Teaching the Truth in Schools

quote:

---

No no no...we only practice the great conspiracy on our lunch breaks Quetzal...the rest of our time is spent building perpetual motion machines

---

Nothing to do with me guv. It's the other me!Alan (but not Alan Cresswell)

______________________________________________________________________
Quote:
"Man evolved from monkeys" - that old tired straw man that creationists use to raise emotional hackles of people who haven't otherwise gotten evolved in the debate. Nowhere in evolutionary theory is it advanced that man evolved from monkeys. Both simians and hominids arose by descent with modification from a common ancestor.
______________________________________________________________________Were you there, can you present the actual evidence that there was a common ancestor? Can you even present writings from the earliest individual that descended from this common ancestor? Can you present molecular evidence that evolution even does occur on a macro level? Have you ever seen a new feature develop in an "advanced" creature that you would consider an evolutionary feature?My guess would be that you would most likely answer no to any of these questions. However, you would have the theory that arises from these questions taught without rebuttal in every classroom. What is with all of the PC liberal ranting that goes on now? Just because an intelligent design theory implies a creator it does not need to be a specific creator. That choice is left to free will, something evolutionsts seem to be afraid of in the classroom. If free will and choice were introduced into the classroom students would have the choice not to believe a "theory" that has many flaws. Wouldn't it truly be a shame if a student was to actually disagree and do a little research on both sides of the issue and actually develop their own opinion.

quote:

---

Were you there,

---

Are you seriously using this argument?

quote:

---

can you present the actual evidence that there was a common ancestor?

---

Yup:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4"In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person's genomic DNA (Sverdlov 2000). There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced (Bonner et al. 1982; Dangel et al. 1995; Svensson et al. 1995; Kjellman et al. 1999; Lebedev et al. 2000; Sverdlov 2000)."

quote:

---

Can you even present writings from the earliest individual that descended from this common ancestor?

---

Uh, why would this be necessary to show biological evolution?

quote:

---

Can you present molecular evidence that evolution even does occur on a macro level?

---

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

quote:

---

Have you ever seen a new feature develop in an "advanced" creature that you would consider an evolutionary feature?

---

How about the partial to full immunity to HIV that the ancestors of the survivors of the Black Plague seem to possess due to a mutation that they inherited? See:Page Not Found

quote:

---

My guess would be that you would most likely answer no to any of these questions.

---

You guessed wrong, sorry. Perhaps a bit more research and education and a lot less personal incredulity on your part might be in order here.

quote:

---

However, you would have the theory that arises from these questions taught without rebuttal in every classroom.

---

That's because they have been well-established by rigorous testing. Do you object to any other well-established scientific theories being taught without much rebuttal?

quote:

---

What is with all of the PC liberal ranting that goes on now?

---

OK, come back to the argument, dear. We were talking about science. Well, I was, you were just making empty claims, but you know what I mean.

quote:

---

Just because an intelligent design theory implies a creator it does not need to be a specific creator. That choice is left to free will, something evolutionsts seem to be afraid of in the classroom.

---

ID does not meet the criterion of scientific theories. It makes no predictions and is not testable. It is philosophy. Why should religious philosophy be taught in science classrooms?I don't follow your "free-will" comment at all.

quote:

---

If free will and choice were introduced into the classroom students would have the choice not to believe a "theory" that has many flaws.

---

Free will is not a scientific concept, but a philosophical one, so it does not belong in a science classroom.I notice that you put the word "theory" in quotes. Why?

quote:

---

Wouldn't it truly be a shame if a student was to actually disagree and do a little research on both sides of the issue and actually develop their own opinion.

---

I think that would be great, and perhaps you should do that very activity considering that you didn't seem to know how much you don't know about current Biology and Evolutionary theory.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-17-2003]

quote:

---

Were you there,

---

This never fails to make me smile. Spofforth, you weren't around when ol' Moses wrote his Pentateuch, were you? Do you even read ancient Hebrew? The Mormons at least have some signed statements from "witnesses" that their book was "authentic" - doesn't that make their scripture more reliable than the Bible? The line of logic you're on would certainly say so.By the way, welcome to EvC!

I am truly sorry. I am new and do appreciate that the line has most likely been done to death. The point that I am trying to get across is that in schools, not only with evolution but with most every subject, the student is subjected to the view of the teacher with no room for debate. Most of what is taught is mandated by a school board or state board that has no idea what is actually going on in the school or the classroom as well as having no knowledge base for the information they are mandating. I believe that it would be nice for the student to be able to broaden his/her knowledge base by being presented information on both sides of a topic. With the topic of evolution this would not necesarrily teach a creationist viewpoint, but that there are alternate theories such as intelligent design. Not that the student should believe either theory because a teacher stands in front of them and tells them it is true, they should determine what they believe from a well rounded base of knowledge.

Thank you for the welcome and I will watch my posts a little more closely. Been dumbed down over the last few years and need to gain a little more edge.

quote:

---

I am truly sorry. I am new and do appreciate that the line has most likely been done to death.

---

No biggie.

quote:

---

The point that I am trying to get across is that in schools, not only with evolution but with most every subject, the student is subjected to the view of the teacher with no room for debate. Most of what is taught is mandated by a school board or state board that has no idea what is actually going on in the school or the classroom as well as having no knowledge base for the information they are mandating. I believe that it would be nice for the student to be able to broaden his/her knowledge base by being presented information on both sides of a topic. With the topic of evolution this would not necesarrily teach a creationist viewpoint, but that there are alternate theories such as intelligent design.

---

...except that ID is really just creationism.It bears none of the hallmarks of a scientific theory; it has no testable hypothesis, it isn't falsifiable, it has no positive confirming evidence.It is merely the latest "God of the Gaps" rework. IOW, ID states that because we don't understand how some system could have evolved naturally, some non-natural "Intelligent Designer" (God) had to have done it.The question I have always asked of every ID proponent I have ever come across is:How do we tell the difference between an ID system and a natural one which we1) don't understand yet, or
2) don't have the intelligence to ever understand?I've never had anyone in the ID camp give me any answer at all.

quote:

---

Not that the student should believe either theory because a teacher stands in front of them and tells them it is true, they should determine what they believe from a well rounded base of knowledge.

---

I agree with you completely.However, would you also advocate students spending a lot of time studying halocaust revisionist history as though it were valid historical scholarship, or should they study the notion that it is evil spirits or the Devil that causes disease as though these ideas were equal to the Germ Theory of Disease?You seem to be advocating the teaching of other ideas alongside the Modern Synthesis as equally valid, regardless of how little the evidence supports it.What I would suggest for all students is a mandatory critical thinking/logic/skeptical inquiry course.

______________________________________________________________________
...except that ID is really just creationism.
______________________________________________________________________
Yes, however it does not have to be taught in a religious context. In a classroom setting you would neither have to imply that God nor a religious icon of any sort was the creator. Most students are going to enter the classroom with their preconceived notions regardless of what the curriculum for a particular class. The problem with those preconceptions is that they often lead to the student shutting down when alternate theories, including evolution and the formation of life, are discussed.______________________________________________________________________
It is merely the latest "God of the Gaps" rework. IOW, ID states that because we don't understand how some system could have evolved naturally, some non-natural "Intelligent Designer" (God) had to have done it.The question I have always asked of every ID proponent I have ever come across is:How do we tell the difference between an ID system and a natural one which we1) don't understand yet, or
2) don't have the intelligence to ever understand?I've never had anyone in the ID camp give me any answer at all.
______________________________________________________________________The problem with students is if you describe a scientific theory and they see the gaps or evidence they don't understand, they just shut down. They no longer discuss the topic, they tend to become very defensive. There seems to be a more positive response if you do not discount their religion and present the evidence for evolution at the same time. With presenting alternate theories, like intelligent design, the student might tend to be more at ease with the subject. Even today this is a very touchy subject in the classroom, but there are very few students that are willing to even discuss evolution if you discount their beliefs as not being possible. If they are atleast given a theory that could include their religious beliefs they seem to be more at ease with the whole topic. I really believe that ID can be presented without religious implications if you discuss the vastness of the universe and the possibility of other intelligent forms of life that may be more advanced than humans and could be involved in the design of life. If we never do understand completely the mechanism for life, I hope that the students in the classroom will at least be able to look at scientific evidence rationally and be able to discuss it.______________________________________________________________________
You seem to be advocating the teaching of other ideas alongside the Modern Synthesis as equally valid, regardless of how little the evidence supports it.What I would suggest for all students is a mandatory critical thinking/logic/skeptical inquiry course.
______________________________________________________________________
I believe the way ideas should be taught is by discussing the fact that evidence at this point in time leads us to believe in a mechanism for life such as modern synthesis. However, I do believe that there should be a discussion of the fact that scientific theories are not static, but change with each technological advance that is made. It would be great if every student were required to think critically about what was going on in the world around them.

Hi Spofforth!You can put the HTML horizontal rule in your message text (

---

) and it will do the same thing as a line of underscores, but much more efficiently. For example, the first couple lines of your message could have been done like this: And it would have come out looking like this: --Percy

---

You can put the HTML horizontal rule in your message text and it will do the same thing as a line of underscores, but much more efficiently. For example, the first couple lines of your message could have been done like this:

---

Thanks, you are right it is much easier.

A: ...except that ID is really just creationism.

quote:

---

Yes, however it does not have to be taught in a religious context.

---

But why should any religious concept that is not scientific be taught in science class?

quote:

---

In a classroom setting you would neither have to imply that God nor a religious icon of any sort was the creator.

---

But this is the logical conclusion of the ID argument; "God of the Gaps." If you want to talk about it in a comparative religion or philosophy course, fine, but not in a science class. Only that which is scientific should be taught in science class. This seems very obvious to me.

quote:

---

Most students are going to enter the classroom with their preconceived notions regardless of what the curriculum for a particular class. The problem with those preconceptions is that they often lead to the student shutting down when alternate theories, including evolution and the formation of life, are discussed.

---

It is too bad that their religious indoctrination causes them to do this. I think that the best way to help these students is for teachers to have the tools they need to answer questions, and to encourage those questions. The answer is NOT, IMO, to teach religious philosophy or bad science as valid.A: It is merely the latest "God of the Gaps" rework. IOW, ID states that because we don't understand how some system could have evolved naturally, some non-natural "Intelligent Designer" (God) had to have done it.The question I have always asked of every ID proponent I have ever come across is:How do we tell the difference between an ID system and a natural one which we1) don't understand yet, or
2) don't have the intelligence to ever understand?I've never had anyone in the ID camp give me any answer at all.

quote:

---

The problem with studentsis if you describe a scientific theory and they see the gaps or evidence they don't understand, they just shut down. They no longer discuss the topic, they tend to become very defensive. There seems to be a more positive response if you do not discount their religion and present the evidence for evolution at the same time.

---

When does science, or when do science teachers, discount anyone's religion when teaching Biology or Cosmology? They just teach (some better, some worse) what mainstream science's current knowledge is.If simply talking about well-supported science as if it were well-supported, and discounting pseudoscience as not science at all and discounting poor science is considered to be putting down someone's religion, then there is not much to be done. There is not much that can be done about someone who has decided ahead of time that they are right and that which they haven't even learned about yet is wrong.

quote:

---

With presenting alternate theories, like intelligent design, the student might tend to be more at ease with the subject.

---

Why should non-science be taught as science?If a student is racist, should Halocaust revisionist history be taught as alternate valid history just so he can be "more at ease" with the subject?Similarly, just because someone's religious views requires them to disbelieve valid scientific knowledge does not mean that we aught to dumb down the science or mislead students into thinking that non-science or poor science is just as valid as real science.

quote:

---

Even today this is a very touchy subject in the classroom, but there are very few students that are willing to even discuss evolution if you discount their beliefs as not being possible. If they are atleast given a theory that could include their religious beliefs they seem to be more at ease with the whole topic.

---

To follow your logic, we should have a world religion creation myth discussion in the science classroom instead of discussing science. What if there are Muslims, Native Americans, Hindus, Young Earth Christians, Old Earth Christians, Buddhists, and Shinto kids in this science class. How are you going to teach any science if you are spending your time discussing all of their various religious views so they all feel "at ease"?

quote:

---

I really believe that ID can be presented without religious implications if you discuss the vastness of the universe and the possibility of other intelligent forms of life that may be more advanced than humans and could be involved in the design of life.

---

Ah, Panspermia is a scientific concept. However, the evidence for it is quite skimpy.

quote:

---

If we never do understand completely the mechanism for life, I hope that the students in the classroom will at least be able to look at scientific evidence rationally and be able to discuss it.

---

I should hope so too.So, do you now understand how ID is not science and should not be taught in science class?A: You seem to be advocating the teaching of other ideas alongside the Modern Synthesis as equally valid, regardless of how little the evidence supports it.What I would suggest for all students is a mandatory critical thinking/logic/skeptical inquiry course.

quote:

---

I believe the way ideas should be taught is by discussing the fact that evidence at this point in time leads us to believe in a mechanism for life such as modern synthesis. However, I do believe that there should be a discussion of the fact that scientific theories are not static, but change with each technological advance that is made. It would be great if every student were required to think critically about what was going on in the world around them.

---

I am in full agreement.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-22-2003]

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a classroom setting you would neither have to imply that God nor a religious icon of any sort was the creator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------But this is the logical conclusion of the ID argument; "God of the Gaps." If you want to talk about it in a comparative religion or philosophy course, fine, but not in a science class. Only that which is scientific should be taught in science class. This seems very obvious to me.

---

This is only the logical conclusion of ID if it is being taught in a religious context. There are many possible explanations that could be used in a nonreligious context (Superior alien intelligence, time travel, etc.). I am not stating that any of these concepts are more valid, just that they can lead to discussion and student interest in a classroom setting. The apathy of students today is something that desparately needs to be overcome and a controversial issue with many possible explanations might be the way to get a few more students involved in the science classroom.

---

Why should non-science be taught as science?If a student is racist, should Halocaust revisionist history be taught as alternate valid history just so he can be "more at ease" with the subject?Similarly, just because someone's religious views requires them to disbelieve valid scientific knowledge does not mean that we aught to dumb down the science or mislead students into thinking that non-science or poor science is just as valid as real science.

---

I have trouble seeing that evidence discounts any possible explanation of how life came to be at this point. While there is evidence that modern synthesis is a possible explanation of how life came to be in its present form the gaps in the theory, ie low likelihood that an organism with a mutation would even survive to reproduce, leave the door open for other theories at this time. It is hard to justify, without a clear lineage from a primative cell to the present diversity of complex life without gap, teaching only one theory. I know there are similarities in DNA and amino acid patterns, but this doesn't discount the fact that a designer would be working from an original template and would not recreate life with every step. This is not to say that either concept is more correct than the other, just that the student should be presented with more than one idea.

---

To follow your logic, we should have a world religion creation myth discussion in the science classroom instead of discussing science. What if there are Muslims, Native Americans, Hindus, Young Earth Christians, Old Earth Christians, Buddhists, and Shinto kids in this science class. How are you going to teach any science if you are spending your time discussing all of their various religious views so they all feel "at ease"?

---

I do not believe that any form of religion should be discussed in the classroom. However, I do believe that alternate theories as to the beginning of life should be discussed. ID, Punctuated equilibrium, Darwinian evolution, Modern synthesis, neo-Darwinian theory are a few that could be discussed. The problem is that the whole discussion on the topic occurs in a relatively small time frame and most science classes are barely able to scratch the surface of any theory let alone allow a debate of alternate theories. If the student is very schooled in the scientific method and at least is presented some of the alternating theories they should logically be able to make their own conclusions and study the possibilities on their own.

[quote][b]There are many possible explanations that could be used in a nonreligious context (Superior alien intelligence, time travel, etc.).[/url]There is no evidence for aliens, hence this theory does not belong in science class either. Time travel falls into the same category, if not a worse category still, as there is no reason aliens can't exist, but theory suggests that time travel is impossible. I can't help but think that both options are just ad hoc components designed to wiggle out of the connection between ID and religion.

quote:

---

The apathy of students today is something that desparately needs to be overcome

---

Good point, but introducing unscientific garbage is not the way to overcome that apathy. [quote]I have trouble seeing that evidence discounts any possible explanation of how life came to be at this point.[/qutoe]Science is what we can prove, not what we can't disprove. There are thousands of theories that we can't disprove. We go with the ones for which we have evidence.

quote:

---

low likelihood that an organism with a mutation would even survive to reproduce

---

Low likelihood? Not by a lot. It happens all the time. Virtually every critter born has a mutation, and a significant number survive to reproduce.

quote:

---

this doesn't discount the fact that a designer would be working from an original template and would not recreate life with every step.

---

Again, science works on what we can prove, not what we can disprove. An example, I created the entire universe in a past incarnation of uber-cleopatra. Disprove it. You can't. All you can do is ask me for evidence. If I can't provide it you figure I'm insane and move on. Yet, MY STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN DISPROVEN. Should we teach it in school as well? By your logic, we should.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

---

[quote]Low likelihood? Not by a lot. It happens all the time. Virtually every critter born has a mutation, and a significant number survive to reproduce.

---

I beg to differ with this point, most organisms are born with a variation that is preexisting within their genome. This leads to the variety we see in living things. Most mutations, such as insertions, deletions, or translocations lead to a frameshift in the genetic code. When there is a frame shift in the genetic code very seldon is the organism going to survive embryo development let alone reach reproductive age. Point mutations are more prevalent, but do not tend to lead to large differences (large enough for the formation of new traits) and often times do not even change the amino acid sequence of the proteins within the organism. This is where I find it difficult to teach evolution as such as fact.[This message has been edited by Spofforth, 02-23-2003][This message has been edited by Spofforth, 02-23-2003]

quote:

---

I beg to differ with this point, most organisms are born with a variation that is preexisting within their genome.

---

BS. Sorry. But it is BS. There is variation within genomes-- red hair, blue eyes, etc-- but that isn't what I said. I said that virtually every organism is born with a mutation-- a copy error-- in its DNA. With many thousands to tens of thousands of genes per organism ( humans have about 30,000 ) it is a pretty safe bet that at least one of them has a copy error. Its that simple. But you don't have to take my word for it. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com