|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design in Science Class - Sample curriculum please | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
quote: The problem here is that "create" deals with the origins of life, whereas "evolve" simply explains why it is so diverse. To seperate into camps like this doesn't make sense, since these two things explain something different.
quote: That's backwards. We don't go to the centre and then find agreement, we must first find agreement and then move to the centre. Of course, like I said before, create and evolve explain two different things, and so they wouldn't be working toward the same centre anyway.
quote: Want to find me a scientist claiming that? Oh wait, your response will be: "No scientist will claim it because they 'remain silent.'" Which basically means you can make that statement and never have to back it up. Well, I guess I'd like to ask some scientists to say otherwise (proving both that they do not think God is the higher understanding they seek and that they don't "remain silent.") One stone for two birds... I'm feeling quite economical today.
quote: IF, IF, we discover there is a god, then the best thing to do would be to try to understand it, just like we tried to understand the atom when we realized its existance. And besides, who's to say that what one person might consider a discovered "god" really isn't a god at all. I mean, if we do discover this god, how will we know we have discovered it? You're giving a name to something that we haven't even discovered yet (sort of like Columbus leaving Spain saying "I'm off to America."--it just doesn't make sense).
quote: If you're trying to make a point with this, I certainly don't see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
Can you explain why math is affected but other non-science courses aren't Mathematics requires logical and critical thinking. Those teachers who encourage critical thinking build very good mathematicians.Other subjects like Physics, chemistry, which are mathematics based subjects also fall in this category.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
Critical thinking can very well be applied to everyday life. It is not only applicable to Mathematics,but also other subjects.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2512 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
i'm not sure why I'm even responding.
Children will believe anything that is taught.In the public school, they have been taught (brain washed) that Evolution is a fact. The outcome is that our students do extremely poor in Maths and Science you should recognize those words. They're yours.
Teaching of evolution has nothing to do with the performance in Maths. Also your words. I've quoted them chronologically. Please don't tell me I have to show you your own contradiction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Mathematics requires logical and critical thinking. Those teachers who encourage critical thinking build very good mathematicians.Other subjects like Physics, chemistry, which are mathematics based subjects also fall in this category. inkorrekt, msg 93 writes: Critical thinking can very well be applied to everyday life. It is not only applicable to Mathematics,but also other subjects. See that's where the problem is -- if you teach critical thinking in one school and not in the other, then the effect should be seen across the board in all classes. I presume you are now also equivocating on the teaching of evolution as being a culprit, as you have not answered why the private schools that teach evolution also have the grade differences you note. Please apply critical thinking to the concept you have presented. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
I wrote that Teaching of Evolution has nothing to do with poor performance in Maths and Science. I also wrote that what is taught is not important. But, how it is taught is more important. I also insisted that Evolution must be taught. Here is the distinction: If evolution is taught as the only mechanism by which all living things originated, then there is a problem. On the other hand, if the teacher also tells the students that at present, there is no explanation as to how life came into existence, then the teacher is doing a perfect job. It will be even better if the teacher allows the students to question why should this be Evolution alone? Can there be any other way life could have come into existence?
I did not contradict anything. You did not understand what I meant. One more time.My emphasis was teaching Evolution with Critical thinking and Teaching Evolution without Critical thinking. Without allowing students to think critically not only of Evolution, but of any other subject does not help them to perform Mathematics and Science very well.The reason: These two subjects depend on Logic and reasoning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
On the other hand, if the teacher also tells the students that at present, there is no explanation as to how life came into existence, then the teacher is doing a perfect job. By telling lies? How is that a "perfect job"? Are you sure you didn't mean to say "heckuva job?" The truth is that there are many explanations for how life came into existence. We don't know which one is right. We do know that many of them are wrong. Saying that there are none at all would not be true.
Can there be any other way life could have come into existence? Other way than what? Evolution is not a explanation for the origin of life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2512 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
that's your new statement, but the switch to this position was without an explanation. Suddenly, you went from saying that teaching evolution leads to poor math scores to not teaching critical thinking leads to math scores. You also never fully explained why teaching evolution leads to bad math scores, and I'm guessing this is why you changed position--you realized what an illogical postion you held was.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
I have tried to explain in as many simple ways I could. You keep on beating the same drum. i am sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I wrote that Teaching of Evolution has nothing to do with poor performance in Maths and Science. I also wrote that what is taught is not important. But, how it is taught is more important. I also insisted that Evolution must be taught.
Message 73inkorrekt, msg 73 writes: ...they have been taught (brain washed) that Evolution is a fact. The outcome is that our students do extremely poor in Maths and Science. You implied a direct link between teaching evolution and poor performance.
If evolution is taught as the only mechanism by which all living things originated, then there is a problem. Once again, evolution is not about first life, but about change in existing life over time. The science that deals with finding a "mechanism by which all living things originated" is called Abiogenesis. But here's an easy solution to your concern on teaching evolution: develop an alternative scientific theory, based on observations of real evidence; use it to make predictions of things you would see if theory {NEW} were correct and theory {Just Evolution} was incorrect; look for evidence; document finding it; write peer reviewed paper demonstrating the power of theory {NEW} to predict actual occurances where theory {Just Evolution} failed; wait 10-50 years for it to get into textbooks.
The reason: These two subjects depend on Logic and reasoning As does evolution. So far it is the only logical explanation that fits all the facts in a consistent and predictable manner. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
As does evolution. So far it is the only logical explanation that fits all the facts in a consistent and predictable manner This is where the problem is. Where does evolution stand if there are no assumptions, suppositions, predictions and extrapolations?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
inkorrect writes: Where does evolution stand if there are no assumptions, suppositions, predictions and extrapolations? Do you realize you are arbitrarily outlawing the very foundations for formulating any testable theory when you spew forth such drivel?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I'm not sure that is what he meant. Of course I'm also not sure what he meant ...
Does he mean that there are "no assumptions, suppositions, predictions and extrapolations?" in the process of formulating theories in evolution, as in any science? Or does he mean that there are "no assumptions, suppositions, predictions and extrapolations?" at all in evolutionary science? Or does he mean that there are "no assumptions, suppositions, predictions and extrapolations?" in logic? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
Do you realize you are arbitrarily outlawing the very foundations for formulating any testable theory when you spew forth such drivel? No one is outlawing anything. We are only asking simple questions. We are not getting any answers. First of all you know verywell that the foundation of evolution is based purely on Naturalism which is a philosophy and it is not even Science. Why are you still defending this holy cow?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
WE???
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024