There is hardly a soul not aware of the great divide in the culture between Science and the Institution of Public Education in genral while the Institution of Religion teaches a different point of view.
What is the purpose of Public Education if not to bring light and reason to such matter concerning the larger society?
Within the Institution of Religion, itself, the seven different perspectives are hardly acknowledged by the b-general opublic. The effect of this is that children are raised in a paradigm that diuvides them, fails to inform them of the choices available, and allows adults to dispute one another blindly.
Just the sociological value of present ALL the seven views plus Evolution seems to be sensible behavior.
1) Young Earth creationism 2) Old Earth creationism 3) Day-Age creationism 4) Progressive creationism 5) Gap creationism 6) Intelligent design 7) Theistic evolution 8) Scientific Evolution
Theistic Evolution by and large agrees with science, and differes only with the way other men like Smith, Wesley, Cambell, etc presented their interpretation of Genesis:
8) The Sun and the Moon and all the Stars were "MADE," given authority over circadian Earth Time as soon as life appeared: http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id126.html
10) Man HAS managed to form a mental IMAGE of "Father Nature" by understanding of His Laws and creation
11) Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites," a species:
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created
12) Paleotologists enumerate the same number of 22 now extinct species as listed in the 22 names of the Genesis genealogy from the first man, Adam, thru Noah and his 3 racial Stocks of Shem, Japheth, and Ham.
Just the sociological value of present ALL the seven views plus Evolution seems to be sensible behavior.
Of course, that is the only reason to teach any of those things, other than the Theory of Evolution. Certainly none of the others belongs in science class, except as examples of things that aren't science.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
1) Young Earth creationism 2) Old Earth creationism 3) Day-Age creationism 4) Progressive creationism 5) Gap creationism 6) Intelligent design 7) Theistic evolution 8) Scientific Evolution
Of those, there is evidence for only one--Scientific Evolution.
The rest are based on old tribal myths and superstitions, none of which are suitable for public school classrooms outside of comparative religion and similar classes.
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
When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was chief of the animals. He saw that the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but he grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. "It is impossible," he said, "that he should be left alone; he must have a mate." So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.
The man opened his eyes and stared at the woman. "What does this mean?" he asked. "I thought I was alone!" Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied he man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together.
California Indian creation story
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
What is the purpose of Public Education if not to bring light and reason to such matter concerning the larger society?
Bringing "light and reason" to the subject of, for example, Young Earth Creationism would involve explicitly teaching what's wrong with it, violating the First Amendment.
Just the sociological value of present ALL the seven views plus Evolution seems to be sensible behavior.
If it would have value for our sociological understanding, then maybe sociology class would be a good place for it.
On the downside, that would give scientifically illiterate sociology teachers apparent license to teach creationist crap, so maybe it's best not to.
Yeah, and considering there were over 5,000 identifiable tribes in historic times, I bet you missed a few as well.
Well, I'll drop the other shoe for those who won't consider the obvious implication. After teaching every creation story, which would be the legal thing to do -- if you teach one you must teach all or violate the first amendment -- when does one have the time to teach readin', writin' and cypherin' (to put it in terms understandable to the anti-science crowd).
Sorry fundies, one science or all myths -- blame your precious founding fathers.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
Science class is for science. Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and other religious creation myths can be discussed as myth in comparative religion, sociology of culture / religion, or even philosophy classes, but they have about as much relevance to the hard sciences as cake has to running marathons.
* Disclaimer: I'm a clueless sociologist.
Edited by Finn, : clarification
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Science class is for science. Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and other religious creation myths can be discussed as myth in comparative religion, sociology of culture / religion, or even philosophy classes, but they have about as much relevance to the hard sciences as cake has to running marathons.
Hello and welcome from another Finn
The point you made should be blatantly obvious but when intelligence gets replaced with religiousness, the problems ensue.
The comments from the cretin side are like: "Whatever the Bible says is so; whatever man says may or may not be so - is the only position a Christian can take..." or "If scientific conclusions contradict the word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scietific facts may appear to back them." or "Christians must disregard scientific hypotheses or theories that contradict the Bible".
Those above are from a textbook "BIOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS".
I have to say I would not like my kids to grow up being taught things that are unscientific (such as 1-7).
Teaching kids that universe runs on magic is not helpful to them.
ABE: as I recall from my Sociology Religion is a major component. Kids can learn all about the affects of religion on society; just like I did.
Edited by Larni, : ABE
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
quote:Hello and welcome from another Finn The point you made should be blatantly obvious but when intelligence gets replaced with religiousness, the problems ensue.
Terve! I'm actually not from Finland; I'm a native Michigander of multiracial (European / Native American / African / Asian, but not Finnish as far as I know) descent. "Finn" is simply short for Finley . En puhu suomi, olen amerikalainen.
Side note: I should probably spell it "Fin" here to avoid confusion.
On-topic note: Creationism is an absurd religious myth that has no place in any science classroom, regardless of the backgrounds of the students or teachers.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)
