Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
146 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, nwr (3 members, 143 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,003 Year: 6,115/6,534 Month: 308/650 Week: 78/278 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1416 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 7 of 2059 (559042)
05-06-2010 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by extent
05-04-2010 7:22 PM


Evolution and religion are both secular subjects
How can we teach both evolution and religion in school when they seemingly conflict so much with one another?

Yup. I was taught evolution and religion. I would have preferred better teaching of both, but it wasn't the end of the world.

Of course, we shouldn't teach evolution and pick an arbitrary unsupported set of religious creation stories and present them uncritically as if they had the same level of support as evolution...as in the video you showed.

The best way to teach religion is to simply teach people what different groups say they believe and what they do to express their beliefs. Instead of "God created the world in 6 days" you could start with "The Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christrianity and Islam believe that God created the world. Their creation story takes place over the course of 6 days although not all followers accept that this is a literal truth...tomorrow we will talk about the Sikhs beliefs about..."

I have no objection to that. Indeed: I insist it be a mandatory part of any reasonable education.

There should not be any proselytizing: just statements of observable facts and possible discussion of how those statements might relate to the student's own views. The ultimate goal of UK religious education is to get pupils to the standard that they can

quote:
use a complex religious, moral and philosophical vocabulary to provide a consistent and detailed analysis of religions and beliefs. They evaluate in depth the importance of religious diversity in a pluralistic society. They clearly recognise the extent to which the impact of religion and beliefs on different communities and societies has changed over time. They provide a detailed analysis of how religious, spiritual and moral sources are interpreted in different ways, evaluating the principal methods by which religion and spirituality are studied. They synthesise effectively their accounts of the varied forms of religious, spiritual and moral expression...

Pupils analyse in depth a wide range of perspectives on questions of identity and belonging, meaning, purpose and truth, and values and commitments. They give independent, well-informed and highly reasoned insights into their own and others' perspectives on religious and spiritual issues, providing well-substantiated and balanced conclusions.


And I'm more or less cool with that. (Source).

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by extent, posted 05-04-2010 7:22 PM extent has not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1416 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 156 of 2059 (659722)
04-18-2012 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Artemis Entreri
04-18-2012 9:11 AM


Re: ugh acronyms
I think the Landover Baptists are not Poes, When I lived in Missouri I went to a landover baptist church for a couple months, and they are serious about that weird stuff.

Sure you aren't confusing it with Westboro Baptist Church? Landover is meant to be based out of the fictional town of Freehold, Iowa.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-18-2012 9:11 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-18-2012 9:55 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1416 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 325 of 2059 (738588)
10-12-2014 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by djufo
10-12-2014 3:01 PM


It is an infantile behavior in which thy start from the base that they are the maximum expression of evolution in the universe.

Hrm, scala naturae, you must be talking about priests, right?

They know everything. Nobody before them could know more than them, and nobody in any part of the universe can know more than they do.

Oh sorry, it's gods.

Therefore, every time they discover something new, it has to be rewritten.

Hmm, could be either one, I'm going with priests.

Nobody can criticize that behavior because we all "believe" they have the supreme truth and the last word.

My mistake, you are definitely talking about gods.

In reality they are a bunch of retards, nerds and geeks who deduce some sort of sexual pleasure mating monkeys with humans.

Oh, OK that changes everything. You are talking about Catholic theologians! I should have seen it from the start!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by djufo, posted 10-12-2014 3:01 PM djufo has not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1416 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 992 of 2059 (827003)
01-15-2018 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 991 by creation
01-15-2018 1:32 PM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
Only if that distant universe or past also was IN the natural world. You need to do more than assume it was.

Well of course. You assume that it is, and then calculate the consequences of that assumption and compare it to what we observe. As it turns out, assuming that it is leads to an explanatory framework that predicts how satellites behave, how Mercury behaves, how light behaves, how particles interact in the LHC etc etc. It seems that if that assumption is true, we can predict the future. If that assumption is false, then we've been getting outrageously and improbably lucky.

Feel free to explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the time dilation effects on satellites, the behaviours we see in particle accelerators and so on where the assumption is false.

The scientific method can and does cover the distant past. There is no reason it cannot. Assumptions are a key part of the scientific method, regardless of the subject so that assumptions get made is not a reason to not teach one particular area.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 991 by creation, posted 01-15-2018 1:32 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 998 by creation, posted 01-16-2018 9:45 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1416 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1005 of 2059 (827069)
01-16-2018 2:51 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.

Yup. And assuming the distant space and distant time are also in this nature results in a consistent and coherent picture of nature as a whole. From particles to galaxies.

Irrelevant

Actually it is relevant. You aren't one for advancing an argument are you? Just stating your opinion and hoping that'll suffice. Good luck with that approach.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 998 by creation, posted 01-16-2018 9:45 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1008 by creation, posted 01-17-2018 10:08 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1416 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 1012 of 2059 (827110)
01-17-2018 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1008 by creation
01-17-2018 10:08 AM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
What is in the fishbowl of earth and the solar system area is not relevant to what time is like is deep space.

But if what explains what is happening in deep space also, without modification, explains what is going on in the 'fishbowl' - that constitutes a very strong reason to suppose the fishbowl and deep space are part of the same nature. Without any reason at all to suppose otherwise - that's the scientific conclusion and that's why it should be taught where appropriate - your made-up rules and baseless repeated opining notwithstanding.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1008 by creation, posted 01-17-2018 10:08 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1013 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 4:05 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1416 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 1019 of 2059 (827238)
01-21-2018 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1013 by creation
01-19-2018 4:05 PM


nature of time
Name an example of something you think explains time and it's nature n the far universe!?

Physics.

Ask a broad question, expect a broad answer.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1013 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 4:05 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1021 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:25 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1416 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1025 of 2059 (827260)
01-21-2018 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1021 by creation
01-21-2018 2:25 PM


Re: nature of time
Physics where a star is?

No.

How does that show what time is like there>

Relativity handles most of that quite nicely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1021 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:25 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1026 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:48 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1416 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 1029 of 2059 (827288)
01-22-2018 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1026 by creation
01-21-2018 2:48 PM


Re: nature of time
Explain how relativity of the fishbowl handles telling us the precise nature of time and space far far away?

They are part of the same spacetime continuum. At some points in this continuum, far away was here - but being a continuum the nature of time and space far far away is the same as the nature of time and space here - as they are subsets of precisely the same entity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1026 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:48 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1031 by creation, posted 01-22-2018 9:42 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1416 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 1032 of 2059 (827304)
01-22-2018 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1031 by creation
01-22-2018 9:42 AM


Re: nature of time
We know you believe that. However you need to do more than state it is so. You have provided no reason to support your belief here.

100 years of experimental verification seems sufficient to me. I already mentioned some of them, you must have forgotten. Precession of the perihelion of Mercury, particle accelerators, gravitational lensing etc etc etc.

Unless time existed the same at all points what you say is absurd.

In the same way that length exists the same at all points, time does too. Their measurement varies according the frame of reference of the measurer.

So..how do you think you know time is the same and exists at all points?

As I said - working from this assumption makes predictions which match observations. AKA science.

You are doing an excellent case at inadvertently advertising the need for teaching this and a poor job of justifying not teaching it. I'm not here to teach you relativity, but if you have a specific objection maybe we can find a thread to discuss that in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1031 by creation, posted 01-22-2018 9:42 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1035 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 10:02 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1416 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1037 of 2059 (827499)
01-26-2018 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1035 by creation
01-26-2018 10:02 AM


Re: nature of time
Mercury is in the fishbowl, irrelevant.

It is evidence for the validity of Relativity. Which you asked for. So that makes it relevant. Relativity extends our knowledge to the transfishbowl regions as evidenced by its validity predicting what we'd see out there and given it uses the same rules to predict what we'd see cisfishbowl - it suggests that cisfishbowl and transfishbowl are actually all just one fishbowl following the same rules.

It is pure madness for you to ask for evidence that things are the same over here as they are over there and then to dismiss that evidence on the grounds that it includes discussion about what happens here.

You cannot take a triangle, and use the small end to represent time in the fishbowl, and then extend the longer parts to stars as if that also represented space and time there.

OK, I won't. I haven't been doing that, would you like to pay attention before replying next time? It'd be appreciated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1035 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 10:02 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1038 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2018 1:41 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1041 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:11 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1416 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 1053 of 2059 (827598)
01-28-2018 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1041 by creation
01-27-2018 2:11 PM


Re: nature of time

NOT to the far universe.

Relativity says its the same entity. So, yes actually - for the far universe.

Example of something predicted in deep space? Gravitational lensing won't do. You see that effect out there is not known in detail, since we have so many unknowns. Distances to the stars and how big whatever is seeming to bend the light...for example.

Those aren't unknowns.

So, what else you got?

Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, Black Holes, Redshift, the behaviour of binary pulsars, gravitational waves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1041 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:11 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1054 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:19 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1416 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1060 of 2059 (827682)
01-29-2018 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1054 by creation
01-28-2018 4:19 PM


Re: nature of time
Relativity says its the same entity. So, yes actually - for the far universe.
In your dreams. Prove it.

I don't need to - Einstein, Poincare, Minkowski et al took care of the mathematical proof and a century of scientists since have empirically confirmed it.

Known by religious belief doesn't count even if you claim it is science falsely.

Exactly right. Fortunately what I say is correctly termed science.

None of those things matter or mean what you think unless time exists out in far space as it does here. Gong!

Maybe, but then you'd need to explain why all the results of these independent lines of enquiry all point to the same conclusion. Otherwise you aren't engaging in science, just radical and selective scepticism - which can easily be shown to be absurdity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1054 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:19 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1061 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2018 4:17 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 1075 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 7:20 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1416 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1062 of 2059 (827693)
01-29-2018 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1061 by RAZD
01-29-2018 4:17 PM


Re: nature of time
just radical and selective scepticism

please don't call denial skepticism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_skepticism


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1061 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2018 4:17 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022