[_ Old Earth _] Teaching Creation theory

[Milk-Drops]

I understand that many here reject the concept of the theory of Evolution, The Big Bang Theory, Many thoeries on Dating methods, etc.

What I want to get at is what theories would you like to have replace these and how would they function?

For instance, what would be the Creation Theory? What model can be shown and used to explain creation?

What about Creator theory? Creation Theory needs to be based on the reliable theory that there is a creator. What model could we use explain this?

What about the theory of the age of the universe? What could be used to explain the age of the universe.

Earth Age theory, what theory could be used to explain how the earth is as old as it is?

There are many more theories that would also need to be considered. Like speciation, disease, tectonics, sediment layering, etc.

Does anyone want to explain some models?

 

[Vaccine]

I understand that many here reject the concept of the theory of Evolution, The Big Bang Theory, Many thoeries on Dating methods, etc.

What I want to get at is what theories would you like to have replace these and how would they function?

For instance, what would be the Creation Theory? What model can be shown and used to explain creation?

What about Creator theory? Creation Theory needs to be based on the reliable theory that there is a creator. What model could we use explain this?

What about the theory of the age of the universe? What could be used to explain the age of the universe.

Earth Age theory, what theory could be used to explain how the earth is as old as it is?

There are many more theories that would also need to be considered. Like speciation, disease, tectonics, sediment layering, etc.

Does anyone want to explain some models?

You bring up an important question. I would also like to clarify my position, I do not reject the theory of evolution, rather that it can explain origins is my objection. I am glad to hear some schools are teaching intelligent design theory.
I will confess, I'm not the best person to ask since I'm fairly new to creation and would hesitate teaching it in schools. I know little about the education system but think it does more harm than good to teach something your heart isn't into. I firmly believe in creation now, but I can't teach someone else to believe it. There's evidence for and against, it just depends your point of view. Is it even possible to completely exclude any contraversial subjects with the internet and social media?

It is my hope we step back to what is observable, testable, and repeatable.

 

[Barbarian]

You bring up an important question. I would also like to clarify my position, I do not reject the theory of evolution, rather that it can explain origins is my objection. I am glad to hear some schools are teaching intelligent design theory.

Very doubtful. There was a trial over it, and it was shown to be a religion, and hence not legal to teach in public school science classes. It was the case in which IDer and Discovery Institute fellow Michael Behe admitted that ID was science in the same sense that astrology is science.

I will confess, I'm not the best person to ask since I'm fairly new to creation and would hesitate teaching it in schools.

McLean vs. Arkansas settled that one. Supreme Court ruled that teaching religion in public school science class is illegal.

 

[Vaccine]

Well I said I wasn't the best one to ask about the public education system. We homeschool our 3 kids.

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, you can do a pretty good job homeschooling, if you have are well-educated in the core subjects, and you put the time in. I know a number of people who have done a good job at it. In theory, it works better because one on one is better than one on fifteen or twenty.

I put together a science system for home-schoolers, with a physics module using everyday stuff to demonstrate important concepts. If your kids are middle school or high school age, and you need some labs, let me know.

 

[Vaccine]

Hi Barbarian! You suprise me. I am genuinely impressed. My oldest is 11 and passing all the CAT's with flying colors. I will have to get back about the labs, but I do appreciate the offer.

 

[Barbarian]

I did a really cool simple machines lab for another participant here, on the way pulleys increase force, but not work, using broomsticks and rope. It went very well for him, he said.

 

[Sparkey]

What I want to get at is what theories would you like to have replace these and how would they function?

Frank and upright discussion regarding the "method" would be a start in the right direction. If we don't want to teach religion then don't allow Science to be venerated. Showing how we so often stumble onto discoveries while looking elsewhere doesn't make Science an eligible replacement for religion. Letting the humanity of the scientist be seen in a clear light would be a start. Enough of the "Science says..." teaching that leaks into almost every discussion.

 

[Sparkey]

I don't see the point of discussing alternatives that have been ruled out by our courts. I do understand the point of your question but it is moot.

Here though, is a contribution made via Open Access in April 2009 ‘Ethics of science journalism,' by Elizabeth Halliday:
"Knowledge is power: In a world shaped by science, what obligation do scientists have to the public?"

I've enjoyed reading this because Halliday actually does what she says should be done. I like her idea that Scientists should be required to take courses in the Humanities for their degrees and agree that in these days Journalism classes would provide a needed and improved communication method.

 

[Barbarian]

I've enjoyed reading this because Halliday actually does what she says should be done. I like her idea that Scientists should be required to take courses in the Humanities for their degrees and agree that in these days Journalism classes would provide a needed and improved communication method.

There was a time when biologists were expected to know something of philosophy and literature. I was lucky enough to have lived in that time. Biology is now the cutting edge of science, and the explosion of knowledge has made it harder and harder for a biologist to keep up. And that means less time for the humanities. That's too high a cost, but I don't know what the solution is, except ever greater specialization, which is a bad thing in itself.

I would offer to suggest that journalists generally do a very poor job of reporting news in science. Ignorance of science among those in the humanities is far, far greater than ignorance of the humanities among those in science. As technology increasingly intrudes on all aspects of life, we can ill afford such ignorance of biology in the population at large.

 

[Sparkey]

I would offer to suggest that journalists generally do a very poor job of reporting news in science. Ignorance of science among those in the humanities is far, far greater than ignorance of the humanities among those in science.

Halliday agrees.

Considering that Americans report that their primary
source of science news is television (NSB 2008), the
confusion over basic facts is not terribly surprising. If
you watched 5 hours of cable news in 2007, you would
likely have seen only 1 min about science and technology,
1.25 min about the environment, and 3.46 min
about health and health care (PEJ 2008).

On the other hand, you would have seen 10 min of celebrity news, at
least 26 min on crime, and 35 min about campaigns
and the election. The science news coverage on cable
television is not anomalous among media outlets:
science topics are only 1 to 2% of the news topics covered
on network nightly news, in online news sources, and
in newspapers (PEJ 2008).

The paucity of science coverage is one factor that may explain
why Americans have difficulty delineating science
from pseudoscience (NSB 2008).
Nevertheless, Americans generally think highly of
science, and turn to popular books and the internet to
inform themselves about specific scientific issues they
are interested in (NSB 2008).

When surveyed, only
10% of Americans believe they are well informed
about new scientific discoveries, but 47% of Americans report
having ‘a lot’ of interest in science news
(VCU 2006).

I like her view because it does share the burden across the field to Journalist and to the General Public. She also places the solution within the grasp of the Scientific Community who are distanced further and further from general folk as they gain greater and greater grasp of their chosen subject matter. Each field of study worth studying contains its own precise language. Staying in touch with how to speak well while communicating technical concepts to the layperson is crucial if Scientists are to achieve their goal of sharing their discoveries with the "common man".

 

[Barbarian]

It's rumored that Carl Sagan did not get an appointment to the National Academy of Sciences, in spite of his breakthrough work in planetary astronomy, because some well-placed person looked down on "popularizers."

I think it's absolutely essential that first-rate scientists write works for and accessible to, the average person. Sagan, Gould, Mayr, Hawking, Sean Carroll and a host of others deserve our thanks and respect for bringing important ideas about science into the mainstream. It doesn't happen enough.

 

[Vaccine]

If we don't want to teach religion then don't allow Science to be venerated.

Good evening Sparrowhawke! I agree. Good stuff from Halliday too with more courses in the himanities.
My wife writes reviews of homeschooling curriculum so we get to see a wide range of material. I sure don't envy a high school biology teacher nowadays.

 

[Barbarian]

If we don't want to teach religion then don't allow Science to be venerated.

That is a continuing problem. Scientists will tell you that it's just a method, a way of learning about the natural universe, but a lot of laymen have an almost religious awe of it. This is why, I think, some creationists want to argue that their beliefs are science. Fact is, science is too weak a method to do what religion will do. The key to science is that nothing we can do works better for the limited application that science has.

No more than that. It's not a sin to be unscientific. I am often unscientific myself, when the issue requires it. And in being a human, that happens a lot.