|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: AntiGod education should not be compulsary (even for non wealthy) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
i mean, seriously. why do we need to go over this again and again? however, i just cannot resist.
what is wrong with teaching an incredibly well-supported and robust scientific theory that makes no claim on the supernatural in public schools? if you want creation to be taught, which...yawn...creation story should we include? also, what other parts of the constitution do you want to get rid of next? the ammendment that keeps creationism, a religious viewpoint, out of public schools is the same ammendment that gives you the freedom to express your misguided opinions as well as your choice of religion without gov't hinderance (unless of course it harms the public good...) maybe you should know that i am one of "those" science teachers. you know the kind that teaches kids how to think critically and exam evidence and perform actual science. if i want to read the bible to children, i'd do it in sunday "compulsory education" school.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
are you insinuating that private schools are better than public schools? or worse, what are you saying about our ability to educate people of every socio-economic class? just what other opinions are you holding back?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
1. evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. earth is an open system that receives energy from sun. when no more energy is input into the system, then entropy will take over. saying that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is like saying you could not develop into a more complex human from a single-celled zygote!
2. evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. one example of evolution that we have all seen in our time is the development of drug-resistant bacteria. 3. transitional fossils are abundant. the whale series, the horse series, the synapsids, archeaopteryx, etc. hurry, go to your school and ask for your money back. also, if you are going to continue to parrot false and misleading ideas, provide a better argument than "b/c he/she/i said so".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
thank you. i appreciate the support.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
remember, opinions are like assholes...
anyway...
quote: 1) evolution makes no claims on the supernatural. darwin did not come up with evolution and natural selection b/c he wanted to do away with god! the evidences he gathered (transitional fossils, homologous structures, variations within populations, etc.) along with our more recent genetic evidences are solid fact. the theory of evolution and its related theories provide the best explanation for these facts. no where does evolution say, "there is no god". that type of claim is outside the realm of science. 2) as stated above, science inherently limits itself to the natural world. as a great example of science, evolution also limits itself to dealing with the natural world and natural phenomena. quit trying to call one of the most robust scientific theories we have religious. it is inherently areligious and makes no religious claims. notice that i didn't say antireligious, although you will most likely paint this post as that.
quote: 3) of course evolution leaves a supernatural "creator" out of the picture. evolution is science, and as stated above, science does not deal with the supernatural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
what proof do you have that the bible is the world's oldest book?
evolution's days have been numbered for the past 154 years. if thousands, if not millions, of scientists over the years have only added to the strength of evolution, what makes you think you will bring it down with innuendo, slander, lies, and the rest of your BS? your assertions merely smack of hubris on your part.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
ok, gipper, let's stick to the facts in science shall we.
1) organisms use the same types of metabolic pathways. for instance, glycolysis. aerobic organisms also use the Kreb's (Citric acid) cycle and oxidative phosphorylation. all photosynthetic organisms use chlorophyll. from archaeabacteria to euglena to ferns to grasses to redwoods. 2) organisms use nucleic acids to store genetic information and make proteins. not only that, but they all use the same nucleotides in their DNA and RNA. 3) organisms use the same types of amino acids to make their proteins. not only that, but amino acids are chiral. guess what, the amino acids used have the same chirality in all organisms. 4) mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA that is different from the DNA in the cells in which they are located. scientific explanation for the above facts--all organisms share a common ancestor. thus the theory of common descent, one of the backbones of evolution. this theory is falsifiable, find an exception to any of the above and its falsified. well, 4 could probably take a hit and not cause damage. this theory is testable. this theory has been under peer review for the last 153 years. sounds like science to me. alternative explanation--god wanted it that way for whatever reason. not science b/c it is not falsifiable or testable. you can say god did it, though, and not have a problem as long as you admit that he/she/it used the natural processes we find in evolution. see, you can "believe" in evolution and still admit that there is a god/creator without intentionally being dishonest!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
quote: you are mistaken. a scientific theory is an explanation of several related natural phenomena (facts/empirical observations). so, a theory is an explanation of the facts. it is also falsifiable, testable, and subject to peer review. that is science. since the theory of evolution follows this protocal, it is considered science and is included in a science class, as it should be.
quote: they do study those things in public school. those topics fall under the social sciences and are found in classes like world history.
quote: and many people believe that earth is flat! just type flatearthsociety in a search engine. as i have said before, evolution deals with natural phenomena and is inherently areligious. notice i did not say "antireligious" or "atheistic". for it to espouse atheism, evolution would have to take a stance on the supernatural. by definition, science cannot make a supernatural claim and still be science.
quote: here is another tid-bit from some creationists. its an oldy, but a goody: a creationist organization in texas lobbied to have the metric system taken out of public schools b/c "jesus had twelve disciples, not ten"!?! that is a big WTF!?! i handled the rest of what you said in that statement on another thread, i think. or was it this one. i say the same damned things so many times that i forget where i said them. it was recent if you want to check my post history.
quote: many people on this thread have addressed your topic. we have also provided many rebuttals to your false assertions. as a science teacher, i really don't care if you agree or disagree with evolution. what i do care about are young minds that will some day find a cure for cancer, cure aids, go to the moon, make a funny superbowl ad, run for president, etc...my students acheiving their dreams is my goal. for that, they need a well-rounded education. you obviously have a limited science background and would rather parrot outmoded, outdated, disproved, or downright false assertions. i have an idea. don't look into the evidences for evolution right away. look at the evidences for creationism and the criticisms of those evidences. then take a look back at evolution. know something about what you profess before you waste any more of our time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
quote: why do you believe it is harmful and wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
gipper, hello! you probably have some sort of life so i can understand not responding to my comments from earlier this morning...if that is the reason. i am still waiting, though.
on my way home from a football clinic today, i thought of an analogy for this whole thread. it probably is not the most original thing in the world, but here it goes... someone (i bet you can't guess who!) starts a game of baseball with some other people. the originator of the game bats first. he/she points to the stands in the outfield and then promptly strikes out. instead of going back to the dugout to wait a turn in the field and eventually another at bat, he/she demands that rules be changed so that every time he/she is up at the plate, he/she gets a homerun. why? b/c he/she said so! so the person gets another at bat. he/she hits the ball but is thrown out at first. instead of letting the game proceed, he/she demands that since the game was his/her idea, he/she should not be out. why? b/c he/she said so! besides, no one saw him/her get thrown out at first. the other players show the originator the rule book, but he/she insists on only playing by his/her rules. they explain how the rules were developed. still no headway. they show the person a video of an actual baseball game. he/she still presists with his/her stance saying that it was not a real game, just a video tape. it could have been faked. it could have been staged. spectators, commentators, historians, umpires, coaches, professional players all try to explain the game to the originator. he/she still presents the same argument--b/c i said so. sad ending--the rules are changed just b/c someone said so. happy ending--everyone walks away and continues to enjoy the game of baseball. the originator starts another game, but pretty soon, the only people that want to play are exactly the same. the rules change over and over again b/c of "b/c i said so". what is happy here? the rest of the world is still playing baseball the way it should be played. arguing with gipper is like beating a small animal, you can do it b/c it is easy, but, in the end, it is just not that satisfying. disclaimer--i do not condone the beating up of small animals nor do i suggest anyone else do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
ok, so you assert that evolution is religious and that it should not be taught in schools.
we show you how evolution is religion neutral. that doesn't matter, it is anti-god. we show you that evolution makes no claims on a creator. that doesn't matter. so you go back to making false comparisons.
quote: "as the bible puts it"!!! you are pushing religion now. you say it is wrong for a teacher like me to teach my subject. you say that science should teach us about what YOUR idea of a god has done for us. you and people like you are why some of our founding fathers created a bill of rights. like i have said before, and will probably say many times henceforth, the amendment that keeps any specific religious viewpoint, like yours, out of public institutions is the same amendment that provides protection and guarantees to you and yours that you can believe or not believe any religion you want. i teach in a public school. i teach science. what i teach has nothing to do with religion, period! i leave religion up to the family and the numerous churches, synagogs (sorry about the speelliing!) temples, etc. that seem to have no problem surviving, and thriving, in our pluralistic society. {Hey dude - Buy a couple of "shift" keys for your keyboard - AM} [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-07-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
I think you are confusing antireligious and religion-neutral here.
quote: The public school systems in the United States are technically religion-neutral. Their actions cannot lead to "an excessive entanglement with religion". However, from my experiences, Christianity is very prevalent in our public schools. We have a prayer group the prays around the flagpole every Friday as the other students come in to school in the morning. Since the school is not sponsoring this, they can do it. Fine. Fellowship of Christian Athletes is obviously a Christian associated organization that is supported as an activity in public schools. Most of the students and teachers are Christians and their ideals make it into their discussions with staff and students. I will admit that the above examples aren't that big of a deal, since I still have great scientific minds to work with. Minds that can see the separation between church and state and the separation between religion and science.
quote: OK, what is your point. Webster's is not very scientific in its definitions of scientific words. Webster's definition of theory is incorrect. It makes theory sound like a hypothesis. Calling evolution a doctrine is up to the definition makers. They should have been more clear and called it "the theory of evolution".
quote: Once again with the anti-Christ stuff. Give it a rest, Leyshanko! One more time--Evolution is science. Science makes no claims on the supernatural. You do.
quote: We don't speculate in science. We make predictions. These predictions come from hypotheses that are tested. After testing, they are either supported or rejected. Evolution is a robust theory made up of many of these well-supported hypotheses. Once again you bring Christian mythology into the mix by comparing evolution, I think, to the devil. Remember, there were plenty of evil things going on before Darwin's time. In fact, I would say that we are better off, as far as the evil stuff goes, now than at any other time in the past. Sure, we have rampant commercialism and greed and lust, not that I have a problem with these things, but we also have more concrete human rights now than ever before. It is funny how the people that cry for justice from "an evil society" would take away the only things that keep our society civil--our civil rights.
quote: The students do have religious freedoms. They are guaranteed in the First Ammendment. If you push Christianity on public schools, you then take away their First Ammendment rights, even if they are Christian. They might not be biblical literalists. Or they could be Mormon. Or etc., etc., etc. One view of faith being espoused by a government endangers all views of faith. Evolution does not need support from anyone. It is supported by tons of evidences gathered and verified in several different scientific fields of study. Just like I said before, evey bit of evidence tells us that Earth is not flat. Some people look at this evidence and say it is flat. Does that make them right? Is their viewpoint legit? Of course not. Can they still hold that viewpoint? Sure, but they cannot teach it. That would be academically dishonest. But I don't think you care about academics, gipper. You just care about your viewpoints, whether you can back them up with evidence or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
quote: quote: Provide evidence for your assertions. How is evolution faith-based? How is evolution not science? You have a lot to do here, so I suggest you get started. One more thing, dictionary definitions and saying the same thing over and over again aren't evidences for your viewpoint.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
quote: I repeat, show how evolution is not good science and that it is religious. Evolution does not say that a unicellular organism is the "creator". You do. One of evolution's counterpart theories, the theory of common descent, states that all organisms alive today share a common ancestry. I have provided four lines of evidence for this in another post. Common ancestry, and therefore, evolution , start with the first cell. What came before that is being studied extensively and would not hurt the theory of common descent one bit. In fact, all the evidences for how organic macromolecules formed from inorganic gases are so prevalent and diverse that we can assume it happened when some form of energy interacted with volcanic gases in an oxygen-free environment. Several experiments are being done that show how cells could have developed. This is science. It moves forward and makes discoveries. Creationism makes no discoveries. It only seeks to justify ancient myths and non-scientific ideas. The last line of yours is just ignorant, especially if it is your view of faith that you want pushed.
quote: Where would they be written? Maybe in its genome!?! Hmmm... psst...saying that evolution is my view of faith and that i am pushing my faith on my kids is not a valid argument. You have to show how evolution is religious first, then you would have the start of something important to say. Otherwise you only offer hubris.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5117 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
Note: Post 144 was written w/o prior knowledge of post 143.
Let's go, gipper!
quote: You are forgetting that science is a process, an on-going process at that. As long as evidence is being gathered and reviewed scientifically, the process is still science. In science, we never say a theory is 100% accepted. It may be 99.9999999999% accepted, but an allowance for technological develop and revision exist in every scientific theory from big bang to quantum. Remember also that theories are explanations of facts/observations/experimentally collected data/supported hypotheses. They explain natural phenomena. Evolution, at its base definition, deals with changing genetic variations within a population over time. This has been observed in every living organism we have studied. This is a fact. Common ancestory should be considered a fact also, but the scientific community unceremoneously sticks to its over-inflated attention to procedure. (Those bastards!!!) The rates and the processes involved in evolution (natural selection/sexual selection/genetic drift/founder affect/speciation) are definitely, by definition, theories. They are also constantly being revised as more evidence becomes available. They are based on corroborating evidences that support hypotheses that have or are being peer reviewed. There are no sacred cows in science. More on that later.
quote: Evolution, as stated above, is not religious. Religions are not based on an ever expanding knowledge of natural phenomena. Religions are created by humans for humans for many reasons--A need to know, Fear of death, A common bond with others, Control(usually for "your own good"), Distinction (goes along with common bond with others who are distinct like you). I am sure I missed a bunch, but those will do for now. As far as I can see it, religion contains beliefs, rituals, and ethics. Evolution as belief--saying you believe in evolution could mean many things to many people. When I say I believe you about something, I could be believing you b/c I trust you and have faith in you or b/c I actually have evidence that tells me what you did/said/etc. is true. If I say I have a belief, that belief could be based on actual or perceived or preconceived evidence. My dad/preacher/teacher/holy book told me so. That is the fallacy of an argument from authority. (You should be comfortable with that one.) However, in science, a belief is only as good as the evidence used to back it up. Robust theories, like evolution, don't need belief to prop them up. They stand on their own as good science. Evolution as ritual--unless the scientific method it considered ritual, this one has no bearing in reality what-so-ever! Religions, though, have rituals that strength the bonds and sense of identity within the religious community. They are based on past events or are calls for some service. Examples, praying for rain, Yom Kippur, Easter, Christmas, the Hage (sorry if I misspelled that), Ramadan, etc. Evolution as ethics--all of the major religions put forth a code of ethics for the followers of that religion to maintain if they still want to be considered part of that religion. Turn the other cheek is one from Christianity that seems to be forgotten among many Christians (notice that I did not say "all"). Evolution makes no claims on how anyone should act or which behaviors are appropriate or inappropriate. Science, for that matter, makes no ethical claims in and of itself. Scientists make ethical claims all of the time based on their beliefs. However, these claims are made on how scientific discoveries should be used. They make no claim on the validity of the discovery itself. Religions tell you what you OUGHT to do. Science only provides explanations for how things are. How you use that information after it has been found is up to you. When I say their are no sacred cows in science, I mean that nothing is off-limits. Science is a cut-throat endevour. The only way to get the truth is to be painfully honest. No bullshit, no sensitivity, just plain cause, effect, nature and natural phenomena, scientific laws and principles, objective information, empirical observations, and peer reviews that are civil, but hold no punches. If someone found a way to disprove evolution through natural selection or the theory of common descent, they would be famous. Can anyone say "Nobel"? In the ongoing search for certainty in the natural world, every hypothesis and theory is scrutinized. That is how science works. Scrutinize biblical literalism and what do we find? Untenable positions on disproven myths coopted from other sources. Does this cancel god/creator out of the picture? Certainly not. It just says that the bible is not 100% historically accurate.
quote: I am not saying to throw out the dictionary. There are certain things within a field of study that you either do not find in the dictionary or you find the colloquial use of that term/word. Do people still know what these things mean w/o them being in a dictionary? Of course. Also, if you look under "evolution" in Webster's, it tells you to also go to "Darwinian theory". I don't agree with it being called "Darwinian theory" but the definition is actually pretty good. You need to understand that their were other ideas about evolution. Webster's also tells you to go to "Lamarckism" for that definition. Dictionaries also have a usage guide and an "introduction" of sorts. Read the section on "Aims and Limitations of Lexicography". I found it very informative.
quote: Our public schools are not anti-god or antireligious. Since the majority of the people I work with are Christian, I see and hear about religion everyday in school. Believe me, no one is being persecuted for being Christian. However, snide comments and rude innuendos are presented by some of these so-called Christians about other belief (or belief-less) systems. I think you are confusing public policy with how it is privately enacted. Public schools should be areligious. From what I have seen here in Maryland, and from more recent stories from Kansas and now Georgia, I say that Christianity is well represented in public schools. Just count up the court cases involving religion in schools. People don't sue to take evolution out, they sue to put creationism in. For a great look at two big creation science inclusion cases, read up on Edwards v.Aguillard (Louisiana equal-time statute) and Epperson v. Arkansas. The former is more forceful since it was held by the Supreme Court, but Judge Overton's ruling in the latter is a great read.
quote: Reductio ad absurdum...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024