|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total) |
| |
harveyspecter | |
Total: 895,003 Year: 6,115/6,534 Month: 308/650 Week: 78/278 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 1416 days) Posts: 7789 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
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: And I'm more or less cool with that. (Source). Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 1416 days) Posts: 7789 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Sure you aren't confusing it with Westboro Baptist Church? Landover is meant to be based out of the fictional town of Freehold, Iowa.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 1416 days) Posts: 7789 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Hrm, scala naturae, you must be talking about priests, right?
Oh sorry, it's gods.
Hmm, could be either one, I'm going with priests.
My mistake, you are definitely talking about gods.
Oh, OK that changes everything. You are talking about Catholic theologians! I should have seen it from the start!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 1416 days) Posts: 7789 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 1416 days) Posts: 7789 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 1416 days) Posts: 7789 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 1416 days) Posts: 7789 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Physics. Ask a broad question, expect a broad answer. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 1416 days) Posts: 7789 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No.
Relativity handles most of that quite nicely.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 1416 days) Posts: 7789 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 1416 days) Posts: 7789 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
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.
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.
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 1416 days) Posts: 7789 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
OK, I won't. I haven't been doing that, would you like to pay attention before replying next time? It'd be appreciated.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 1416 days) Posts: 7789 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Relativity says its the same entity. So, yes actually - for the far universe.
Those aren't unknowns.
Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, Black Holes, Redshift, the behaviour of binary pulsars, gravitational waves.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 1416 days) Posts: 7789 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
Exactly right. Fortunately what I say is correctly termed science.
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 1416 days) Posts: 7789 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022