Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
42 online now:
jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Pollux, vimesey (4 members, 38 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,075 Year: 4,187/6,534 Month: 401/900 Week: 107/150 Day: 38/42 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2122 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


(1)
Message 391 of 2058 (740459)
11-05-2014 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by Coyote
11-05-2014 11:15 AM


Re: Teach TOE in Science Class, Religion in Social Studies Class
When I say "Religion" I mean the topic of Religion, not teaching religious dogma as truth. You can't teach about the Pilgrims, for example, without talking about their religion as a motivation for why they did what. To explain the Crusades you have to talk about religion, what people believed, and how it motivated them. That isn't a course in Comparative Religions (which would be ok to teach also), rather it is teaching about the role of religion in history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Coyote, posted 11-05-2014 11:15 AM Coyote has seen this message

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 392 of 2058 (740467)
11-05-2014 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by Colbard
11-03-2014 4:07 AM


Mike the Wiz illustrated the point about giving information about nature but not making up a student's mind for them.

And yet what Mike the Wiz suggests teaching them is both conclusory and false.

Learning is not an adventure if someone is force feeding.
True education should be about training the mind to be free and to think, to discover and to enjoy.
Observe and make your own conclusions.

But that wouldn't work.

Consider chemistry for example. The conclusions we have are the result of enormous effort, of thousands of experiments, and insights of genius.

To teach chemistry, we teach the conclusions. We teach the kids about the atomic theory of matter, about the structure of matter, the periodic table, valence electrons, covalent and ionic bonding, and, nowadays, a bit of quantum theory. If we just gave them lots of chemicals and said: go, figure it out, then they wouldn't figure it out. They wouldn't end up discovering chemistry for themselves, they'd each produce a half-assed alchemy. Unless, of course, they went behind their teacher's back, found some books, educated themselves, and learned chemistry.

But to make another person's ideas a a criterion for getting a career is not appropriate.

Well, I'd want someone to know the rules of chemistry before giving them a job as a chemist. If instead they told me that there were four elements, earth, air, fire and water, and that they have this great scheme for turning base metals into gold, I'd hire someone else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Colbard, posted 11-03-2014 4:07 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Colbard, posted 11-07-2014 6:40 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2620 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 393 of 2058 (740729)
11-07-2014 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Dr Adequate
11-05-2014 11:42 AM


Very well said, and I agree.
I think that in chemistry for example, we could demonstrate most of it, and I am fairly certain that if the conclusions we have today - accumulated by much time and effort, are correct as I believe, then the students cannot help to make the same conclusions by observing.

But when it comes to defining something which is not demonstrable like the evolution theory, then we could show how things can change over time, and leave it up to the students to work out whether it was millions of years or something which happens in our world on a generational basis, and remarkably quickly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2014 11:42 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Phat, posted 11-07-2014 7:13 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 395 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-07-2014 9:53 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 396 by Coyote, posted 11-07-2014 9:58 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 397 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-07-2014 10:46 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 398 by ringo, posted 11-07-2014 11:16 AM Colbard has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15931
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 394 of 2058 (740731)
11-07-2014 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by Colbard
11-07-2014 6:40 AM


How Does This Work?
But when it comes to defining something which is not demonstrable like the evolution theory, then we could show how things can change over time, and leave it up to the students to work out whether it was millions of years or something which happens in our world on a generational basis, and remarkably quickly.
I suppose a majority vote can define a belief, but am wondering how a majority could decide how old something is based on any sort of science or critical thought.

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo

One of the major purposes of debate is to help you hone your arguments. Yours are pretty bad. They can use all the honing they can get.~Ringo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Colbard, posted 11-07-2014 6:40 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by Colbard, posted 11-07-2014 9:58 PM Phat has seen this message

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 395 of 2058 (740737)
11-07-2014 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by Colbard
11-07-2014 6:40 AM


I think that in chemistry for example, we could demonstrate most of it, and I am fairly certain that if the conclusions we have today - accumulated by much time and effort, are correct as I believe, then the students cannot help to make the same conclusions by observing.

How do you demonstrate and observe sp3 hybridization or van der Waals force?

That shit's pretty abstract...

Man up: You just don't like evolution because of its implications to your religion. This has nothing to do with how children are educated.

But when it comes to defining something which is not demonstrable like the evolution theory,

Chemistry gets like that too.

and leave it up to the students to work out whether it was millions of years or something which happens in our world on a generational basis, and remarkably quickly.

Why though? Just because you don't like evolution? That's retarded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Colbard, posted 11-07-2014 6:40 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Colbard, posted 11-07-2014 9:53 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 396 of 2058 (740738)
11-07-2014 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by Colbard
11-07-2014 6:40 AM


Leave it up to students????
...and leave it up to the students to work out whether it was millions of years or something which happens in our world on a generational basis, and remarkably quickly.

Leave it up to students? Hah! What do students know about radiometric dating and all the other techniques for establishing age? *

Students need to be told what science has established, whether some fringe groups accept that evidence or not.

The evidence shows that the earth is very, very old, not some thousands of years old, so that's what students should be told.

* Probably a lot more than creationists!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Colbard, posted 11-07-2014 6:40 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Colbard, posted 11-07-2014 10:01 PM Coyote has seen this message

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 397 of 2058 (740742)
11-07-2014 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by Colbard
11-07-2014 6:40 AM


I think that in chemistry for example, we could demonstrate most of it, and I am fairly certain that if the conclusions we have today - accumulated by much time and effort, are correct as I believe, then the students cannot help to make the same conclusions by observing.

Well, you'd have to tell them what you were demonstrating: you'd say, here's the theory, now let me show you (a tiny proportion of) the observations that prove it. (And you would only have time to show them a tiny proportion.)

But this is just how evolution is taught too.

Now in both cases if you just showed them a tiny proportion of the evidence and invited them to figure out the theory, they wouldn't get very far. Here's what happens, you say, when you add zinc to sulfuric acid, here's what happens when you drop sodium in water, then they would not all by themselves replicate the conclusions of Mendeleev or Kerkule or Pauling. After all, very few professional chemists managed to come to those conclusions after a lifetime of study, that's why we call the ones who did geniuses and give them Nobel prizes --- because out of our entire species, after hundreds of years of doing chemistry, only Linus Pauling was able to deduce what he did about the nature of chemical bonds, although when he had done so other people were able to understand it. So we have to supply the students with the theory, and then argue that it's supported by observation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Colbard, posted 11-07-2014 6:40 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by Colbard, posted 11-07-2014 10:10 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19517
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 398 of 2058 (740746)
11-07-2014 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by Colbard
11-07-2014 6:40 AM


Colbard writes:

... leave it up to the students to work out whether it was millions of years or something which happens in our world on a generational basis, and remarkably quickly.


Show them under the microscope the tiny creatures that make up chalk. Then show them how high the white cliffs of Dover are and let them do the math. The millions of years will be pretty obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Colbard, posted 11-07-2014 6:40 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by Colbard, posted 11-07-2014 10:13 PM ringo has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 935 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 399 of 2058 (740753)
11-07-2014 12:05 PM


A question...
Addressing the title of this thread, isn't the clamor for equal treatment for religious topics such as creationism simply an admission of failure on the part of parents and churches to teach these subjects?

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2014 12:08 PM edge has taken no action

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 400 of 2058 (740794)
11-07-2014 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Colbard
11-05-2014 6:45 AM


Re: How to teach Evolution
Colbard writes:

In China children were taught that Chairman Mao makes the sun rise. That's force.
Education would be to take them onto the China wall at sunrise.

Sigh.

That would not educate the children. It would reinforce the idea that 'Chairman Mao' can make the Sun come up even when they are at the Great Wall of China.

How do you not understand why this is wrong?

Edited by Larni, : spelling


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Colbard, posted 11-05-2014 6:45 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Colbard, posted 11-07-2014 10:16 PM Larni has taken no action

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7309
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 401 of 2058 (740819)
11-07-2014 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Colbard
11-05-2014 6:45 AM


Re: How to teach Evolution
n China children were taught that Chairman Mao makes the sun rise. That's force.
Education would be to take them onto the China wall at sunrise.

Source please.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Colbard, posted 11-05-2014 6:45 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by Colbard, posted 11-07-2014 10:26 PM Theodoric has taken no action

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2620 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 402 of 2058 (740866)
11-07-2014 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by New Cat's Eye
11-07-2014 9:53 AM


catsci writes:

How do you demonstrate and observe sp3 hybridization or van der Waals force?

That shit's pretty abstract...

Man up: You just don't like evolution because of its implications to your religion. This has nothing to do with how children are educated.

It is within your interest that I remain immature and disadvantaged, so that your species has less competition for your ultimate survival.

Is that what the platform of education should be?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-07-2014 9:53 AM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2620 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 403 of 2058 (740867)
11-07-2014 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Phat
11-07-2014 7:13 AM


Re: How Does This Work?
Phat writes:

I suppose a majority vote can define a belief, but am wondering how a majority could decide how old something is based on any sort of science or critical thought.

I think some things like the age of the earth, don't matter when you have to get up for work Monday morning, and there does not have to be a majority consensus on these issues.
I suppose some OC people would find it irritating that they cannot classify and categorize every thing and test people on it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Phat, posted 11-07-2014 7:13 AM Phat has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Coyote, posted 11-07-2014 11:03 PM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2620 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 404 of 2058 (740868)
11-07-2014 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Coyote
11-07-2014 9:58 AM


Re: Leave it up to students????
Coyote writes:

Leave it up to students? Hah! What do students know about radiometric dating and all the other techniques for establishing age? *

Students need to be told what science has established, whether some fringe groups accept that evidence or not.

The evidence shows that the earth is very, very old, not some thousands of years old, so that's what students should be told.

* Probably a lot more than creationists!

I'm glad you said "probably" - that's scientific and safe for education.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Coyote, posted 11-07-2014 9:58 AM Coyote has seen this message

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2620 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 405 of 2058 (740869)
11-07-2014 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by Dr Adequate
11-07-2014 10:46 AM


Dr Adequate writes:

Well, you'd have to tell them what you were demonstrating: you'd say, here's the theory, now let me show you (a tiny proportion of) the observations that prove it. (And you would only have time to show them a tiny proportion.)
But this is just how evolution is taught too.

Now in both cases if you just showed them a tiny proportion of the evidence and invited them to figure out the theory, they wouldn't get very far. Here's what happens, you say, when you add zinc to sulfuric acid, here's what happens when you drop sodium in water, then they would not all by themselves replicate the conclusions of Mendeleev or Kerkule or Pauling. After all, very few professional chemists managed to come to those conclusions after a lifetime of study, that's why we call the ones who did geniuses and give them Nobel prizes --- because out of our entire species, after hundreds of years of doing chemistry, only Linus Pauling was able to deduce what he did about the nature of chemical bonds, although when he had done so other people were able to understand it. So we have to supply the students with the theory, and then argue that it's supported by observation.

That makes absolute sense, we could just say that so and so came to this conclusion, as we do in education. Why they came to a certain conclusion is essential. But I would not say that it is forcing a conclusion if it is presented as said.

How something is taught is as important as to what.
And if it was done I am pretty sure the two views of religion and evolution would be incompatible.

However, most modern religious organizations have officially recognized Evolution and accepted it as part of their curriculum. That is because they do not consider the Bible as an authority any longer.

Going by modern standards we might as well dispense with religion altogether.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-07-2014 10:46 AM Dr Adequate has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by Coyote, posted 11-07-2014 11:05 PM Colbard has taken no action
 Message 411 by Tangle, posted 11-08-2014 3:41 AM Colbard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022