Creationism vs Science: Should we teach it in schools?

Hi,
yesterday I wrote kind of prologue to those series about science and creationism. I talked about looking on the other side and not just staying on your opinion. Now as I promised this post will be about the learning of creationism in schools. I also noticed that you guys actually commented on my post which I am very happy about, so thanks again!


It has already been few months but after having the discussion about creationism I remembered it again. In our biology class in autumn we were starting to learn about the life on Earth.

My teacher said that there is an evolution and there are also other version about how it happened, creationism for example. But she said that she wont be learning us about creationism and will left us with the knowledge about evolution (we learned just few basic stuff anyway).


Now when I think about it, this sounds to me kind of unfortunate[1]. Why? Because those people who wont happen to think about it in soon future will at some point get the information, but from what source? Will it be objective (not saying that teachers are always objective, but they should be)? Plus, creationism is such an important thing from the matter that so many people believe in it and in past 99% of people thought it to be true, so how should the class look like?

I think that the teacher should explain on what creationism stands. Seven day creation, how Earth is only 6,000 years old and the Great flood. Then she/he should let the students think about this. I think that on this you can so well show how argumentation work, for example student just can not say that he thinks that seven day creation is stupid. This could learn them a bit of critical thinking and argumentation, though there is one problem.

What if in the class were some people who actually belived in creation? I mean they were surely learned by their parents about creation. Of course it would be in their greatest “benefit” to tell them about evolution and why some things are simply made up about creation, but if I think about how groups of people think in classes maybe it would be kind of like showing all the other students who were taught about the “scientific way” that those two or three students are stupid. This seems to me how it could end and there would be no benefit in it at all, I can imagine how those kids could be kind of stressed if they should trust in evolution or creationism.

What to do with it? Well you could probably pretty much eliminate the problem if you would teach it in higher classes for older students when they are more self-confident and so on, but I do not have the right experience with teaching to really tell how it would end up, still I think that it is important to learn about creationism because then later when those people who did not ever bumped into such thing could easily “convert” to creationism, and as Mike M. quoted Bill Nye, it is not beneficial for the perspective of humanity to have people believing creationism because “nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text, you’re not going to continue to innovate” (Thanks Mike.) And trust me, if you do not know anything about the facts that creationists are using it is extremely persuasive. And yes, large percentage of population, even adults just do not know about those things as far as I know [2]. This is because it was seemingly never important to them, this leads to distrust to science and people not supporting it. Take NASA for example, just because of landing on Moon, one of the most amazing achievments of humanity, it is by part of USA population hated, just because there appeared a group of people, who were able to create arguments, which are easy to understand, but they are not true at all. Those are for example flag flapping in the breeze or blast crater under module and so on, this is practicly the same case.

Thanks for reading, next time on those series I will probably “touch” God a little.

Dragallur

[1]Of course there is limited time in class so learning about creationism would take probably two classes, maybe three depending on the teacher.

[2]I must admit here that I do not have representative sample to tell such a thing but when I see my fellow classmates I am sure that they do not care about science at all. Plus I just found out about some people who think that Earth is flat, so thats it 😀 .

 

 

Advertisements

WTF? A conspiracy? 7) Perfect pictures

Hi,
it has been a long time since I posted about the Moon hoax but today I am returning. So I found that moon hoaxers think that Apollo must be faked because the pictures taken on Moon are strangely good.


Oh wow, that’s right. All of the pictures look like they have been taken by experts who had enough time to put everything right where they wanted. I mean look at it. Buzz saluting during Apollo 11 mission is perfectly placed in the image next to the “waving flag“. And yes there are tens of similar pictures and all of them are so good. OMG!

Fine, it took some time but finally I found the one you can see below.

I mean, ok clearly this picture is not good one, that is obvious since Armstrong steps out of the picture while it is taken.

I am really curious what would hoaxers say to this, it is from Apollo 11 archive

Next one is not good either, the lunar modul is cut on the right.

Fine there is clear mistake on the hoaxer’s side. They assume that they would see a bad picture in magazine? Or in TV? Really that is just so dumb!

Phil Plait on his bad astronomy says that in fox show about moon landing they called some NASA expert on Apollo cameras and they asked him if he knows why those pictures are so good. Well I can imagine that I would not be able to come up with answer right away while someone is recording me for TV show, while trying his best to put me down.

That is all for today.

Dragallur

 

WTF? A conspiracy? 6) No blast crater

Hi,
here it comes, here it goes. Today I will write about another part of conspiracy theory of Moon landing. I know it seems that the list of hoaxes is not ending. And yes it is very long and that is why this hoax is so popular, it seems that there is so many arguments that even if one or two are wrong there is another squad standing behind, it is TRUE. But it will be debunked, I promise!


Today I will talk about the “No blast crater” argument. To this one next picture relates and it is showing lander with circle on the place where should be blast crater.
When all Apollo landings landed it is assumed that they should left a huge blast crater behind since they would fell in great speeds. Also by the way the lander would not survive if it crashed with such a speed to create crater.
Here comes the question: How did NASA managed to not create blast crater?

They DID NOT go so fast when they were landing! As Phil Plait said:

When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour?

Not only that they landed in small speeds but also the surface there is right under millimeters of dust hard rock and the gravity of Moon is much smaller (1/6).
The thing is that actually the lander had so big area of its “legs” that there was about 1,5 pound per square inch which is less than when the astronauts were walking on the Moon and that is why they were making footprints.

Some would say that footprints need water to form, but look at flour, it does not need it! It just stays in very steep shapes! This is called angle of repose. Things that have higher friction are able to have higher angle of repose. Also this is changed by gravity.

Dragallur

PS: I am going to make videos on YouTube. Today or in the weekend I will release probably first one so check it out (channel is ScienceAndRationality)!
1st picture: http://www.americanmoon.org/top10/index.htm
2nd picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_repose

WTF? A conspiracy? 5) Not parallel shadows

Hi,
here it comes, here it goes! Another debunking of the Moon hoax. As for now I already covered 4 “arguments” and you can check them on my other posts, just to see how silly they are.
Flag flapping in the breeze. Deadly radiation of Van Allen belts. Copied backgrounds of NASA images and Erased stars on the pictures + the prologue of those series.

So today I continue and this time I chose the argument of non-parallel shadows on the pictures by NASA.


As you can see on the picture which was taken on Moon the shadows seem very strange. The yellow lines clearly show that the light is much closer to the objects and the Sun would not cast such shadows. This clearly means that those photos are faked and we never went to the Moon.

Ok here comes the fun part again. The hoaxers forgot on thing named: perspective.
The thing is that the Moon is 3D while the photo is just two dimensional. This makes some strange things such as those shadows. Actually I found one debunker to have on his page this photo so, thanks to him. If you viewed this from birds view you would clearly see that those shadows are parallel but from ground and on picture it seems as the shadows head into different directions, so if you dont believe that the Earth is hoaxed you should be convinced. If not you can try it for yourself. Plus if there is some downhill it can be distorted even more.

Thats about it. Thanks for reading.
Dragallur

WTF? A conspiracy? 4) Identical backgrounds

Hi,
with one day pause I am coming with post about conspiracy theory of Moon landing. Yes again there is another “argument” by those hoaxers which I am going to crush to pieces thanks to awesome Phil Plait and his Bad Astronomy webpage.
This time lets focus on identical backgrounds on two images which were surely taken from very different distances and they must be faked because NASA was too lazy and they used same background twice.


Ok so here are the pictures from Apollo 15. On the first one where you can see more of those mountains there is no moonlanding apparatus and there is this rocky ground. While on the other there is the opposite but on both pictures there are same “backgrounds” used.
Fine here comes the debunktion. On Moon things stuff does not behave as one would execpt. On Earth we can judge distances by things around because we already know their size from experience, like house, shrub or car. But we dont have these things on Moon.
Once I was looking into the heart of Black Canyon in USA. It was one of the best things I have seen in my entire life and the same thing happened, I was not able to judge the distance.. it looked like that the bottom is 200 meters below me, but bottom of Black Canyon can be almost 700 meters (on the picture you can see the tallest cliff in Colorado, it was taken from wikipedia, thanks).

So there are no things by which you could judge the size of stuff which means that you dont really know how far it is + we also judge by the blur of the air. When there is stuff far away it is much less visible but on the Moon there is everything perfectly clear and you dont know if the rock is meter, 2, 200 or 10000 far away. Here is nice video which will blow your mind and show that you simply can not trust your eyes.

This means that the first picture is probably much closer to the mountains but still very very far away since they are on both pictures of identical size.

Dragallur
Check out the debunking of: Flag, Stars. And the prologue.

 

WTF? A conspiracy? 3) Van Allen radiation belt

Hi,
one of arguments by hoaxers is that astronauts would never be able to pass Van Allen radiation belts.

First of all, what are the radiation belts.
Those are belts around whole planet created by interaction of Earth`s magnetosphere and solar wind.
Solar wind is flow of energetic particles from Sun. Those belts were first discovered by James Van Allen.
There are two parts of them. Outer belt which is less dangerous and inner belt where is much more charged particles and especially protons.
It was also proved that there is antimatter in those belts but it is just such a low amount that we would not be able to use it anyway.


Well so hoaxers made up that if human being tried to cross this radiation belt it would kill him. The problem is that it would not, if he went fast enough.

Van Allen`s radiation belts are not stationary which means that there are days when there is more radiation and days when there is less.
Quess when NASA wanted Apollo to fly, huh?
So Apollo 11 went in angle of 30° from equator where the concetration of charged particles was smallest.
The fatal dose of radiation is 1000 rads while the astronauts got from the most dangerous part about 26 rads, which they survived.
This site more deeply explains it.
Most of the charged particles would not be even able to penetrate the space craft. Those which would, would give astronauts a dose about 50mSv. Which is something but it even counts with “higher” number of protons to not going through but all of them shooting the body.
The dosimeters you can check here.

Dragallur

WTF? A conspiracy? 2) No stars there?

Hi,
so again I continue with another post about conspiracy theory.
Ok, those people who think that Apollo was faked mission give as an argument that there are no stars visible on the photos. This would mean that those pictures are faked because NASA was not able to count where would those stars be from the Moon and rather decided to erase them completely.


Ok as you can see or rather you can not see any stars on this official picture by NASA. Why is this? Well the answer is easy: if you ever tried to taky any photos of something which was in dark, like in forest but you were standing on the field and the Sun was shining, you already know the answer. When you take such photo you wont be able to see practicly anything in the forest, it will be just black while the rest of the image mainly white.

This is what happened on the Moon, you can easily see the stars there the problem is that the camera can not because everything else: the Moon’s surface, Sun, Earth has such greater apparent magnitude that those stars will just dissapear.

Before the end I will just give here the citation from Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy: “The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that’s like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day. ”

Ok that all for me today, hope you guys dont trust those hoax folks.
To read about Flag flapping in the breeze, read this.

Dragallur

WTF? A conspiracy? 1) Flag flapping

Hi,
last time I talked about a conspiracy about landing on the Moon. Ok I say it is crap and I will try to destroy all the arguments against Apollo 11.
Today I will start with hoax number 1.


Flag flapping in the breeze!

As you can see on this picture there is Neil Armstrong standing next to flag which is said to be flapping in the air, while there is no air on the surface because there is no atmosphere which means no wind.. this is right there can not be any breeze, BUT those people forgot about something.

Ok, so what else could make this flag moving? Right it is the astronaut himself. When Neil or Aldrin took this flag and they put it to the ground they were definitely moving with it and since there is not air friction flag kept on flapping for long time so it looked like breeze. I found video by mythbusters where they show this, plus they test it of course with Earth´s gravity while on Moon I assume that it would be flapping even longer since the gravity would not pull it so much.

Plus if there would be breeze there would be also dust flying around, it is not.

Amy Shira Teitel explains how the flags were constructed so make sure to check it.

There are many arguments so I will explain them one by one in future episodes.

Dragallur

EDIT: The first picture on which it seems that the flag is moving, actually it does not move. The horizontal pole of the flag was not fully expanded and Neil with Aldrin wanted it to look like it is flapping, actually no it is still they did their job really well :D.

WTF? A conspiracy?

Hi,
ok, hi here it took some time but I finally thought that this blog needs some post about conspiracies.

Fine, about month ago I found out that I know few people who really like conspiracies.
I was very surprised because they were totally amused by them and I was like: “Are you kidding me? What is this ****?
Ok first I found out that they deny terrorist attack on the September 2001.
I swallowed, and then “Ok really you deny two huge buildings falling and killing hella people?”

It did not end like that, what pissed me of even more since I love astronomy was that they think that Apollo 11 never landed on the Moon.. ok like really? One of their arguments was that we can not pass alive through Van Allen belts.
As is this lady explaining, you can (there is more stuff in the comment section (and also conspiracy people)).

Anyway on the picture you can see next level conspiracy.

Nevertheless those are another things in the comment section of NASA video that I found (look again on the comment section).

Ok fine now there arises the question which I will let be opened: “How did these people came to those ideas of such conspiracies?”

That´s for me the end today.
Dragallur