|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
From what you have demonstrated, teaching evolution involves stomping on anything that contravenes the idea, and airing out your laundry in public.
Not good for schools at all. "Now children, today we are going to look at Evolution.Life began by an angry wart turning itself into an eye. Your greatest grandparents swung by their tails and later ate mammoths, but we are so much smarter than all previous species. The sun is going to explode, burn up the earth and turn into a red dwarf, write that down..."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In other words "if you want to pass school you'll have to guess the way we guess, and not do your own guessing." Guess what? You aren't fooling anybody. Your first post was shown to be based on ignorance and bad logic, and all you do here is repeat your previous mistake. In other words you following your plan for passing in school have failed.
That's what school is anyway I suppose. And yet school is not the only way to learn -- you can study evolution, for instance, from
Berkeley's Evolution 101 Online Class Reading just the first page will show that your straw man is false. Doing independent research is one way to test the validity of your argument. Don't you agree? Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I'll begin moderating this thread soon if the off-topic sideshow doesn't quickly end. Please give the Forum Guidelines a look, particularly these:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I made a comment on the basic English meaning of those words, not necessarily your version or a scientific term. You're funny. See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. and Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. for why this is a typical creationist ridiculous position.
I know the scientific terms and how they are used. I was showing that in choosing those terms they have a misnomer if they are going by the plain text. So you are claiming that education on evolution should necessarily involve intentional misuse of words and intentional misinformation to confuse students. Sounds more like religious teaching to me ... is that the kind of teaching you had?
In school we use the terms in their basic form first, so if the T of E is taught in schools it should come under better terms to describe the horrid thing. Curiously in the schools I attended we learned the meanings of the words as they were applied in the various courses of study. This may be why I had a good education ...
... to describe the horrid thing. Again it seems you are talking about religion rather than science or actual information. You do realize that attempting to denigrate information is a sign of cognitive dissonance behavior -- what happens when you try to resolve untenable beliefs with reality. It is an emotional response instead of a rational one. Evolution (actual biological evolution) happens every day. It is an observed fact. Get use to it. Just like the earth is old, very, very old. (see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for evidence of age). Facts are like that, and science education should teach concepts based on facts rather than beliefs, it should teach how to test concepts with objective empirical evidence rather than acceptance based on pretend authority - which is the way religion is taught. If you want to rationally address the issue of evolution, you would do it with argument based on terms as used in biological evolution, and you would do it with facts, evidence and logic to show any actual errors in this field. That this is not your present pursuit on this thread indicates - to me - that you do not have any fact, evidence or logic to support your bias and so you flail away with silly self-defeating arguments. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
From what you have demonstrated, teaching evolution involves stomping on anything that contravenes the idea, and airing out your laundry in public. Not good for schools at all. "Now children, today we are going to look at Evolution. Life began by an angry wart turning itself into an eye. Your greatest grandparents swung by their tails and later ate mammoths, but we are so much smarter than all previous species. The sun is going to explode, burn up the earth and turn into a red dwarf, write that down..." Again, I would suggest that since you have no idea what evolution is, you should try to find out something about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MFFJM2 Member (Idle past 3235 days) Posts: 58 From: Washington, DC Joined: |
Answer - No.
Explanation - The US School system, because it is funded by taxes, is a system of the states, and ultimately the federal government. Consequently, it is unconstitutional according to many rulings by the US Supreme Court for the US government to support any religion with tax dollars. There must be, as Jefferson noted, a wall of separation between the two. Religion can be, and is taught in private schools, but the public schools are different. Evolution by natural selection is a scientific explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, and there is no serious debate about it in the scientific community. Suggesting that the ToE and Creationism be taught side by side attempts to make these two positions equivalent, which they are not. Should we also teach astrology alongside astronomy, and alchemy alongside chemistry..? The question is ludicrous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
and ultimately the federal government. Consequently, it is unconstitutional according to many rulings by the US Supreme Court for the US government A bit confused even if your heart is in the right place. The Supreme Court has not ruled that the public school systems are a system of the federal government. Instead, the Court has ruled that the 1st amendment (and much but not all of the bill of rights) applies to the states and their school systems due to incorporation through the 14th amendment. Were it to be as you said, a state could simply refuse federal intervention in its school system if it wanted to teach religion in schools. And a bunch of states in the deep south would probably choose to do exactly that.
Suggesting that the ToE and Creationism be taught side by side attempts to make these two positions equivalent, which they are not No it wouldn't. If done honestly discussing Creationism in science class would probably make Creationism look pretty silly. Also, astrology does not complete with astronomy. There would be little to no problem ridiculing alchemy and astrology in a science course. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD said, going independent research is one way to test the validity of your argument. Don't you agree?
Absolutely, but not too independent, it's a balance of self and others. I like your reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Sermonizing on Evolution is a contradiction.
You can present what one regards as fact, but to be emotive or moralistic maybe leaning towards the dark ages. We don't want to be preaching evolution. Making me out to be of the religious stock is untrue and unfair, since I have only been arguing the case that if the T of E is going to be taught, then it's basic name and philosophies should be scrutinized. Not all who oppose evolution are bias towards the church's agenda.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Children are not going to relish the long version of things, they'll summarize evolution down fairly quickly, to - "the world was filled with dinosaurs and we are all going to die like them, unless we become fighters"
Hence the popularity of the game themes based on fighting monsters, which takes up most of their home time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD said, going independent research is one way to test the validity of your argument. Don't you agree? Try this next time: type [qs=RAZD]Doing independent research is one way to test the validity of your argument. Don't you agree?[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes: Doing independent research is one way to test the validity of your argument. Don't you agree? You can also copy and paste what you are quoting rather than retyping it -- I did that in orange -- that avoids typos and accusations of misrepresentation.
Absolutely, but not too independent, it's a balance of self and others. I like your reply. And what do you do when the independent research shows your opinion to be faulty? For instance, if you believe the earth is young, and you ran across the evidence in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 ... would you accept the evidence of old age or reject and ignore it? In other words, do you use independent study to correct your opinions with better approximations of reality or just to reinforce your beliefs by rejecting contrary evidence? Enjoy ps -- you can use the peek functions to see how formating is done.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Children are not going to relish the long version of things, they'll summarize evolution down fairly quickly, to - "the world was filled with dinosaurs and we are all going to die like them, unless we become fighters" That would pretty much be an argument against trying to teach anything. They're not going to relish the long version of calculus or Spanish verb forms either, but they don't turn everything they hear into stupid nonsense, because they aren't as dumb as you think they are. Also, since dinosaurs were killed by a giant meteorite, the moral an incredibly stupid person would draw from their extinction is that they should wear a hard hat at all times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes: You can also copy and paste what you are quoting rather than retyping it -- I did that in orange -- that avoids typos and accusations of misrepresentation. You're a kind bloke
RAZD writes: -And what do you do when the independent research shows your opinion to be faulty? Then it's the independent v's the majority. What does history show about individuals who stand out from the majority? It' not a criterion for truth but often the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: That would pretty much be an argument against trying to teach anything. They're not going to relish the long version of calculus or Spanish verb forms either, but they don't turn everything they hear into stupid nonsense, because they aren't as dumb as you think they are. Also, since dinosaurs were killed by a giant meteorite, the moral an incredibly stupid person would draw from their extinction is that they should wear a hard hat at all times. True, about children and calculus...the hard hats (and hi vis clothing) would have saved the dinosaurs, according to the safety authorities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
What does history show about individuals who stand out from the majority? It' not a criterion for truth but often the case. No it's not. Most of 'em are loonies. For every Einstein, there's a million idiots and crackpots who think they're the next Einstein. Of course, only Einstein gets mentioned in the books that get written about history, but this is a matter of sampling bias.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024