[Toshi]

It's pushing it somewhat to go back to the dark ages, and perhaps life expectancy in some places was higher then than it is now - Africa doesn't seem to have benefited so much, or do they not qualify as 'our'?

It must be nice to blame the Christian right for everything.

africa was doing quite ok (at least on an upward trend) +/- petty dictators, racial inequality, and internal conflicts until AIDS.

given that HIV prevention has been greatly hindered by the Catholic church's stance on condom use i would say that Silver and spincrazy have a point.

 

[ioscope]

Catholics, please, save the earth...

 

[Damn True]

people-who-would-have-creationism-taught-in-public-schools, would you have the mormon and scientologist (not to mention even wackier cults) viewpoints put forth for 8th graders to digest?

Yup.
Primarilly because knowledge, understanding and appreciation of peoples cultures and values is the path to people finding a way to get along with one another. And, as I have said before understanding the inflences of society on science and science on society is valueable.

You can't put science and other sbjects into neat little boxes and separate them from each other. To do so only shows a portion of the picture and short changes learning and development.

 

[Damn True]

PS, I'm all for an outright war on any and all of the "religious warlords". Don't think abortion is right, and going to kill someone because you believe it so much? I'm for bombing your church. If someone was to go after W purely because of his stance on religion, go for it. It does not belong. Catholics hate the gays? Why shouldn't they fight back and burn the vatican? Against Dog? No. Against you.

Wow, thats a sure way for people to get along with each other.

 

[Silver]

It must be nice to blame the Christian right for everything.

I'm not blaming the Christian right. I'm blaming Christianity as a whole, protestantism more specifically. Different thread though.

 

[axlvid23]

africa was doing quite ok (at least on an upward trend) +/- petty dictators, racial inequality, and internal conflicts until AIDS.

given that HIV prevention has been greatly hindered by the Catholic church's stance on condom use i would say that Silver and spincrazy have a point.

It's interesting you metion this; because european imperialism (christian fundamentalism before they had a name for it..haha) and "white man's burden" are said to have been the reason why AIDS spread out of Africa in the first place...interestingly enough, this also contributed heavily to the first world war as it aroused some territorial tensions (if I don't have my facts straight..feel free to correct me if they're flawed in some way)...but anyway, I see some scary parallels between the early 20th century(first world war) and now(war on terror).

anyway, my five cents.

 

[Silver]

As far as I am concerned this is a philosophical and moral question which places it far above science in my opinion as it is morals and ethics that dictate how we use knowledge and power and the advances of science.

This is never the intention of creationists in the US. Maybe you're insulated from it a little living in a slightly saner country, so you don't appreciate the gravity of the situation (funny I mention that, seeing as how gravity is merely an unproved theory...)

Again, you are engaging in misdirection (and now I don't know if it is intentional. It may not be, for the reason I just put forward.) This whole debate in Kansas is whether or not a religious argument should be put forward in a science class as science. You do realize that they aren't going to be happy with a cursory mention, right? No mention, no off the cuff speculation as in Hawking's book followed by a shrug. Class time is finite, and this is nothing more than an attempt to redefine what is acceptable as a scientific theory.

Am I against mentioning it? No, as long as it's not taught as science in science class. That is the goal of creationists and ID proponents in this country. Anything else I need to clear up?

 

[Toshi]

It's interesting you metion this; because european imperialism (christian fundamentalism before they had a name for it..haha) and "white man's burden" are said to have been the reason why AIDS spread out of Africa in the first place...interestingly enough, this also contributed heavily to the first world war as it aroused some territorial tensions (if I don't have my facts straight..feel free to correct me if they're flawed in some way)...but anyway, I see some scary parallels between the early 20th century(first world war) and now(war on terror).

anyway, my five cents.

could you say some more on this? i'm not sure i understand this comment. HIV arose from SIV (a simian retrovirus) in the late 20th century... how does WWI fit in?

 

[Damn True]

It's interesting you metion this; because european imperialism (christian fundamentalism before they had a name for it..haha) and "white man's burden" are said to have been the reason why AIDS spread out of Africa in the first place...interestingly enough, this also contributed heavily to the first world war as it aroused some territorial tensions (if I don't have my facts straight..feel free to correct me if they're flawed in some way)...but anyway, I see some scary parallels between the early 20th century(first world war) and now(war on terror).

anyway, my five cents.

You'll need to clarify this. It is my understanding that imperialism is economic.

 

[syadasti]

did you learn about the stanley steamer before being taught how to drive?
Well I do recall that the first steam engine was invented in roughly 1690 to pump water out of mines and that the first four stroke internal combustion engine was invented in the 1870's. I learned that before I learned to drive.

OT, but thats not entirely correct - the Greeks invented the steam engine...

The steam engine was invented by Heron, an ancient Greek geometer and engineer from Alexandria. Heron lived during the first century AD and is sometimes called Hero. Heron made the steam engine as a toy, and called his device "aeolipile," which means "wind ball" in Greek. The steam was supplied by a sealed pot filled with water and placed over a fire. Two tubes came up from the pot, letting the steam flow into a spherical ball of metal. The metallic sphere had two curved outlet tubes, which vented steam. As the steam went through the series of tubes, the metal sphere rotated. The aeolipile is the first known device to transform steam power into rotary motion. The Greeks never used this remarkable device for anything but a novelty. A steam engine designed for real work wasn't designed until 1690, when Dionysius Papin published plans for a for a high-pressure steam engine. Thomas Savery built the first steam engine in 1698. Watt later improved the steam engine.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Most of the world still lives in poverty because a self-proclaimed Christian nation that for the most part hasn't read it's own holy book with a small percentage of the world's population sucks up most of the resources and then pats itself on the back because God has blessed it so well.

Silver, you and I tend not to agree much on threads like this, but I will have to say the more I read, study, and teach the Gospels (which interestingly enough I discovered most fundamentalist pastors shy away from) esspecially Luke in this case the more I see how much emphasis Jesus put on taking care of those around you - and the destination of those who have and choose not to take care of those around them.

I'm glad we're a "blessed" nation, but it troubles me that more is not done publically and privately to stem the tide of for example starvation and such around the world. Jesus even said, those who have much, much will be demanded.

Anyway, between the Gospels and studying about distributive justice I've been on this whole "take care of those around you" kick.

Continue the raging discussion on creation/evolution.....................

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

Did that take long?

One Google, One click.

 

[Damn True]

OT, but thats not entirely correct - the Greeks invented the steam engine...

Pardon me, I should have said "practical" steam engine.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

Yup.

Pragmatism. There is not enough time, money, or resources to teach kids everything.

Primarilly because knowledge, understanding and appreciation of peoples cultures and values is the path to people finding a way to get along with one another.

Global Studies.

And, as I have said before understanding the inflences of society on science and science on society is valueable.

History.

You can't put science and other sbjects into neat little boxes and separate them from each other. To do so only shows a portion of the picture and short changes learning and development.

Synthesis comes later. That's why higher education is soooo important.

 

[spincrazy]

Wow, thats a sure way for people to get along with each other.

Religion is not necessary to produce good people. It only requires that people are raised by good people. Christians love to apply the "I am Christian" label to themselves, regardless if they are good, to feel morally superior. Of course, they only practice what is written in their little book at their discretion. Those that go by their little book to the letter are labeled extremists - islam anyone? Archaic, ignorant thought.

The great raven flys into the sky to block out the sun. This is why nightfall comes.

Foolish sheep. You should be ashamed of yourselves fighting progressive thought for eons and attempting to regress as many other souls on the way as possible.....

 

[Damn True]

Religion is not necessary to produce good people. It only requires that people are raised by good people. Christians love to apply the "I am Christian" label to themselves, regardless if they are good, to feel morally superior. Of course, they only practice what is written in their little book at their discretion. Those that go by their little book to the letter are labeled extremists - islam anyone? Archaic, ignorant thought.

The great raven flys into the sky to block out the sun. This is why nightfall comes.

Foolish sheep. You should be ashamed of yourselves fighting progressive thought for eons and attempting to regress as many other souls on the way as possible.....

You are so filled with fear that you are not taking the time to comprehend what I am suggesting, only offering a narrow minded knee-jerk reaction. Very "progressive" of you.

I am not saying that religion is the solution to people getting along. Im saying that religion is one of the primary influences on all of science and history. Furthermore it is what shapes the culture and values of individuals and entire nations.
A greater understanding of those influences will not only broaden the educational experience for kids by giving them more than just the nuts and bolts of science and rote memory of historical dates. Beyond that it will give them further insight into the values and culture of other people. Understanding the people you live and work around is THE key to people learning to not be a-holes to each other.

 

[Silver]

Im saying that religion is one of the primary influences on all of science

And that's where you are totally and utterly wrong.

 

[Changleen]

You've got to be ****ing kidding me. Most of the world still lives in poverty. The rule of science has given us...

Nuclear weapons
Chemical weapons
Gas chambers
Biological weapons

We're so much better off! More bombs drop from the sky than blessings.

I expect better from you than inverted bigotry.

See what I mean about cynicism? Mr. Sitting at your PC in your centrally heated house with hot and cold running water, cold beer, shoes that fit, TV, radio, Hospitals to keep you well packed with X-Ray and CAT apparatus, etc. etc.

 

[Changleen]

Here's a thought.
There are things more valueable to the overall education of a child than science.

No. Science is the MOST important thing.

 

[spincrazy]

I fail to see how you assertain my quota of fear. I do fear, however, what I fear is that this country will continue to regress and be controlled by individuals such as yourself. To bring it back to the article this thread is addresing in the first place, CHILDREN (those of elementary level) when learning things about the world, need to learn fact. How much philosophy is currently or would be readily absorbed and comprehended at that age? I say this giving your 'religion' a very loose tag in the philisophic realm but I am not sure it even deserves that - mythology perhaps is better, which is also not taught to children of that age as there brains aren't yet capable of grasping the idea. Putting it there in the form of 'religion' can only be deemed brain washing. Brain wash your own kids and keep them ignorant. That's what the church is for. Keep it the hell out of public, government institutions.

Narrow minded? You are the tool who is so devout. It's much like attempting to reason with an intoxicated person. Unfortunatley for the world, you can't sleep it off.

Your argument for culture values and understanding doesn't even deserve a response. I can't wait to join the milita in retaliation against you freaks.

Im saying that religion is one of the primary influences on all of science and history. Furthermore it is what shapes the culture and values of individuals and entire nations.

^This statement is as bogus as your book, with the possibly exception of Vatican City.

The church is the biggest hate group in the world.

You are so filled with fear that you are not taking the time to comprehend what I am suggesting, only offering a narrow minded knee-jerk reaction. Very "progressive" of you.

I am not saying that religion is the solution to people getting along. Im saying that religion is one of the primary influences on all of science and history. Furthermore it is what shapes the culture and values of individuals and entire nations.
A greater understanding of those influences will not only broaden the educational experience for kids by giving them more than just the nuts and bolts of science and rote memory of historical dates. Beyond that it will give them further insight into the values and culture of other people. Understanding the people you live and work around is THE key to people learning to not be a-holes to each other.

 

[spincrazy]

The great raven flys into the sky to block out the sun. This is why nightfall comes.

Do you want children taught that? DO YOU?

.
So, which book or version or religion should be taught in schools huh? I vote Zorastrian. No, wait. SATANISM. You teach satanism and I'm ok with it. Darwin can't compete with the devil.

Continuing to drag the rest of your body around by your lanky arms is going to cause you many more abrasions because you haven't a leg to stand on my internet friend.

 

[Transcend]

Im saying that religion is one of the primary influences on all of science and history.

Biggest load of crap I have ever heard. Religion is what simple minded sheep use to explain what they do not understand (since the dawn of man), not the other way around. It may have indeed caused researchers to push forward to prove idiotic theories wrong, but it has never positively influenced it in any way.

Also, stop hiding behind the "way to be liberal/progressive" line you keep using.

How about you don't label people? How about some people are not liberal, progressive or democrats? It can flow both ways, i hate things about both sides, but unlike most whiny bastards, I am working to change things.

How about we just have some common sense?

Condoms? - Ugh, better then 10 000 orphans last I checked
Gay marriage? - Sure, like it actually effects you?
Invading non-threatening countries of muslim origin? - No thanks.
Telling kids that absitnance is the only form of bith control that works? - Um, no.
liberal pussyfying of our children by coddling them and inducing lawsuits? - NO thanks

 

[Toshi]

religion has had a positive effect on science, way back when. not saying it does now (or that its influence was uniformly positive, see galileo), but many a scribe and scholar was paid by the church.

 

[Transcend]

religion has had a positive effect on science, way back when. not saying it does now (or that its influence was uniformly positive, see galileo), but many a scribe and scholar was paid by the church.

I agree - but it has never positively effected actual scientific results.

 

[Silver]

religion has had a positive effect on science, way back when. not saying it does now (or that its influence was uniformly positive, see galileo), but many a scribe and scholar was paid by the church.

That's because the church had all the money

Gotta love the irony in the fact that Mendel was a monk as well...

 

[ohio]

If you look you can find many examples of stupid theories to demonstrate that teaching everything is unworthwhile and indeed impossible. But where would you like to draw the line? After all Newton was wrong (according to current scientific theory_and_observation_) will you stop teaching Newtonian mechanics which is as far as most people get with physics?.

Newtonian physics still explains most phenomenon observable on a human scale and is thereforer extremely practical, and develops a good rough understanding of how the world around you works. Mechanical engineers still rely largely on Newtonian equations, and it does an admirable job of keeping wheels on cars. When it ceases to do so, it will be time to move it from Physics class to History class.

Do you get rid of the coarse focus on your microscope just because the fine focus is more exact? No, but you would get rid of a lense that shows everything as a big purple blob. That is the difference between scientific theory and religious theory.

Yes, teach creationism. But teach it in a religion class, alongside Native American, and Hindu creation theories... kids need a better understanding of those. They get plenty of Judeo-Christian creation theory from Western society and would be better served by having analogous theories to compare it to, and to give them an understanding of OTHER cultures.

 

[ohio]

"The most widely accepted theroy is that of evolution, however, there are many people who believe in different forms of creation and/or intelligent design."

The problem with that is putting them in the same sentence lends WAY too much credibility to the latter.

Maybe if you phrased it something like this DURING A RELIGION CLASS:

"Modern scientific theory is based on Evolution, which explains the majority of what we observe in the world around us, and is itself constantly being modified as we develop a finer and fuller understanding of our origins and our future.

Over the course of human history, and even still, there are many people who believe in different forms of creation. As we have discussed in previous classes, these legends serve many valuable functions in society. Some of these legends include:
A) Judeo Christian genesis
B) That our universe is part of Vishnu and is contained within his mouth
C) That mother Earth put forth our world from her womb
D) That we are but the dream of a greater being
E) and so on..."

Apples to apples...

 

[fluff]

See what I mean about cynicism? Mr. Sitting at your PC in your centrally heated house with hot and cold running water, cold beer, shoes that fit, TV, radio, Hospitals to keep you well packed with X-Ray and CAT apparatus, etc. etc.

You prefer an 'I'm all right Jack' approach? I and my fellow first-worlders are better off. We are the minority, there are plenty who do not see the benefits you mention. There are millions killed with amazing efficiency due to the advances of science.

Why do you see it as cynicism when the best-funded scientific projects are those that promise results that benefit the military?

 

[fluff]

No. Science is the MOST important thing.

No, ethics are the most important thing.

Science is a tool, how you use it is what matters.

 

[fluff]

Newtonian physics still explains most phenomenon observable on a human scale and is thereforer extremely practical, and develops a good rough understanding of how the world around you works. Mechanical engineers still rely largely on Newtonian equations, and it does an admirable job of keeping wheels on cars. When it ceases to do so, it will be time to move it from Physics class to History class.

Do you get rid of the coarse focus on your microscope just because the fine focus is more exact? No, but you would get rid of a lense that shows everything as a big purple blob. That is the difference between scientific theory and religious theory.

Yes, teach creationism. But teach it in a religion class, alongside Native American, and Hindu creation theories... kids need a better understanding of those. They get plenty of Judeo-Christian creation theory from Western society and would be better served by having analogous theories to compare it to, and to give them an understanding of OTHER cultures.

I was right with you until you said legend. If you used belief I'd still be there but legend puts a bias and intolerance of others beliefs by dismissing them. Simply because you do not believe something does not give exclusive rights on defining facts and non-facts. Teach, don't indoctrinate (and that applies to both sides of the argument)

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

I was right with you until you said legend. If you used belief I'd still be there but legend puts a bias and intolerance of others beliefs by dismissing them. Simply because you do not believe something does not give exclusive rights on defining facts and non-facts. Teach, don't indoctrinate (and that applies to both sides of the argument)

Apples to apples, as the man said ... and so many of have been trying to say.
Call it Myth, Legend, Belief, Religion, whatever ... it is not science and does not belong in science class.

The article that started all this says:

In June, they will decide whether to revise the science curriculum to include criticisms of the principles of evolution as an explanation of the way life changes over time. Teachers would be encouraged to discuss "alternative explanations".

Does science have an alternative explanation?

 

[fluff]

Apples to apples, as the man said ... and so many of have been trying to say.
Call it Myth, Legend, Belief, Religion, whatever ... it is not science and does not belong in science class.

The article that started all this says:

Does science have an alternative explanation?

Always. Science is the development of alternative explanations. Hence the term 'current theory'.

It does no harm and may help to explain current theory with reference to older less credible theories. Otherwise why does Newtonian Mechanics still have a place in science class? It is wrong, it just happens to be only a little bit wrong and hence very useful.

Do you think your kids are so dumb?

Perhaps as Silver says we are at cross purpooses here, I am not a supporter of creation theory (whichever one and some do not deny evolution as a process), I just fail to see how you can teach current thinking without reference to the history and context. I also fail to see the need to denigrate others' beliefs. Maybe respect is an outmoded concept.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I also fail to see the need to denigrate others' beliefs. Maybe respect is an outmoded concept.

Once again fluff, well said.

Respect is a two way street typically. I think for several decades the Christian right (which I'm a part of) has done a poor job of being respectful, and thus is reaping what it has sown. When polls show that the general understanding of what a Christian is boils down to "hates gays" something is terrible wrong, there has been a disconnect at some point.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I also fail to see the need to denigrate others' beliefs.

by saying "they are not scientificly accepted" doesnt not mean disrespect or denigrate.
it just means "it doesnt comply with the scientific method". there is nothing subjective or about respect on that.. either it complies or is doesnt.

if it does, then it has a place in secular education as science. if it doesnt then it MAY have a place being mentioned along other alternative explanations that didnt comply with the scientific method.

separation of "scientific theories" from "beliefs" doesnt mean denigration of either. ones have a place in a hospital, the others have a place in a temple.
some beliefs may be perfectly more important than scientific theories for some, and that is not the issue here.

faith or beliefs dont need to be true for people to feel them.
the only requirement for knowledge taught in schools in finite class time, is that it needs AT LEAST to be somewhat based on reality as we know it and explain it accordingly and validated by anyone (if resources allow) regardless their "beliefs".

 

[jaydee]

Otherwise why does Newtonian Mechanics still have a place in science class? It is wrong, it just happens to be only a little bit wrong and hence very useful.

Newtonian physics is not wrong so much as it was just an early theory that came remarkably close and is still valid in most cases and was based on experimention and observation. Creation theory is not based on any scientific evidence, even though it attempts to rationalize itself by rolling in some evolution theory, in some cases. I'll eat my words if someone can come along with some scientific support for the moment that all these lifeforms were supposedly created fully formed.

 

[fluff]

by saying "they are not scientificly accepted" doesnt not mean disrespect or denigrate.
it just means "it doesnt comply with the scientific method". there is nothing subjective or about respect on that.. either it complies or is doesnt.

if it does, then it has a place in secular education as science. if it doesnt then it MAY have a place being mentioned along other alternative explanations that didnt comply with the scientific method.

separation of "scientific theories" from "beliefs" doesnt mean denigration of either. ones have a place in a hospital, the others have a place in a temple.
some beliefs may be perfectly more important than scientific theories for some, and that is not the issue here.

faith or beliefs dont need to be true for people to feel them.
the only requirement for knowledge taught in schools in finite class time, is that it needs AT LEAST to be somewhat based on reality as we know it and explain it accordingly and validated by anyone (if resources allow) regardless their "beliefs".

Legend or myth could be seen as derogatory terms. Mentioning creationism would take no more than an hour or two (at most). The finite class time argument is basically rubbish!

 

[fluff]

Newtonian physics is not wrong so much as it was just an early theory that came remarkably close and is still valid in most cases and was based on experimention and observation. Creation theory is not based on any scientific evidence, even though it attempts to rationalize itself by rolling in some evolution theory, in some cases. I'll eat my words if someone can come along with some scientific support for the moment that all these lifeforms were supposedly created fully formed.

Newtonian physics is wrong, there are no two ways about it. Creation theory is ropey, I don't believe it but I can only make an informed judgement if I am informed...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Legend or myth could be seen as derogatory terms. Mentioning creationism would take no more than an hour or two (at most). The finite class time argument is basically rubbish!

well, they arent derogatory.

here in peru, evolution is taught in science classes.
creationism (in the judeocristian legend and the Inca myth form) is mentioned in history not as "current knowledge" but as "people back in the day believed that".

i have no problem with that.
but i do, if its teached "alongside" science because that is not a place it deserves, because it doesnt comply with the scientific method, as other scientifical theories do.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

Always. Science is the development of alternative explanations. Hence the term 'current theory'.

Of course, but the current theory does not have a current challanger.
Not one based on scientific method, at least.

It does no harm and may help to explain current theory with reference to older less credible theories.

Most of the sciences do exactly this. [Open any Biology texts and it will mention "Vital", the "back in the day" magic substance that animated all life forms.] As you say, it helps to show how science is a process and how our understanding has and will progress. However, doing this inherently belittles the "older less credible theories" that you [and me] would rather not denigrate. It would be more respectfull for the science teacher to leave matters of spritual belief to the parents and pastors, would it not? If a child asks about creation theory in science class, the responsible science teacher should refrain from comment and direct the child to someone qualified to answer. I do not see how that could be construed as disrespectfull.

 

[ohio]

I was right with you until you said legend. If you used belief I'd still be there but legend puts a bias and intolerance of others beliefs by dismissing them.

Fair point. Just extend the same courtesy to those beliefs that are often dismissed as "superstition" (e.g. Voodoo/Vodun) and teach them as credible beliefs alongside Christianity.

Edit: I thought about it a little more, and "belief" is the wrong word too. I feel that undervalues religion and its function. It's too narrow in scope, as I feel religions give their followers more than simply something to believe.