|
Author
|
Topic: The Whys of Evolution
|
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: 04-14-2005
|
Orientation of faith is environmentally determined
Parasomnium writes: Most Christians and Muslims are born that way, or rather, the decision is made for them by the community they are born into. I agree wholeheartedly. That is why I admire the courageous few that reject their religious upbringing and decide to think for themselves (both my parents, for example). I know many people from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds whose beliefs are merely a function of where they grew up. It seems that the religions most effective at propagating themselves have all developed strong mechanisms for ‘transgenerational programming’ in their communities and also threaten a lot of very punitive consequences for those that 'disobey God's will'. The family is typically co-opted to ensure that the children are all brainwashed with the local ‘faith’ from the time they are old enough to learn anything. This is one of the primary reasons we need to keep ALL religion out of the public schools — to give kids a chance to learn how to ask the hard questions, think for themselves, and doubt the veracity of anything presented as dogma. To bring this back to topic though, I also agree with the premise of the first message. The teaching emphasis should be on HOW evolution works. However, questions of why could be reformulated as ‘why we use evolutionary theory’ (it works) as opposed to addressing any inferences regarding final purposes. It should be explained to students insisting on ‘final purpose’ explanations that these are completely outside the scope of science and cannot be addressed in a science course.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by Parasomnium, posted 05-24-2005 5:04 AM | | Parasomnium has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 28 by GDR, posted 05-24-2005 2:24 PM | | EZscience has replied |
|
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: 04-14-2005
|
|
Message 30 of 108 (210888)
05-24-2005 2:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 28 by GDR
05-24-2005 2:24 PM
|
|
Re: Orientation of faith is environmentally determined
GDR writes: Let's be fair. We all try to influence our kids, and even if we weren't they would be influenced by us anyway. True enough. That's why we need objectivity in public education without any 'faith-based' influences.
GDR writes: I find it interesting that you think that the best way to help kids think for themselves is to keep them from being exposed to ideas that don't agree with your own. Not at all. I just happen to feel it is inappropriate to teach anything about 'religious values' in a public school. They can get all the exposure they want if they go to church. I am not advocating eliminating exposure to religious beliefs, but rather preventing religious beliefs from corrupting the teaching of what I consider to be more objective and unbiased ways of analyzing the world around us, e.g. the scientific method, inductive reason, logic etc.
GDR writes: When you deny students the opportunity to contrast Atheism with Theist religions you are then left with kids being taught Atheism How so? You don't have to 'teach Atheism' to teach kids how to think logically and objectively and to reason for themselves. Issues of personal faith-based 'belief', in the sense you use it, need not be addressed in school. They only cloud the issue of what learning really consitutes: the development of models and algorithms for *reasoning*. Religious beliefs, or beliefs that religions are all garbage, are both completely superfluous to my concept of what education should consist of.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by GDR, posted 05-24-2005 2:24 PM | | GDR has not replied |
|
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: 04-14-2005
|
|
|
Message 38 of 108 (210921)
05-24-2005 4:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by GDR
05-24-2005 3:55 PM
|
|
Re: Orientation of faith is environmentally determined
gdr writes: I want my kids, (they're all adults by the way) to have as much information as possible. I guess we will have to agree to disagree, starting with what constitutes 'information'. To me, 'information' is like some form of evidence for something. It has to be concrete, tangible, and objectively assessable in some way or it isn't 'information'. Religion is all mythology, so I don't view it to contain any 'information' in the strict sense - only stories, fables, and suppositions. And I don't have any direct teaching responsibilities, so you don't have to worry about me subliminially spreading atheism  .
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by GDR, posted 05-24-2005 3:55 PM | | GDR has not replied |
|
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: 04-14-2005
|
Re: Atheism is NOT a belief.
You know, I think your message title would make a good title for a whole new thread. This happens repeatedly - theists accusing atheists of trying to spread some sort of anti-religious belief structure. And it extends to their attacks on evolutionary theory. They keep trying to say that 'Darwinism' constitutes a 'belief' that is antithetic to Christian beliefs when it's just not true. I think it is a 'trap' strategy for them, because if they get you to play that game, then you are debating by their rules and not by the rules of science they seem unable to accept.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by Parasomnium, posted 05-24-2005 4:16 PM | | Parasomnium has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 44 by GDR, posted 05-24-2005 5:23 PM | | EZscience has replied |
|
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: 04-14-2005
|
|
|
Message 50 of 108 (210985)
05-24-2005 9:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by GDR
05-24-2005 5:23 PM
|
|
Re: Atheism is NOT a belief.
OK. I don't want to nit-pic, but you really have to look closely at all possible literal interpretations of what you write:
..when education is presented without giving other world views atheism is the world view that remains in the void that is left. Q: Since when does education leave a void !? And you would classify atheism as some sort of morally unsatisfying residue that is all that remains after humanity abandons religion ? I find far more intellectual satisfaction in considering non-theistic explanations of nature than theistic ones.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by GDR, posted 05-24-2005 5:23 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 54 by ringo, posted 05-24-2005 10:14 PM | | EZscience has not replied | | | Message 55 by GDR, posted 05-24-2005 10:38 PM | | EZscience has not replied |
|
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: 04-14-2005
|
|
|
Message 51 of 108 (210986)
05-24-2005 9:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by GDR
05-24-2005 7:14 PM
|
|
Re: Orientation of faith is environmentally determined
GDR writes: I would agree with posting your list of world religions, and point out where to go for information on all of them... there should then be instruction as to the basic tenets of all major world religions But you haven't pointed out any tangible reasons why there is any real *value* to be gained by learning about all these religions. What if they are all the same clown in different costumes ? Wouldn't learning objectively about one religion be just as good as learning about the tedious, pedantic details of all of them ? I think GAW has presented some very good reasons why we should be wary of all religions. I don't see much evidence to the contrary.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by GDR, posted 05-24-2005 7:14 PM | | GDR has not replied |
|
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: 04-14-2005
|
|
|
Message 52 of 108 (210987)
05-24-2005 9:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by GDR
05-24-2005 7:14 PM
|
|
Re: Orientation of faith is environmentally determined
Double post. This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-24-2005 08:28 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by GDR, posted 05-24-2005 7:14 PM | | GDR has not replied |
|
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: 04-14-2005
|
|
|
Message 60 of 108 (211106)
05-25-2005 10:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by GDR
05-24-2005 10:39 PM
|
|
String theory and other mathematical contructs
GDR writes: It seems to me when I read about string theory that we might even be approaching that point (the edge of the metaphysical). Sorry, I would have to argue no. Just because these highly advanced mathematical constructs seem intangible on the surface and are beyond the comprehension of most of us, does not mean that the boundaries of science are being blurred. String theories are abstract models of possible realities but they are NOT metaphysical for one simple resaon: They are quantifiable and make quantifiable predictions that may or may not be consistent with observations. Thus they will ultimately stand/fall/evolve based on their correspondence to real world observations, whether these observations are derived from particle accelerators or astronomical measurements.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by GDR, posted 05-24-2005 10:39 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 63 by GDR, posted 05-25-2005 11:31 AM | | EZscience has replied |
|
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: 04-14-2005
|
|
|
Message 61 of 108 (211115)
05-25-2005 11:20 AM
|
|
|
How and Why
Just found this letter to the editor in the Topeka Capital Journal. It seemed to express a very balanced view of the core of this thread.
How and why The debate regarding how to address the theory of evolution in science classrooms in Kansas, as well as the consideration of teaching the theory of "intelligent design" seems to call us to take a stand on one side or another. Everyone must be either an evolutionist or a proponent of intelligent design (which usually means subscribing to the basics of the creation story in the Old Testament). Surely you can't be a person of faith and believe in evolution! And if you're an evolutionist, you must not be a person of faith. As one who grew up in the Bible Belt, went to church every Sunday and graduated from the public school system, I came to have a healthy appreciation both for the story of creation in Genesis and the evolution theory I heard when I was in sophomore biology class. Though no one ever explained it to me, I came to believe that there are two ways of approaching truth. One method answers the how questions, while the other method deals with the questions of why. The role of scientific exploration is to approach the how questions and to offer us probable answers. The role of the religious community is to help people discover answers to the questions of why. On the subject of how the world came in to being, and how humanity has arrived at this time and place, I will study biology and physics. The questions of why we were created are deep, penetrating questions of the soul. Those questions are best approached through theology and deserve the attention of the faith community. We face conflict and hostility when scientists tell people of faith that the Genesis story is meaningless and without authority. Likewise, people of faith are wide of the mark when they demean the role of science. JIM McCOLLOUGH, Topeka
|
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: 04-14-2005
|
|
|
Message 69 of 108 (211141)
05-25-2005 12:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by GDR
05-25-2005 11:31 AM
|
|
Re: String theory and other mathematical contructs
GDR writes: ...if we ever get empirical evidence to back up any of these or other theories science just might be able to say this is where the metaphysical joins the physical The 'empirical evidence' issue is really the crux of the matter for me. Without it, all this type of suppositional thinking cannot be taken too seriously. Also, as you seem to enjoy reading all this esoteric material, I would suggest you ask yourself one question repeatedly. Is this particular idea presented in a form that is testable, i.e. is it feasible to formulate a falsifiable hypothesis that might support or refute this idea? If you cannot answer 'yes', then the idea does not constitute a scientific theory.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by GDR, posted 05-25-2005 11:31 AM | | GDR has replied |
|
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: 04-14-2005
|
|
|
Message 72 of 108 (211144)
05-25-2005 12:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by jar
05-25-2005 12:17 PM
|
|
Re: Perhaps and extreme statement?
As stated, perhaps a bit extreme.
But I am inclined to agree that the 'encouraging of ignorance' is one implicit effect of religion, rather than its explicit goal.
The very concept of 'faith', common to all religions, requires unquestioning belief and this runs counter to the principles of objective investigation and therefore counter to what is necessary to 'dispell ignorance'.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by jar, posted 05-25-2005 12:17 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 73 by jar, posted 05-25-2005 12:51 PM | | EZscience has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2