- Christopher Halliwell
- Brookhaven, MS
- United States
Secondary Education Physics, Mississippi State University
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Should public schools be allowed to teach creation myths in science class?
Should christian political parties be allowed to circumvent the scientific method by using politics to put mythology in science textbooks?
Closing Statement from Christopher Halliwell
This conversation contains strongly differing opinions about public education. However, those who commented in favor of introducing creation myths into science textbooks were always religiously motivated. This is no surprise. Instead of appealing to the validity or truth of their respective creation stories, theses people appealed to "teaching the controversy". My response:
There is no controversy concerning evolution in the scientific community. "Teaching the controversy" of creation stories vs evolution is equivalent to teaching astrology next to astronomy, or alchemy next to chemistry, or magic next to electromagnetism. Without any verifiable claims to test, creation stories are not scientific. Ergo they do not belong in a science textbook.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Christopher Halliwell
My purpose in creating this thread is to get a feel for how people in the TED community feel about the political movements to "teach the controversy". I appreciate your input.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
If you want to include a debatie on creationism versus science, fine. Do it in debating classes.
It's just a bit disingenuous to use the principle of free speech, debate, critical thinking as an excuse to sneak teaching creationism alongside science in science classes.
The school kids can come on TED, or Youtube etc or debate class, or the school yard to debate and discuss all they like.
What you proposing is not a good excuse to teach some special interest view alongside the best science.
Christopher Halliwell
Wow. Just, wow. What part of the bible was editted? Which part of gensis was changed to reflect what we now know about the universe? Are you so naive as to think that christianity CHOSE to change? Religions of any sort do not change unless socitey forces them to. Take christians for example. They used the bible to justify everything from war to slavery. Even today people use their respective "holy books" to persecute gay people.
Seriously, wake up.
edward long 100+
Mr. Halliwell issued a call for examples of falsity being presented as scientific truth.
I am awaiting his assessment of the eight stark examples of science teaching false information as though it were truth. Is your question about willingness to change my opinion directed to me or to Mr. Halliwell? If it is to me my answer is I always change my beliefs if they are falsified.
edward long 100+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
When I was a school boy, I was taught that Pluto is a planet.
I know, I know, "but science continually reviews theories and replaces them with better ones!" - so does religion. After all, people do not stones adulterers and sabbath breakers and women are allowed to speak in churches. It's a fact, man, it's a fact. How open are YOU to change your opinion?
Christopher Halliwell
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
My question was addressed to Christopher.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I recall some exagerated cloning claims not so long ago.
In my own personal experience doing post grad work I was nominated to build on some previous research into a stock price prediction model. Looked too good to be true. On closer examination it was. The previous student has been a bit selective with data.
Hopefully any shonks eventually get found out through verification. Which is again the strength of science.
I think the point that science comes back to evidence, repeatable, testable claims is still a strength of the process and helps it improve over time, albiet with a few bumps in the road.
Compare this with personal revelation.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
There is no need to edit the Bible. It's enough that history books are rewritten every decade. Bible is not written to reflect factual truth. It reflects who we are as humans. I find that all atrocities and absurdities in the Bible make us stop and think about them. This is the truth about humans. If you change them or sugar-coat them, you will deny the truth and it will be repeated. I understand that you don't like what is written there.
These things repeat every time when we take pride in our achievements, pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves that "this was then" or "this applies to the other people, not to us". Biblical teachings are hypocritical only when they are applied to "others" instead of ourselves.
Evolution is not possible without both repeatability and random mutations. Religion, in my opinion, serves the purpose of cultural DNA replicated over generations. Other social factors drive the changes. But without DNA repeatability, there would be no social evolution.
Gay persecutions will stop too, just as slavery, sexism, and antisemitism did. Just wait and see.
Christopher Halliwell
You cannot claim that evolution is impossible. You might as well claim that gravity is impossible. There is a huge difference between gravity and the Theory of Gravity. One is an observable fact (gravity), while the other is an explanation (theory) of that fact. Similarly, evolution itself is a fact and the Theory of Evolution is simply an attempt to explain how the fact of evolution occured. If you know anything about scientific theories, then you know that all theories are explanation of at least one observable fact. If you don't believe me, try to find out on your own exaclty what fact the Theory of Evolution attempts to explain. You will discover that the process of change over time (evolution) is not only a demonstrable and observable fact, but you were tricked and deluded by your fellow christians into believing otherwise.
Good luck studying.
edward long 100+
Christopher Halliwell
Visit talkorigins.org to learn more about evolution and the Theory of Evolution. You would do well to learn the difference between the two.
. People can misinterpret data, but facts are facts.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Science is subject to human failings and fraud, but being evidence based it is still perhaps the best process we have for understanding the universe reliably and consistently.
I don't think Edward is suggesting the faults mean we should disregard all science. Just that we should be careful not to overstate the scientific method and the current state of science.
E.g. I agree with Edward that the current scientific position on the origin of life is quite speculative. Whereas I perhaps differ in regards to how well tested evolution is. It is much less speculative than abiogenesis.
We probably also disagree on the value of personal revelation and intuition is sufficient evidence for many claims or beliefs.
edward long 100+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Generalizations are almost never true. "Literal interpretation" is a figure of speech. They may believe what they like. Just ask them why they do not stone adulterers and sabbath breakers and why they do not cut off their hands and pluck their eyes as recommended in Mark 9 or "become eunuchs for the kingdom of God" following a recommendation in Matthew 19:12. It's impossible to interpret the Bible literally. Most of what Jesus says are parables which, by definition, use metaphoric language.
As you may have noticed, I am not opposed to evolution and I don't think creationism belongs in science class. So, I'm not sure why you are trying to teach me. Why do you think that your knowledge is better than mine?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Perhaps understanding whether particular sections were meant literally or figuratively by the authors would provide some context, but in the end its a big collection of diverse books open to divergent interpretation.
Unfortunately the so called instruction manual for life didn't come with an instruction manual or reliable instructor.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Some stories may be mythicalised but people probably did suffer according to the old law. In the middle east some of these old religiously endorsed values still rule.
Whereas becoming eunuchs for god is probably a figure or speech.
I've heard lots of unsatisfactory explanations for the nasty stuff.
Its a bit sad hearing a basically good person trying to explain why gods rules, commands, acts in the bible are moral. Why it was okay to commit genocide, treat women as chattel etc. I suggest the religion, gods, culture and life in general were more brutal backward and barbaric. And trying to connect an all loving god concept to it fails. Hell, is not all loving. Blood sacrifices are not all merciful.
Seems the god of the Christian bible keeps changing the rules and his character.
In the new testament you can read about them deciding whether or not to allow non jews to join the club and whether as adults they need to be circumcised.
I agree with you that you can see how far we have or haven't come, how much improved our society is now compared to the one ruled by Yahweh's rules. From slavery to marrying your rapist. And also how in some ways our basic nature has not changed that much.
I suggest part of the problem is Christianity is still connected to the old sexist, homophobic values in the bible.
There are aspects of the bible about charity etc that still make sense post enlightenment, but a lot that doesn't.
To be ruled by that book is a scary thought.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
I can put my confidence in science proportional to the evidence. I would not put my faith in science. I do not put my faith in the Bible. I do not put my faith in the teachings of any church. That would be idolatry. I put my faith in "I AM WHO I AM".
Obey No1kinobe 50+