Remember the scientific method? You probably learned about it in school. Let’s review. These are the basic steps:
• You observe the world around you.
• You raise questions about what you see.
• You form a hypothesis (theory) about how something in nature works or will work given a specific set of circumstances.
• You conduct an experiment to see if your hypothesis is correct. If it’s not, you revise your hypothesis.
So: creationism:
Does it fall within the parameters set by the scientific method? Is it scientifically measurable? No. Creationism is the idea that the world and all the creatures in it were created in six days by an invisible deity. This is not directly observable; you cannot make direct observations about the process of supernatural creation. You cannot do experiments on God or ask Him to fill out a questionnaire about His involvement in the generation of all things.
Evolution, on the other hand, can be subjected to experimentation through direct observation of the fossil record and a host of biological and biochemical experiments. Can these experiments be faulty? Of course. But they can be criticized by scientific peers through further observation and experimentation. Evolution, unlike creationism, is a topic of study that belongs squarely in the world of science.
So when Sarah Palin (as “W” before her) suggests that creationism should be taught alongside evolution she’s just plain wrong. A discussion of creationism does not belong in scientific circles and it doesn’t belong in the science classroom. Should creationism be taught in public schools at all? Certainly. There is a place for it: the social studies classroom. World mythology is a topic often discussed in social studies classes. If the Christian myth of creation is placed along side other myths, such as the Iroquois tale of the earth being created on the back of a turtle, then creationism is a proper topic of study in the classroom.
This is no trivial matter. Last year, the Washington Post reported a study that showed that American students are falling behind many other industrialized nations in math and science. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR200712...
Falling behind in science and math will prevent young Americans from competing with their counterparts around the world; and it will lower their chances of prospering in the global economy. To encourage American students to confuse mythology with science is to endanger their economic security in years to come. In the glory days of America, we prided ourselves in being the leaders in scientific innovation. The rest of the world may surpass us if our leaders continue to show disdain for science. Those who advocate teaching creationism in science classrooms are short sighted in the extreme and may endanger the livelihoods of their children—and ours.
Sarah Palin, Creationism & the Furure of America
HalWLanse writes:
"Does it [creationism]fall within the parameters set by the scientific method? Is it scientifically measurable? No....Evolution, on the other hand, can be subjected to experimentation through direct observation of the fossil record and a host of biological and biochemical experiments. Can these experiments be faulty? Of course. But they can be criticized by scientific peers through further observation and experimentation. Evolution, unlike creationism, is a topic of study that belongs squarely in the world of science."
Strictly speaking, neither creationism or evolutionism fall within
the parameters set by the scientific method because one cannot travel back in time and *directly observe* the universe, our solar system, the earth, life on earth, etc. coming into existence. Fossils exist in *the present*, and creationists and evolutionists interpret the fossils differently eg. how long it took fossils to form, what fossils (if any) show transitions from one body plan to another, etc.
In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, Sarah Palin said evolution and creationism should both be taught in public schools. But in an interview the following day with the Anchorage Daily News, Palin said:
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html
***
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of
Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
***
====================================================
Teaching Evolution - Is There a Better Way?
http://www.creationmoments.net/articles/article.php?a=21
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
http://www.rae.org/critanl.html
Should evolution be immune from critical analysis in the science classroom?
http://www.icr.org/article/411/
Teaching Origins in Public Schools
by David Menton
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/teach.htm
===================================================
David Menton bio:
* Biomedical research technician at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota in
the Department of Dermatology (1960-62)
* Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of
Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri (1966-2000)
* Associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (July 2000)
Actually, examining the
Actually, examining the fossil record is a form of direct observation; therefore evolution can be studied scientifically.
a little clarification
Great points here.
I think you meant "those who advocate teaching creationism" in that last sentence.
Important to note also that a hypothesis is a guess based on observations- and a theory is actually an idea well supported by evidence, which may still be adjusted by new finds.
Woops! Thanks!!
Woops! Thanks!!
Post new comment