TED Conversations

Christopher Halliwell

Secondary Education Physics, Mississippi State University

This conversation is closed.

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?

Share:

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.

  • thumb
    Feb 26 2013: Everything in Biology appears to be designed for a purpose, yet evolutionists claim nothing was designed with a purpose, but came about by natural selection of random mutations over eons of time from a common ancestor. Atheist scientist Richard Dawkins said, “Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” One of the discoverers of the double helix DNA structure said, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see is not designed.” When a piece of ancient pottery is discovered it is readily accepted as designed with a purpose. When a new biological truth is discovered it is readily accepted as not designed with a purpose. Evolution promotes naturalistic thinking while rejecting logical thinking. I suggest you subtitute the word "Evolution" for the word "creation" in your headline.
    • thumb
      Feb 26 2013: If there is a "god" it is not remotely like a human - you cannot guess, you cannot say - any kind of human attribution is false by definition .. except for politics.

      Should I vote for you?

      Who's image will we vote for?

      All is vanity.
      • thumb
        Feb 26 2013: Amen! I do not use the word "false" when speaking of human constructs. I prefer the word "imperfect', or "flawed". It is not possible to prove that god is, or is not, human-like. We cannot use natural laws to investigate supernatural phenomena. As with all personal beliefs we can, and most do, choose to deny the very existence of the supernatural realm. Such Naturalist philosophy is ill-suited to explain anything other than natural phenomena. I do not understand your references to voting.
        "Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity." (Ecclesiastes 12: 8 KJV)
        • thumb
          Feb 27 2013: Well .. let us not use this silly word!

          Let us say "unsuccessful" instead!

          So the value of any notion of "god" is only in the test by which it can dominate others for your own vanity.

          If uttering the unknowable word gets what you want - it is successful.

          So by that definition - just make one up and rule everyone. But it better be a good one.

          I still have respect for the root Jewish mythos that forbade the utterence or the graven image of the non-existent - while still retaining the power to get exactly what you want - the power of satan himself! Who is the exact same fiction as "god". These guys were the greatest psychopaths of all time - and it is by their fiction that the current extinction proceeds unabated .. does "god" love humans? .. By the evidence - he hates us and cannot wait to get us off his universe - that might be the only real proof of a "god" along with all the stories and fictions we ascribe "him"..

          Words collapse them all.

          The truth never lay there.

          But if it is successfuil for some?

          Go for it - they become "god" by surviving.

          And that is the root of truth.

          Come my friend- let us worship the light - the giver of light and the light he casts - Lucifer the great! He is spelled out in the greatest details in his book - the Bible.

          Or we can cast off the shell, and know what is better than light.
      • thumb
        Feb 27 2013: RE: "Well let's not use this silly word. . . "Sorry sir, one of us has slipped off into a parallel universe.The Holy Bible characterizes Lucifer as the Father of lies, the accuser of men, and the prince of darkness, not light. Farewell sir.
        • thumb
          Feb 28 2013: The point is - how can the prince of darkness be called the giver of light?
      • thumb
        Feb 28 2013: RE: "The point is. . . "
        I am unaware of any passage in The Holy Bible which calls Lucifer the giver of light. Here is the one passage where Lucifer is called son of the morning: " How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning ! how art thou cut down to the ground , which didst weaken the nations! " Isaiah 14: 12 KJV
        • thumb
          Feb 28 2013: It is odd that the Latin translation is "giver of light".
          I do not know the etymology of the word as it found its way into the Bible... how is it that a Roman word came to be there in the English translation? Is this the work of Constantine?

          For myself, I already know what "Lucifer" is. And to me, if I followed the teachings of the odl testament, I would be quickly locked up and studied by those desparate to cure psychopathy.

          But in the mean time, I am confident that Jesus was neither a Jew, a Christian nor a satanist.

          If you want to impose on Children any kind of doctrine that makes you a satanist.
          The Scientific method as at its root the acnowledgemnent that "it works for now and can be improved". The Satanists will plug that gap with lies.

          And therefore, If we muzst put these stumbling blocks before our children, I would say that the stumbling block with stairs is preferable to the one designed to dash the childs brains out on the father's ignorance.

          I name all the Judeo-Christians as servers of Satan an I will not tollerate their damage to my child.

          You will notice that I include the doctrine of "the human as a part of teh Empire" as the evil work of the prince of lies - and I have already said that "education" is false - not "flawed" or "imperfect" as you would like to inject your apology for failure - but false - false from the start and false now.

          This notion of "Intelligent design" is a recent thing - none of the great Prophets suggested it. I name it as the work of liars - the Lucifers of the false light.

          If I wanted to join the pillage, I would invent a space-goat which excretes life - and it would be just as valid as your god.

          And it would be just as unreliable - it does not work now, it has never worked, and the advancement of ignorance in the name of a religion is as evil as i can imagine.

          Schools are wrong - not "flawed" wrong - by design - any kind of politics you want to play in that wrongness only adds to it.
      • thumb
        Feb 28 2013: RE: "It is odd. . ." We should teach our children how to discern Truth from theory. Science exists to conduct experiments on theories in an effort to establish truth. Science is one of the most noble human constructs. It is when the Scientific Method is ignored and theories, like Evolution, are represented as scientific Truth that a great disservice is done to Science and to people.
        I found another passage in The Holy Bible that may interest you regarding Lucifer, aka Satan:
        "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
        And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.: II Corinthians 11:13,14 KJV
        • thumb
          Feb 28 2013: This I can agree with.
          The key is for all to uinderstand that science cannot and should not purport to present any more than theory. Therefore the true understanding of what theory is must first be promoted.
          Any scientist who insists that theory is truth should be challenged.
          What is taught in science classes is science - theory, not theology.

          But even before that, the notion of a school must be addressed. As it stands in most places, a school is run as a violation of students.
          No one needs be "taught" - all people have an inate desire to learn. They do not need to be forced to the task.
          If a school was structured such that the student's thirst for learning is supported, that the student decides which knowledge is the way forward for him/her, then the role of teacher passes from dictator to nurturer.

          I would argue that those who nurture the advancement of theory should, at the first, explain what theory is. And then to discern if the student's thirst is theology - to direct the student to a church.

          As it stands, the Creationist push to pollute the discipline of theory is a violation of children on top of the violation they already endure.

          Theologians can believe what they want - but they have not got a mandate to violate anyone but themselves.

          The Victorian classroom model is a platform for violation - and the violators all want a piece of the action.

          If the tree is corrupt, I would say that waging war in the branches is no more than entertainment - if there is a solution, it is the root which needs cutting. Then the war will end with the tree.
    • thumb
      Feb 26 2013: Hi Edward. Living creatures are very different from pottery or any human artifacts.

      When you see some pottery or a watch you can tell it's not a natural phenomena like life. Life is very different from human artifacts.

      Life seems to reproduce and die without any agency.

      Snowflakes look a bit designed, but that's what you get when a bunch of polar water molecules freeze.

      There doesn't seem to be any absolute purpose to life that I can see. Just survival, passing on genes, adaptation, and the meaning humans choose to apply to their own lives.

      The theory of evolution makes logical sense to me. I really don't see how you deny the role of DNA, changes in gene frequency, and the obvious interconnections across the tree of life.

      Look at how much we share with all mammals. Look at how much we share with all vertibrates - four limbs, 2 camera eyes etc. Evolution makes intuitive and scientific sense in light of what we know today about DNA and natural selection.
      • thumb
        Feb 26 2013: Oh sir! I do not deny the role of DNA in biology. What I deny is the explanation that DNA spontaneously evolved via random mutations over eons of time from some unexplained pre-existing ooze. DNA has an immensely high information storage capacity. One microgram of DNA could store as much data as a million CD’s! The code is staggeringly sophisticated using letters and words with the meaning of the words being unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters. No man-made coding system in existence, no matter how sophisticated, can compare to the complexity of the DNA code. Evolution, while claiming to explain everything living, offers no explanation as to how this code originated.
        • thumb
          Feb 27 2013: The origin of life is a not covered by evolution.
          My understanding is the scientific position on Abiogenesis is still very speculative. Whereas the theory of evolution is much better tested and established.
          I agree it is a big challenge. I consider it an open question.

          But I suggest it unlikely to happen in one step.
          We know amino acids occur naturally.
          We know of RNA stuff, like viruses, simpler than DNA stuff.
          We know single cells still exist
          etc.

          So for me it is not completely unfeasible to happen naturally, but I don't have much on an idea how.

          But then again I don't really understand how gravity works. I can do newtons calculations in my sleep. I kind of understand gravitons and gravity force carriers, but it is pretty counter intuitive.

          Personally, I don't find resorting to the supernatural very satisfying for the tough questions e.g. the origin of life, how the universe came to be, and why my football team keeps losing. But they seem the best remaining places to postulate god and I understand others find the god hypothesis makes sense for them.
      • thumb
        Feb 27 2013: I hear you sir. I am not asking you to resort to anything. I am suggesting more supporters of Evolution should admit as you do that it is NOT a complete theory. It is NOT the sole possible explanation for life. And there is not sufficient proof for claiming utter and absolute victory over Creationism. It is not right to teach our children that Evolution is the ONLY possible explanation of life. It is not the only explanation, and it is mostly immature as a science and is often in violation of the Scientific Method.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.