Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 933 of 2073 (746192)
01-04-2015 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 913 by dwise1
12-25-2014 11:54 AM


Re: A Q of authority
DWise1 writes:
Rodnas writes:
... and a code requires a programmer.
. . .
Also, are we really talking about an actual code here? Or is that just an analogy we use to aid in discussing genetics? Like the "Laws of Nature" which do not actually exist, but rather are human formulations of patterns we humans have noticed in how natural processes are observed to work. Or the sun and moon rising and setting, which we still say despite knowing how false that analogy is.
On Facebook, Ed Babinski has posted INACCURATE METAPHORS for DNA OFTEN USED BY CREATIONISTS AND I.D.ists. The two that he lists are:
quote:
1) the idea that DNA functions as a "blueprint"
2) the idea that DNA functions like a "computer code" (or even like an "encyclopedia" according to Ann Gauger of the Discovery Institute, whatever that means).
His discussion of the second metaphor follows:
quote:
The 'computer code' metaphor is also a poor one, for multiple reasons (this particular analogy is popularized by Discovery Institute fellow, Stephen C. Meyer). The way a computer code works is that the exact sequence of the code - the precise order of the binary 1s and 0s - spells out exactly what operations the computer must perform. But in genetics, the sequence is only part of the picture. Just as important are genetic regulatory networks - which genes are turned on at what times and in combination with which other genes. Phenotypes are not simply the result of particular gene sequences but the result of specific gene-gene (or gene network-gene network) interactions.
But DNA bears little relation to a "code" in a more fundamental way. Consider exactly what a "code" is. A code is a system of arbitrary symbols used to represent ideas and objects. In a sense, language itself is a "code"; the symbol "dog" represents that furry tetrapod with a waggly tail, for example. In a code, the symbols themselves have no inherent meaning. The letter "d" is meaningless by itself, as are the letters "o" and "g". It is only in combination that they derive meaning, and their meaning is derived from the idea that they represent. Furthermore, they only have meaning because we give them meaning. "Dog" is merely the label we apply to Fido; in a universe without sentient beings, "dog" would be meaningless. DNA does not fit this description at all. DNA is not arbitrary in any way; each letter of the genetic "code" placed in a certain order constitutes an actual biological compound. ACCGTCGA might be the gene for determining how long your toe hair is, but unlike a code, A, C, T and G each have their own non-arbitrary meaning. And this meaning exists independently of human sentience, it exists because certain molecules stick together and move about naturally in reference to one another. And those molecules would keep doing just that even if sentient being didn't exist at all.
What DNA is, is a polymeric chemical that follows a dynamic chemical process, governed by universal physical rules. It is only a "code" in the same sense that the natural process known as nuclear fusion is a "code" for how stars produce light.
Nor does the genetic code necessarily need a designer/creator, since physical complexity can increase from the basic assumption of fundamental physical laws, and theoretically it could eventually form self-catalytic chain reactions that could evolve further complexity such that "coding systems" that worked faster, better or left behind a greater abundance of some self-catalytic chain reactions over others, would proliferate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 913 by dwise1, posted 12-25-2014 11:54 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 936 by Percy, posted 01-05-2015 6:53 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 937 by Rodnas, posted 01-10-2015 8:39 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 1002 of 2073 (827064)
01-16-2018 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1000 by creation
01-16-2018 9:52 AM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
Anything but the religion of science!
Yet again creationists reveal themselves as being anti-science. Ask creationists whether they are anti-science and they will deny it with a lot of double-talk and diversions off to other topics (a variation of the infamous "Gish Gallop"), but their actions consistently reveal that they are anti-science.
Refer to the Arkansas and Louisiana laws both crafted from Paul Ellwanger's model bill (McLean v. Arkansas (1982) and Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), respectively -- it was the latter that went all the way up to the US Supreme Court and resulted in exposing "creation science" as the religious deception that it is, which resulted in creationists rushing to a different smoke screen, "intelligent design"). Their goal wasn't to get fundamentalist Christianity taught in the public schools, but rather to get evolution removed. If "evolution" (falsely defined to include references to an old earth) would be taught, then equal time had to be given to creationism; if those parts of science are cherry-picked out and not taught, then creationism need not be taught. That is purely and blatantly anti-science and no amount of creationist denials can obscure that obvious fact.
We also see it in "creation science's" "Two Model Approach" which is constantly played out by creationists (as Gish and H. Morris always did in each and every presentation of theirs that I have seen): establish that there are two-and-only-two mutually exclusive models, the "creation model" (actually their own very narrow sectarian YEC theology) and the "evolution model" (everything else, "including most of the world's religions, ancient and modern" (as per Dr. Henry Morris), and then devote all your efforts to attacking the "evolution model" in order to "prove" the "creation model" without ever presenting any arguments nor support for it and even refusing to defend it, not to mention avoiding actually presenting it. Please note that the "evolution model", which creationists would almost always describe as "atheistic", consists primarily of theistic ideas, including most Christian ideas of origins (since they do not agree in every detail with fundamentalist YEC beliefs). Creationists denouncing the vast majority of theists as being atheists. What a steaming crock!
"Creation science" itself was carefully crafted and created as a deliberate deception. When Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) led to the striking down of the 1920's "monkey laws" as unconstitutional, creationists could no longer use religious reasons for barring the teaching of evolution. So they created the monstrous lie, "creation science", that their reasons for opposing evolution were "purely scientific, nothing religious about it." From there they engaged in even more deception, such as false young-earth claims and specious arguments about "balanced treatment" and "equal time" all aimed at deceiving the courts and the general public.
That "science is religion" oxymoron is one such lie that has been around at least since the 1970's (probably 30 years before you were born). Their "balanced treatment" and "equal time" arguments required science and creationism to be on an equal footing. Since all efforts to elevate creationism to the level of science are futile and doomed to failure, they chose to drag science down into the mud and slime with religion. We always find it so amusing that, even though you love religion so very much that you will abandon reason and morality for it, you hate science so much that you will use against it the worst insult you can think of: calling it religion.
But all these lies and deceptions that you (plural) resort to zealously raise a serious question -- at least for a Christian it should be as serious as sucking up to the AntiChrist for secular power, as we currently see evangelicals doing in droves. Even though you are obviously not familiar with Christian Doctrine, you should have at least heard that name mentioned at one time or another. According to Christian Doctrine, God is not served by lies nor deception. There is however a Christian deity who is so served. He goes by many names, one of which is "Prince of Lies" and another of which is "The Deceiver".
How certain are you of which god you serve?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1000 by creation, posted 01-16-2018 9:52 AM creation has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1003 of 2073 (827067)
01-16-2018 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1000 by creation
01-16-2018 9:52 AM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
I would prefer the majority of an area see their beliefs reflected for their kids. In India, in area, maybe Hindi beliefs...etc etc.
I do not know what country you are in, but this issue pertains directly to the USA and the founding principles of religious liberty and of church-state separation. The Founding Fathers explicitly argued against allowing the rights of the minorities to be trampled by the rule of the majority (James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, my emphasis added):
quote:
1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
It is absolutely essential for religious liberty that the government is not allowed to impose a specific religion upon the whole of the populace regardless of however great a majority that religion may enjoy. It is for that reason that the government must not get involved with religion. Religion must be a personal and a familial matter free of government interference.
I just noticed something interesting: are Christians the majority in the USA? According to Wikipedia, the percentages of Christian religions are:
  1. Protestant -- 48.9%
  2. Catholic -- 23.0%
  3. Mormon -- 1.8%
Counting all three Christian groups, that would be 73.7%. However, I have it on extremely vehement evangelical authority that neither Catholics nor Mormons are Christians. So, taking their word for it (after all, they're the ones who want a theocracy), Christians only compose 48.9% of the US population. That is not a majority! Furthermore, I'm sure that they would also point to several mainstream Protestant denominations as not being Christian, which will bring the percentage of Christians down even lower into an even smaller minority.
 
 
You also seem to be confused about what education is and what its goals are. From the California Science Education Framework (1989):
quote:
Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. A dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.
. . .
We repeat here the fundamental conviction of this framework: Education does not compel belief; it seeks to encourage understanding. Nothing in science, or in any other field, should be taught dogmatically. But teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth. In science, there is no truth. There is only knowledge that tests itself and builds on itself constantly. This is the message that students should take away with them.
The goal of education is not to convince nor to convert you, but rather that you understand the topic.
That concept appears to be beyond your comprehension, so here's a real-life example that may help. In 1982, I attended Leadership School, the first level of the United States Air Force's NCO Academy. The classes included instruction in Marxism and Communism. Was it their goal to turn us into Marxists and Communists? Apparently you and most creationists would think so. Far from it! The goal was for us to know and understand something about the enemy, a centuries-old adage of war:
quote:
Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):
  1. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
  2. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
  3. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)
The source of confusion for creationists appears to be that for them "education" only means one thing: indoctrination. You do not want your children to gain knowledge, but rather to have "the right beliefs". And we see this come out in creationists' "public school edition" educational materials which DO try to compel belief. After having misinformed the student, that curriculum repeatedly urges the student to choose between the Creator and "godless evolution". Not only is that inconsistent with the goals of education, but it also works against those goals. All that "balanced treatment" is trying to do is to proselytize. Furthermore, the principal tools in that proselytizing is the use of false claims and deception. And one of the effects of "balanced treatment" has been to turn some of those students into atheists; eg, Livermore 1981: Creation Science in the Classroom - A Case Study in which the creationist lessons forcing the elementary-grade students to make a choice between God and atheism resulted in some students choosing atheism.
The fastest growing religious demographic in the USA are the "nones", as in "none of the above". Many of them are former "true Christians" who are fleeing in droves from the fundamentalist and evangelical Christian churches they had grown up in. Upwards of 80% of people raised in the faith are fleeing it. I think it's because of the lies of creationism and that that's a natural reaction to discovering that everybody has been lying to you all your life -- I've met people who've gone through that; it is not at all pleasant. Others attribute it to the humanities and learning that there are many different ways to look at something -- even just trying to put yourself in someone else's perspective can be lethal to dogmatism.
Now, what I could never understand is why a group so devoted to opposing evolution that they would obviously want to prepare their children to take up the fight as well, would also work so hard to make their children completely ineffectual as Christian soldiers. Sun Tzu said it! If you want to be effective in the war against evolution, then you need to learn everything you can about evolution. Instead, they want to keep their children from learning anything about evolution. It makes no sense whatsoever!
 
BTW, here is my response to a creationist's question, "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?" An observer thought my response brilliant. OTOH, the creationist could not handle the truth and ended up running away by cancelling his email account.
Edited by dwise1, : Correction of typo to: It is for that reason that the government must not to get involved with religion.
Edited by dwise1, : another minor typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1000 by creation, posted 01-16-2018 9:52 AM creation has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 1004 of 2073 (827068)
01-16-2018 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 998 by creation
01-16-2018 9:45 AM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
What flies in our sky is in this nature. Irrelevant. Nothing flies out of fishbowl earth area anyhow. Again, not even relevant.
Why do you believe in a false theology that essentially teaches you that if the universe is as we observe it to be, then that disproves God? Can't you see the ludicrous knots that causes you to tie yourself into with these ridiculous ad hoc ideas that you cook up for the sole purpose of explaining away the blatantly obvious evidence that the earth is old and that life has evolved?
An example are the creationist geologists hired by one of their classmates to work in the oil exploration field. Every day, day after day, they worked hands-on with rock-solid geological evidence that the ICR had taught them does not exist and could not exist or else Scripture would have no meaning. They all suffered crises of faith, not because of the geological evidence, but because of the lies their religion had told them about that evidence and what its existence would signify.
Remember, theologies are all Man-made, so following a theology is following the Word of Man. As a result, theologies are riddled with error, especially when they try to get into the details. When you find an error in your theology, then you need to try correct that error, never deny that that error exists. You should not place your theology before God.
So what's God's Word? Look outside. It is in the whole of the Creation Itself. Denying God's Word (the Universe) in favor of the Word of Man (theology) cannot be anything but worst form of blasphemy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 998 by creation, posted 01-16-2018 9:45 AM creation has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 1027 of 2073 (827265)
01-21-2018 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1024 by creation
01-21-2018 2:30 PM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
What science have you to prove time exists in deep space as it does here?
No, you have to prove your claim!
So far all our observations have correlated with each other in a manner that is consistent with the same laws of physics operating the same way in all the observable universe. We have not encountered evidence to contradict that nor to question it.
Now you and other creationists claim the contrary, but offer no evidence to support your position. Furthermore, you demand that we instead must prove our position to you. That is not how it works, Sunny Jim! You make a claim, so you need to support and provide evidence or cogent arguments for it.
And since your claim is so extraordinary, then your evidence for it must also be extraordinary. Yet so far you have presented nothing. Nor do you seem to understand any of the science that you want to wave aside with your unsupported claim. Same as starman (assuming you two are not one and the same).
That means that there is some creationist out there feeding you this nonsense that you are regurgitating here. Please identify your source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1024 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:30 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1030 by creation, posted 01-22-2018 9:40 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1050 of 2073 (827578)
01-28-2018 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1043 by creation
01-27-2018 2:30 PM


Re: yes we should teach both evolution and religion in school!
Especially fake news origin sciences!
Oh, not only are you a mindless creationist troll, but you're also a Trumpista? Given the singular lack of mental acuity you have displayed so far, why am I not surprised?
We've caught on, you should know. Whenever Trump starts trumpeting "fake news!", then we know that that news source was right on target.
Also kids should know man did not invent the bible. Unlike science, it is far far too evidenced and broad to be created by man.
Wrong on all counts. Yes, Man did invent the Bible (Dude! Learn some basic English! Or is your native Russian still getting in the way?). There was even a Man-made committee consisting of humans which decided which sacred writings were to become canon (ie, be included in the Bible). Face the facts (something that creationists are infamous for not doing): Man did indeed invent the Bible. Please do yourself and everybody else a favor: learn something about the history of the religion that you falsely claim to follow, Christianity.
Similarly, all religions are Man-made, as are all theologies. No god ever created any religion. It has always been Man who created religions. If you know of any specific religion that was ever created by a god, then do please feel free to point it out to us ... along with the evidence that it was created by any freaking god. Similarly, theology is fallible Man trying to understand what we can about the gods, who by definition are beyond our ability to understand.
Now here's the kicker for mindless trolls like you. If you were really a creationist, what Man-made theologies about that Man-made document, the Bible, say would be meaningless. The only thing that would mean anything would be what the Creator had Created. If you truly believed that your god created the universe, then wouldn't you believe what that god had created? Instead of what Man had written and what Man had misunderstood and misinterpreted?
What kind of idiot are you? You bend yourself into all kinds of knots in order to deny what the Creator had very clearly written in His Creation so that you can follow the false theologies of Man (AKA forsaking the Word of God in order to follow the Word of Man).
We have far too many fucking idiots trying to run the world, including that epic loser in the Oval Office. We do not need more fucking idiots like you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1043 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:30 PM creation has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1051 of 2073 (827582)
01-28-2018 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1030 by creation
01-22-2018 9:40 AM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
Really? You are that afraid to quote me? Really? How pathetically weak your position must be and you know it!
Here is what I had said in Message 1027:
DWise1 writes:
No, you have to prove your claim!
So far all our observations have correlated with each other in a manner that is consistent with the same laws of physics operating the same way in all the observable universe. We have not encountered evidence to contradict that nor to question it.
Now you and other creationists claim the contrary, but offer no evidence to support your position. Furthermore, you demand that we instead must prove our position to you. That is not how it works, Sunny Jim! You make a claim, so you need to support and provide evidence or cogent arguments for it.
And since your claim is so extraordinary, then your evidence for it must also be extraordinary. Yet so far you have presented nothing. Nor do you seem to understand any of the science that you want to wave aside with your unsupported claim. Same as starman (assuming you two are not one and the same).
That means that there is some creationist out there feeding you this nonsense that you are regurgitating here. Please identify your source.
Now, why is it that you were so shitting-in-your-drawers-scared about my reply that you had to delete it? Are you really that pathetic?
 
We already know that you are a mindless creationist troll. You don't have enough synapses to rub against each other to keep warm. You most certainly could not have created all that bullshit you've been slinging all on your own. You had to have gotten it from some creationist fraud. So who did you get those lies from? What is your creationist source?
I think it's Kent Hovind, the lowest of the low. A convicted fraud. He continues to hawk the stupidest false creationist claims and idiots like you continue to fall for his obvious lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1030 by creation, posted 01-22-2018 9:40 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1086 by creation, posted 10-03-2018 10:53 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 1052 of 2073 (827585)
01-28-2018 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1048 by Percy
01-27-2018 8:51 PM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
Public school science classes should continue to teach the scientific consensus on all subjects.
Bingo! The students need to understand science regardless of their actual beliefs. The purpose of education is understanding the concepts, not believing in them. The purpose of religious indoctrination is to compel the students to believe. The two ideas about education are diametrically opposed.
California Science Education Framework, 1989/1990:
quote:
"State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences, adopted 13 Jan 1989 [emphasized in original]:
Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. A dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.
"
quote:
We repeat here the fundamental conviction of this framework: Education does not compel belief; it seeks to encourage understanding. Nothing in science, or in any other field, should be taught dogmatically. But teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth. In science, there is no truth. There is only knowledge that tests itself and builds on itself constantly. This is the message that students should take away with them.
In comparison, we have practical experience in actual public school classroom which used creationist "balanced treatment" materials. Those materials were found to explicitly compel belief; after having misinformed the student, it repeatedly urges the student to choose between the Creator and "godless evolution". Not only is that inconsistent with the goals of education, but it also works against those goals. All that "balanced treatment" is trying to do is to proselytize. Furthermore, the principal tools in that proselytizing is the use of false claims and deception. And one of the effects of "balanced treatment" has been to turn some of those students into atheists.
I have mentioned this example repeatedly, so I will do so yet again. On active duty, I attended the Air Force Communications Command Leadership School, part of the USAF's NCO Academy (I have my ribbon). In that course, we were instructed in Marxism and in Communism. Now, in the creationist education model, that would mean that the US Air Force wanted to turn us into Marxists and Communists. Do creationists really want to insist that to have been the case?
Rather, the USAF wanted us to understand our enemy. We were expected to learn about the ideas of our enemies so that we could understand them better and be better able to fight them:
quote:
Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):
31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)
Creationists are dedicated to fighting evolution. You'd think that they'd want to raise their kids to also fight evolution, though with some kind of chance of defeating evolution.
So what is creationists' primary goal? To keep everybody from learning anything about evolution. Especially their own kids. How could their kids ever possibly fight evolution if they had been kept completely ignorant of evolution their entire lives?
What a bunch of fucking idiots!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1048 by Percy, posted 01-27-2018 8:51 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1162 of 2073 (841874)
10-23-2018 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1161 by RAZD
10-23-2018 3:51 AM


Re: This is a thread about what should be taught in school
Public schools should not be in the business of teaching beliefs, they should be teaching fact based courses and leave the beliefs to the homes and religious institutions.
Back when, from the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) I obtained a copy of the 1990 Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve -- that document is still available online as a PDF at http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED325324.pdf. Here is that document's anti-dogmatism statement (also available on the NCSE's web site at http://ncse.com/...a/voices/california-state-board-education). Part of that statement says:
quote:
Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. A dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.
Later in the Framework it says:
quote:
We repeat here the fundamental conviction of this framework: Education does not compel belief; it seeks to encourage understanding. Nothing in science, or in any other field, should be taught dogmatically. But teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth. In science, there is no truth. There is only knowledge that tests itself and builds on itself constantly. This is the message that students should take away with them.
Just to summarize, the policy is to teach the facts and not to compel belief with the goal being that you understand the ideas, not that you are to be forced to believe them. For example, when I was an NCO in the US Air Force I was send to NCO Leadership School. At that school, we were taught Communist ideology. Did the US Air Force want its NCOs to become Communists? No, of course not! They wanted us to have some understanding of how our opposite numbers thought. In accordance with the teachings of Sun Tsu, they wanted us to understand our enemies.
In stark contrast, we do have real-world cases in which "creation science" curricula have been taught in public schools. In each and every such case, the goal of the instructional materials was to force the student to decide then and there between "atheistic evolution" and their so-called "unnamed Divine Creator". IOW, their obvious goal was to compel belief in direct conflict with actual educational goals of understanding.
IOW, creationist curricula in public schools are nothing short of a naked effort at sectarian religious proselytizing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1161 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2018 3:51 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1164 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2018 9:35 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 1309 of 2073 (844294)
11-27-2018 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1306 by creation
11-27-2018 4:40 PM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
Some people long to keep kids in the dark. We get it.
Aye and more's the pity. That is the creationist approach, since they believe that keeping everyone ignorant is the only way that their religion can survive. Of course that is true of their own perverted theology, but not of other truer theologies.
Everybody has heard of Sun Tzu's teaching that victory depends on knowing your enemy -- actually, you also need to know yourself which turns out to be marginally more important:
quote:
Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):
  1. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
  2. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
  3. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."

(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)
If parents want their children to grow up to be effective Christian soldiers who can go forth and defeat evolution (and other sundry perceived enemies), then they should want their children to learn everything possible about those enemies. The very last thing that they should want to do would be to keep their children ignorant of what evolution actually is and actually teaches, because by doing so they would be guaranteeing not only their defeat but also greatly increasing the likelihood of their children losing their faith (the attrition rate of the fundamentalist-raised next generation is at about 80%).
Keep in mind that learning subject matter does not require believing in it -- this is contrary to the fundamentalist model of education which is indoctrination for the purpose of compelling belief. For example, during the Cold War the US Air Force instructed us in Marxism and Communism. Obviously their goal was not for their airmen to turn into communists, but rather that we learn to know our enemy.
As for knowing yourself, extremely few creationists do. They accept and repeat creationist claims without any understanding of those claims. Furthermore, they don't even know about let alone understand the basis of "creation science". Nor do they know the history of their claims, especially not how they were all refuted soundly decades ago. As Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis (id est, he's a young-earth creationist) described the situation:
quote:
As said in the original Don’t Use page, the harm is in using something which is not true, because the cause of the one who is ‘the truth’ cannot be helped thereby. And your own recent experience reinforces something else we saidthat using discredited arguments can backfire on the user. So our aim was to help Christians to avoid arguments that are likely to backfire, and return their focus to the Word of God not ‘evidence’.
...
But more and more over the last few years, we have noticed tens of thousands of Christians excitedly using arguments over the Web, for instance, that are a plain embarrassment to those with scientific training. It was like watching your brother enter the ring thinking he had a killer punch, and watching him get cut to ribbons. Further, and most importantly, it had escalated to the point where it was a hindrance to soul winning, since it gave the hearers a ‘legitimate’ excuse to reject Christ. And all we did at that point was to publish an ‘advice’ article. The only time it became relevant to a specific creationist was when Kent [Hovind] himself decided to align himself publicly with a justification of false arguments. If it had been one or two minor points of disagreement, OK, but when it reinforces some of the most blatant fallacies, and even defends fraud, at what point does one NOT face one's responsibilities to the innocents being ‘slaughtered’ in the belief that they are getting sound ammunition?
...
... , we actually do know people who say they almost gave the faith away when they found out that a particular argument was fallacious, and who say that finding Christians with the integrity to avoid falsehood, no matter what the cost, helped restore it.
Needless to say, you are one of the far-too-many creationists who zealously embrace falsehood, so you are one of the far-too-many creationists who zealously work to destroy the faith of other Christians. And one of your tools is keeping kids in the dark. Stop it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1306 by creation, posted 11-27-2018 4:40 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1311 by creation, posted 11-28-2018 6:33 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 1315 of 2073 (844373)
11-28-2018 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1311 by creation
11-28-2018 6:33 PM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
What complete and utter blithering nonsense! Go back and actually read what I wrote and try to understand it.
Also go to YouTube and watch some videos of Gilda Radner playing Emily Litella, the old lady who would come on the SNL news show with fiery tirades against nonsensical things. Her excuse was that she was hard of hearing and misunderstood something she heard in the news. What's your excuse?
If you are going to oppose something, then at the very least try to learn something about it! You can never win if you only argue out of complete ignorance. At the very least, you need to know what you are fighting. Otherwise, you are nothing but a blithering idiot who does far more to discredit his silly god than to serve it (why silly? Because that is how you present it to be).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1311 by creation, posted 11-28-2018 6:33 PM creation has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1323 of 2073 (845097)
12-12-2018 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1322 by KyleConno
12-12-2018 2:38 AM


Re: Evolution over Religion
That's the simple answer, but it's more involved. On my BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: Should Kids be Taught About God? page, I offer my response to a local creationist's question, "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?". His question was ambiguous, but he refused to clarify it while demanding a strictly yes/no answer from me, so my general answer was: "Yes to some interpretations of the question and no to other interpretations, depending on the circumstances and completely independent of whether any god or gods do or do not exist." And I explained what those interpretations could be and how I responded to each specific one. Follow that link to see that, since I personally think it was a good answer as did a third party in that conversation. The creationist was unable to understand any of it and ended up fleeing the discussion by cancelling his email account.
The first point of confusion is differing definitions and goals of "teaching". In religion, the goal of teaching is indoctrination, dictating what the students are required to believe and then compelling them to hold those beliefs. In public schools, the goal of education is not to compel belief, but rather for the student to understand the subject matter.
Obviously, we would not want public schools to engage in religious indoctrination, but that should not prevent teaching about religion in public schools. In social studies, history, art, and literature we should teach about the various religions so that the students will know about the beliefs and the history of various religions, the religious factors in a multitude of wars, and the mythological themes from all religions that appear repeatedly in literature and in works of arts (we already do it for Greek and Roman mythology, so why not the other religions?). So long as you do not try to compel the students to convert to those religions.
The proper subject matter of science classes is science. However, there can be value in mentioning old discarded ideas (eg, geocentrism, caloric theory, phlogiston) and showing why those ideas are wrong. There can also be value in looking at instances of pseudo-science and showing why they are wrong. Most of that should be doable in less than half of a single lecture. This could be the proper role of creationism in a science class.
Unfortunately, this reasonable approach can present problems. First, it must be implemented in good faith and we know from long bitter experience that religionists almost never act in good faith, but rather would certainly result in them trying to subvert and exploit the system.
Another problem with teaching about religions is that those religions would end up trying to prevent that teaching. For example, Mormon parents would certainly rebel at their children learning the actual history of the origins of Mormonism.
So the issue is a bit more complicated and there are good reasonable solutions that should be satisfactory to all parties, except for the fact that not all parties will be reasonable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1322 by KyleConno, posted 12-12-2018 2:38 AM KyleConno has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1327 of 2073 (875467)
04-27-2020 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1324 by candle2
04-26-2020 3:24 PM


Re: Evolution over Religion
You just proved how vitally important it is to maintain the quality of science education, since you just demonstrated how much you misunderstand what science is and undoubtedly how little you understand how it works. You are the result of a failure to learn science.
But why is it that you concentrate so much of your hatred of science against evolution. Why do you single out evolution? Why not physics? Or geology? Or astronomy? Each of those other sciences are key in exposing the falsehood of creationists' young-earth claims, so (assuming you are also a young-earther) you should really hate them. And yet you focus almost all of your hate at evolution. Why?
You obviously do not understand evolution. Do you fear it? Do you feel threatened by it? Whatever kind of threat could evolution possibly pose to you?
If you want to attack evolution, then at the very least try to learn something about it first. Attacking evolution for things that don't even apply to it only succeeds in demonstrating your ignorance of the subject matter and can only result in you losing all your battles. And you will never win by running away scared from all attempts to get you to try to support any of your own claims and to engage in any actual discussion.
 
And please don't run away again terrified of a few simple questions. You still haven't answered my simple questions about your misunderstanding about "kinds". Please go back to Message 20, Message 25, Message 26 and answer my questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1324 by candle2, posted 04-26-2020 3:24 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1331 by candle2, posted 04-27-2020 8:24 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1340 of 2073 (875499)
04-27-2020 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1339 by jar
04-27-2020 10:50 AM


Re: Evolution over Religion
In the minds of all of those who happen to believe in that particular unique God that humans created and then adopted.
God(s) only exist in the minds of the believers.
Even if a sentient supernatural entity were to exist that could arguably be considered as being "God" (which I shall refer to as an "actual god"), the God (in all its different and often conflicting forms) that Man worships would still have been created by Man.
Hypothetically, such an "actual god", being supernatural, would be outside of Man's ability to study, let alone even detect. Instead, Man would be left with having to use a vast paucity of evidence to infer the nature (super-nature?), temperament, intentions, wishes, approval/disapproval, etc of that "actual god". All those inferences would necessarily be based on nothing more than Man's unfounded assumptions amplified and augmented by further assumptions of what would seem to make sense based on those unfounded assumptions.
Even if Man were somehow able to detect and study the supernatural, an "actual god" would be so far beyond what Man's feeble could possibly comprehend. Since it is so far beyond Man's ability to deal directly with an "actual god", Man must resort to working with surrogate gods, kind of place-holders for what we don't understand and cannot work with directly. It is those surrogate gods that Man creates.
The catch is that this process will be the same independent of the existence or non-existence of any "actual god". A corollary catch is that even if an "actual god" were to exist, it is far more likely for Man to completely miss the mark instead of describing that "actual god" with any degree of accuracy. Let's face it, Man has been shooting blind and will continue to shoot blind.
Unfortunately, there's really no other approach open to Man. The only other course of action available to Man would be to just give up completely on the question of gods. For Man to be able to work with ideas about gods, Man must first create surrogate gods that he can work with.
A corollary to this is that every individual believer who has ever actually thought about God goes that same process, basically creating his own personal God-surrogate.
So then, yes, Man created God ... in his own image, since that's how Man thinks. The danger is for Man to then mistake his created surrogates for the Real Thing. They are not.
I would also point out here that what atheists reject is most often not the idea of an "actual god", but rather the surrogate gods that Man has created and is mistaking for any "actual gods" which those surrogates almost completely fail to describe with any degree of accuracy. IOW, the theists say, "Believe in our god!", and we say, "Oh hell no!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1339 by jar, posted 04-27-2020 10:50 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1341 by jar, posted 04-27-2020 12:43 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1346 of 2073 (875531)
04-28-2020 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1328 by candle2
04-27-2020 6:48 AM


Re: Evolution over Religion
And there you go again, which brings us right back to my questions in Please go back to Message 20, Message 25, Message 26 that you ran away.
No poster on this site has "observed" a dog producing a cat; a
cow producing a raccoon; or, an ape producing a human.
By that last one, I assume that by "ape" you meant other species of ape such as gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos. Because we are apes, just our own species of ape:
  • Genus Homo -- only extant species
  • Tribe Hominini -- genera Homo and Pan (chimpazees and bonobos)
  • Subfamily Homininae -- includes Hominini and Gorillini (gorillas)
  • Family Hominidae -- includes Homininae and Ponginae (orangutans)
By the same token, we are also mammals, so it would have been just as ridiculous for you to have declared that we have never observed "a mammal producing a human."
But you are right back to that same nonsensical falsehood that you were spouting before but ran away rather than try to support.
Let's go over it yet again!
My Message 16 in response to your Message 10 in which I suspected you would use this ludicrous false claim:
DWise1 writes:
What we observe is that "kind produce kind." Both historical and observable science support this fact.
Yes, and evolution demands it because that's how it works: daughter species remain within its parents species' clade. We call it Monophyly, though more colloquially, "nested clades" (quoted from that Wikipedia link):
quote:
In cladistics, a monophyletic group, or clade, is a group of organisms that consists of all the descendants of a common ancestor. Monophyletic groups are typically characterised by shared derived characteristics (synapomorphies), which distinguish organisms in the clade from other organisms. The arrangement of the members of a monophyletic group is called a monophyly.
So, somehow you seem to think that "kind produce kind" disproves evolution. Could you please explain that position, because it doesn't make any sense. For example, if you believe evolution requires one kind producing offspring of a different kind then please state so explicitly and offer examples that you would expect and why -- a common creationist example I've seen is that evolution would cause us to expect a dog having kittens.
Your failure to reply in Message 17 at least verified that you were indeed using that particular brain-dead false claim:
candle2 writes:
What we don't observe is apes producing humans, or bobcats producing pigs. When someone suggests this scenario I wonder about that person.
My suspicions confirmed, I asked for you to support your claim and present how you had arrived at such a nonsensical conclusion; Message 20:
DWise1 writes:
What we don't observe is apes producing humans, or bobcats producing pigs. When someone suggests this scenario I wonder about that person.
So do I, especially when that person is a creationist, which is usually the only kind of person who would say something so stupid.
You didn't answer my question:
DWise1 writes:
So, somehow you seem to think that "kind produce kind" disproves evolution. Could you please explain that position, because it doesn't make any sense. For example, if you believe evolution requires one kind producing offspring of a different kind then please state so explicitly and offer examples that you would expect and why -- a common creationist example I've seen is that evolution would cause us to expect a dog having kittens.
So then, are you saying that that is your position? Are you confirming that you believe that evolution would require offspring which are of an entirely different clade, such as "bobcats producing pigs"? So far, your attempt at avoiding to give me a straight answer tells me that that is indeed your position.
So my question, which I've had to post a second time above, is why do you believe something so blatantly false? What is the reasoning behind that claim? Yes, I know that that is one of the stock lies that you are taught as a creationist, so you turn your brain off and accept all those lies unquestioningly, meaning that you have no clue what those claims are actually talking about.
That is why you need to answer my question, so you can understand that claim yourself. Starting from how evolution works, explain how your knowledge of evolution would require "bobcats producing pigs." Explain how you got from there to here.
Remember, this is what I asked (emphasis added): "if you believe evolution requires one kind producing offspring of a different kind then please state so explicitly and offer examples that you would expect and why"
Please try to at least try to answer my question this time.
Not only did you not even try to answer, but within 11 hours you ran away like a frightened little girl and laid low for an entire year hoping that we would forget all about your false and dishonest claims.
Well, we have a long memory here.
So answer the questions!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1328 by candle2, posted 04-27-2020 6:48 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1358 by candle2, posted 04-29-2020 7:14 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024