And then we teach that the sun revolves around the earth
- Thread starter jaydee
- Start date
Eh, what cynicism? What I'm talking about is bad science: presenting evolution as fact rather than the best theory is stupid for several reasons, chiefly that it puts one into the same category as creationists who try and justify their idea as fact becasue it's written in the bible - you might as well simply hit each other around the head with books. Also good scientists look at the flaws in theories and attempt to find answers/better theories, rather than ignore the flaws and blindly insist that they have the answer, which reduces science to faith.Changleen said:
I don't really see what the problem is with teaching kids about evolution and creationism. Explain them both, strengths and flaws and let the kids make up their own minds - they'll probably surprise you. Resisting the idea of imparting knowledge simply makes that knowledge more dangerous and enticing. Give them all the information.
Oh, and I'm sure I put a smiley next to my comment about the second law of thermodynamics...
why put them on the same level? creationism is in no way backed up by as much evidence (if indeed any at all) as is evolution/natural selection, and teaching both side by side would give creedence to creationism where none is deserved or warranted.fluff said:
You are right the article does present it as such. I personally was not trying to. Although that does raise the interesting point about when something really becomes a 'fact'. In reality I suppose nothing is truly a 100% definitive fact, the same as black and white and good an evil don't exist.fluff said:
Agreed about the enticing part, but only if a bad job has been done in previous teaching. I feel I was lucky to get a pretty damn good education, and creationism was introduced to me as part of RE, not science. Having explored it further myself I agree this is the appropriate place for it.
You did. I wasn't trying to have a go at you.
If they are taught evenly (ie. with all evidence and all flaws and all reasons why different people believe them) then they find their own levels. Teach kids to think, give them food for thought and you get a much better result than spoodfeeding them the knowledge you want them to have.Toshi said:
fluff said:
Very well said Fluff...................
Thank you. I was particularly proud of the 'spoodfeeding' word. Never used it before but I may well use it again.Andyman_1970 said:
Very well said Fluff...................
Not once I get in the theory of the almighty teapot creator into the textbooks. Equal time, baby!Changleen said:
someone lock up all these wackos. America needs a new political party. Nothing extreme, just people WITH COMMON SENSE.
a public schools is no place for anything but scientific thought...fluff said:
teaching creationism as an academic or scientific explanation has no place in a school.. it may perfectly be in yeshivas, bible studies or seminaries, but no way in public schools.
because if we admit non-scientific theories on the world in a public school, then we have to admit and teach EVERY non-scientific theory in public schools on par with their scientific counterparts for the sake of justice like the aztec turtle, the inca titicaca lake and sun, geocentric astronomy, alchemy, homeotherapy, etc, etc, etc...
why do we have to give creationism and evolution a different treatment, than what we give to other "scientific theories with uncertainties" like physics, chemistry or medicine??...
you dont see people bitching about making "reflexology" a required course in med schools, because it has no place in a place for academic and scientific learning like a public school. creationism is no different from reflexology or the timecube dude...
not that am making an a slipery slope, but the whole idea of a "public school" is a place for teaching and learning "scientific and secular" knowledge....
introducing non-secular or non-scientific knowledge into it, would disbalance the deal not only against science, but also against all other non-scientific alternatives to judeochristian creationism without any reason to favor the judeochristian over the other....
Very well stated DH...not that I totally agree with you. But that's probably the best argument in the whole thread :-D. I should have known I could create dissent. Unicyclists in a biking forum always get a reaction. Bwahaha.
Isn't what you propose the imposition of a specific agenda upon the populace? The very thing that many of you seem so afraid of.ALEXIS_DH said:
Here are a few.Ridemonkey said:
http://www.cpusa.org/
http://www.americannaziparty.com/
http://www.fecris.org/
http://www.unadfi.org/
Yeah for intolerance!
You can do whatever you want. I don't care. I am 100% tolerant. I just don't want it shoved in my ****ing face. Is that a concept you understand?Damn True said:
How about this concept Aaron:
How is your agenda any different?
Roe v Wade?
In an election the populace votes for the person or group that most closely represents their views and beliefs. This time around people who think and believe the way you do lost. It may very well turn out differently next time. But for the time being freakin get over it. The constant sniveling of those who aren't getting their way because their way is less popular is childish and rather tiresome. Not to mention counterproductive to your cause, because it alienates people of faith who have traditionaly voted democrat but feel misrepresented by the current party leadership. Ever hear the term "Southern Democrat"? The south used to be a slam dunk for the left until the left alienated them.
If you want things to be different get more people to vote. While you are at it, try to influence your party to come up with a viable candidate.
How is your agenda any different?
Roe v Wade?
In an election the populace votes for the person or group that most closely represents their views and beliefs. This time around people who think and believe the way you do lost. It may very well turn out differently next time. But for the time being freakin get over it. The constant sniveling of those who aren't getting their way because their way is less popular is childish and rather tiresome. Not to mention counterproductive to your cause, because it alienates people of faith who have traditionaly voted democrat but feel misrepresented by the current party leadership. Ever hear the term "Southern Democrat"? The south used to be a slam dunk for the left until the left alienated them.
If you want things to be different get more people to vote. While you are at it, try to influence your party to come up with a viable candidate.
I haven't seen side-steering like that since Steve McQueen! Nice!Damn True said:
When are you gonna get over the fact that your candidate WON? Complaining about how screwed up things are is justified, especially since just BARELY over half the populace voted for the idiot-man-child that's in office.
The agenda your side is pushing is a belief, NOT a theory. Scientific theory should be taught in schools, because theory can be tested. There is evidence.
When they find Noah's ark, then we'll talk.
not necesarilly, because science (or validable theories and ideas about the world) themselves are not the "imposition of an specific agenda" because there is "no specific agenda" within science...Damn True said:
and no, science itself is not an specific agenda because the lack of an agenda, is not an agenda by itself...
I am over it. That doesn't mean its ok to teach our next generation fairy tales in school under the guise of science. Even some Republicans can see the sense in that. In fact, this is nothing about the election. Try again.Damn True said:
I really do not understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.H8R said:
Ridemonkey said:
I think it is perfectly acceptable to present to children the views held by different religions and cultures. Are we to omit the discussion of the values and tennants of Judism, Buddism, Taoism, Islam etc in addition to Catholic and Protestant beliefs?
The result of this is a generation of people who will have no understanding of the cultural schema of the people around them.
Perfectly acceptable. Call the class "religions of the world". Leave biology alone.Damn True said:
Ridemonkey said:
I can live with that, provided that instructors include in curricula that nothing they are teaching in regard to evolution or the origin of the galaxy is proven.
H8R said:We did this in school. It's called "recess".
Yeah, Ive seen that. Isn't that where a bunch of kids beat up another kid because he's different?
and that in turn is fine as long as it's made clear that it's a Theory because there is no evidence that invalidates it in addition to a substantial corpus of work that supports it, and that creationism, on the other hand, can't be a Theory in the same sense since there is no evidence that could validate or invalidate it.Damn True said:
playing word games is stupid.
Agreed, the fact is though that evolution and big bang are being taught as absolute truth when that is not the case.Changleen said:
Toshi said:
A matter of semantics and philosophical P.O.V.
Your stupidity is truly a shining example of what it really means to be an American sometimes...Damn True said:
Damn True said:
very few (if any) scientific theories are "proven"..
"proven" means "with no uncertainty" which in turn means "been tested at every infinite point for every infinite variable at every infinite place at every infinite time".
there is no such thing as "with no uncertainty".
and that is not enough grounds to dismiss "scientific theories" or to put them in the same basket as "creationism/greek mythology/reflexology"...
such reasoning is somehow related to the perfect solution fallacy....
Leave it to you to respond to an otherwise polite exchange of values and ideas in this manner.Silver said:
Predictable as ever.
I understand that.ALEXIS_DH said:
I just think that peoples values and beliefs should be honored and respected.
You know what? **** you. You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, and your claim about "semantics" is getting old, especially when you misuse words and their meanings frequently.Damn True said:
But, then again, that's the status quo for you, so I shouldn't be surprised.