should creationism be on the science syllabus

[zippitippitoes]

\link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2078747,00.html\ Interesting article}

Fab, mb!

I particularly like the graph of the pirates and the global average temps. I used to do a similar one for undergraduate lectures to illustrate the difference between correlation and causation showing (iirc) an inverse relationship between the price of bananas and Arsenal's away scores 1986-1996.

OK, just to join in: hell, no. Maybe in RE if you must, but to suggest it should be taught as science is staggeringly awful. How on earth would it be examined??? Yes, you get full marks for not applying any shred of scientific thought...

And whatever next? Flat Earth 'theory' as geography? Holocaust denial as History? Bonkers

I want to buy a 'Noodly appendage' tee shirt and a 'Pirates against average temparature' mug to use at school. Any kid who spots the reference goes straight into the G and T class

But, mb, if you're going to help teach Church of the FSM at school, don't you need to wear the appropriate regalia? And also get Fridays off?

I miss Bob. Bob wasn't big here, was he? (Church of the Subgenius.)

I'm not sure if theu let women take the service!

I'd look good in the hat and eye patch

Oh, no, the FSM sees us all as people, She's above such details as genetalia.

SenoraPostrophe has part of it.
Creationism and "Intelligent" Design are a bit of a century old, but yes they were invented by religious nuts.

Actually, the most sustained and intelligent attack on evolution was by physicists.
Evolution requires millions of years, yet Victorian scientists had worked out that the Sun could only be at most 50-100,000 years old. This was because there was no known energy source that could burn for that long. It was only when nuclear energy was discovered that they fully accepted evolution.
It is in one sense quite odd that the Sun burns so stably for such a huge length of time. A dinosaur looking up the Sun would have seen very little difference to what we see today.
There is a sort of "creationism for grown ups", called the Anthropic principle. For life of any form to exist, certain parameters of the universe must be within surprisingly small ranges. Slightly stronger gravity, and stars would burn very brightly for a short period, a little less and they wouldn't form. A very slight asymmetry in the early universe means there is a lot more matter than anti matter, else there would be no stability at all. Without the greenhouse effect, the zone around a star which could allow water would be so small that our flavour of life would be hugely improbable.
This may or may not allow for a God, but is an interesting point of view.

And that is my big problem with Creationism.
It's stupid.
It's not a complex argument, or a coherent explanation that happens not to be true. No honest person with an education could possibly state it as true. The Lord of the Rings is not a history of pre Roman Britain, at least I don't think so :), but at least it is interesting.
Creationism is at it's heart a rejection of observed fact because they are inconsistent with a stupid view of an ancient superstition.
Are we to teach copromancy in schools, because as the arts graduates in the ministry put it "there has been debate on this view" ?

Ah - the Simpsons always an appropriate quote for any occasion...

"God has no place in state education, just as facts have no place in organised religion."

[now I shall parp myself and leave...]

I feel \link{http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512\this} has a place on this thread.

lmfao at intelligent falling

where is bloss? reckon she'll have something to say on this...

of course it shouldn't in answer to the OP.

Here is a parallel:

When I was studying psychology, we were studying psychosis. The lecturer gave us a brief "Theory" os psychosis from several schools of thought, INCLUDING the religious, which claims it is demonic posession. This was helpful for two reasons (1) lots of people believe this, and it is one interpretation of the world, and is useful to examine it in the light of the evidence and agree/disagree as appropriate. (b) at the time, I thought that psychosis WAS caused by demonic possession. A thorough examination of the evidence made me question my beliefs.

I think it is important to look at all theories in science - particularly when they are held by so many people - so that you can weigh up the pros and cons and come to your own conclusion. A very important part of learning. So: here is the evidence (fossil record etc) and here are the theories which explain this - what do you think? Perfectly valid.

It is also important that we teach our young people exactly why vast number of Americans are barking mad.

But ID is not a scientific theory in any way that science would recognise

... but it is a theroy which is popular and should be addressed. In all likelihood there will be a lot of children who are being taught at church/home that creationism is true - it's common in evangelical churches. I think it's important to present the theory and explain why it is wrong.

They do set themselves up as a branch of science, though (the IDers). TBH the scientists I know just laugh. They aren't exactly threatened by it! I have one friend, an evolutionary biologist, who has got a grant from an ID foundation (I forget the name) and is feeling twitchy about the link, but then, she knows she's using their money for good (or evil, from their point of view).

Intelligent falling? They're scary-arsed bastards and no mistake.

Nothing I've read so far has swayed me from my original assertion of "loon" btw.

I spent a day in the hosp recently and got talking to a nice woman and during conversation she said that in her son's class in school 28 out of 30 kids believed in evolution. SHe was truely shocked (she was a Jehova sp?). That means she said that 28 don't beleve in God.

I tried to change the subject to no avail and then told her how I was taught biology by a Nun and we used ot make her life a misery by asking her if the Catholic Church approved of Incest. Afterall if we start with Adam and Eve then their children must procreate. SHe was glad to see the back of us I can tell you.

mp, because it is 'popular' it doesn't make it science. Fair game to discuss it in RE, but not as science, because it isn't scince.

Otherwise we might as well discus the explanation of the Flying Spagetti Monster

But if the president of the free world believed in teh Flying Spaghetti Monster, wouldn't it be appropriate to discuss it in it's scientific context?

MP the fact is it has no scientific context.
That's what this is about!!

It's still a scientific theory, believed by lots of people. I think that looking at and discussing different theories is the best way to learn.

No, we'd need a new subject, as I mentioned at the beginning of the thread, called "What loons believe".

MP, it's not a scientific theory. It's a theory.

I could say that I believe the world was created by a giant dog who licked everthing to shape out of custard, which he then microwaved with a special cling film over it to make it solid.

Should that be discussed in science, or in "What loons believe" lessons?

No, what ID says is, 'We don't understand this, so God must have done it' That makes it a religious belief not science. teach it in RE, fine but this is not science.