|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: It's a Sad Day For the Future Of American Children. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Or here's a better compromise. We teach the scientiifc answers in science classes, and leave the religions to teach their own stories. After all there's no way a school system can do justice to all he many religions out there and we shouldn't show any favouritism to particular religions.
How can that be wrong ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Ok peace then. You are off my to call list. Thanks for the actual position. I will want to ask you about catatrophe theory later though. I did notice that you said the "kids" did not have the time in class even to have the teachers if they WERE advanced teach some of the things you may not have given up on understanding here but really this is the same problem of why we do not have as of yet a culutral resolution for at Cornell for instance it is not possible (not becuase the subjects are too difficult but beacuse of how they topics are taught) for one to get a best advanced knowledge as the same undergraduate in chemsistry, biology and physics to do the stuff I am trying to nowadays write, even if one negeles all other arts and sciences. My guess and you can correct me if I am wrong is that the high school curricula spends lot of time on SEPERATE topics without the topics being unified by a single univocal method or priciple. The problem at the lower levels (which should not be one at the higher) is that if one as a teacher PICKS a particular unity then just like their being many religons one is stuck trying to introduce MORE TOPICS metadatawise than was the case with all the particular topics. Biology is particularly egregious in this regard because of diversity.
If that is what you found out was the case the high school and lower than I can see what you are saying indeed. I have been trying to show how in general there can be a univocal focus of c/e enhanceing admittedly only ONE of those "topics" but it is toolable enough to resolve or reduce C/E legal differences in my opinion to simply the search for an nonzero Jacobian determinant but that is the advanced issue I will raise later. Thanks And Really- I will not be inclined to beg for your goat next. Thanks. Brad. I try however to keep my opinion out of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Neither of the *theories* are "proven". The facts behind evolution which the theory explains are, as facts, "proven". However the big difference is any form of creation science that I have seen put forward has been *disproven*. It is wrong.
Perhaps you have a form of "creation science" that you can put forward that has not been shown to be wrong. I would be interested in seeing it. It will have to include an old earth and no flood of course. Those are two of the tenants of some forms of creationism that have been falsified. A number of times on this thread (and elsewhere) it has been asked that what would be taught be spelled out. This would be an alternative *scientific* theory. We seem to be still waiting for that. [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-17-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
We should teach in our schools all the theories Actually, in the U.S. we do teach all the theories. Should there come a day when creationism is a scientific theory, it'll be taught as such. Don't hold your breath. [This message has been edited by JonF, 11-17-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4581 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
LOL! I'd like the author to explain the difference between a "bug" and an "insect."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7044 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: I have two things to respond to this. 1) Which creation stories should we teach? Don't you think Atum might become angry if we don't give him his due? What if people fail to learn about the great mound Nanih Wiya? Or the rock that Tagaloa grew while dwelling in the Expanse? 2) When there's overwhelming evidence, we discount unrealistic possibilities. For example, on the forum where we were asked to list our ages:
quote: ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Dan Carroll writes:
quote: But the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly extends these protections to the State level. The First Amendment says that the Federal government cannot abridge your speech. The Fourteenth says that that the State government cannot do it, either: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" It isn't a question about "intent." In fact, if I recall correctly, some cases before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment hinged on the fact that what was being done was a State action, not a Federal action, and thus the US Constitution didn't apply. This concept still applies, but in a much more limited way. That is, before the Fourteenth Amendment, if you had a Federal right, the State government could supercede it. Now, if the Federal government is silent on the matter, the State government is free to do whatever it wants. F'rinstance, when the same-sex case was making its way through Hawaii, there could be no appeal of their decision. That's because the case was being decided on the basis of Hawaii's Equal Rights clause. There is no Federal ERA, but Hawaii's constitution has one. If the court decided that the Hawaii ERA allowed same-sex marriage, there could be no appeal to the Feds.
quote: Yes, there is. The Fourteenth Amendment. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Ut, good call, bad example.
Basic point about church and state stands, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Oh, indeed, Dan. The First Amendment clearly indicates that the government and the church are not supposed to get entangled with each other.
I can't remember who came up with it (it was on another discussion board I was on), but the deal was this: We'll teach science in the public schools in relation to the scientific literature. For every subject that we decide is important to teach, we will survey the scientific literature and build the curricula accordingly. Thus, if we're talking about the diversification of life on this planet, if the scientific literature splits 90% evolutionary topics and 10% creationist topics, then the curricula will spend 90% of its time discussing evolution and 10% of its time discussing creationism. Isn't that what we want? Don't we want to teach our children what the scientific community understands about our world? Of course, no creationist has ever signed onto this concept since there are no creationist articles in the scientific literature and thus, no time would ever be spent on creationism. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Now your getting it. One has to read thru the 13 ammendemnts lower to get to the 14th but the first one was????still a taco stand? C/E and webC/E are not the same kettle calling itself black and white so while you may insist on a state by state basis for web c/e Dan's standing is still outstanding! This seemed to be GW's view but not mine. I would think "intent" does have something to do with it. I would like ICR to explain to me why they used editorial control to ask me what my "intention" of posting there was? I did not have an intent I merely wanted -cough- free speech- and I meant that literally-- free- so that Percy pays and not me. It would be a reading of the US consitution and not a writing of it as Dan seemed correctly to peg the most current with that dominates this little loop however.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Actually, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what would be taught when any time is given? It seems the other way we might arrive at zero classroom time is that is the amount of content that is available.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
keith63 Inactive Member |
I have already stated that I don't think we should exclude any theory from being explored. What I do think would be a good idea is that the current science text books disclose their weaknesses of evolution and correct the missleading information. For example
1. Miller/Urey experiment. We have now known for years that the early earths atmosphere looked nothing like the organic soup Miller and Urey used in their experiment. Oxygen has always been in the atmosphere and if you mix oxygen into any mix you can't get the amino acids they produced. If you can't get the starting material then you certainly can't get started and the whole macroevolutionary idea becomes a mute point. Another point about the Miller/Urey experiment that never hits the text books. Their experiment produced tar which really messes up their results so they remove the tar. Now correct me if I'm wrong but that is intellegence. Also the experiment produced both right and left handed amino acids and only left handed ones are found in living things. Of course my original point makes these minor details all mute anyway. 2. The fossil record is an imbarrassment to evolutionists. If you were really to evaluate the fossil record with an open mind you would see that it really supports the creation model which says that things reproduced after their "kind." 3. Darwin himself said that the fossil evidence was his weakest point but he was confident that more fossils would be found. Well they have and what we find our all the major phyla already formed with no transitions, just like the bible said we would. And before you mention archeoptryx read the latest literature which declares it a true, although strange looking, bird. 4. Peppered moths turning black, bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, and finch beaks getting larger are not evidences of macroevolution. They are simply populations expressing variation which already exists. What a huge leap evolutionists make. You might as well say that if you cross a dark mouse with a white mouse and you get a dark mouse then it's possible to turn a mouse into a donkey. Why don't the textbooks mention that in the finch population the years after the drought, which caused their beaks to become larger, their beaks went right back to their normal size. No genetic changs, just expressions of variation which already existed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
1) Correct me if I'm wrong - and I'd like to see actual quotes from current textbooks to support any such claim - but isn't it the case that they state that the Miller-Urey experiment produced amino acids, which is absolutely true ? And it is also the case that atmospheres which are more plausible given what we know now still produce amino acids.
2) and 3) contain outright falsehoods. And your dismissal of arachaeoptryx as an example of an intermediate is simply wrong. Any intermediate between dinosaurs and birds will be classified as a dinosaur or a bird. Thats how the system works. Archaeoptryx happens to be - just - on the "bird" side of the divide - and so close that it was argued over for years. 4) Everything you list is an example of natural selection and therefore belongs in the evolution section. If you want to claim that they are used as evidence for macroevolution in an inappropriate way then you will have to produce evidence that this is the case. On past experience I would say that you are the one jumping to a conclusion. Quite frankly what you seem to be arguing is for the removal of genuine evidence for evolution, which hardly represents an improvement to textbooks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
keith63 Inactive Member |
My point on the miller/Urey experiment is that it is still in the text books even though it is wrong so of course it doesn't say that in the textbooks. There are however several citations in literature that support the fact that oxygen was always present and that amino acids don’t form, or at least not many, in the presence of free oxygen. Here is just one
http://www.answersingenesis.org/...s/tjv10n3_origin_life.pdf On your correction for 2 and 3 didn’t you make my point for me. I said archaeopteryx was a bird and you said it just happened to fall on the bird side. That’s a different way of saying exactly what I said. The missing links are still missing. And have you ever stopped to think about the steps which would be necessary for a reptile to turn into a bird. 1. Hollow bones which happen to be supported by internal struts for strength2. A larger sternum for the muscle needed to power flight 3. A reproductive system which reduces in the non-breeding system as a weight saver 4. Becoming endothermic instead of exothermic 5. Wings which would be useless to any intermediate form. 6. feathers which have a central quill, thousands of barbs, and thousands more little hooks which allow the feather to be zipped back up for air resistance. 7. Fused bones for strength 8. The most advanced respiratory system on the planet, unlike any other, which has air sacs that extend into the body to reduce buoyancy. 9. A hard shell which allows oxygen to penetrate and is just hard enough to resist crushing but soft enough for the offspring to break out. What a huge difference. The respiratory system by itself is so different it makes the plausibility of a bird coming from a reptile laughable. In response to point 4. I said in my statements that we should not remove evolution, just point out the weaknesses. I agree that things change overtime within reason. The bible says things reproduce after their kind I believe all dogs came from a dog ancestor, all cats came from a cat ancestor. The bible bears this out. I just think it fits a creation model better. If creation was right we should find a perfect recycling earth, which we do. We should find no transitional fossils, which we don’t. And since the bible said we could eat anything on earth, we should be able to take any living thing, eat it, and turn it into our bodies. Since we are all made of the same material it is possible for us to do this. You see the same evidence when looked at with an open mind can actually be used to support creation better than evolution. Were are your missing links?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
keith63 Inactive Member |
I think science can be understood perfectly without forcing it to fit an origin scenario. Science should be taking evidence and explaining what you see with that evidence. Unfortunately for various reasons scientists have decided they don't want a creator to answer to so they invent an origin story and try to make the evidence fit that story. No wonder there are so many problems(missing links). That's why there are new movements out there like the cladestics which is attempting to classify organisms without showing who they supposedly evolved from.
Anyway all of you seem to be saying I want evolution taken out of the textbooks. I have stated in every response, including my first one, that that is not the case. Much of what Darwin came up with I think is correct. I just don’t think you can superimpose origins on it. The evidence just doesn’t fit.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024