Apparently this geological society is trying to murk up the difference between operational science and historical science. Knowledge by degree is not the same as knowledge by observation.
The Geological Society of Australia falsely claims…
“Fundamental Creationism, including so called “Flood Geology”, which disregard scientific evidence such as that based on repeatable observations in the natural world and the geological record, are not science and cannot be taught as science.”
Repeatable observations? What? I had to look at that again! One cannot travel back in time to study past environments in the natural world! It can’t be done, no way, no how. However, we certainly can study objects from the past like the Cambrian rocks in the modern era, but the interpretation of that data is mainly speculation.
This is why many geologists continually have disagreements. These disagreements which include creation scientists are not debating the evidence found, but actually what they are debating over is what they think actually happened from the past. This is known as “historical science.”
The Geological Society of Australia goes on to say…
“An essential element in the teaching of science is the encouragement of students and teachers to critically appraise the evidence for notions being taught as science.”
“The Society states unequivocally that the dogmatic teaching of notions such as Creationism within a science curriculum stifles the development of critical thinking patterns in the developing mind and seriously compromises the best interests of objective public education.
This could eventually hamper the advancement of science and technology as students take their places as leaders of future generations.”
This is an accusation many creationists complain about with the scientific establishment, but this is the first time I have seen “critical thinking” being advocated and claiming creationism is opposed to it.
Students should be able to learn “critical thinking” skills as I have advocated in this blog. Many other creationists feel the same way, and many of them display their acceptance of “critical thinking” in their writing and speeches or interviews.
There are numerous ideas about science, and being able to appraise such things is certainly ideal. But the geological society is wrong for trying to censor creationism which is part of the way some people think. If anything, it’s the society who is the one hampering intellectual freedom.
Many famous scientists were creationists, including Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, John Ray, Nichols Steno, John Woodward and Louis Pasteur.
It’s sad to see Australia’s Geological Society following similar policies in America that limit intellectual freedom, and then falsely defining “historical science” as being the same as “operational science.” Even with disagreements concerning “historical science” no creation scientist objects or hinders “operational science” like setting up experiments and observe phenomena in the present.
Many things are learned that way like the structure of minerals, the behaviour of turbidity currents, the erosion of coastlines, and so on. The new Geological Society in Australia new policy is a regressive one which is based on false accusations with murky definitions of science!