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

[outhouse]

No. It came up when we studied Sir Isaac Newton's life. If my children want to go into it I would let them explore it

make sure you tell the religion stopped him, one of the most brilliant minds. From bewing all he could be. He got to a point and gave up because it crossed ole magic mans lines. sad really

watch the vid waitasec posted with neil

 

[Skwim]

"In America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis."
(Fr. George Coyne, The Vatican's chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006)
Source: Wikipedia

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 too am OPPOSED to mainstream Creationism.

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 saying if it were put up side by side to the facts of evolution that people would ALL THE SOONER be able to realize the interpretation born of Creationism is flawed.

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 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.

​

 

[kylixguru]

"In America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis."
(Fr. George Coyne, The Vatican's chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006)
Source: Wikipediahttp://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-please-provide-evidence-184.html#post2318023

Thank you for bringing this out so I can clear the air.

My interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is VERY different than mainstream Creationism.

The creation account is NOT about our cosmos, our galaxy, our solar system, etc. It is NOT intended to explain how human beings physically came to be on this planet.

Those cosmic sounding aspects are metaphor only.

My understanding of the creation account affords ZERO conflict with evolution.

Thus, the MORE alleged fundamentalist Christians can be shown their interpretation of the Bible is flawed the more likely they will perhaps consider a better way of reading the text.

If you read the Bible carefully and literally, you will find the metaphors that have it meaning what it truly was meant to say. The Bible merely pertains to the organization of people of one particular Patriarchal Deity's offspring into various divisions of times, kingdoms, glories, etc. It is local and limited in scope. Thus, if this perspective could be obtained by Christians, then perhaps they could take a serious chill pill and realize who this all pertains to and leave everyone else alone, unless of course if they want to be included and request it.

 

[kylixguru]

make sure you tell the religion stopped him, one of the most brilliant minds. From bewing all he could be. He got to a point and gave up because it crossed ole magic mans lines. sad really

watch the vid waitasec posted with neil

Stopped him? It fueled him!

 

[rusra02]

Could you name some of these scientists, the fields they studied in and the facts that lead them to this conclusion?


Over 99.9% of live biologists accept evolution.

Also, there has never been any scientific evidence presented of any kind of intelligent design.


Well, it's quite simple. If such evidence exists, then present it.

You are engaging in redirecting and mis-directing the point of my post. ToE proponents engage in very unscientific conduct in trying to stifle open and free debate regarding their theory. Little wonder, for the evidence for the ToE is lacking. Evidence for intelligent design is everywhere. You have but to open your eyes to see it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I agree, we are falling behind, 21st century, people need to stop believing in 2000 year old fairytaes. Most of europe is made up of atheists now, time for the U.S to step up.

Why should the U.S.A. be like Europe? We came here to be different right?

 

[Noaidi]

ToE proponents engage in very unscientific conduct in trying to stifle open and free debate regarding their theory.

Little wonder, for the evidence for the ToE is lacking.

Not so. For a debate to be valid, both sides need to present available evidence for scrutiny. Proponents of ToE do this with openess - it's there for anyone to view. Creationists have no evidence, rendering their arguement invalid.

Have you not read any of the threads here which present the evidence? Ignoring the availability of evidence seems to be a common trait in creationists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So the hypothesis stage of the scientific process is optional?

No, but a hypothesis isn't "an opinion", nor is it considered as such. A hypothesis is based on factual observation, and evidenced or disproven based on further observation.

If is wasn't for fresh new thinking science would be chasing its own tail in a rut and unable to advance. Pursuing the establishment of new facts sometimes comes easiest to people who are not saturated with loads of other facts. Rigid thinking such as you advocate saps away the creative side of things.

Are you seriously suggesting that those who will lead the way forward in science are those who know the least about it?

Seems you presuppose you know the facts. Wrong!

What are you talking about? I did no such thing, I just stated that the point of science is not merely to "find facts" but to explain them. Facts are what we observe, but science is the process of taking those facts, studying them, testing them and comparing them with other facts in order to formulate a testable framework for how that fact came to be.

Case in point: objects fall when dropped: fact. This is caused by gravitational forces acting upon that object: science.

No. It came up when we studied Sir Isaac Newton's life. If my children want to go into it I would let them explore it.

So, if you leave it up to your children to choose for themselves when they should learn about the occult or about alchemy, why not use the same logic for creationism? If students want to learn about creationism, let them ask their science teachers in-between lessons, not have the teacher waste valuable education time.

To someone who is narrow-minded that statement would make sense.

Again, you're being immature. Please explain to me exactly how Sir Isaac Newton's beliefs with regards to alchemy in any way impact the scientific progress he made in the field of gravity.

You think you think, but what you are thinking is what you were told to think. You don't see the cave you are in. You are demonstrating right here and now the very problem that the education system you were ecucated in produces.

You are in no position whatsoever to judge any problems that may or may not exist in the education system. Your children fall under the exact same issue with home schooling - it's not as if home schooling your children suddenly means they're going to be more open-minded. It just means that you get to force your children to think how you want them to think, rather than how the schools do. For my money, I trust schools to educate their children better than parents, partly because schools have access to knowledge and learning resources from a much wider area. In my experience, and my mother's experience as a social care worker, much of home schooling is just another form of childhood indoctrination.

Any drone mentality could. But are you actually a scientist? It doesn't seem so to me. You are a science benefactor and cheerleader.

Stop being so immature. I am not a drone, nor am I a scientist, but I make it my business to understand science and it's function in society because I feel the subject is extremely important. Are you a scientist?

You don't get it! I have only ever said those things have value because they help demonstrate the need for being scientifically minded.

And you don't get my point: They don't. "Scientifically minded" is a nonsense phrase that doesn't seem to have any meaning. If you were to ask me, "scientifically minded" should mean that they have an understanding of how facts are used in science and of the scientific method. To you, it appears to mean "have an opinion". I honestly don't see what you hope to gain by any mention of creationism in the classroom.

The reason we went for centuries thinking the world was flat was because of people with your mentality. But, I suspect you don't see yourself objectively enough to get it.

Honestly, this immaturity has to stop. For God's sake man, act your age!

That guy was an imbicile. Those poor children. He was not at all being objective. Also, there is nothing wrong if children have an intuitive sense that there is an underlying intelligence and purpose to our being here. The ToE is mute as far as that goes.

Where did I indicate that there was? Truth is, what you have suggested is really no different to what this man is doing, and it opens doors to teachers like him to enter the system and thrust non-scientific discussion into a science classroom.

They follow the Saxon Math program and mostly do it all on their own. Math is very simple, cut and dry in the early stages. When they get into calculus is when I'll be more involved.

Then you teach your children that 1+1=2? How is this any different to teaching children facts in science?

Not once did I say Creationism should be given validity.

Nor did I accuse you of. But the fact is that by even mentioning creationism in the context of the science classroom, you do give it validity. By asserting that children should decide for themselves whether to believe evolution or creationism, you are setting up the false dichotomy that creationism and evolution are equal scientific concepts.

You think you can just tell them how the scientific process works only and they are going to "get it"? Some might, but not all children learn that way.

And not all that many children learn how to read well by teaching them. What's your point?

Most learn from actually applying the skills. However, you cry foul if they are given the opportunity to be exposed to unsubstantiated beliefs to sort through.

Of course I would, because that's not what they're supposed to do in science classrooms. It would be as pointless as getting a maths class to bake cakes instead of learning the times tables.

I'm saying give them the opportunity to be scientists.

In what sense? In my science classes I was given the opportunity to conduct many simple experiments and see for myself what their results were.

What I'm saying is the scientific process works from start (opinions/hypothesis) to finish (theories/facts) and if it is allowed to flow naturally the children will taste that success for themselves. Thus, they will be educated with skills they most definitely will use the rest of their lives.

And how is any mention of creationism in any way conductive to this process?

You don't get it.

If the scientific method is properly taught and the children are given opportunities to get their hands dirty then they will acquire the capacity to clear up all matters of confusion for the rest of their lives. They will be scientists.

Now you're changing the subject. You've gone from "present creationism and let them decide for themselves will make them more scientifically minded" to "given children the opportunity to get their hands dirty". These are no the same thing, nor should you equate them to be. This is a very dishonest tactic.

If the students are not allowed the opportunity to get their hands dirty and they are just taught facts of science by wrote because some other smart guys already did their thinking for them, they will go the rest of their lives entrained with a mindset that other smart guys should keep telling them what to think and do. They will be drones at best.

Again, this is a childish exaggeration. I was raised in such an environment and I am not a "drone" by any standard. I am a fully developed, intelligent, mature human being capable of making my own decisions in the world. I have a good grasp of science and scientific principles, and understand the scientific method. Teaching children that facts exist and that science is only concerned with those facts is no more brainwashing than teaching them 1+1=2.

A person who can think for himself and in so doing can distill the truth out of any circumstances he finds himself in. A person who can step outside of any box in order to have fresh thinking to advance the sphere of our knowledge and understanding. He is a fearless explorer of uncharted territory. He is someone who looks under the stones everyone else just walked by.

Well, let me know when your children make any new discoveries in the scientific field, then.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are engaging in redirecting and mis-directing the point of my post. ToE proponents engage in very unscientific conduct in trying to stifle open and free debate regarding their theory. Little wonder, for the evidence for the ToE is lacking. Evidence for intelligent design is everywhere. You have but to open your eyes to see it.

How am I mis-directing the point of your post? You claimed that lots of scientists believe in intelligent design and that there is evidence of it. If that is the case, then present both the names of some of those scientists and some of the evidence of ID. If asking you to present the evidence you've claimed to have is "stifling" you then I have to wonder whether any of the things you said are actually true.

 

[Noaidi]

You claimed that lots of scientists believe in intelligent design and that there is evidence of it. If that is the case, then present both the names of some of those scientists and some of the evidence of ID.

Beyond Michael Behe, are there any other scientists proposing ID? I'm interested in how Rusra02 responds to your question.

 

[kylixguru]

I have a good grasp of science and scientific principles, and understand the scientific method.

You understand it but you bear no evidence of going beyond being the benefactor of those who can apply it. I'll repeat for the last time, you don't see how your approach stiffles creation and discovery and you are obviously incapable of recognizing the valid points I make.

 

[PolyHedral]

You understand it but you bear no evidence of going beyond being the benefactor of those who can apply it. I'll repeat for the last time, you don't see how your approach stiffles creation and discovery and you are obviously incapable of recognizing the valid points I make.

Ad hominems are not a valid debating tactic.

 

[Noaidi]

Little wonder, for the evidence for the ToE is lacking. Evidence for intelligent design is everywhere. You have but to open your eyes to see it.

Let’s say your ideal scenario was realised: ID has been deemed an appropriate alternative to ToE to be taught in the classroom.

Here is a question from last year’s Scottish Higher Biology exam paper, aimed at 16-17 year olds:

“Give an account of the importance of isolating mechanisms, mutations and natural selection in the evolution of new species.”

From an Intelligent Design point of view, how would this question be answered, allowing the pupil to demonstrate an appropriate depth of knowledge? Bear in mind that the question can be easily answered given what we know about evolution. How would an ID-based answer compare?

My fear is that ID does not promote further enquiry. Where do you go after "it was designed / God did it". What else is there to find out? How he did it, perhaps, but how on Earth would we even begin to approach that topic?

 

[Skwim]

I could provide complete proof that the Creation Moses wrote of in Genesis 1-3 is indeed very real . . . .


My interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is VERY different than mainstream Creationism.

The creation account is NOT about our cosmos, our galaxy, our solar system, etc. It is NOT intended to explain how human beings physically came to be on this planet.

Those cosmic sounding aspects are metaphor only.

So the complete proof you have that the Creation is "real" amounts to proof that it's a real metaphor. Nice tap dancing,

 

[kylixguru]

So the complete proof you have that the Creation is "real" amounts to proof that it's a real metaphor.

If you took the time to read through a good number of my posts on this web-site and applied yourself to understanding instead of mocking you might just be able to put it all together. You think I'm just going to hand it to you on a silver platter?

I have dropped a lot of clues on how the metaphors can be penetrated in order to extract the plain and simple message that points to things that are real. However, I am not going to offer any more clues than I have already put into this mocker dominated sty. Once the threads I am in are concluded, I am moving on. You and people like you are a waste of my time as long as your intent is just to mock.

 

[kylixguru]

Ad hominems are not a valid debating tactic.

Good point. I definitely copped out there.

Please do me a favor. Step into my shoes as best you can and then tell me how you would have handled this situation.

I advocate science classrooms produce scientifically minded students who can think through things and reach their own factual conclusions. Thus, of necessity, they need some exposure to exemplary crud to sort their way through and get their hands dirty with. With the point being the children themselves become capable at deciphering fact from fiction.

This skill cannot just be taught by precept or wrote alone. I see the science classroom as the perfect place for this skill to be dispensed to the students. What other classroom would provide a better setting? These skills would benefit them in all areas of life, not just working in a lab. We all need good discernment and problem solving skills for just about everything we do. Far more than we need to memorize all of the various phylums, orders, families, species, etc. by name. That's painful tedium that none of them are going to remember much of anyway.

I was definitely not advocating what that wreckless baffoon was doing in that video. He was completely non-objective. He was speaking in a context of telling those children what to think instead of objectively presenting information and then guiding them to think scientifically in regard to the information presented so that they were able to arrive at factual conclusions for themselves.

I was offended and irritated that he thought I was advocating what that baffoon was doing. I get highly irritated when people bear evidence that they are not listening to what I am saying. It's my biggest pet peeve. Had he really been listening to me, he would have known I would have just as quickly condemned what that baffoon was doing too.

If I were the teacher and what I advocate was put into practise, that young lady would have said something more like this: "While I believe there is some purpose and intelligence behind all of life, I appreciate being able to discover how life actually works in such detail." This is the language of a scientist.

It leaves unsubstantiated things as mere belief (with no shame or embarrasment because there is no proof either way) and at the same time is in hot pursuit of raw facts as fast as they can be proven.

Do my positions really merit such a huge labor to oppose? Are they that flawed and horrendous? Do children really need us to do all their thinking for them?

 

[rusra02]

Let’s say your ideal scenario was realised: ID has been deemed an appropriate alternative to ToE to be taught in the classroom.

Here is a question from last year’s Scottish Higher Biology exam paper, aimed at 16-17 year olds:

“Give an account of the importance of isolating mechanisms, mutations and natural selection in the evolution of new species.”

From an Intelligent Design point of view, how would this question be answered, allowing the pupil to demonstrate an appropriate depth of knowledge? Bear in mind that the question can be easily answered given what we know about evolution. How would an ID-based answer compare?

My fear is that ID does not promote further enquiry. Where do you go after "it was designed / God did it". What else is there to find out? How he did it, perhaps, but how on Earth would we even begin to approach that topic?

Such an ID answer could include what is claimed about mutations and natural selection. The answer could further show the weaknesses in these claims. The answer could include evidence that supports the idea that such mechanisms have not produced new species, despite the claims of some, even with controlled and intensive efforts to do so. The anwer may include quotes from prominent ToE advocates who deny that natural selection or mutations can produce new species, or has done so.
That's with just a few minute's thought. An honest examination of ALL the evidence is needed, not just the ToE orange drink. But I doubt strongly such a debate would ever be allowed.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You understand it but you bear no evidence of going beyond being the benefactor of those who can apply it. I'll repeat for the last time, you don't see how your approach stiffles creation and discovery and you are obviously incapable of recognizing the valid points I make.

You say this, but the only point I made that you even bothered to respond to was a single sentence? Who is the one who looks more capable of recognizing valid points?

The problem is that you're equivocating teaching only facts in science lessons with making children into "unthinking drones". This is little more than a gross exaggeration at best, and a paranoid fantasy at worst. We are not turning our children into unthinking drones via sticking to established and understood science in science lesson any more than we are making them unthinking drones via sticking to established history in history lessons, or established mathematics in a maths lesson. You take my position of not wanting spurious, untestable nonsense spoken of in science classrooms, construct a strawman of it, then suggest that by saying this I somehow want children to become the borg. I don't. I just want children to learn science in a science lesson, and doing so does not require the mention or acknowledgement of unscientific beliefs or practices.

I do not acknowledge your valid points, for there are none. They are drawn from the same place: your strawman of my argument, and your seemingly irrational fear of the mainstream education system.

 

[Skwim]

If you took the time to read through a good number of my posts on this web-site and applied yourself to understanding instead of mocking you might just be able to put it all together. You think I'm just going to hand it to you on a silver platter?

No, because the corner you've painted yourself into has no silver platters, or even paper plates. It's quite clear that you can't explain it.

I have dropped a lot of clues on how the metaphors can be penetrated in order to extract the plain and simple message that points to things that are real. However, I am not going to offer any more clues than I have already put into this mocker dominated sty.

Ah, thee old, "If-you-can't-understand-what-I-mean-then-I'm-not-going-to-tell-you" dodge. Brings me back to the days of my high school debate club. Gotta say this one hardly ever pops up on RF, and with good reason I might add.

Once the threads I am in are concluded, I am moving on. You and people like you are a waste of my time as long as your intent is just to mock.

Hmmm, that sure has a familiar ring, only last time it was far less equivocal:

Thanks and good-bye.

There were a lot of people I enjoyed discussing things with and for the most part I'll look back fondly in regard to my experience here. However, it is readily apparent I am too much of an anomaly here. Since I tend to just irritate people here, I think these forums shall be better served by my absence. Adios!

Forgive me, but considering the ongoing circumstances I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have dropped a lot of clues on how the metaphors can be penetrated in order to extract the plain and simple message that points to things that are real.

You could literally do the exact same thing with any metaphor. That's the whole point of metaphors - you're supposed to be able to relate them to something that exists or that actually happened.

Is this honestly what you meant when you said that you could prove that the "Creation Moses wrote of in Genesis 1-3 is indeed very real"? If it is, then your point was utterly meaningless. If it isn't, you're just dodging the burden of proof.