Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
90 online now:
AZPaul3, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (3 members, 87 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,025 Year: 5,137/6,534 Month: 557/794 Week: 48/135 Day: 25/23 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
ringo
Member
Posts: 19612
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 195 of 2059 (733346)
07-16-2014 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by mram10
07-16-2014 12:11 PM


mram10 writes:

As for ID or creationism, if it has a valid description of origins, then people should be made aware of the differing theories.


By all means, let's teach ID and/or creationism as failed hypotheses, just like we teach alchemy and astrology as failed hypotheses. A theory is basically what you have left after you throw out all of the failed hypotheses. ID and creationism have failed every test, so all we have left is evolution, which has passed every test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 12:11 PM mram10 has seen this message

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19612
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 218 of 2059 (733459)
07-17-2014 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by mram10
07-16-2014 11:58 PM


mram10 writes:

Evolution requires faith, which those that are entrenched will not admit.


Thomas didn't need faith to see the nail prints in Jesus' hands. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Since we do see evolution - and even creationists admit that - it requires no faith. QED.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 11:58 PM mram10 has seen this message

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19612
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 234 of 2059 (733612)
07-19-2014 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by mram10
07-19-2014 11:40 AM


mram writes:

You cannot argue logically that ID should not be listed as a valid option, since we have very little knowledge of our universe.


One piece of knowledge that we don't have is that any potential "designer" exists. Intelligent Design makes no more sense than Unicorn Design or Bigfoot Design.

What we do know is that living things are made of simple chemicals. There's no logical reason to think, "you can't get here from there."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 11:40 AM mram10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:06 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19612
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 236 of 2059 (733614)
07-19-2014 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by mram10
07-19-2014 12:02 PM


Re: redirections
mram10 writes:

It is obvious you are a brainwashed individual that is not interested in science.


You seem to have that opinion of a lot of people here. Are you the only one with a dirty brain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:02 PM mram10 has seen this message

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19612
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 239 of 2059 (733618)
07-19-2014 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by mram10
07-19-2014 12:06 PM


mram10 writes:

Are you saying unicorns never existed?


I'm saying we don't know; we have no reason to think they ever did.

mram10 writes:

You discount any historical documents mentioning their existence?


I wouldn't teach in schools that unicorns "might have" designed the universe based on legends about unicorns.

mram10 writes:

You discount that the mass number of extinct species did not include them?


Are you suggesting that we should teach in schools that unicorns "might have" designed the universe and then became extinct? If we're going to teach every possibility that remote, we'll have to extend the school year.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:06 PM mram10 has seen this message

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19612
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 265 of 2059 (737810)
09-30-2014 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Tali_Zorah
09-30-2014 9:22 AM


Tali_Zorah writes:

You know those two don't have to be conflicted right?


I'd say wrong. If creationism was taught alongside evolution factually, the creationists would be the ones opposing it. They don't want their half-truths exposed. They want to discredit science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Tali_Zorah, posted 09-30-2014 9:22 AM Tali_Zorah has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by dwise1, posted 10-01-2014 2:51 PM ringo has seen this message

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19612
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 287 of 2059 (737999)
10-03-2014 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by djufo
10-02-2014 8:23 PM


djufo writes:

Both should be mentioned as theories.


All theories should be mentioned. In the case of "the origin of species" there is only one theory - evolution.

Creationism is at best a failed hypothesis. It has failed every test concerning the age of the earth, the relatedness of species, etc. (Note that the age of the earth is not directly related to evolution but it is a creationist obsession.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by djufo, posted 10-02-2014 8:23 PM djufo has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19612
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 315 of 2059 (738165)
10-05-2014 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by djufo
10-04-2014 4:21 PM


djufo writes:

By the way, evolution of humans should be just mentioned in schools as a theory.


Did your school mention what a theory is? Because you don't seem to understand the concept.

A theory is built by testing hypotheses. Does creationism even have a testable hypothesis?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 4:21 PM djufo has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19612
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 378 of 2059 (740251)
11-03-2014 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by Colbard
11-03-2014 4:07 AM


Colbard writes:

Learning is not an adventure if someone is force feeding.


It's a cute saying that "learning should be an adventure" but it isn'r really practical for an education system. Given the option, most children would do most of their adventuring on the playground instead of in the classroom, so a certain amount of "force feeding" is necessary.

The problem with being "self-educated' is that there is no discipline. There is nobody to "force" you to look at the things you need to know instead of just the things you want to know. That's why people who are "self-educated" tend to fall for nonsense like creationism - they've chosen to look at only one side.

A proper education system "forces" students to look at all sides. In the case of creationism, if it is presented honestly, the students will see for themselves that there is nothing to it. There is, indeed, nothing to teach.


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 384 by Colbard, posted 11-05-2014 6:36 AM ringo has seen this message

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19612
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 398 of 2059 (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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19612
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 418 of 2059 (740923)
11-08-2014 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by Colbard
11-07-2014 10:13 PM


Colbard writes:

Or they could have been lumped together in a global flood?


We could definitely have the children investigate that possibility. First, take them outside to look at the leaves on the ground (since school conveniently begins in fall). Would they expect all of the leaves to come from one gigantic tree or from the many ordinary-sized trees that they see around them?

Then have them think about whether organisms that are killed by a flood are likely to have been killed by one gigantic flood or by many ordinary-sized floods that they see on the news.

I think you'll find that letting children make up their own minds is the last thing that creationists want.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Colbard, posted 11-07-2014 10:13 PM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by Colbard, posted 11-08-2014 9:13 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19612
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 439 of 2059 (741083)
11-09-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Colbard
11-08-2014 9:13 PM


Colbard writes:

In either case the answer to the thread Q is more about method of educating rather than what should be taught, don't you think?


Well, you suggested that the children should be taught by allowing them to make up their own minds. I've been pointing out in the last couple of posts that if children do make up their own minds, they're quite likely to reject creationism (which is quite frankly, stupid).

If you want creationism to survive the education process, the only method that will work is hiding the truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Colbard, posted 11-08-2014 9:13 PM Colbard has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19612
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 441 of 2059 (741086)
11-09-2014 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by Colbard
11-09-2014 6:46 AM


Re: Bristles
Colbard writes:

jar writes:

What flood model can account for the layers found at Dover sorted by species?


I don't know I would have to visit the place and do the research.

So you haven't done the math but you already have The Answer™? Is that what you want to teach children in school? Come up with The Answer™ first and then use confirmation bias to back it up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Colbard, posted 11-09-2014 6:46 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by Colbard, posted 11-10-2014 6:29 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19612
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 483 of 2059 (741440)
11-12-2014 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 442 by Colbard
11-10-2014 6:29 PM


Re: Bristles
Colbard writes:

While I am sure of a global flood, I don't know how these deposits took place.


I happen to know that my house was built in 1957. I have lived in this neighbourhood myself since 1962, so I know there has been no major construction on this block since then. If a book claimed that my house was built in 1989, what should I conclude? That the observational evidence is wrong and the book is right?

We know that the Dover cliffs are much, much older than 6000 years. We also know that many other formations are much, much older than 6000 years. Some of them, such as the cliffs, simply could not have formed in 6000 years, according to the laws of physics.

So we know that the earth is more than 6000 years old.

We also know, according to the laws of physics, that the Dover Cliffs could not have formed during a one-year flood.

It may be possible to maintain a belief in a 6000-year-old earth and a one-year Flood despite the facts, but that belief has no more place in our schools than a belief in flying pigs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Colbard, posted 11-10-2014 6:29 PM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 513 by Colbard, posted 11-13-2014 6:32 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19612
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 525 of 2059 (741578)
11-13-2014 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by Colbard
11-13-2014 6:32 AM


Re: Bristles
Colbard writes:

But you would also disagree with a book that claimed your house was a million times older, and that it took that long to build.


The point is that the house must be at least as old as its oldest part. If the concrete foundation takes several days to cure, you can't reasonably conclude that the basement was dug this morning. It could have been dug last month or twenty years ago or a thousand years ago. It can be older than the oldest (known) part but not younger.

That's why a young earth is a non-starter. It would be a disservice to our children to teach them otherwise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Colbard, posted 11-13-2014 6:32 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 555 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2014 11:39 PM ringo has replied
 Message 557 by Colbard, posted 11-15-2014 8:52 AM ringo 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