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

[kylixguru]

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.

My willingness to remain in the dialog is my way of accepting responsibility.

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

I realize I have to use greater care not to leave so many angles open to be twisted. If people here are looking for every little chink they can put in the arguments I present then I am going to have to step back and clarify better. I am trying to do that. There are aspects where we have agreement but there are also aspects that need to be better distinguished and clarified.

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

Then I'll accept that as you relinquishing me from my responsibility and we can call it a draw.

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

I don't recall ever accusing you of intending to "raise drones". I was pointing out how the premise of the classroom environment you (and others here) seemed to promote would have the effect of entraining children's minds to think they are there to be told what to think because other really smart people have their system of peer review, etc. that have done their thinking for them. I view this as an unhealthy undertone that makes children into drones.

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).

The principles in all of my posts are the same. What I am having difficulty with is all of the chinks people are prying into my words.

I think you decided to attack my position when you didn't actually know what it was.

As I recall, I was who was first attacked. There are aspects of people arguing with me that I agree with and some that I don't. The problem people here are facing is I don't fit nicely into anyone's stereotype so people are projecting all kinds of confusing things into what I am saying.

Then, you got all huffy when I rightly interpreted your attack as opposition to what I was arguing.

I do lose patience with people when it seems they wilfully are not trying to understand me.

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.

Like I said, if you ever get to the point that you understand the principles I am trying to present, then you can look back and see that I have remained consistent all the way through.

I simply don't fit into the molds people seem all to willing to put themselves and others in. In fact, I'd be willing to believe there are probably people here that think I am outright faking my postion on evolution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't recall ever accusing you of intending to "raise drones".

You don't? Here's the quote and link:

You advocate raising drones.

 

[shoinan]

Just skimmed through this thread. And so:

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.

But earlier...

I didn't say it [creationism] should be given any credibility. The theory of evolution should not be given any credibility either. This is the problem with the whole education system these days. Everybody wants to use it as a vehicle to tell people what to think.

[source]

 

[waitasec]

Just skimmed through this thread. And so:



But earlier...

[source]

what tangled web we weave...
:foot:

 

[kylixguru]

You don't? Here's the quote and link:

I didn't but thank you for bringing this fact to my attention. I clearly see I did after we went around this enough times and I got frustrated with you. I apologize for complicating things here.

It's ironic I made the very mistake I am trying to discourage others from doing!

I think its part of human nature to lose your footing and cease to utilize facts when you feel ridiculed. I certainly faltered here, giving a case study in why ridicule is unhealthy. I would like to overcome this weakness, both on the giving and on the receiving end.

Thank you for the opportunity to grow.

 

[kylixguru]

what tangled web we weave...
:foot:

Yes, one that only humility and truth can get you out of...

Sometimes truths (facts) suck, but an honest man will always accept them.

 

[Skwim]

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.

Gee I wonder why. Suppose it could be because you said:

They should also let people know what creationists believe too. Then, they should let the individuals make up their own mind. Better still, they should figure out what the Bible really intends and teach that right along side principles of evolution. It's all truth.

[and]

What they should teach it as is a theory. They should also let people know what creationists believe too.

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.

Merely belief? you just said "It's all truth."

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.

Without ridicule may go without saying, but why should there be any ridicule when "It's all truth"? And just what is this "truth" of creationism you speak of, anyway?

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.

No, I saw that, but straw-men are irrelevant.

Discernment is something we are all very capable of doing if the waters of our minds are not made cloudy or polluted with presumptions.

So what? It has nothing to do with your goal of trying to convince us that creationism (It's all truth) should be taught in public schools.

Holding anything as true just because someone else says so is operating with presumption.

As is everything we base our decisions on. We do X because we presume Y is good enough reason to.

Expecting students to hold as fact things they cannot observe as such is entraining their minds to operate with presumption.

see above remark.

And let's not forget what you once said

I could provide complete proof that the Creation Moses wrote of in Genesis 1-3 is indeed very real but I don't think that is what you were interested in hearing. source

I'm interested!

 

[kylixguru]

Just skimmed through this thread. And so:
But earlier...
[source]

Thank you. I see that my words were poorly choosen.

I should have used a different word than "credibility" but I honestly don't know of a better word to fit what I am trying to distinguish. Perhaps someone here can read between the lines of my fumbling and say it in better language than I can muster.

I believe a person should hold nothing as a fact unless they can and do observe it for themselves.

When a person is presented information (factual and otherwise), until they verify it for themselves, such information becomes 2nd hand and no matter how credible it may appear, one should hold it in question. Doing so allows for greater and deeper truths and opportunity to present themselves to your mind.

I provided a demonstration of the negative effects of not following my own advice.

I hope you will also see I provided a positive example of when facts are allowed to speak for themselves.

Just like I had nowhere else to go but to eat humble pie because I was presented with the fact that I misspoke, so too shall mainstream Creationists all the sooner eat their humble pie when they can clearly see the facts (with no credibility added) of evolution prove their false interpretations wrong.

I really don't care how much I look like a ******* if perhaps in some strange way I can get a point across that I think will eventually help people to overcome their presumptions and simply hold to the truth, whatever they observe it to be.

 

[kylixguru]

Without ridicule may go without saying, but why should there be any ridicule when "It's all truth"? And just what is this "truth" of creationism you speak of, anyway?

You are starting to catch on, I think. There is nothing to ridicule when you are simply speaking truths. Evolution has the benefit of having facts that can be demonstrated spoken of. As far as mainstream Creationism goes, the only truth that can be said of it is that people believe in it. There are no facts that can be demonstrated in support of it. Thus, if this truth is presented, which outcome shall win out?

So what? It has nothing to do with your goal of trying to convince us that creationism (It's all truth) should be taught in public schools.

Again, the only TRUTH aspect of mainstream Creationism is it is a fact that many people _believe_ it is true. Thus, the truth of mainstream Creationism is it is a belief only, which will not stand up to the facts of evolution. I don't know how to better bring out this distinction.

I think people are mistaking me for trying to give mainstream Creationism credibility. Not so. I'm just saying if it is standing naked in the face of the facts of evolution that it won't stand.

 

[kylixguru]

I'm interested!

My understanding of the Bible is that the creation it speaks of has nothing directly to do with our cosmos and how life came into existence upon this planet. Everything that sounds like this is because those themes are used as symbols in metaphoric constructs.

It's truth is more or less on the same lines as a blue print for the manufacture of a complex device. The trouble is you have to decode several layers of symbols in order to make any practical sense out of it.

I have taken a fair number of technical and architectural drawing courses and there are a lot of symbols a person has to know very well in order to make sense out of its many diagrams, elevations, cut aways, flow plans, etc. It requires a substantial amount of learning to fluently function in this realm. Things that appear quit simple can become very complex when you are responsible to draft every last detail of it.

When I see what the Bible is intended to be a blue print of and I see exactly what it is pointing to being flawlessly carried out over many thousands of years to very precise detail, it becomes a very practical and real document to me. It's a blueprint for a creation, but not the creation of the cosmos.

 

[waitasec]

You are starting to catch on, I think. There is nothing to ridicule when you are simply speaking truths. Evolution has the benefit of having facts that can be demonstrated spoken of. As far as mainstream Creationism goes, the only truth that can be said of it is that people believe in it. There are no facts that can be demonstrated in support of it. Thus, if this truth is presented, which outcome shall win out?

Again, the only TRUTH aspect of mainstream Creationism is it is a fact that many people _believe_ it is true. Thus, the truth of mainstream Creationism is it is a belief only, which will not stand up to the facts of evolution. I don't know how to better bring out this distinction.

I think people are mistaking me for trying to give mainstream Creationism credibility. Not so. I'm just saying if it is standing naked in the face of the facts of evolution that it won't stand.

creationism should be taught in church.
science should be taught in schools.
what's wrong with that?
there's more than 1 creation story jbug...are we going to teach all of them with our tax dollars?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Either way, it is pointless. The beginning of life, Creationism or Evolution is unnecessary. It will not help our world in any way besides starting more debates and knowledge in what we do not need.

Focus on more important things like genetics, chemistry, mathematics, etc.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Either way, it is pointless. The beginning of life, Creationism or Evolution is unnecessary. It will not help our world in any way besides starting more debates and knowledge in what we do not need.

Focus on more important things like genetics, chemistry, mathematics, etc.

Er, you do realize that understanding of evolution is paramount to any advances and understanding we have of genetics and biology in general, right?

 

[waitasec]

Er, you do realize that understanding of evolution is paramount to any advances and understanding we have of genetics and biology in general, right?

it is no wonder why we are #17 in science compared to the rest of the world
when we are wasting our time and energy explaining why evolution should be taught in schools.

 

[kylixguru]

creationism should be taught in church.
science should be taught in schools.
what's wrong with that?
there's more than 1 creation story jbug...are we going to teach all of them with our tax dollars?

We are talking about America's classrooms, right?

The vastly predominating religious influence here in America has a single creation account from the Torah. You can be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Mormon, etc. and that ONE creation account covers them all. It is a very short and simple portion of text. And, other culture's creation texts are also obviously deeply couched in a metaphoric sense. All Native American creation myths are highly symbolic. And so on. They can be briefly touched upon as highly metaphoric texts that go beyond the scope of the science class.

We are addressing the concern as to why evolution, scientific methods and reason are losing, right? Well, I am trying to propose how evolution, scientific methods and reason can begin to WIN in our classrooms.

Evolution can win simply by standing on its own facts. It needs no monopoly advantage.

The biggest piece I see hurting our educational system is we teach the scientific method but our students are not given sufficient opportunity to apply it and become adept at it. They are brought in, sat down, and basically are told what we want them to think. How is that any different than the brainwashing that takes place in religious primary classes that produces people who grow up thinking the Bible creation account pertains to the cosmos? They believe it because they were told to believe it.

My argument is we are not providing a context for our children where we involve their reason. We are just telling them what to think and not trusting them to be able to make their own correctly reasoned conclusions.

ADD: And, what a better place to start than to provide them an opportunity to make a correctly reasoned conclusion in regard to mainstream Creationism? There could be others that are less controversial, but getting this false view eliminated would do us all a lot of good.

 

[outhouse]

in regard to mainstream Creationism?

there is no such a thing.

creationism is just for uneducated religious types. The belief in the creation myth is in direct porportion to ones education level.

the sooner you see it does no good to teach myths to children the better.

religion has no place in schools

 

[kylixguru]

there is no such a thing.

There is such a thing to millions of American students and teachers.

creationism is just for uneducated religious types. The belief in the creation myth is in direct porportion to ones education level.

Isn't the point of this thread posing how this can be remedied?

You are just blathering out stuff to defend the 'status quo' and suggesting insulting people as 'uneducated' will somehow become helpful.

the sooner you see it does no good to teach myths to children the better.

It depends. If you put solid facts beside them and allow them to freely use their own reason, I think the results shall be more favorable than you expect.

religion has no place in schools

An official state religion has no place in schools. However, religion can be addressed if it is done respectfully. To try and shove it out entirely would be a very big mistake.

 

[outhouse]

you cannot see the bigger picture, you dont understand how bad religion cripples intellegence ????

look at the drivel you post, that in its own right is enough for me to fight tooth and nail to keep religion out of schools.

the only thing we should teach is how god is a myth created by ancient hebrews because of there blatant ignorance to the world around them. The nomadic tribes were so desperate they took previous pagan myths because there culture had none of there own.

without the god myth students have to actually learn something instead of people like YOU!!! who look no further about things like the big bang because in your uneducated mind you think you know all the answers

 

[waitasec]

We are talking about America's classrooms, right?

The vastly predominating religious influence here in America has a single creation account from the Torah. You can be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Mormon, etc. and that ONE creation account covers them all.

so what...
you can't have one religion over the other
that is what our founding fathers intended for this country remember?

i don't have a problem with teaching comparative religions either
why are you so greedy with your belief?

let science take it's course...
like i said before in another post, why do you think this country is falling behind in the sciences compared to other developed countries
creationism isn't being taught anywhere else other than developing countries.

 

[Skwim]

JBUG, How about answering a direct question or two for a change.


You said

they should figure out what the Bible really intends and teach that right along side principles of evolution. It's all truth."

And I asked "And just what is this "truth" of creationism you speak of, anyway?
So, jbug,

what is this "truth" of creationism you speak of?
​

You also said

I could provide complete proof that the Creation Moses wrote of in Genesis 1-3 is indeed very real but I don't think that is what you were interested in hearing. source

and I said, "I'm interested!" So,

how about providing this "complete proof that the Creation Moses wrote of in Genesis 1-3 is indeed very real."
​