it can be a simple and fun lesson done once or twice. For instance, show them a cheese sandwich. We know WHAT it is. Who made it? We can't tell from just looking at it (unless it is particularly sloppy or particularly neat and someone in the house is known for that!). We can't tell if it was made five minutes ago or last night. We don't know where the bread was made or where the cheese was made. We don't know if it is good or bad. All we know is that here is a cheese sandwich.

Tell them that they have some choices about what to think about this cheese sandwich. Let them contribute to the choices after you have shown them what you mean. Tell them that you just opened the refrigerator and there it was! It just seemed to have come together by itself. Tell them that, no, that was wrong, you have decided that an alien entered the house while you were asleep and made the sandwich. Tell them that the marshmallows came together and experimented with the food in the house. Ask them if they can think up other things. Have fun with it.

Then emphasize that EVERY one of the stories is adding to the fact of 'here's a cheese sandwich', and talk about how to get rid of the bad ideas and keep the good ones. Talk about what other information you need. This is a simple and fun lesson to teach them to separate what is from what they may think ABOUT it.

For older kids, there is something I did for a number of years. This is for late jr. hi, high school, and even college: take an article about a dinosaur or fossils or something like that from a National Geographic. Give the student three different colored highlighter markers. Ask them to mark those sentences and sections of sentences which are verifiable and verified facts in blue (or choose your color). Those sentences or parts of sentences which are presuppositions (we assume this is true and that is what we are basing this article on) as yellow, and the opinions of the author or others being interviewed in pink. Then sit down the next day and discuss. One time around on this one usually goes to show how intertwined opinion and fact and presupposition are, and all are presented as fact. It's a good lesson.

Teach your children how to ask questions, too. The most vivid memory I have here is when my oldest son wanted to know how they got oxygen separated out and put in the oxygen tanks for old people and for welding and such. I didn't know. So we started phone calls. First with a supply store; they routed us back to their supplier, who routed us back still further. After about six calls, we got in touch with a very kind man who was involved in that very process and he spent half an hour with Scott on the phone explaining what was done and how.

Final results? Scott graduated from both high school (public) and university with high honors and is a valued employee where he works today. At a time when others are getting laid off, he is a research and development team leader and has gotten raises. He will be 30 this year....

Take the kids on every field trip you can think of. As a single mom you actually have some freedoms you might not otherwise. I remember taking the kids to tidal pools along the Pacific coast and doing overnight campouts on the beaches. I remember exploring lava tubes up near Mt. Shasta. I remember taking kids to Davis to see the animal medical facilities and to talk to people. Teach them to poke around in unlikely places and find out everything they can.

Do experiments. I remember when I was trying to explain how different atomic structures and such were being worked with and the kids couldn't figure how you could work with something you couldn't see at all. So I took the coffee table (cheap variety -- I was a single mom, too), and tuned it over, supporting it by four bricks. Then I put a couple of objects underneath it while they were out of the room. I remember using a can of tuna and something that had a weird shape, but I don't remember now what it was. Then I brought the kids back in and told them they could not look under the table, but they could shoot marbles under the table and see how and where they came out. Gradually they began to put together the facts: first that there were two things there. Then that they were different shapes and where they were. Then, gradually, they began to get the shapes down. We used a LOT of marbles and it took time, but it helped them understand how you can work with something you cannot see.

All this is science. Not creation science. Not evolution science.

Just science.

Creation and evolution are different ways of looking at the data. Both are interpretations of the facts that we have. Neither field is settled and there is a lot of infighting going on in almost every area of every field of science in both the creation and evolution camps.

So teach the kids the different ways of looking at the data. Get a fossil. Of anything. Or a replica of a fossil is fine. Is this an interesting variation or a 'transition'? Talk about how it could be either. We have NO way of knowing without more information. Teach them to be wary of those who make definite pronouncements about things they cannot know much about.

I have some interesting quotes here for you that may make you smile and feel more secure in working with science with your children:

An extremely healthy dose of skepticism about the reliability of science is an absolutely inevitable consequence of any scientific study of its track record.
Max Scriven

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar to it.
Max Planck

Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on.
Winston Churchill

Science is facts. Just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts. But a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.
Henry Poincare

What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school...It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it...That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does.
Richard Feynman


Gina, it's OK not to understand.

As a Christian, now, in addition to everything above, I would emphasize to the kids that God most certainly DOES understand it all. And that He tells the truth and can communicate it. Show them the mention about the springs of the sea (or deep) in Job 38:16. Mention that we did not even KNOW there were freshwater springs beneath the ocean until the twentieth century! But God knew, and He told Job thousands of years ago and Job faithfully wrote it down. And maybe for thousands of years skeptics considered that verse silly, or allegorical, or whatever -- but it turned out to be literally, absolutely true!

We cannot possibly know everything God knows -- even about our own world or our own selves. But in the Bible we can find out WHERE the truth will lie when we look for it. The Bible gives us a sort of fence that separates the truth from the lie about our world and our universe and ourselves. If we stay within the parameters of what the Bible says is true about creation, then we will be able to find out bits and pieces of the truth with our own searches. If we wander outside that fence, then it is easy to be deceived.

THAT is how the Bible comes into play -- not as a science text, but as a science fence from the Creator Himself. Did the elements come together to somehow form life? The Bible says no, God did it. That is either true or not. We can either trust what God has had written in the Book or not.

I have found He is trustworthy and that it is only in man's interpretation of the data that there seems to be disagreement with what God has told us. I do not find that the data themselves line up against Him!

It IS indoctrination which goes on in the public schools regarding the lack of a necessity for anything but natural processes, and most kids are brainwashed into that idea in direct contradiction to their everyday experiences regarding how hard it is to put things together and how easily they can fall apart! So build the sand castle in the play yard. And then take a bucket of water and wash it away. Which is harder? Which is faster?

They will remember. They will learn to separate fact from idea. They will learn to trust God's Word, too, in the way it should be trusted -- not blindly, but with their eyes wide open. They will learn they never need to check their brains in at the door where the Bible and science are concerned. They will need every bit of their brains available to them and then a little -- but it can be a LOT of fun and a great adventure in life to keep exploring God's world.

 

Hi, Gina. As a creationist myself, I recommend a book written in cartoon format that still deals with the basic issues of Darwinism. It is actually aimed at a Jr. High level, but it still might "fit the bill". It is called What's Darwin Got To Do With It? by Robert C. Newman (Editor), John L. Wiester, Jonathan Moneymaker, Janet Moneymaker.

Here is a link to the Amazon page where you will find further links to illustrations of the actual pages:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830822496/002-1474021-3028817?v=glance

Here is another link with less information, but it offers the book at a smaller price:
http://www.discerningreader.com/whatdargotto.html

The group that sponsors this book also sponsors the ID or Intelligent Design movement and consists of not only true creationists (such as myself) but also a lot of theistic evolutionists. Without getting into a deep discussion about that, let me just say that the book addresses the basic issues of what is wrong with Darwinism that is acceptable to both camps.

As an ex-atheist myself who learned to question the Bible at an early age (I wanted to be a paleontologist when I was 8 and had already discarded the plain meaning of the Genesis text at that age) I know how important it is to teach a proper world-view to kids without destroying their curiosity. I am a full blown YEC (Young Earth Creationist) now myself but this book does not deal with the age of the earth.

Some of the information in this book may be a little over your child's head now... but that won't last long! I highly recommend this book!

 

Just checked my emails for the morning, Gina, and ran across the following from a friend. I cracked up. I think you will enjoy it, too, in between bouts of cringing....

======

The Chronicle of Higher Education
From the issue dated July 4, 2003


http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i43/43b00501.htm

OBSERVER


Textbook Writing 101

By M. GARRETT BAUMAN

Are you ever dissatisfied with your textbooks -- those awkward, overloaded wheelbarrows of information that wobble off course every few pages? Why not assemble your own lecture notes into the ideal textbook for your classes and, incidentally, become rich and famous? As the author of two textbooks on writing -- and purely to serve my colleagues -- let me guide you through the process.

Most professors think you need a great idea for a textbook to put your stamp on the discipline -- a sparkling, cutting-edge theme. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rule #1: Original ideas are messy for students, teachers, editors, and writers. No one really wants them, only the appearance of them. Simply blend a teaspoon of originality into a bucket of the same old thing. Imitate top-selling texts shamelessly.

As you draft sample chapters, you'll face every textbook writer's dilemma -- do I write for students or for the professors who order the copies? Students want simplified, clear, and entertaining texts; to reach an average student, your style must compete with the local newspaper, Saturday Night Live, and Puff Daddy. Professors want intellectual complexity and vocabulary that announces, "This is college, ladies and gentlemen." They want you to sound like The New York Review of Books, PBS, and Joan Didion. From my observation, most textbook writers figure out which group butters their royalty checks. I, however, took the path less traveled and wrote directly for students. Sure, some reviewers sniffed, "Maybe it's OK at a community college, but we would never use it here" -- meaning at a place of higher education. I gathered my integrity about me like sagging underwear and pressed on. Today it gratifies me when students say my book talks to them and they really like that it's not too heavy to carry. Rule #2: Write for both students and professors, to spread the alienation around.

To win a contract, you must create a dazzling book proposal -- a 10-page document that demonstrates your expertise, your ability to write simultaneously to a Harvard Ph.D. and the pimply kid slinging burgers at Wendy's, your skill in smearing a patina of innovation over crass imitation, and your firm, unbiased belief that the book will enhance the publisher's reputation as a leading-edge moneymaker. Direct your proposal and several chapters to acquisitions editors. Those people work hard to fill gaps in their catalogs, anticipate new trends, and save their butts. That final item is important because few acquisition editors survive long enough to face the consequences of their decisions. That opens the door for you to become one of their mistakes. How? By understanding Rule #3: A book proposal delicately balances truth and expectation: 10-percent truth, 90-percent fantasy.

The proposal explains how your book is unique but just like leading books, what makes you the only person in the modern world who can write it, and why it will crush competitors. In general, create the impression that you're full of enthusiasm, creativity, and energy yet also wise, conservative, and experienced -- in other words that you're both edgy and safe. Keep in mind that publishers adhere to the same ratio of 10-percent truth and 90-percent fantasy. So when a publisher offers a contract and promises strong promotion, fame, and early retirement, be wary. Consider the publisher's reputation and your long-term goals. Then follow Rule #4: Accept the first offer any fool makes you.

Sadly, many authors with contracts do not finish their books. Why? Because reviewers mug them. In comfortable anonymity, reviewers announce they liked everything about your book except its main premise. Or, interspersed with sensible praise, they make suggestions that are the equivalent of putting spandex shorts on Michelangelo's David or grafting a third arm to his back. Rule #5: Reviewers always suggest 50 pages of new ideas and insist the book be shorter. Rule #6: What one reviewer loves best another hates best. My advice for authors: Rule #7: Accept reviews with stoic dispassion and gratitude. Rule #8: Smash your hand only into soft objects.

Should your book survive reviews, a copy editor will polish it to perfection. Copy editors are fastidious; they must pass the American Psychological Association's Anal Retentive Assessment to be hired. They worry that you use commas before "ands" in items in a series and daydream about dangling participles in leather jackets. Rule #9: Consistency always outranks creativity. The copy editor also polices political correctness, checking that you used roughly the same number of hypothetical men and women in examples to prevent stereotyping. That means that women should not be nurses, cooks, secretaries, or sex objects. It means men must be.

Finally the big day! A FedEx box arrives with 10 copies of your new book inside. You flinch at the glaring red and canary yellow cover with your name in iridescent blue. You caress it, sniff its newness, crack the spine. Then life picks up exactly where you left it two minutes earlier. You're so sick of the book, you can't bear to read it. No paparazzi snap photos as you emerge from the Piggly Wiggly with groceries. No one sends you sales figures or reviews by John Leonard. Actually, you feel like hiding. You are about to be abused in hundreds of classrooms. In my own classes, students say, "You wrote this?" glancing from me to the book, which I take to mean, "The book's OK, but how did this guy write it?" One student who asked me to autograph the book whispered to his friend, "I bet I'll get more for it at buyback if it's signed."

About a month after publication, I received a postcard from an Ohio professor. In my textbook on college writing, I had narrated an anecdote Abraham Lincoln told, in which he referred to a tightrope walker named Blondin. I had spelled it "Bloudin." The professor corrected me and added, "Such egregious errors mar an otherwise fine book." Ouch! Over the next year and a half I received three more "Aha!" postcards from Ohio. I fixed the errors and was grateful she took the time to notify me. But I felt nervous. Was a horde of professors hunting for all my obscure, petty flubs? Yes they were. But more surprises were coming.

After reading the first chapters, a student in Oregon wrote a bulky letter to tell me that I understood her and was the teacher-guru she had searched for all her life. She truly believed I would help her make personal and writing breakthroughs after years of bitter failure, betrayals, trauma, and suicidal moods. She wondered what would be a good time to arrive at my office. A red flag and a Saturn rocket went up. I sweated out a letter encouraging her to finish the course she was in rather than seeking enlightenment across the country with a married man.

I also received a call from a woman who wanted my help writing a business proposal to Kinko's that, she claimed, would generate $4-billion in new sales. She offered to pay me to write her secret plan -- subtly -- so Kinko's could not steal her idea. "Just tell them enough to tweak their interest," she said.

"Are you going to tell me the plan before I write it up?" I asked.

"I don't think I should."

"I see," I said. "This must be big."

"It's huge! Huge!"

Rule #10: Fame is all it's cracked up to be and less.

You must promote your book -- with dignity if sales are good, shamelessly if not. We've all seen pathetic authors at conferences shifting from foot to foot at the publisher's display, hawking their books. Bookstores and used-book buyers drive them to it, murdering textbooks before they can die natural deaths. When I learned that bookstores made more than I did for each textbook they simply unpacked and put in a bag, my ethics and greed were outraged. Then I learned Rule #11: Stealing is a matter of perspective.

When I spot book buyers slinking around campus snapping up examination copies from instructors on the cheap to be sold for near full price while the author receives nothing, I want to kick the thieving rascals down the stairs. They're kidnapping my child into slavery. It's mine to sell! Here's how the system works. Say a publisher charges $50 for a new textbook. The bookstore marks it up 25 percent to $62.50 (the author gets, say, 15 percent of $50, or $7.50). At semester's end, students sell back their used books for $15, and next term they're resold for $40 (bookstore makes $25; student saves $22.50; author and publisher eat air). New book sales plummet as used books and examination copies flood the market. The publisher raises prices. Higher prices mean more incentive to buy and sell used books. Rule #12: Everybody else is greedy.

Most textbooks die in the first edition. But if you say the old ideas in a new-wave style or have friends on textbook-adoption committees, you may be asked to do a second edition. Warning: You may now actually have to become cutting edge. When colleagues hear you're doing a new edition, some groan, "All the pages will change! I'll have to rewrite my notes!" Others demand 10 crucial revisions. Rule #13: Don't change anything people like and change everything they dislike, even if they're the same thing.

I've just finished a fifth edition now, but I can imagine, when I'm doddering around like old Mr. Chips, being asked to work up a 10th edition. I'll just cackle, heft my book, and sigh, "Let's see how this dead fish smells this year."

M. Garrett Bauman is a professor of English at Monroe Community College (N.Y.) and the author of Ideas and Details: A Guide to College Writing (Harcourt, 2003).

http://chronicle.com
Section: The Chronicle Review
Volume 49, Issue 43, Page B5

 

One other suggestion I thought of if you would like a VHS or DVD presentation that would be appropriate for your child's age - Jr. High:

Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution and
Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution 2
http://www.incrediblecreaturesthatdefyevolution.com/

The web page also has links to sample video and audio clips from the series.

 

That's fine with me, although you will find that scientists have already determined some impossibilities of Genesis (plants growing without sun or heat, 6k year old earth, etc). What I'm saying is this: Creationism, while a nice philosophical belief, doesn't really have any scientific evidence to support it. If we allow our public schools to teach one version of Creation (ie, YEC) in a science class, then shouldn't we have to allow *all* of the other versions as well??


A_Christian Wrote:

Valid arguments? Like what?


The rest of your post was the typical conspiracy theory without evidence that you like to present.

 

Gina, one more place I like to check on the web almost daily is the Creation-Evolution Headlines:
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm

The above site reviews recent evolutionary news and professional joural articles and gives creationist replies or at least asks the questions that truely critical thinkers should ask in the face of mounds of propaganda. Some of these will definitly be over your child's intellectual capacity but many can be "broken down" to a child's level... usually the principals are not very complex even though the details can be.

On the link above you will see a link to the Baloney Detector which gives principles and examples of many of the improper arguments used by evolutionists. Here is the link:
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm

There is also a related Teacher's Resource page giving links to Biblical creation sources but that page is rather incomplete at this time.
http://www.creationsafaris.com/teach.htm

 

Steven, there is enough baloney in that link you listed to keep us busy for weeks explaining why the examples are in error. Here are just a few of the false arguments often given by creationists, given below:

Hint: I have offered a $3,000 reward for a bonafide example of rocks or fossils that are dated by circular reasoning. To collect the reward, you must be very specific about the mistake and where it occurred, as well as offering written references as proof of the mistake. No one has ever been able to meet this challenge. By the way, since the link mentioned it, I will also give $1,000 reward for any real instance where a very long age was ASSUMED for a radioactive half-life, rather than having it based on actual evidence. The comments below make that claim, but I bet you cannot support that claim with evidence.

Here are a few whoppers from the link you gave:

"Circular Reasoning (begging the question, special pleading, petitio principii, a priori reasoning)Definition: Assuming what needs to be proved.
Catch-phrase: Horoscopes prove astrology.
Examples: Tautologies (boys will be boys, a rose is a rose, it’s not over till it’s over, 4 - 2 = 9 - 7, deafness is caused by hearing loss, etc.): Natural Selection translates into survival of the survivors or the fitness of the fit. Using index fossils to date the rock layers, and then using the rock layers to date the fossils they contain. Using homology both as explanation of evolution and proof for it. Using the geologic column as descriptive of evolution and also as evidence for it Assuming long ages for radioactive half-lives, then using them to prove long ages. Inventing a term as if it explains something: e.g., convergent evolution used as an explanation and an evidence for a Darwinian origin of like characteristics in unlike organisms."

 

Gina,

These are some excellent sources - as have been posted.

And the fantastic truth of it is that it relies on hard science instead of the mythologies of evolutionism WHILE ALSO remaining true to the Bible that Christianity is so dependant upon.

Its the best of both. No down side.

It just does not get any better than that!

I hope your homeschool project goes well.

We homeschooled our two daughters through H.S and they both earned scholarships to the Engineering program at NC State.

In Christ,

Bob