Matt Jones (jonesmat at ohsu.edu) wrote:
: In article <3r8et4$a4h at usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jeffrey brown gabbard,
: >Well, I think this could be a very interesting course. But IMHO this
: >be more of a *history* of science and religion course. We can always
: >from other cultures (past and present), but I feel a science course
: >try and teach (sorry I can't think of any other term but this one)
: >as we understand it today. Not mythology.
This is the last post I'm going to make on this subject here. This
discussion really should be on talk.origins.
I'm not saying that you don't have a point...but why was your message posted
4 times? :)
>: Question: Do you think that *science* courses should teach Galileo and
>: Kepler? Or Rutherford and Bohr? Or Newton? All of these people became
>: famous for theories which fail to describe what we now believe *reality*
These people provided theories that science built on and is still
building on. Something I really like about science is this... Say
Joe Scientist develops ____ theory. For 10 years that theory adequately
describes what it was supposed to. Along comes a new theory that
completely proves the old theory wrong. Now Joe Scientist probably won't
eagerly accept this new theory, but when presented with convincing
evidence---Joe Scientist (if he's a good scientist) will admit that his
theory was wrong and embrace the new one. Creationism doesn't seem to
operate that way. Religion is supposed to deal with faith. It's just
apples and oranges as someone else mentioned.
More thoughts. Say we're teaching a science course and we do mention
a famous theory that is no longer considered to adequately describe
--whatever. In a science course it's perfectly normal to say that
so and so developed such and such theory, but now we know that *this*
is what is really going on. You can't do that with creationism. What
they want is for their theory to be thought of as describing--whatever
equally well as the scientific theory.
>: the history of scienctific ideas and methods has a definite place in a
>: science curriculum.
No argument here. But creationism isn't science.
Sorry if I didn't make my points very clearly, but I've had a three
year old jabbering in my ear while I've been typing this.