Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?
The Critic 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3138 days)
Posts: 12
From: conn
Joined: 07-03-2006


Message 241 of 308 (328973)
07-05-2006 1:34 PM


Hmm Hm!
This is to Nosyned,
Perhaps you're what Bush really refers to as non-english speaking. My comment refers to the subject of teaching evolution in schools. I'm not going to be prejudgemental about this, it's just that homosexuality needs a further origin than a human mind.

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Chiroptera, posted 07-05-2006 1:40 PM The Critic has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 308 (328974)
07-05-2006 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by The Critic
07-05-2006 1:34 PM


Re: Hmm Hm!
Ned is correct. The post to which he is referring is gibberish. This last post of yours is at least comprehensible in itself but sheds no light on the other post.
-
quote:
Perhaps you're what Bush really refers to as non-english speaking.
Heh. Neither you nor Bush should be criticizing others' problems with the language.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by The Critic, posted 07-05-2006 1:34 PM The Critic has not replied

The Critic 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3138 days)
Posts: 12
From: conn
Joined: 07-03-2006


Message 243 of 308 (328987)
07-05-2006 2:11 PM


I'm sorry if my slightings are effective but I do think my first post was an understanding of the topical question and very understandable, given the excuses that are made for human interaction, for which we choose to avoid factual explanation.
I do not believe that redundancy should be in this format, reveiw is unyeilding. The question or topic at the top of the page, and the replies. Perhaps some still have not evolved into this type of intelligence so that redundancy is needed. You just have to excuse me if I seemed to be ahead of that observance.

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Chiroptera, posted 07-05-2006 2:33 PM The Critic has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 308 (328996)
07-05-2006 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by The Critic
07-05-2006 2:11 PM


(Sigh) Let's see:
quote:
I'm sorry if my slightings are effective
What does this mean? By "slightings", do you mean insults? If so, what do you mean by "effective slightings"? Did you have a purpose for them, and do you think that they served their purpose? This isn't clear.
-
quote:
but I do think my first post was an understanding of the topical question and very understandable,
And "understanding" is an agreement between two or more people, and you clearly don't mean that here (unless you really are trying to be incomprehensible). Do you mean relevant to the OP? Again, it is not clear.
-
quote:
given the excuses that are made for human interaction, for which we choose to avoid factual explanation.
Who is making excuses for human interaction? What does that even mean? What is a "factual explanation"? What is an "unfactual explanation"? Your sentence, when read literally, is saying that we are choosing to avoid "factual explanation" for the sake of making excuses for "human interaction", when I suspect that you mean the opposite. But maybe not; again, you are simply not clear.
-
quote:
I do not believe that redundancy should be in this format,
What redundancy? In what format? This is totally incomprehensible.
-
quote:
reveiw is unyeilding.
Review of what? What do you mean by unyielding? Again, incomprehensible.
-
quote:
The question or topic at the top of the page, and the replies.
This is a sentence fragment, the intended meaning of which is lost.
-
quote:
Perhaps some still have not evolved into this type of intelligence so that redundancy is needed.
No, we just need grammatically correct and logically constructed sentences.
-
quote:
You just have to excuse me if I seemed to be ahead of that observance.
What do you mean by "observance"? "Observance" means the following of a ritual or tradition. Do you mean "observation"? In either case, what do you mean by being ahead of it?
We can excuse you if English is not your first language, but you will have to quit pretending that your writing is comprehensible. If English is your first language, then, oh my!, you desperately need to taking a basic writing course. This is another post that shows the low level of your writing skills.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by The Critic, posted 07-05-2006 2:11 PM The Critic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Rail Bird, posted 07-05-2006 2:56 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Rail Bird
Junior Member (Idle past 1598 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 06-09-2006


Message 245 of 308 (328999)
07-05-2006 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Chiroptera
07-05-2006 2:33 PM


Reminds me of Brad
The Critic's post reminds me of Brad McFall. I can't understand him either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Chiroptera, posted 07-05-2006 2:33 PM Chiroptera has not replied

AlienInvader
Member (Idle past 4925 days)
Posts: 48
From: MD
Joined: 07-07-2006


Message 246 of 308 (329734)
07-07-2006 11:54 PM


Yay
Slight modification to the proposed scheme-
optional origins-mythos studies. While there's no doubt of the benefit of such studies, it is necessary to also weigh the limited amount of time afforded to various subjects in the curriculum of a normal highschool or middleschool student.
^_^ some of the posters here seem far removed from their teenage years; i clearly remember a rather hectic highschool career and a rather regimented middleschool one...
yay for rational thought

neil88
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 308 (331538)
07-13-2006 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Finding Nirvana
02-09-2006 5:51 PM


Just a quick reply - could write a book on this subject
I think that both can be taught in schools as long as Creationism is taught under "Religious Instruction" and Evolution is taught under
"Science".
They are two different things. I was taught both in school in the UK and had no problem reconciling the two. The Bible is a "book" compiled from many very old texts. These texts are of historical significance, but they do not represent tales of fact or science. Since then I have worked for many years as a geologist on many continents and it did not take me long after school to understand religion for what it is - a "faith" not based on scientific evidence or definite fact.
Maybe you need to understand exactly what scientific enquiry is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Finding Nirvana, posted 02-09-2006 5:51 PM Finding Nirvana has not replied

The Tiger
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 308 (336139)
07-28-2006 5:45 PM


Wow! I'm amazed. You people are completely narrowminded and unopen to any other possibilities. You wouldn't accept creation if God came down in a chariot of fire and told oyu you have been all wrong. You are utterly biased behind change.
Explain to me why science and creation are mutually exlusive? Are you saying we should either believe science or creation? Not both? That's impossible considering I believe both. I have found no reason not to. I thin k much of the bible and such is symbolic and metaphorical, because of that right there I have no reason not to believe.
Don't judge my level of knowledge ok, you don't know how much I've researched aznd read up on this subject. Don't claim to know what you don't know.

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2006 6:04 PM The Tiger has not replied
 Message 250 by jar, posted 07-28-2006 6:07 PM The Tiger has not replied
 Message 251 by nator, posted 07-28-2006 6:50 PM The Tiger has not replied
 Message 252 by IrishPagan, posted 08-06-2006 1:01 PM The Tiger has replied
 Message 253 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2006 2:40 PM The Tiger has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 249 of 308 (336148)
07-28-2006 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by The Tiger
07-28-2006 5:45 PM


Explain to me why science and creation are mutually exlusive?
Hi. They aren't. By "Creationism", we generally mean fiat creation of species (or, nowadays "kinds", whatever they are). It does not usually mean the question of whether there is a creator God per se.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by The Tiger, posted 07-28-2006 5:45 PM The Tiger has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 250 of 308 (336151)
07-28-2006 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by The Tiger
07-28-2006 5:45 PM


I don't think anyone is saying that Science and Creation are mutually exclusive. What is being said is that Biblical Creationism and Young Earth have been UTTERLY refuted and should be treated as any other myth.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by The Tiger, posted 07-28-2006 5:45 PM The Tiger has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 251 of 308 (336165)
07-28-2006 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by The Tiger
07-28-2006 5:45 PM


quote:
Wow! I'm amazed. You people are completely narrowminded and unopen to any other possibilities.
Completely untrue.
I am an Agnostic. That means that I am open to all possibilities that pass the bullshit test.
quote:
You wouldn't accept creation if God came down in a chariot of fire and told oyu you have been all wrong.
Assuming the experience could be verified in the usual way, then you can be sure that I would take notice of such an occurrence.
BTW, do you worship Apollo?
quote:
You are utterly biased behind change.
Usually, the people asking the most questions, and doubting the most, are the ones with the least biased thinking.
quote:
Explain to me why science and creation are mutually exlusive?
They aren't.
quote:
Are you saying we should either believe science or creation? Not both?
It really depends upon what you mean by "creation", and "science".
quote:
That's impossible considering I believe both. I have found no reason not to. I thin k much of the bible and such is symbolic and metaphorical, because of that right there I have no reason not to believe.
Lovely, that's what a lot of intellectually honest Christians manage to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by The Tiger, posted 07-28-2006 5:45 PM The Tiger has not replied

IrishPagan
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 308 (338237)
08-06-2006 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by The Tiger
07-28-2006 5:45 PM


It's really quite is simple subject, made complicated by opposing political forces.
Creationism - a religious myth.
Evolution - a scientific theory proven by fossil evidence.
The seperation issue is big here in the US of course. This is simply of that issue in my opinion.
Public schools are government run, to provide education to the general public. The general public consists of every single religion, and none, resident in this country. To teach Creationsism from the viewpoint of only one religion, and I have yet to see any ciriculum suggested from any others, is irresponsible at the very least, and a direct insult to all who look to other Gods, or none, at worst.
Creationism belongs in Parochial Schools, evolution in Public Schools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by The Tiger, posted 07-28-2006 5:45 PM The Tiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by The Tiger, posted 08-08-2006 3:25 PM IrishPagan has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 253 of 308 (338263)
08-06-2006 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by The Tiger
07-28-2006 5:45 PM


You people are completely narrowminded and unopen to any other possibilities.
I'm open to whatever possibilities you can provide evidence for.
How about, instead of rolling up in here and psychoanalyzing a bunch of people you've never ever met, you read some posts first? How about instead of dismissing us as closeminded, you actually try to convince us with arguments and evidence?
Or is invective the best that you have?
Don't judge my level of knowledge ok, you don't know how much I've researched aznd read up on this subject.
How about you present some of that, ok?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by The Tiger, posted 07-28-2006 5:45 PM The Tiger has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 254 of 308 (338309)
08-06-2006 8:20 PM


The question which always puzzles me is what is to be taught, if Creationism is to be taught.
Most of Creationist rhetoric depends on getting the theory of evolution wrong, after all. (Can anyone show me a creationist website which states it accurately?)
So one day the teacher would have to be reciting Creationist nonsense about how "evolutionists say that everything happened by pure chance", and the next day she's explaining that the theory of evolution explains evolution by means of the laws of genetics and the law of natural selection. What's she meant to say?
"Well, there are two theories about what the theory of evolution says. Creation theory says that the theory of evolution says one thing, and the theory of evolution says that the theory of evolution says another thing. And I'm obliged by law to teach them as though they were equal."
One day she must lie and tell them that the word "theory" means something unsubstantiated, and the next day she will have to set them right. (After all, do we want to persuade them that gravity is a myth?)
One day she is obliged to rave Creationist nonsense about atheism and materialism, the next day, when she's teaching evolution, and little Timmy raises his hand and asks when she's going to prove that there's no God ...
"I'm not."
"But you said yesterday that this was the foundation of evolution!"
"Well, there are two theories about what the theory of evolution says. Creation theory says that the theory of evolution says one thing, and the theory of evolution says that the theory of evolution says another thing. Yesterday I was teaching what Creation theory says that the theory of evolution says, and now I'm telling you what the theory of evolution says that the theory of evolution says."
"Oh, it's like that again, is it?"
So even if you found a science teacher willing to teach what she knows to be nonsense, she would also be painfully aware that the children would spot that she was talking nonsense.
Again, there's the list of things that "scientists have no explanation for". It's astonishing how many of these were actually explained specifically in the Origin of Species. So one day she's telling them that there's no explanation, the next day she gives the explanation.
"But you said ... ?"
Or, again, here's a Creationist on intermediate forms: "The links are missing. Nearly all the fossils are just our present animals, and the links between them are just not there. Few scientists today are still looking for fossil links between the major vertebrate or invertebrate groups. They have given up! The links just do not exist and have never existed."
And the next day, a quotation from a scientist: "Elephants, turtles, whales, birds often have been cited as species where transitional species have not been identified. This is no longer true. We have gained more in the fossil record in the last ten years than in almost the entire previous history of science."
Well, little Timmy has his hand up again. "You said they'd given up looking for intermediate forms!"
"Well, there are two theories. Creationists say that paleontologists have given up looking for intermediate forms, and paleontologists say that paleontologists haven't given up looking for intermediate forms. And also that they keep finding them. Now, hush up while I tell you about the intemediate forms that I told you yesterday didn't exist. It's going to take us more than one lesson just to go through the sequence from fish to amphibians, and remember, I'm only allowed to speak the truth on alternate days."
Need I labor the point? One day, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the theory of evolution is impossible.
Hand goes up.
"So, one or the other of them must be wrong?"
(Why Creationists never notice this point is beyond me, but I suppose there'd be at least one bright child in the class.)
And the next day she teaches them what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is.
Busted!
"So, when you told us yesterday that the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that evolution is impossible ... this is formally equivalent to claiming that if evolution was possible, I could build a fridge without a power source?"
"Er ... yes. But that was when I was teaching what Creationists say that the theory of thermodynamics says. Now I'm teaching what the theory of thermodynamics says that the theory of thermodynamics says."
I repeat: you might find a science teacher willing to teach what she knows to be false. But where will you find one who will do this when she knows that she's going to be found out?
The only honest way to "teach Creationism", is to teach from the get-go that it is wrong: to deliberately, not covertly, hold it up next to real science and point out the differences. I am not sure that this can be done within the constraints of "equal time", however. It takes mere seconds to mouth balderdash like "the laws of thermodynamics say that evolution is impossible". It takes quite a while to learn thermodynamics, which is the cure for this delusion. Real science simply takes more time and effort to learn than pseudoscience --- hence the popularity of pseudoscience --- and so demands for "equal time" favor those with nothing of substance to say.

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2006 1:08 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 255 of 308 (338326)
08-07-2006 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Dr Adequate
08-06-2006 8:20 PM


Great post. Post of the Month material, in fact, except that the admins appear to be about seven days late in actually creating an August POTM thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2006 8:20 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by AdminNWR, posted 08-07-2006 1:27 AM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024