Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Teaching the Truth in Schools
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 151 of 169 (78043)
01-12-2004 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by That guy
01-12-2004 5:22 AM


someone should thank that guy
thank you for making the distinction btwn religion and science. creationists and those creationists that are now hiding behind the intelligent design banner should realize that the theories associated with the theory of evolution are great examples of scientific research. more later...
1-science is defined as a system of exploring the natural universe through data collected by observation, experimentation, and peer verification. You use natural laws to explain natural phenomena.
2-science limits itself to things that can be observed, measured or detected.
3-theories, like the theory of common descent and the cell theory, are explanations of several phenomena that are supported by many hypotheses that have been tested many times.
4-hypotheses are testable ideas based on empirical observations.
a few things we should notice:
1-science explains NATURAL phenomena in the NATURAL universe that is guided by NATURAL laws. religion deals with the supernatural. of course, people can still argue that there are natural explanations as well as and alongside supernatural explanations for occurences in the bible. of course, the same could be said of any book that intertwines reality with fantasy. however, i wouldn't advocate using those fantasy books in science classes or as guides to how to treat antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
2-science limits itself to those things that can be detected. many hypotheses support the big bang theory without being able to show what happened exactly at the big bang. how do we know? no one was there so all you are doing is speculating! o--kay, but the Hubble expansion and cosmic microwave background radiation that we can detect could only result from a universe expanding from an incredibly dense and hot ball about 15 billion years ago. whatever happened before the big bang is up in the air. some people say that god started the universe via the big bang. i see no problem with that. but to say that a god spoke and created planets and suns and whatever in six 24 hour days is ridiculous and not supported by the evidence.
3-theories are grand in scale and encompass many hypotheses. the same techniques and the same logic uphold the theories associated with evolution as well as they hold up the cell theory or the germ theory of disease. the last two theories are easily accepted by everyone who hears them. it would be ludicrous to assert that new living things appear through spontaneous generation. look at mitosis or meiosis under a microscope if you don't believe me. it is the same with evolution. after looking at the fossil record and the transitional forms presented in it, it is absurd to think that evolution did not occur. [i know, i know, creationists will say that there are no transitional forms, but don't buy it. look for yourselves at the horse series and the whale series. besides, even after looking at archaeopteryx, creationists say it is either fully a bird or fully a reptile and then demand another transitional fossil. a reptile with feathers and wings and a beak containing teeth is not transitional!?! oh well, some people still don't believe the theory of plate tectonics, even when an earthquake hits!!!]
4-when we say a hypothesis is testable, it also means that it is falsifiable--we can come up with an outcome that would falsify our hypothesis. the same is true for theories and parts of theories as well. if anyone could find the remains of a person besides those of a dinosaur (or any tertiary fossil within creataceous rock) then evolution could be falsified. guess what!?! we don't find that people once lived alongside dinosaurs. in texas, some people claim that worn out or vandalized (yes, some of the dino tracks were altered with chisels) dino footprints were actually human footprints. and get this, these footprints show a giant man walking beside a dinosaur! this stuff might be fun in the town of bedrock, but sooner or later reality has to kick in.
sorry if this sounded like a lesson, but this is, after all, about education. creationism does not deserve equal time with evolution in the classroom b/c creationism cannot even satisfy the basic requirements of science. on the other hand, evolution (or better yet, all of the theories that fall under the umbrella of evolution) is one of the best examples of scientific endevour in modern times. for the past 150 years or so, no one has been able to falsify evolution. and it is not like anyone doesn't try. science is not pleasant and may seem uncaring and unfair, but that is the only way the objective truth comes out. knocking off a theory such as evolution would be the crowning achievement of anyone's career. however, no one has been able to refute evolution from within all the scientific fields, so how seriously should we take a book of myths and the preachers who wield them clumsily, trying to slay the monster of naturalism (which, by definition, is all that science can deal with) and atheistic evolution! by the way, evolution doesn't make any supernatural claims. it cannot. it is science not religion. creationism however relies on borrowed myths and archaic laws and rituals.
just a science teacher's perspective...
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-12-2004]
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-12-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by That guy, posted 01-12-2004 5:22 AM That guy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Phat, posted 01-23-2004 1:43 PM hitchy has replied

  
k.kslick
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 169 (78753)
01-15-2004 9:55 PM


Schools
I am a 9th grader, a Freshman in highschool, so I believe I have a say in this. I have NO objection in them teaching us evolution...
as long as they, one, do not stay on that subject for too long, and second, as long as they teach the truth, the alternative, Jesus Christ ---> They WON'T! So, I completely object to them teaching ONE theory and no alternive. That's like saying, believe evolution, or believe evolution!
Just a science student's perspective!
[This message has been edited by k.kslick, 01-15-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by sfs, posted 01-15-2004 10:14 PM k.kslick has replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 153 of 169 (78763)
01-15-2004 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by k.kslick
01-15-2004 9:55 PM


quote:
I am a 9th grader, a Freshman in highschool, so I believe I have a say in this. I have NO objection in them teaching us evolution...
as long as they, one, do not stay on that subject for too long, and second, as long as they teach the truth, the alternative, Jesus Christ ---> They WON'T! So, I completely object to them teaching ONE theory and no alternive. That's like saying, believe evolution, or believe evolution!
Just a science student's perspective!
Jesus and evolution aren't alternatives -- you can believe in Jesus and accept evolution, believe in him and not accept it, not believe and accept, or do neither. Belief in Jesus is religion, and evolution is science. My attitude is that science classes should teach science, not religion. (Just a scientists's -- and a parent's, and a Christian's -- perspective.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by k.kslick, posted 01-15-2004 9:55 PM k.kslick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Ian C, posted 01-15-2004 10:26 PM sfs has not replied
 Message 155 by k.kslick, posted 01-15-2004 10:56 PM sfs has replied

  
Ian C
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 169 (78767)
01-15-2004 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by sfs
01-15-2004 10:14 PM


Very good point. Furthermore, Jesus, or rather Genesis (Non-Christians use the Old Testament, too) is far from the only alternative to evolution to explain the origin of species. How about the Vishnu/Brahma/Shiva? Or perhaps the Greek gods, goddesses, and Titans? Or the Ancient Eqyptian version? Which one(s) shall be taught then?
If you want to analyze these items in a comparative religion class, I find that very commendable. To touch on them in history classes is great, too -- these religions all influenced several cultures. Even in a literature class -- much of Western Literature references the Bible, after all. But in a science class, none of these apply for they are not scientifically derived theories. Only evolution, with its admitted unanswered questions debate as to its mechanisms qualifies for the science class.
Ian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by sfs, posted 01-15-2004 10:14 PM sfs has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by k.kslick, posted 01-15-2004 10:59 PM Ian C has replied

  
k.kslick
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 169 (78778)
01-15-2004 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by sfs
01-15-2004 10:14 PM


NO!
The Bible clearly states God made the Earth, the animals, and then man, all in 6 days. not over millions of years! that is just one contridiction between the two. The Bible also says that you cannot 'serve two masters'. Stop being a passivist Christian who would like to have everyone just be friends and slightly give in.
The truth is, macro-evolution DOESN'T happen!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by sfs, posted 01-15-2004 10:14 PM sfs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Asgara, posted 01-15-2004 10:59 PM k.kslick has not replied
 Message 160 by sfs, posted 01-15-2004 11:42 PM k.kslick has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 156 of 169 (78779)
01-15-2004 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by k.kslick
01-15-2004 10:56 PM


Re: NO!
K.
You seem to be thread jumping with a bunch of assertions. Please pick a topic and start discussing an issue and providing evidence of the "truth" you are asserting all over the place.

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by k.kslick, posted 01-15-2004 10:56 PM k.kslick has not replied

  
k.kslick
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 169 (78780)
01-15-2004 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Ian C
01-15-2004 10:26 PM


science class
stay off technicalities. let's kepp this simple.
If they teach one theory, they should at least teach the most common, contraversial ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Ian C, posted 01-15-2004 10:26 PM Ian C has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Ian C, posted 01-15-2004 11:10 PM k.kslick has not replied

  
Ian C
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 169 (78784)
01-15-2004 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by k.kslick
01-15-2004 10:59 PM


Re: science class
I hardly think the fact that only evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory and therefore the only one suitable for a SCIENCE classroom is a technicality. It is the crux of the issue, in fact.
I am not one those who has a fit if the Bible is so much as mentioned in a public school. I think it is impossible to teach the other classes I mentioned without mentioning its influence. That as may be, it isn't science. You can read why it isn't on so many posts on this site it hardly seems worth rehashing the arguments. "The Bible says . . ." isn't sufficient. Why should I believe Genesis is the truth in the first place?
Shall we also teach alternate theories of the solar system? Take a look at http://www.fixedearth.com. There is alternate to the heliocentric model -- shall we teach this, too? If something is clearly wrong, or hasn't a shred of evidence there is little point. Unless you intend to use it as an example of how science works. In my biology class, we used Pasteur's experiments to disprove abiogenesis and Lamarkian evolution for those.
Having mentioned that -- I now eagerly await some to jump on that statement to show I admitted evolution is impossible . . .
Ian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by k.kslick, posted 01-15-2004 10:59 PM k.kslick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by hitchy, posted 01-15-2004 11:36 PM Ian C has replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 159 of 169 (78788)
01-15-2004 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Ian C
01-15-2004 11:10 PM


Re: science class
i don't think i saw anything in your post saying that evolution is impossible. let us forgive the uninformed notions of a ninth grade student. i teach 123 ninth graders every day and lets just say that their minds change quite often. they are at a different level of learning and their minds are still developing.
i just hope that our youngster realizes the dangers of placing a book of subjective beliefs, myths and rituals in a science class. if i teach that you can decide which is better science (meaning better to you and your brainwashing family/community/etc.)--evolution or creationism--i am committing the greatest sin of all--lying to my students.
the fact of the matter is that science has to stay objective b/c that is the only way we can say "hey, this is why those bacteria are unresponsive to our strongest antibiotics" or "hey, if this nitrogen base fails to attach during transcription i am going to produce an errant protein that will now label my cells as foreign so now they will be attacked by my own immune system so this is how we can go in and use gene therapy to try to fix this..." and the list goes on.
try and use the bible to cure aids or cancer or lukemia or cystic fibrosis, etc. don't be the woman who let her child choke to death on a piece of banana while she stood by and prayed for god to forgive her sins and save her child. place biblical lore on the same level with well-tested scientific theories and we will all be choking on bananas.
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-15-2004]
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-15-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Ian C, posted 01-15-2004 11:10 PM Ian C has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Ian C, posted 01-15-2004 11:55 PM hitchy has replied
 Message 162 by Ian C, posted 01-15-2004 11:55 PM hitchy has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 160 of 169 (78792)
01-15-2004 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by k.kslick
01-15-2004 10:56 PM


quote:
The Bible clearly states God made the Earth, the animals, and then man, all in 6 days. not over millions of years! that is just one contridiction between the two.
No, the Bible uses some rather obscure and highly mythological language to talk about creation. The author(s) no doubt were intending to convey a number of things with their account, but I very much doubt that a scientific description of Earth history was one of them.
quote:
The Bible also says that you cannot 'serve two masters'.
Um, yes, the two masters in question being God and money. Exactly what relevance does that have here? Myself, I'm of the opinion that God likes truth, so I figure looking for the truth is a way of honoring God. The facts I see say overwhelmingly that evolution is true.
quote:
Stop being a passivist Christian who would like to have everyone just be friends and slightly give in.
Let's see . . . Based on your complete ignorance of science, of me, and of my motivations, you're in a position to pass judgment (kind of a no-no for a Christian, isn't that?) on my beliefs? You're young enough that this kind of behavior is likely to inspire amusement rather than irritation, but either way, the effect is not going to be what you were looking for.
quote:
The truth is, macro-evolution DOESN'T happen!
The truth is, you have no way of knowing whether macro-evolution happens or not -- you demonstrate in other posts that you simply don't know enough about science to make any kind of judgment. Making bald assertions based on ignorance doesn't make for a very effective Christian witness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by k.kslick, posted 01-15-2004 10:56 PM k.kslick has not replied

  
Ian C
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 169 (78796)
01-15-2004 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by hitchy
01-15-2004 11:36 PM


Re: science class
I figured someone would pick up on the Pasteur experiment to show that I have admitted abiogenesis is impossible -- guess not!
As for being forgiving of someone's status as a ninth grader. Well, yes, I hardly expect him or her to be able to differentiate Darwin from Stephen Gould from Lynn Marguiles. That is not the point. As an educator, I think you would agree it is part of you profession to challenge ignorange -- to expose the illogic, the fallacies, and present the evidence for what it is. That evidence may lead to different conclusions to logical people, and we need to equip young minds with the tools to reach those conclusions, as you indicated. So young or not -- can't let anyone get away with arguments by authority ("The Bible says") straw man arguments ("Evolution says my grandfather was a monkey") or abject denial ("There are no transitionals"). Best to learn now -- these people will be running the world when we are elderly -- I hope they will be smarter than our current generation!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by hitchy, posted 01-15-2004 11:36 PM hitchy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by hitchy, posted 01-16-2004 12:51 AM Ian C has not replied

  
Ian C
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 169 (78797)
01-15-2004 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by hitchy
01-15-2004 11:36 PM


Re: science class
I figured someone would pick up on the Pasteur experiment to show that I have admitted abiogenesis is impossible -- guess not!
As for being forgiving of someone's status as a ninth grader. Well, yes, I hardly expect him or her to be able to differentiate Darwin from Stephen Gould from Lynn Marguiles. That is not the point. As an educator, I think you would agree it is part of you profession to challenge ignorange -- to expose the illogic, the fallacies, and present the evidence for what it is. That evidence may lead to different conclusions to logical people, and we need to equip young minds with the tools to reach those conclusions, as you indicated. So young or not -- can't let anyone get away with arguments by authority ("The Bible says") straw man arguments ("Evolution says my grandfather was a monkey") or abject denial ("There are no transitionals"). Best to learn now -- these people will be running the world when we are elderly -- I hope they will be smarter than our current generation!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by hitchy, posted 01-15-2004 11:36 PM hitchy has not replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 163 of 169 (78806)
01-16-2004 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Ian C
01-15-2004 11:55 PM


Re: science class
thanks for the reply. sorry i didn't get your abiogenesis thing with pasteur. i guess i wasn't thinking about that way. pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. several hypotheses about what happened prior to abiogenesis are well supported, although there is no real consensus on where it occurred. we have fossilized amino acids in meteorites! anyway, there are so many ways, different recipes if you will, that show how we can produce organic macromolecules from inorganic substances. the only thing i can find on abiogenesis are that fossilized protocells (if they are actually protocells and not cellular left-overs) look incredibly similar to those created in the lab. in time, though, these questions will most likely be answered.
now, i would like to assure everyone that i try my best to instill critical thinking skills into my students. i also spend the first two weeks of every school year going over the nature of science and psuedoscience. i take great care so as not to offend any of the christians in the county i work in (which would be everyone except me and my dog!) by saying that science limits itself to nature and natural phenomena and is not equiped to answer questions concerning anyone's faith. however, if i am asked about specifics, like the biblical flood story or adam and eve, i have to answer scientifically--sorry, no evidence for either myth, or for that matter, almost all of the OT. and a lot of the NT. show me the evidence. and just like you said ian, arguments from authority mean squat! maybe that's why my students don't listen to me!?!
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-16-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Ian C, posted 01-15-2004 11:55 PM Ian C has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Warren, posted 01-18-2004 2:21 PM hitchy has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 169 (79238)
01-18-2004 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by hitchy
01-16-2004 12:51 AM


Re: science class
Let me start by saying that I agree that the Biblical account of creation shouldn't be taught in public school science classes. I'm against any form of metaphysics being taught. The teaching of science should be philosopically neutral. Unfortunately it isn't.
Obviously, science is not officially neutral on the issue of metaphysical implications because it accepts an arbitrarily attached and highly corrosive metaphysical assertion right out of the definitional starting gate - the assertion that methodological naturalism proceeds upon an a priori assumption of ateleology. This view is indistinguishable from philosophical materialism.
That Science is neutral on issues of the ultimate nature of reality -is anachronistically ideal, but in practice, patently false. The a priori assumption of ateleology IS a position statement on the ultimate nature of reality, and it IS direct support for Richard Dawkins’ metaphysical belief system. Heck, the assumption IS Dawkins’ metaphysical belief system, enshrined as a surreptitiously attached ideological booby trap right there on science’s very methodology.
It is a mistake to think that only a non-teleological approach can run investigations based on methodological naturalism {i.e. observations, logic, and testing}. The non-teleologists don't have exclusive rights to this type of thinking nor is one obligated to abandon observation, hypothesis-making, testing, etc. because they are skeptical of non-teleological origin explanations.
It is often said that science can't investigate the supernatural, I agree. However, the scientific method, the process of hypothesizing, predicting, and testing, can be used to investigate the possibility that life may be the product of advanced bioengineering and/or nanotechnology. In fact, Paul Davies recently published an article entitled "The key to existence will be found not in primordial sludge, but in the nanotechnology of the living cell."
As for what should be taught in school, I think it should be made clear that some conclusions of science are based upon the underpinnings of materialistic philosophy. And that there are some serious thinkers that question this assumption and are trying to evaluate whether bioengineering and/or nanotechnology might be inferred as the cause for some aspects of biotic reality. Without this slim inclusion, you're teaching materialistic philosophy to impressionable youth, and I think this is wrong.
Teleology is already apparent in the purposefulness of biological processes. All we have to do is NOT TEACH that the purposefulness of biological processes has been scientifically proven to be illusion. Because that's not true.
What is true is that there is an invalid a priori assumption of ateleology in science and this invalid assumption is attached to what is taught in school. Philosophical materialism disguised as empirical science.
Eliminate the metaphysical corruption and let apparent teleology speak for itself. It's not the job of teachers to thwart the teleological inferences that their student may have by indoctrinating them in philosophical materialism. To the contrary, students should be encouraged to follow their teleological suspicions and see if they generate testable hypotheses that help us better understand the natural world.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 01-18-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by hitchy, posted 01-16-2004 12:51 AM hitchy has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 165 of 169 (80324)
01-23-2004 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by hitchy
01-12-2004 2:21 PM


Re: Science is science,but what is religion?
Hitchy! My homie! You stated earlier that:
1-science explains NATURAL phenomena in the NATURAL universe that is guided by NATURAL laws. religion deals with the supernatural. of course, people can still argue that there are natural explanations as well as and alongside supernatural explanations for occurences in the bible. of course, the same could be said of any book that intertwines reality with fantasy. however, i wouldn't advocate using those fantasy books in science classes or as guides to how to treat antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
I agree except that I may ask that in regards to religion as entwining reality and fantasy....how can one be sure which is which if in the context of definition, religion deals with the supernatural?
By definition the supernatural is unprovable and unverifiable yet to call it a fairy tale or a myth is assuming an absolute truth of your own based on verifiable provable knowledge.
i just hope that our youngster realizes the dangers of placing a book of subjective beliefs, myths and rituals in a science class. if i teach that you can decide which is better science (meaning better to you and your brainwashing family/community/etc.)--evolution or creationism--i am committing the greatest sin of all--lying to my students.
While it is true that science is based on verifiable facts while religion is not verifiable, it is also not good teaching to place any non verifiable fact in the realm of a fairy tale. By definition, supernatural phenomena are facts within the context of the bible. While we have all seen the bible lambasted and ridiculed, we cannot know for sure that a supernatural battle between good and evil is in fact taking place. It is not science==I cannot prove the supernatural to anyone although I have personally witnessed it.
I DO agree with the teachers who state that Biblical truth is best discussed in other classes besides science.
[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by hitchy, posted 01-12-2004 2:21 PM hitchy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by hitchy, posted 01-23-2004 7:46 PM Phat 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