Sound opinions are the lifeblood of the scientific process.
No, they are not. Facts and the verification of those facts are the lifeblood science. Science does not thrive nor work when there is a wealth of opinions, but when there is a common acceptance of given facts that are objectively verifiable.
Science is the pursuit of verifiable facts.
No, it is not. Science is the pursuit of naturalistic explanations to facts.
If there is integrity in the scientific process its conclusions shall lead to factual conclusions.
Could you elaborate on what you mean here?
To teach young children how the scientific process works and how we are capable of holding ideas that are false until the evidence stares us in the face.
And is this how you feel creationism should be presented?
I guess it depends upon whether you view the science classroom as a place to cram the current view of things down children's head or whether or not you want to actually help them become scientifically minded so that they can use those skills in their lives to advance the ideals of scientific pursuit.
I'm afraid what you're saying here is loaded. Teaching children what the facts are is not "ramming" anything "down their throat". Again, this is like suggesting that teaching maths class is "ramming" the idea that 1+1=2 "down their throats". What's more, you do not make children more scientifically minded by presenting them with non-scientific concepts in a science teaching environment. It does not help, has no relevance to the topic and just confuses the whole issue.
Actually, I do recall on a few occassions talking at length about Sir Isaac Newton. Who, as I imagine you are aware, spent far more time involved in the study of the occult, Bible and alchemy than he did on the development of his mathematical and scientific endeavors. I believe, Sir Isaac Newton is still held in high regard among those in the scientific fields of endeavor. We talked about alchemy and I purchased a 6 CD set of a very detailed archive of alchemical diagrams and reference materials, etc. They are available to my children if they so desire.
Once again, you have not answered my question. Perhaps I should phrase it more precisely:
Do you actively teach your children about alchemy or the occult?
What Sir Isaac Newton thought is of absolutely no consequence to the issue. What his beliefs were outside of science are of absolutely no consequence to the contribution he made to science, nor does the latter in any way justify the former.
I view the science classroom as having a greater importance to produce scientifically minded students than unthinking drones who have had their head crammed full of stuff in a boring way.
Again, this is a gross exaggeration. I was raised in a science class room like the one I have described, with facts and only facts being presented, and I am most certainly not an "unthinking drone". I have absolutely nothing but awe and admiration for science, the utmost respect for scientists, and continue to be utterly amazed by the advancement of science in almost all it's forms. I believe I have developed an appreciation not only for science, but for the methodology and reasoning behind it - for which we owe practically all the comforts, joys and luxuries of our modern way of life.
What you define as "scientifically minded" to me simply doesn't sound as such. Telling children that irrelevances are as important as facts in a science class room does not produce more open-minded students, it just produces confused ones.
Case in point:
[youtube]JbZKUNvmsCU[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbZKUNvmsCU
Yes, this is a pretty extreme example, but it clearly demonstrates what happens when you use the science classroom as a place to discuss opinions and beliefs rather than sticking to the facts.
Yes, I was being rude. I apologize.
Thank you.
I teach my children that when people try to cram their ideas upon them instead of fostering an opportunity to make discoveries for themselves to be wary. Thus, I recognize and confess my own faltering in this dialog with you. I have tried to cram my ideas upon you and for that I apologize.
Again, thank you.
However, do you teach your children maths?
As I recall my science class when I was in school there was a fair amount of effort that went into what the scientific process was. Its foundation is a philosophy. The heart of any good scientist is his imagination as well as his ability to isolate and identify concrete facts. You seem to be trying to take the soul out of the process.
No, I am not. I am merely suggesting that science classrooms be used to teach children the facts that science has discovered, not present false dichotomies or misrepresent religious ideologies as having any kind of scientific validity. Children should be taught how the scientific method works, and how exactly is presenting creationism in any form conductive to this? Creationism does not inspire nor inform, nor does it broaden minds.
If what I'm suggesting is taking the "soul" out of the process, then what you're suggesting seems to be taking the whole point out of the process. There's no point educating our children on a subject if all we're going to do is confuse them as to what that subject deals with. I'd rather have a generation of "soulless" but informed students than a generation of uninformed students who have no idea what the point of science is.
You are welcome to those doubts. I am confident my children will be scientists in the true sense. There is value in having children who are mere encyclopedias too, so to each their own.
And, to you, what is a "scientist in the true sense"?
