Evolution, scientific methods, and reason are losing in America's classrooms

[kylixguru]

So,
Let's summarise :

jbug wants to teach creationism so kids can make their own mind up.

He argues teaching only evolution makes them into unthinking drone, because we are just telling them what to believe.

OK then jbug,
so we present creationism in science class, and we let the children make up their own mind. Some of them will believe creationism.

What does the science teacher do then, jbug?

• Does he LET them believe the WRONG thing?
• Or does he TELL them it is wrong?

Please answer jbug - which of those actions should the teacher take next ?

Iasion

The teacher would point out belief alone is unscientific and let the student think as they pleased.

If the teacher deserved an apple on their desk they would also add that it's possible for people to simply be interpreting the Bible incorrectly and that this could be an avenue to explore for new discoveries to those interested.

Just as their can be scientific discovery and innovation in the natural world, there certainly could be great benefits in our world if there were some discoveries and innovations in religious thought as well. How about some discoveries that enabled all of the fractured and squabbling Abrahamic religions to come to peacable terms with one another? Wouldn't you agree the world would become a better place if that happened?

 

[Skwim]

A responsible science teacher will be just as quick to point out that the scientific method would also have you investigate the Bible to see what it really says.

Complete an utter RUBBISH !

Yes, indeed it is. But you see, jbug's aim isn't to have science taught in the most competent way possible, but to get creationism---and his brand of it if possible---inserted into the curriculum. And he knows full well that the scientific method can't be applied to the tales of the Bible, but because he figures you're stupid enough to fall for the notion he says stuff like. . .

A responsible science teacher will be just as quick to point out that the scientific method would also have you investigate the Bible to see what it really says.

This is why I said way back in post #117

"Jbug's specious and wheedling reasoning here has but one aim: to get creationism into public school classrooms. Nothing more and nothing less. All else is smoke and mirrors."

​

And this is why so many here have confronted him. Like all other creationists, his arguments don't make sense because the goal behind his reasoning doesn't make sense. Neither creationism nor the Bible have any place in a public school science classroom. And no amount of tap dancing and fast peddling can make the case for it. However, I will say this, in a perverse way his has been an entertaining attempt.

 

[kylixguru]

Yes, indeed it is. But you see, jbug's aim isn't to have science taught in the most competent way possible, but to get creationism---and his brand of it if possible---inserted into the curriculum. And he knows full well that the scientific method can't be applied to the tales of the Bible, but because he figures you're stupid enough to fall for the notion he says stuff like. . .

This is a false representation of my position. I don't consider an indepth investigation of the Bible has any place in a science class. A brief and objective mention of mainstream Creationism for the sake of pointing out that it is based merely on belief and interpretation of a very complicated and metaphoric book would be sufficient for my liking. I believe it would be helpful to advance the cause of truth in all fields of inquiry if people didn't make "over the line" presumptuous rants to denigrate either side of things. I see it going both ways and it's senselessness.

This is why I said way back in post #117

"Jbug's specious and wheedling reasoning here has but one aim: to get creationism into public school classrooms. Nothing more and nothing less. All else is smoke and mirrors."

​

And this is why so many here have confronted him.

I have been confronted by people who don't want their presumptions called out for what they are.

Like all other creationists, his arguments don't make sense because the goal behind his reasoning doesn't make sense.

My points about being objective, not ridiculing and not making presumptions make perfect sense to me. But, you want the right to make presumptions where you ought not and so you wet your pants when I show how you are doing such.

Neither creationism nor the Bible have any place in a public school science classroom.

And if a student raises their hand and asks a question about it, then what? Are they to be silenced or responded to with a mature and sensible reply? How is the reply I am suggesting to be given detrimental? Acknowledge there are many who believe this but that it is merely belief and therefore unscientific... And, further, for the bonus round, to say those beliefs are based on interpretation of a complex book full of metaphor that is beyond the scope of this classroom to discuss in any detail.

And no amount of tap dancing and fast peddling can make the case for it. However, I will say this, in a perverse way his has been an entertaining attempt.

Perhaps there is nobody else on these forums that can see what I am trying to say. I don't think there is. Thus, as I said before, once I conclude my active threads, I will be excusing myself. I have no desire to become compatible with people who lack critical thinking skills.

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps there is nobody else on these forums that can see what I am trying to say.

how could they??? your way out in deep left field without a clue

 

[kylixguru]

I missed this one...

Alright, Jbug, i want you to examine your chain of logic and see if you can figure out where it breaks down.

"Because children should be taught critical thinking and to question all assumptions, thoroughly discredited pseudoscience should be included in science curriculums."

You are giving my words a different color than I intended. I am not advocating mainstream Creationism be taught as an equally valid matter of science. I am saying if it does come up or if a teacher wishes to bring it up (many do) that it should not be spoken of with credibility implied but rather to simply be spoken of in an objective manner. No endorsement and no ridicule either way. It is simply a prevalent belief in our society that science does not support. And, I'm saying if this is done, that the students will more readily be able to dismiss mainstream Creationism and our society can improve. I am also saying if the teacher takes it upon themselves to speak with ridicule of the Bible they are making presumptions and are more likely to galvanize students into holding to their false beliefs because the instructor will then have discredited himself by going too far.

Now you've got a good premise there. Everyone wants smarter, more intellectual kids*. Your conclusion, however, in addition to being infeasible (how will we fit every "commonly held belief" in the already overtaxed science curriculum?), is a complete nonsequiter.

If that was my argument then you would have a point.

Learning pseudoscience does nothing to encourage critical thinking, nor does it encourage the questioning of assumptions.

Briefly mentioning examples of false thinking or unscientific thinking is essential to help students see how applying the scientific method bring progress and success. By no means do I intend to advocate a whole detailed and time consuming parade of things that are of no practical value. You are throwing out a strawman there.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

I asked :
"OK then jbug,
so we present creationism in science class, and we let the children make up their own mind. Some of them will believe creationism.
What does the science teacher do then, jbug?

• Does he LET them believe the WRONG thing?
• Or does he TELL them it is wrong?"

The teacher would point out belief alone is unscientific and let the student think as they pleased.

But this is completely contradictory !

Evolution is an observed fact, it is not a belief. Your insistence of ignorantly using the term "ToE" or Theory or Evolution is simply a word-game that only fools creationists.

In fact - millions of tests and experiments and observations and predictions by thousands of scientists in dozens of countries over more thana century - all SUPPORT evolution, and can actually show evolution happening. Examples can be found here :
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

That is why is it considered a fact of nature by biologists. A fact. Not a speculative theory as your word-game would have it.

Meanwhile, the number of tests or experiments etc. which have invalidated evolution = ZERO. If there was even ONE such test then creationists would all repeat it in every post they made.

So let's recap the score so far :
* MILLIONS of clear specific evidences for evolution
* ZERO tests which invalidate evolutiom
* ZERO clear and specific evidences for creationism
* much evidence against creationism

The results are clear and present - biology experiences and uses evolutionary processes all the time.

Only a tiny minority of religious faithful insist on hanging-on to the ancient myth of creationism. Sadly that religious minority is a dominant force in a powerful nation. The US is the only major industralised nation which has this level of religious looniness. In fact the ONLY country which rates higher in creationism belief is Turkey.


Evolution is a scientific fact,
but creationism is a religious fantasy.

And jbug claims we should allow children to believe in creationism because
"belief alone is unscientific and let the student think as they pleased" !

If we actually followed jbug's advice then we would teach children that creationism is unscientific because it is only a belief.

Which in fact we do - we do teach children that evolution is a fact of life and that creationism is a religious belief. At least here in my country we do. But tragically, in the US, a large fraction of teachers let their students believe a religious fantasy, instead of teaching the facts of nature.

All the while pretending it's about being open-minded to other ideas and viewpoints.

What hog-wash. The ONLY other ideas they want to be "open-minded" about are there OWN beliefs !

Does jbug want Satanism presented to children so they can make their own mind up?

Does jbug want Islam presented to children so they can make their own mind up?

Does jbug want the drug-using life-style presented to children so they can make their own mind up?

Does jbug want the homosexuality presented to children so they can make their own mind up?

No way !

When jbug calls for students to be allowed to "make their own minds up" - he really means they should actually come to believe in religion like he obviously does.

More word games from the believers - "make their own minds up" really means "believe what I do". Religious indoctrination - in the name of open-minded-ness.

Sadly - it is voices like jbug's which enable the US descent back to the religious dark-ages - allowing students to be fooled that religious nonsense is valid. Using silly word-games to pretend that a known fact of nature is merely un-proven speculation.

All in the name of religion.

The US is failing their students, and sliding back into the dark ages when religion dominated public life - becoming like Saudi Arabia or Iran - backwards and opressed.


Iasion

 

[kylixguru]

how could they??? your way out in deep left field without a clue

You are welcome to hold that view. Get all the mileage out of it while you can.

 

[Skwim]

This is a false representation of my position. I don't consider an indepth investigation of the Bible has any place in a science class. A brief and objective mention of mainstream Creationism for the sake of pointing out that it is based merely on belief and interpretation of a very complicated and metaphoric book would be sufficient for my liking. I believe it would be helpful to advance the cause of truth in all fields of inquiry if people didn't make "over the line" presumptuous rants to denigrate either side of things. I see it going both ways and it's senselessness.

I have been confronted by people who don't want their presumptions called out for what they are.

My points about being objective, not ridiculing and not making presumptions make perfect sense to me. But, you want the right to make presumptions where you ought not and so you wet your pants when I show how you are doing such.

And if a student raises their hand and asks a question about it, then what? Are they to be silenced or responded to with a mature and sensible reply? How is the reply I am suggesting to be given detrimental? Acknowledge there are many who believe this but that it is merely belief and therefore unscientific... And, further, for the bonus round, to say those beliefs are based on interpretation of a complex book full of metaphor that is beyond the scope of this classroom to discuss in any detail.

Perhaps there is nobody else on these forums that can see what I am trying to say. I don't think there is.

Your problem is that just about everyone DOES see what I you're trying to say, and are calling you on it. The "king" has no clothes, jbug.
​

 

[kylixguru]

Evolution is an observed fact, it is not a belief.

Oh my. Why are you doing this to yourself? I have already made it clear I view evolution as a theory established on a factual basis. The facts it embodies should be presented as such in a classroom. I don't recall ever saying it should be presented as mere belief at the same level as Creationism. I am making the simple point that when you place facts next to beliefs that the facts will always win in the minds of people who can think clearly and critically.

Your insistence of ignorantly using the term "ToE" or Theory or Evolution is simply a word-game that only fools creationists.

I don't know what you are implying here.

In fact - millions of tests and experiments and observations and predictions by thousands of scientists in dozens of countries over more thana century - all SUPPORT evolution, and can actually show evolution happening. Examples can be found here :
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

That is why is it considered a fact of nature by biologists. A fact. Not a speculative theory as your word-game would have it.

You are projecting this on me due to a stereotype you all refuse to allow me to stand clear of.

Only a tiny minority of religious faithful insist on hanging-on to the ancient myth of creationism. Sadly that religious minority is a dominant force in a powerful nation.

I consider this a sad thing too and I am saying what I am so that the misconceptions of mainstream Creationism can cease to be an obsticle in more ways than just science. They are a serious pain in the behind when it comes to establishing the truths of religion too.

Evolution is a scientific fact,
but creationism is a religious fantasy.

Evolution is fact? Yes!
Mainstream Creationism is a religious fantasy? Yes!

And jbug claims we should allow children to believe in creationism because
"belief alone is unscientific and let the student think as they pleased" !

You are so far away from getting what I am trying to say it is deeply saddening.

Would it be fair of me to take your words here and accuse you of advocating the establishment of thought police so that people could no longer believe what they wanted to? People are going to do that anyway, whether you like it or not.

My point is if the facts of evolution are put along side the beliefs of mainstream Creationism and there is no other compulsion to push them in any direction, they are going to quickly adopt the facts over the beliefs. If the teacher goes too far and starts to ridicule the Bible, etc. then he is going to elicit a resistive response and the students will put a block in their mind toward the facts of evolution and just focus on what a mean creep their teacher is. That would be a totally lost opportunity to get them out of the dark ages.

If we actually followed jbug's advice then we would teach children that creationism is unscientific because it is only a belief.

I did say that and I do mean that. That's the only way such can be objectively presented. Unlike evolution which does contain verifiable facts.

Sadly - it is voices like jbug's which enable the US descent back to the religious dark-ages - allowing students to be fooled that religious nonsense is valid. Using silly word-games to pretend that a known fact of nature is merely un-proven speculation.

You have totally missed my point.

 

[kylixguru]

Your problem is that just about everyone DOES see what I you're trying to say, and are calling you on it. The "king" has no clothes, jbug.

I'm naked without shame.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is the option I've been advocating, which of necessity includes some material for context for purposes of comparison. Such as "people used to believe the earth was flat". I am also saying "some people believe in Creationism which is..." And, I'm saying it would be fair to point out the fact that they have no hard evidence to support it. But, at the same time, I am saying if this is done it should be done in an objective manner without ridicule and without going beyond any boundaries. They should stop short at addressing how Creationists interpret the Bible and not in any way disparge the Bible itself.

And this can be taken care of for creationism the way that my science classes addressed things like phlogiston theory, aether, spontaneous generation, humourism, and the Ptolemaic model of the solar system: as a quick footnote presented in the history of science. "Here's a hypothesis that was once suggested because it seemed to have explanatory power and fit with the facts at hand. However, since then, additional facts came to light that made the hypothesis untenable."

Boom - no ridicule, the kids get a valuable lesson about how science is self-correcting, and everyone moves on. No muss, no fuss.

I'll do with them all that I can. Obviously we all have practical restraints.

Of course. But, there is still a lot that can be done to enhance a child's learning experience in many meaningful ways.

I agree. But at the same time, the mere fact that some piece of scientific knowledge is learned from a book instead of the child's own experiment doesn't mean that this knowledge is worthless.

And, the worst thing you can do is ridicule.

I never said anything about ridicule.

Have I said anything contrary to that? It's not a trick, to me it's just common sense and respect to the student.

AFAICT, you were arguing that students should "discover" scientific knowledge rather than be taught it by teachers. I'm saying that both the tools of scientific discovery AND scientific knowledge itself are important.

Well, what's your beef with my points then?

That depends - what are your points now? It seems like your position has shifted quite a bit from when we started.

For Pete's sake, why stuff such absurdity in my mouth? I didn't advocate that children should be deprived of anything.

You argued against the approach I advocated where children are taught scientific knowledge even if they don't have the opportunity to test it themselves. In fact, you objected to it so strongly that you said that I "advocated raising drones."

I am merely advocating a context that doesn't cause them shame (for themselves or anyone else)

If you're actually arguing this, you're doing a poor job of it, because AFAICT, this is the first time you've even mentioned "shame".

and that as much as possible allows them to approach learning in the spirit of discovery rather than dry boring wrote in the spirit of "we have done your thinking for you and this is what you are supposed to think".

And I'm not sure what you're arguing against with this. Frankly, for most of this thread, it seems like this has been your straw man depiction of any sort of learning that involves anything other than direct experimental "discovery" by the students... though you seem to be retreating from this position now.

 

[kylixguru]

And this can be taken care of for creationism the way that my science classes addressed things like phlogiston theory, aether, spontaneous generation, humourism, and the Ptolemaic model of the solar system: as a quick footnote presented in the history of science. "Here's a hypothesis that was once suggested because it seemed to have explanatory power and fit with the facts at hand. However, since then, additional facts came to light that made the hypothesis untenable."

Boom - no ridicule, the kids get a valuable lesson about how science is self-correcting, and everyone moves on. No muss, no fuss.

That pretty much sums up what I recommend. Unfortunately, in most cases, the teacher often will cater to the mainstream Creationism as that video demonstrated, or they will say derogatory things about religion in general.

I agree. But at the same time, the mere fact that some piece of scientific knowledge is learned from a book instead of the child's own experiment doesn't mean that this knowledge is worthless.

I don't recall saying studying from books in and of itself was a problem. That is mostly how our homeschooling program works. I have taught my children that books contain the thinking of men and they should give it all due consideration, but in the final analysis, until they actually see things for themselves (or they can use judgment and reason to make solid inferrences) to consider it all opinion no more deserving than anyone elses contributions.

I never said anything about ridicule.

I was speaking about collectively what happens when scientists make assumptions further than they should. I am experiencing such ridicule here in this dialog. People are assuming I'm saying things that I am not intending to say.

AFAICT, you were arguing that students should "discover" scientific knowledge rather than be taught it by teachers. I'm saying that both the tools of scientific discovery AND scientific knowledge itself are important.

I do not advocate removal of reading materials from classrooms. The difference is I let my children know that until they do at some point make an observation of things on their own that they should consider such things as a person's opinon. It may be a very credible opinion, but it should be held as an opinion in their own minds.

However, when you have a teacher instructing a class they are passing on the observations of others in an authoritative manner when children are not given the opportunity to observe things for themselves. They cross a line I think they ought not. The constant barrage of "this is what you are supposed to think" being in the context and premise of the classroom environment produces a mesmerization effect that begins to limit a person's ability to challenge status quo.

That depends - what are your points now? It seems like your position has shifted quite a bit from when we started.

Yes, there are clouds parting. There have been a lot of people projecting things upon me that I did not intend to covey. The principles I am standing up for have not shifted.

You argued against the approach I advocated where children are taught scientific knowledge even if they don't have the opportunity to test it themselves. In fact, you objected to it so strongly that you said that I "advocated raising drones."

I argued against the projected expectation that children should take what others say as fact when they are not given the ability to test it themselves. I am addressing the spirit or tone of the learning environment.

...I'm not sure what you're arguing against with this. Frankly, for most of this thread, it seems like this has been your straw man depiction of any sort of learning that involves anything other than direct experimental "discovery" by the students... though you seem to be retreating from this position now.

You might just be able to hang in there long enough to get what I am trying to say. Once you do "get it" then if you review my previous attempts you will see the principles I promote have been consistent all the way through.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, there are clouds parting. There have been a lot of people projecting things upon me that I did not intend to covey. The principles I am standing up for have not shifted.

If your position is being mis-interpreted, then you have nobody to blame but yourself. It's not unreasonable to presume that when you attack someone else's position, your own position is in opposition to theirs.

You might just be able to hang in there long enough to get what I am trying to say.

Yes, because when you can't communicate clearly, it's a failure on my part.

Once you do "get it" then if you review my previous attempts you will see the principles I promote have been consistent all the way through.

No, actually. I think I'm done. I don't think any further conversation on this will be fruitful.

First you say that I'm advocating "raising drones." Then you say that you're advocating the same thing I am.

If you can't make up your own mind, then I don't really feel inclined to sort through your posts and filter what you did say from what you'll be arguing five pages from now (and claiming that it was what you were saying all along).

I think you decided to attack my position when you didn't actually know what it was. Then, you got all huffy when I rightly interpreted your attack as opposition to what I was arguing.

If I felt like getting all twisted around, I'd do yoga with my wife. I'm not interested in doing it here. And I'm really not interested in dealing with the condescencion you dish out when you're called on the fact that you didn't communicate clearly.

 

[outhouse]

And I'm really not interested in dealing with the condescencion you dish out when you're called on the fact that you didn't communicate clearly.

I dont think he shares the same view with one person on this board

way out in left field is how I descibe it. He said he was going to leave us once but he failed to do that right as well.

 

[Skwim]

If your position is being mis-interpreted, then you have nobody to blame but yourself. It's not unreasonable to presume that when you attack someone else's position, your own position is in opposition to theirs.


Yes, because when you can't communicate clearly, it's a failure on my part.


No, actually. I think I'm done. I don't think any further conversation on this will be fruitful.

First you say that I'm advocating "raising drones." Then you say that you're advocating the same thing I am.

If you can't make up your own mind, then I don't really feel inclined to sort through your posts and filter what you did say from what you'll be arguing five pages from now (and claiming that it was what you were saying all along).

I think you decided to attack my position when you didn't actually know what it was. Then, you got all huffy when I rightly interpreted your attack as opposition to what I was arguing.

If I felt like getting all twisted around, I'd do yoga with my wife. I'm not interested in doing it here. And I'm really not interested in dealing with the condescencion you dish out when you're called on the fact that you didn't communicate clearly.

As the King of Siam said to Anna, "Tis A Puzzlement." The puzzlement of course being what the hell jubg is actually saying. We know what his goal is---to get creationism into public school classrooms---but the contradictory verbiage he engages in is making a tossed salad of his effort.

 

[Jacksnyte]

If evolution could be supported in the Bible then it would have came out before someone that decided to not take the Bible into account and come up with it.

Are you serious?
Folks, I think he's serious!
Chalk one more point up for willfull ignorance!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you serious?
Folks, I think he's serious!
Chalk one more point up for willfull ignorance!

What's wrong with what he wrote? I think he's probably right.

I've heard people reconcile evolution with the Bible in various ways, but there's nothing in the Bible that necessarily suggests anything in evolutionary theory.

 

[Jacksnyte]

What would the rationale be? Facts are totally in the side of Evolution, and creationists don't even have a true hypothesis to offer as an alternative.

To present Creationism as if it had roughly equal credibility would be a gross disservice to the education of the youth.

A problem that I haven't seen addressed yet on this thread is the fact that the non-christian religions are growing very swiftly in the US, and even if (gawd forbid) creationism does wind up being taught in public schools, which creation myth will they pick to teach? I can probably think of 10 or 20 different ones right off the top of my head(several different ones from the same religion)!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A problem that I haven't seen addressed yet on this thread is the fact that the non-christian religions are growing very swiftly in the US, and even if (gawd forbid) creationism does wind up being taught in public schools, which creation myth will they pick to teach? I can probably think of 10 or 20 different ones right off the top of my head(several different ones from the same religion)!

This is the problem that was addressed by the creation of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: it's unfair preferential treatment to pick some religions over all the others, and it's insanely unworkable to give every viewpoint equal time.

 

[kylixguru]

As the King of Siam said to Anna, "Tis A Puzzlement." The puzzlement of course being what the hell jubg is actually saying. We know what his goal is---to get creationism into public school classrooms---but the contradictory verbiage he engages in is making a tossed salad of his effort.

You are puzzling yourself because you hold the false notion that I believe creationism belongs in a science classroom with equal or more credibility than evolution.

You fail to recognize the basis upon which I suggested it be mentioned was to show mainstream creationism is merely belief compared to the facts of evolution.

You fail to recognize I advocate this be done without ridicule so that the students will all the more quickly let go of their false conceptions about mainstream Creationism and fully embrace the facts of evolution.

You fail to recognize what I am advocating is that people apply very careful discernment in all areas of their life, not just in science classrooms. Discernment is something we are all very capable of doing if the waters of our minds are not made cloudy or polluted with presumptions.

Holding anything as true just because someone else says so is operating with presumption. Expecting students to hold as fact things they cannot observe as such is entraining their minds to operate with presumption. This is unhealthy and so I am merely saying we all should be extremely cautious about discerning where we are relying upon presumptions and replace what we think is solid fact (that may not be) with the question mark that belongs there in its place.