Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2017 1:29 PM
415 online now:
edge, JonF, PaulK, RAZD, ringo (5 members, 410 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 812,021 Year: 16,627/21,208 Month: 2,516/3,593 Week: 629/882 Day: 61/86 Hour: 3/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Author Topic:   Opening the doors to creationism in British Schools?
Larni
Member
Posts: 3942
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 61 of 129 (621692)
06-28-2011 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Robert Byers
06-28-2011 3:18 AM


Creationism in subjects dealing with conclusions about origins is banned indeed.

The thing to remember is that religion is not science; it does not have predictive power.

What you are suggesting is that theology gets taught in science: as there are many theologies, how can there be enough time to examine all the creation stories.

Surely we should only teach science in a science class.

Unless you are asserting that the various theologies are science?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Robert Byers, posted 06-28-2011 3:18 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 62 of 129 (621706)
06-28-2011 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Robert Byers
06-28-2011 3:18 AM


Creationism in subjects dealing with conclusions about origins is banned indeed.

It is not permitted to teach creationism as if it were a scientific conclusion, but that is on the grounds that it isn't. It is not 'censored' in that parents, priests, vicars and other pupils are free to discuss it, write books about it and teach it to children in non-state funded environments.

Furthermore, in Britain, it is not illegal to mention creationism and have a discussion about what it is in the science classroom. Even further, depending on the local conditions - it might even be a subject that gets discussed in Religious Education.

You keep saying misconceptions of the public.
its YOUR opinion they are misconceptions.

But I didn't specify, so it isn't my opinion they are misconceptions at all. So let's get specific. Let's imagine a population of people that aren't completely up to speed on physics or astronomy. We ask those people 'What should we teach children about why it is hotter in summer?' (remember, asking 'the people' what should be taught is your system)

In such a system we might find that a majority of 'the people' say 'Summer is hot because the earth is closest to the sun in its orbit.' You and I know this isn't true, but we'd have to teach it as being true which would 'reinforce' this misconception.

So how do you counteract this problem? What is your solution?

Again either the people decide of a smaller number of people decide what is true or not true or as you would put it WHAT is accurately conceived and what is misconceived.

In my system, it is the mathematicians among the people that decide what mathematics to teach the next generation, the biologists decide what biology to teach the next generation and so on. It isn't perfect, but it avoids the popular misconception problem and it arms the next generation with the knowledge of the former generation so that they may use that as a basis upon which to learn truly original information about the world for themselves.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Robert Byers, posted 06-28-2011 3:18 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Omnivorous, posted 06-30-2011 8:49 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 66 by Robert Byers, posted 07-08-2011 1:29 AM Modulous has responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 63 of 129 (622106)
06-30-2011 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Robert Byers
06-10-2011 4:53 AM


Byers writes:

Science is not just a word for inventions.

Actually inventions are not Science, that is technology, which involves the application of scientific principles.

Byers writes:

I don't accept there is a different species of investigation called science. Everything is just people thinking.

Well that is your problem isn't it? Saying it does not make it so.
Science is not "just people thinking", it is a specific method of thinking and experimentation.

Byers writes:

Origin issues are not open to a high standard of investigation because they are about unobservable or repeatable events and processes. Ideas can be floated but thats it.

It depends what you mean by "origin issues". Experiments can indeed be done and are being done to test hypothesis about origins of some of the basic building blocks of life, the formation of "primitive" life forms, as well as how existing life forms can change. This is not just "floating ideas". Again, you are confused about the scientific method.

Byers writes:

Equal time or nobody in SCIENCE class.

No - Science is about discovery of knowledge, it is not about airing everyone's beliefs. That would be Comparative Religions class.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Robert Byers, posted 06-10-2011 4:53 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

frako
Member
Posts: 2695
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 64 of 129 (622116)
06-30-2011 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Robert Byers
06-10-2011 4:53 AM


Equal time or nobody in SCIENCE class.

Creationism IS NOT SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT DOES NOT USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Observation
hypothesis
EXPERIMENTATION
peer review
More testing by other scientists trying to prove you wrong
Scientific theory
More tests more predictions of the theory come true, no one finds a better explenation, or proves it wrond
accepted scientific theory

What of the above has the "theory" of creation gone trough???

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Robert Byers, posted 06-10-2011 4:53 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Robert Byers, posted 07-08-2011 1:40 AM frako has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 408 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


(1)
Message 65 of 129 (622124)
06-30-2011 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Modulous
06-28-2011 9:30 AM


The power of doubt
Modulous writes:

In my system, it is the mathematicians among the people that decide what mathematics to teach the next generation, the biologists decide what biology to teach the next generation and so on. It isn't perfect, but it avoids the popular misconception problem and it arms the next generation with the knowledge of the former generation so that they may use that as a basis upon which to learn truly original information about the world for themselves.

I think creationists greatly fear an essential piece of the process you describe: the aggressively questioning nature of young minds once they have been encouraged. Every year the past findings of science are pushed hard by young doubters.

Creationists seems to consider all educational processes as mind-washing or propaganda: yet they object to science classes free of religion precisely because science teaches the rigor of doubt in the service of knowledge. The inter-generational urge to find flaws in what has gone before constantly disciplines and challenges science. What could be grander than to correct Einstein or Hawking?

Religion, by contrast, depends on an unquestioning reverence for prior texts and authorities. This is so transparently the case that surely no further argument is required. It is true that some religions speak of the need or even virtue of questioning one's faith, but in the event this amounts to asking the expected questions and accepting the ancient answers. Doubt in religious practice is reduced to a dusty and sterile FAQ.

Creationists cannot be content with religious instruction at home or in the church because the demonstrable power of science and technology threatens the foundations of their beliefs--not by confrontation, or even by implication, but simply as an exemplar of the productive power of doubt. Young minds encouraged in the classroom to question beliefs that are without foundation will question beliefs without foundation everywhere.

Creationists know that creationism is not science. They want creationism taught in the science classroom because doubt is the mother of science, and doubt is their nemesis, one they hope to poison with a contaminant of certainty.

Even when they raise a child from the cradle to accept unquestionably, even when they protect their beliefs in churches and communities, as long as those children have an opportunity to discover the productive doubt, creationists fear the outcome.

Ironically, it is not the "propaganda of science" they claim to challenge that concerns them; it is science's stand on the firm ground of doubt.



Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
-Shakespeare

Real things always push back.
-William James


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 06-28-2011 9:30 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1809 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 66 of 129 (623069)
07-08-2011 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Modulous
06-28-2011 9:30 AM


Your just saying and saying those you agree with should teach whats true about origins.
The people don;t agree and simply want both sides taught.
We are saying there is a contention that is worthy of both sides.
you say no it isn't. thats your opinion. The peoples conclusion is that origin subjects are not settled or wrong. Likewise there is Christian foundation to criticisms.

Many or enough would say the misconceptions are the evolutionists side.
There is a contention and right now one side is banned in saying its opinion is founded on quality research and its opponents are not or are wrong anyways.
Thats the equation here.

Censorship of creationism where conclusions are taught is going on in Britain.
Creationism says the merits of evidence of nature support us and don't support them.
To censor this in subjects where serious conclusions are taught is to say creationism is wrong by act of authority.

No way around it.
If the people can not decide on whether origin subjects are free or censored or if the society will not have freedom then its not a free nation of free enquiry.
Its a tyranny of opinion.
Where is my logic wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 06-28-2011 9:30 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2011 1:26 PM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1809 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 67 of 129 (623071)
07-08-2011 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by frako
06-30-2011 6:01 PM


First there is no such thing as science. its just a word to describe conclusions from people thinking about complicated things relative to that time.
Thats why in the past science covered every skill.

I see no important different in thinking and drawing conclusions in any human matter of importance.

However the best that can be said IS that science is a species of thinking.
THAT is it is a high standard of investigation, as opposed to a ordinary standard which are pretty good, and so a high confidence in its conclusions.

Origin issues are not of this high standard. I have read many admit this in certain matters at least.
In fact origin issues being about past and gone events and processes are impossible to have such a high standard.
RThats why they are wrong and so easily criticized or doubted by anyone or everyone.
Not proved.

In fact it should be first the evolution side that demonstrates your list of steps to justify the confidence in the conclusions.

Repeat away.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by frako, posted 06-30-2011 6:01 PM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 07-08-2011 1:56 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 69 by anglagard, posted 07-08-2011 2:19 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6632
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 68 of 129 (623078)
07-08-2011 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Robert Byers
07-08-2011 1:40 AM


First there is no such thing as science.

Sure there is. It is what scientists do.

its just a word to describe conclusions from people thinking about complicated things relative to that time.

False. Science is the practical application of the scientific method. Science involves experiments and testing, much more than just thinking about something.

However the best that can be said IS that science is a species of thinking.

False. Science is an activity. You might as well describe tennis as thinking about a ball going over the net.

In fact it should be first the evolution side that demonstrates your list of steps to justify the confidence in the conclusions.

That is exactly what the last 150 years of biological science have done. It is time that you joined us in the 21st century.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Robert Byers, posted 07-08-2011 1:40 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2158
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 69 of 129 (623082)
07-08-2011 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Robert Byers
07-08-2011 1:40 AM


Beyond Astounding
Robert Byers writes:

First there is no such thing as science. its just a word to describe conclusions from people thinking about complicated things relative to that time.

I guess you are capable of saying anything, regardless of whether or not it makes sense.

I can do that, too, but I wouldn't be serious, are you?

First there is no such thing as religion.
First there is no such thing as history.
First there is no such thing as English.
First there is no such thing as reality.
First there is no such thing as me.

Thats why in the past science covered every skill.

From Dictionary.com on the definition of science, I urge all who deny that science exists and actually describes an actual concept to read the entire site.

quote:
Origin:
130050; Middle English < Middle French < Latin scientia knowledge, equivalent to scient- (stem of sciēns ), present participle of scīre to know + -ia -ia

So prior to 1300 AD, people had no skills?

Never mind, IMHO replying to you is as futile as replying to Markuze.

Have fun other posters. Sorry, I just can't keep up with this level of saying anything that pops into one's head without any pretense of thought or meaning.

Edited by anglagard, : Complete link to dictionary using a complete sentence.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Robert Byers, posted 07-08-2011 1:40 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 70 of 129 (623178)
07-08-2011 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Robert Byers
07-08-2011 1:29 AM


Hi Robert,
Since you have ignored everything I have said, and you have even said things that are false about me, I cannot find the motivation to continue to engage you further. An example is

Your just saying and saying those you agree with should teach whats true about origins.

I have not said that once, let alone repeated it. This is why, the last time you dishonestly claimed this and I challenged you to quote me where I said this, you were unable. I have merely stated that experts in any given field should be the ones making decisions regarding what gets taught to children about that subject.

If you wish to seriously discuss this matter, then tell me how to avoid the popular misconception problem. Also, please provide evidence that censorship of creationist ideas is taking place.


Where is my logic wrong?

Your reasoning firstly asserts censorship, where no such censorship exists.
Further, science is not a 'free' subject. People are not 'free' to invent their own scientific positions and subsequently have them taught to credulous children in state funded educational facilities. They are free to invent their own opinions on science and teach it to children at church or at home.

You need to address my actual responses rather than the responses you believe I am making if we are to continue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Robert Byers, posted 07-08-2011 1:29 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Robert Byers, posted 07-13-2011 3:48 AM Modulous has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1809 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 71 of 129 (623741)
07-13-2011 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Modulous
07-08-2011 1:26 PM


I have been serious and fair.
you tell me you didn't say you just want who and what you want taught and then AGAIN you say you want the EXPERTS to decide(only) whats taught in schools.
Yes you are saying you want who you want to do the teaching and thats it.
i'll leave it to the jury.

likewise with the censorship point.
In north america creationism is censored by state law and governments in public schools etc where conclusions on origins from intellectual investigation is taught .
In short in what they call science class.
Creationism is banned good . Censorship maximus.

I understand its the same thing in Brit schools. hOwever if you say that creationism is taught as a option for truth in all the details of the different subjects in origins IN school classes dealing with origin subjects seriously.
Then great.
Yet I understood censorship is order of the day.
HMMMM.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2011 1:26 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 07-13-2011 8:41 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 72 of 129 (623767)
07-13-2011 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Robert Byers
07-13-2011 3:48 AM


You have still not explained how you will avoid regurgitating popular misconceptions under your preferred system of education.


you tell me you didn't say you just want who and what you want taught and then AGAIN you say you want the EXPERTS to decide(only) whats taught in schools.
Yes you are saying you want who you want to do the teaching and thats it.

Yes, I am saying who I want to do the teaching, and who I want making that decision. I am not, however, stipulating that they must agree with me, as you falsely claimed in Message 66,

quote:
Your just saying and saying those you agree with should teach whats true about origins.

There are presumably areas that the experts and I disagree on, in which case the consensus of experts should be the one that be taught.

In north america creationism is censored by state law and governments in public schools etc where conclusions on origins from intellectual investigation is taught .

It is not permitted to teach it in the science classroom. That is not censorship. The evidence for this is that people are free to talk about creationism outside of a science classroom, write books about it and so on.

I should also point out that it would be illegal in North America for a science teacher to teach that evolution proves Christianity is false.
Do you regard this 'censorship' as equally immoral?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Robert Byers, posted 07-13-2011 3:48 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Robert Byers, posted 07-15-2011 1:32 AM Modulous has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1809 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 73 of 129 (623969)
07-15-2011 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Modulous
07-13-2011 8:41 AM


Nope. its fine to teach the truth.
anyways the teacher should present both sides.
They can give their personal opinion but not a state opinion of who is right.
Why such passion to stop the most famous disagreement?
All the subjects in mankind can be taught save this one.
it must be more then about origins.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 07-13-2011 8:41 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 07-15-2011 10:10 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1109 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 74 of 129 (623970)
07-15-2011 2:26 AM


Any source can be thought in schools, if they fit the criteria. If a premise is sound, and can be classified as scientifically or historically credible, it should not matter where it comes from, even a theology.

However, doctrines based solely on belief should be excluded. This creates immense problems should one theology be scientifically and historically viable and others not so. The terms theology and religion are relatively new, namely the Gospels and Quran are new, non-original doctrines and offers no scientific or historical insights which can be evidenced - both these documents contain no laws humanity accepted.

The reverse applies with the Hebrew bible, which has thus far safely verified over 70% of its historical content as vindicated by archeology, and most of our sciences is derived from this source, including:

1. The first record the universe is finite. [There was a 'BEGINNING'].

2. The introduction of the DAY & WEEK to humanity, and the oldest active calendar; 5771 years now.

3. The first advanced, alphabetical book [multi-page, continuing narratve].

4. The first recording of a human NAME [ADAM], the first King [Nimrod], the first ID of geographical marks in their correct locations [MOUNT ARARAT; MOUNT NEBO; etc], EVOLUTION [the first categorising of life forms in the correct protocol, listed by terrain]

5. The first scientific cencus, in millions, with sub-total breakdowns of gender and age; this unfolds relative ancient historical stats. The first introduction of MEDICINE as a science and its seperation from occultism [The ID, Treatment and Quarantine of contagious but not infectcious deseases such as Leprosy]

6. The first historical descriptions of ancient kings and nations, their beliefs, cultures, locations and diets, including ancient Egypt, the Philistines, the Canaanites, the Medianites, etc.

7. No nation offers greater or more proof by relics from the earth of its history, including an Egyptian Stelle dated 3,400 years which mentions a war with Israel; and the Tel Dan find which affirmed King David as a true historical figure.

8. Cross-nation contemporary evidential back-up verification.

9. The exclusive introduction of Abraham, his life and times, and geneology with names accepted as authentic of its period.

10. The introduction of Monotheism and 613 Hebrew laws which are all active and accepted in humanity's institutions today.


  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1109 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 75 of 129 (623971)
07-15-2011 2:30 AM


There is no alternative to Creationism from a scientific POV.

Name one?


Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Larni, posted 07-15-2011 4:47 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017