Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 10:03 PM
29 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, Dredge, edge, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,178 Year: 9,214/19,786 Month: 1,636/2,119 Week: 396/576 Day: 71/128 Hour: 0/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Author Topic:   Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer
hitchy
Member (Idle past 3284 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 76 of 164 (189231)
02-28-2005 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Demosthenes Fan
02-21-2005 9:00 PM


Re: The Students Speak Out
Thank you for the article. It is interesting to see what the students think and realize that some of them have a grasp on the issue. As a biology teacher in Maryland, we recently had a little movement in two counties, Charles and St Mary's, that are right next to the county in which I teach, Calvert. There was a "movement" backed by some of the fundie churches down here to get people on school boards that didn't have a problem with including ID in our biology curriculum. Of course, their true intentions were shown out in the fact that they also wanted certain "controversial" books taken out of school libraries! Why Catcher in the Rye and Tom Sawyer keep getting picked on is beyond me.

Anyway, after the intial furor over the ID thing in my neighboring counties, the wonderful Nancy Grasmick, one of our state board's more intelligent members, sent out a memo saying that evolution is in the state science standards and that our standards are consistant with the national standards. She also pointed out that it would be inappropriate to teach one version of creationism over the countless others put forth by other religious groups. She also sent us a list and synopsis of 6 relevant court cases and a statement about keeping evolution in and creationism out that was taken from a 1995 brochure written by over thirty religious groups. If only we could get a stronger response from every state school board in the country.

Thanks for reading!

Hitchy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Demosthenes Fan, posted 02-21-2005 9:00 PM Demosthenes Fan has not yet responded

  
Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 164 (189316)
02-28-2005 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Syamsu
02-28-2005 11:53 AM


last point first...
I will agree if we put the word 'some' in before 'commercialization'. The expansion of technology and information has already produced technical schools and other fora for capitalist driven information systems. Again, this is for those who can pay and overlook the good done by subsidizing a certain level of public education.

I see that your mention of child labour referred to not overworking students in classrooms and not the effects of the lack of available public education as it relates to to child labour in the commercial world. The overwork of a few students at the upper end of public education do not seem to be a good argument for any discontinuance of public education at lower levels unless having masses of uneducated is the goal.

And as to the first paragraph, I don't believe in your premise that most students are overloaded. I contend that a capatalist education system will literally see no profit in having schools in areas where parents can pay little or nothing. Under this system these people will get no or a little subpar 'subsidized' education that will furthur fuel class divisions.

While I agree that more education will be capatalistically driven, it seems that your viewpoint consistently ignores the importance of susidizing education for all so that every child has a chance, a chance I find unlikely under a purely capatalist system. Regulatory power alone seems insufficient here unless education corporations will be compelled to put schools where they see no immediate profit because (IMO) its the right thing to do for individuals and society.

ABB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Syamsu, posted 02-28-2005 11:53 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Syamsu, posted 04-14-2005 1:23 PM Arkansas Banana Boy has not yet responded

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 164 (197354)
04-06-2005 9:22 PM


Latest news from Dover. They are going to have a seminar on ID, and have invited Behe.

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/64310/

This is now enough of an issue in the area that the County paper (the above link) now have a specfic "Dover biology" section on their website. Rather interesting reading.


  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3756 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 79 of 164 (199331)
04-14-2005 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Arkansas Banana Boy
02-28-2005 8:13 PM


Re: last point first...
It's not about subsidizing education for all, it's about forcing people to learn what they don't want, and not providing what they do want.

I personally would have no problem with it, to participate in a government education voucher scheme, where kids could well.. buy the exactsame curricullum as the Hitler youth. If that's what they want, for an education, then that's what they get. It is entirely different when the government forces the Hitleryouth curriculum on people. Such a scheme may mean that in the USA large sums of money would go to Christian education. Would this mean the goverment establishing a religion? No, because in such a scheme they wouldn't control the curricullum. The theory of evolution is the religion that the goverment actively sponsors, because the government controls the curricullum and puts the theory of evolution in it.

I think many people are mistaken about the demands the government's urge for progress puts on people's lives. I think it is tremendous, while most people see it as limited and reasonable. But again in socialist / folkish Europe these things are much worse then in the USA as far as I can tell.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 02-28-2005 8:13 PM Arkansas Banana Boy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by NosyNed, posted 04-14-2005 4:48 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 80 of 164 (199390)
04-14-2005 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Syamsu
04-14-2005 1:23 PM


What they don't want to learn?
It's not about subsidizing education for all, it's about forcing people to learn what they don't want, and not providing what they do want.

Well, my daughter doesn't like math. Do we let anyone who doesn't like math skip that?

It would be nice to have more room to teach even more than is taught. However, leaving out the basic concepts of important areas of leaning would be an abrogation of the responsibility of the state to it's citizens.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Syamsu, posted 04-14-2005 1:23 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Specter
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 164 (209637)
05-19-2005 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by gengar
01-09-2005 5:31 AM


Well,
At least we know what type of things we're getting into. After all, it is only right that teachers teach us smaller students what is right. I'm a creo, and don't try to change me. Try accepting evolution and see how hard it is to say we ame from Phytoplankton wo over time became Astraliopithecus Aforensi.

And what's with your username? You a Pokefan and Demosthenic Fan? If so, I've got something for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by gengar, posted 01-09-2005 5:31 AM gengar has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3199 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 82 of 164 (244207)
09-16-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
01-13-2005 1:10 PM


http://www.sciencefriday.com/
NPR had NCSE on Science Friday today.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/
They tried to support their notion of BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION BECAUSE of cosmological evolution and they did say as you have here "it isnt even a theory". They used an astromer's will to claim the universe was existed on second ago to ANSWER a caller who wanted to talk about DOVER before their own programing realized its object, to say BOTH that there was "no legitamate scientific controversy" IN BIOLOGY and that it will be argued in the Dover case that there is "no necessary conflict". This is very manipulative and thanks to the admins on EVC we are not permitted this freedom to so post without possible banishement. NPRs sounds DOES fall within your question mark.

It is interesting to see that DESPITE their likely knoweldge of how manipulative they were they reconized WHY the Discover Institute will likely not be presenting legal theories at the court. They KNOW that that IF Pandas and People IS ID then DI need not respond suffiently. But what they dont seem to understand is that the legitamcy they refer to is to my out of wed lock child and not the act of intercourse that gave rise to him. Your notion of "legtamacy" is likely different.

All they explained today was why the admins and not the teachers would be reading the disclaimer.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-16-2005 04:31 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 1:10 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Physrho
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 164 (247191)
09-29-2005 4:48 AM


Why not?
As a creationist,I don't see the problem with introducing a new possibility of origins in certain classrooms. Perhaps private schools would be appropriate. But since we have no evidence abiogenesis or spontaneous generation actually taking place in a lab, why not keep minds open?

I was going through a 2003 modern biology textbook and found that the topic of origins was indeed included in the book. For this reason I believe it's because the topic of origins is what soundly founds the TOE, even though the origins topic was extremely vague and loaded with hypothetical assumtions, and not hard fact.

I Can see a possibility with ID theory becoming fuel for creationists but, it's certainly not limited to Christain beliefs, and I'd even venture to say agnostics as well.

As far as evidence for a theoretical creator and ID threory, I'd say: the "big bang theory" is a good start. I basically understand that it points to a definite beginning of the universe and all within, (space, time, matter).

So it's logically possible that before the instance of Space, time, and matter as we know it, that the universe was created. It's possible that an intelligent designer did this and I believe evident by all of the informed laws that govern the universe. I believe that these laws were instantaneous as with space, time, and matter, all at once at the very instance of the theoretical big bang which implies to me that the laws were likely designed before the universe.

All I am saying is that any open minded person can see that ID is indeed a viable possibility and that it should and can be investigated scientifically. I do not think TOE negates the possibility of a creator at all.

-RDH


Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 09-29-2005 8:04 AM Physrho has not yet responded
 Message 85 by Legend, posted 10-04-2005 3:30 PM Physrho has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 164 (247207)
09-29-2005 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Physrho
09-29-2005 4:48 AM


Re: Why not?
But since we have no evidence abiogenesis or spontaneous generation actually taking place in a lab, why not keep minds open?

Because we do have evidence towards those things. The fact that basic organic chemicals can be synthesized using inorganic, natural processes is evidence towards abiogenesis. And it's significantly more evidence than anything that is avaliable for ID.

It's possible that an intelligent designer did this and I believe evident by all of the informed laws that govern the universe.

That's not the conjecture of "intelligent design", though. If you believe that the laws of physics were "stacked" or frontloaded in order to ensure that evolution was inevitable, then you're an evolutionist, not a creationist. And that's not the position that ID's proponents want to teach in schools.

What they want to teach in schools is that a creator exists who, though smart enough to create the universe ex nihilo, wasn't quite smart enough to get it to produce life on its own as a consequence of the laws of physics - wasn't quite smart enough to get the fine-tuning right - and so, had to intervene at various points in history to cause certain details like blood clotting and the bacterial flagellum to evolve.

Is that really the idea of the creator you want children to learn? A god that isn't even smart enough to make evolution work?

I do not think TOE negates the possibility of a creator at all.

Nobody's saying that it does. But the God of intelligent design, of creationism, is not the god that you believe in. The god of ID is a ridiculous contradiction - smart enough to be the creator of the universe, but not quite smart enough to frontload the laws of physics to ensure the development of the bacterial flagellum.

There's no scientific merit to ID. None at all. Should it be researched? ID's proponents can knock themselves out, but they don't. They don't do any research. Until they do they have nothing to put in the schools.

"Teaching the controversy" is only appropriate when there is a controversy; there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution and so that's the only model that should appear in a science class. We don't teach "flat earth" in geography; we don't teach holocaust denial in history; and ID, lacking as it does any substance, should not be taught in schools, either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Physrho, posted 09-29-2005 4:48 AM Physrho has not yet responded

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 3172 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 85 of 164 (248892)
10-04-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Physrho
09-29-2005 4:48 AM


Re: Why not?
quote:
As a creationist,I don't see the problem with introducing a new possibility of origins in certain classrooms

so you have no problem with the 'Spaghetti monster' possibility being taught to your kids then ?!

what about my 'Pepe the Pink Parrot' speculative hypothesis of origins ?! After all it's a possibility!!


"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Physrho, posted 09-29-2005 4:48 AM Physrho has not yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 86 of 164 (252846)
10-18-2005 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by CK
01-13-2005 3:10 PM


Re: Who writes this stuff?
Perhaps in all our eliminating, we can eliminate the first lifeform that is said to have unitelligently appeared on earth from non life? If a theory can rest on this foundation, then it can rest on anything.
Creation simply looks at all lifeforms as here for a starting point, rather than the one. If creation is considered in the universe, as opposed to the Big Bang, which was a universe already, and set to expand, and eliminates the expansion over time part. Both start with a universe already conveintiently there, one, fairly full sized, the other, extemely tiny. One side assuming no design, the other finding the evidence different than that assumption, that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. What evidence can you give how the singularity came to be from nowhere? The teachers are wrong if they put their belief in the unintelligent over the kids right to know, and should be gotten rid of. Obstructing justice and fairness, and truth, under the false banner of science is despicable.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by CK, posted 01-13-2005 3:10 PM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2005 10:34 PM simple has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 87 of 164 (252886)
10-18-2005 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by simple
10-18-2005 6:45 PM


Re: Who writes this stuff?
welcome to the fray.

trying to sort your thoughts out into some semblance of structure would assist people's understanding.

One side assuming no design, the other finding the evidence different than that assumption, that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever

Correct - the "finding" of design is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

INcorrect "one side assuming no design"

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by simple, posted 10-18-2005 6:45 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by simple, posted 10-18-2005 11:04 PM RAZD has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 88 of 164 (252890)
10-18-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nic Tamzek
01-08-2005 3:40 AM


Yeah, Dover is the next town from mine. We play them in soccer all the time, they have a nice school, and a sick soccer team.

Funny because my chemistry teacher was just talking about this like 3 days ago.

This message has been edited by prophex, 10-18-2005 10:50 PM


I am smiling.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nic Tamzek, posted 01-08-2005 3:40 AM Nic Tamzek has not yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 89 of 164 (252897)
10-18-2005 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by RAZD
10-18-2005 10:34 PM


now show me yours
Arranging my thoughts won't help someone much who cannot perceive intelligence in all creation around us.

Waking up in the morning, looking at the sky, day or night, and all creation speaks of a design, and, of course intelligence. This is evidence.

Now, for you to show us how the whole universe, although said to be tiny, and called a singularity, came to be? Show us the evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2005 10:34 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2005 11:07 PM simple has responded
 Message 91 by AdminAsgara, posted 10-18-2005 11:10 PM simple has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 90 of 164 (252899)
10-18-2005 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by simple
10-18-2005 11:04 PM


Re: now show me yours
Arranging my thoughts won't help someone much who cannot perceive intelligence in all creation around us.

What an arrogant assumption.

Show us the evidence?

It is life, the universe, and everything.

It is not denying evidence in favor of belief, but in embracing all evidence.

What do you deny?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by simple, posted 10-18-2005 11:04 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by simple, posted 10-18-2005 11:52 PM RAZD has responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019