The Prairie Pooch Hole
Yours truly, Soup Hound Poocher Dog, is a Christian. I believe in a Creator God. Else, how could matter have come into existence? (In other words, I don't know! Do you?)
Recently, Creation Science fathered a child called Intelligent Design. Ben Stein moderated a movie about attempts by mainstream science to suppress Intelligent Design. You heard of the movie?
Pooch Doggy Dog believes that Creation Science - for that is what Intelligent Design really is - should be "taught" in schools. Or, rather I believe it should be "taught about" in schools. The fact that there is a Creation Science movement, the impetus behind the movement, the goals and objectives of it's adherents, all need to be part of school curriculum. I even believe that the science behind Creation Science should be clearly and objectively covered.
For, if this is done, using "just the facts", Creation Science will be seen by students to be wanting.
Ben Stein recently hosted a documentary about the vicious, or as I would term it "vicious", tactics used by mainstream scientists to destroy Creation Science and scientists. What does Mr. Roger Ebert think about this movie?
Read "Win Ben Stein's Mind" to find out!
Posts
I also suggest we teach Scientology in science classes. That way the students will learn that just because it has the word "science" almost in it doesn't mean it's science.
ReplyDeleteYour post makes it unclear whether you support teaching creation "science" alongside other "science" or introducing the ideas of creation science is historical phenomenon.
Adding a qualifier unto "science" makes little sense to me. How about Muslim Science? Hindu Science? Fox News Science? South Park Science?
You appear to argue for "Christian Science" to be taught because it won't hold up anyway. Is it throw them a bone, trick them into looking bad? If you want students to merely be introduced to the subject, then perhaps a historical angle would make more sense.
And another thing:
ReplyDeleteYou suggest your belief in a creator is because "how else could we get matter?"
But what mysteries have you really addressed by adding a creator. How did we get the creator?
He was always there?
Okay, how?
I dunno.
Then we don't have any more answers than we did before the question of God - we just added another layer of mystery surrounded by an anthropomorphic image.
Like we'll feel better thinking a humanoid was somehow in charge when our universe began.
That's fine, but to appeal to a reasonable argument that invokes science (how did we get matter) is a decoy. This has nothing to do with "solving" how we got matter and everything to do with our psyche and need to attach a humanish design to comfort us that things are under-control and meaningful.
Science only deals with the physical; what can be measured and tested. If there is a pre-existent, non-physical God, it lies outside the realm of science. How did matter - the physical - come into existence? I have no idea! Because it makes my mind ache to contemplate no causative agent or force or "something" I choose to be lazy and say "God created matter." Another anthropormorphic layer of mystery? Of course!
ReplyDeleteAgain, I indulge because I recognize my statement lies outside the bounds of science.
As for what I meant by teaching Creation Science. We should teach science! We should teach students about Creation Science as a historical phenomenon. Students should know about the claims and approaches, and the scientific basis for them or not.
In school, I was taught how to write a medical research paper. I was also shown common mistakes, and invalid approaches. It was made clear to me on a logical and factual basis WHY these "things" were wrong in fact and approach.
I believe a similar approach should be used with Creation Science. Point out the problems, and WHY they are problems.
With regard to your first paragraph of comment, you make my point. This isn't about how matter came to be because your mind can ache just as much with how the matter-creator came to be.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to your clarification, are you so sure that the "problems" with Creation Science are not already taught? What you're suggesting is something entirely different than what's happening in states like Kansas where the ground swell is to put Creation Science alongside other options as equally valid alternatives.
In this contentious environment, it's not enough to teach science. Students need to understand how science is misused in our culture. That's all I'm saying.
ReplyDelete