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

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Except that's nothing to do with ID, that's just saying "well, evolution couldn't have done it because...", but that does not mean that ID did it.

So, answer the question again, but with specific reference to ID science. Note that this does not include refuting any other scientific theory or hypothesis. Negative evidence for one idea is not positive evidence for another.

 

[newhope101]

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, genetic drift, accelerated evolution, horizontal gene transfer including complex organisms, selection of deleterious mutations, RNA regulation and gene expression, epigentics, co-evolution, co-operation etc etc..in the evolution of new species.”..and don't forget the 'probabilities' involved in all related computer modelling.

I don't know about IDers. I'd respond that these mechanisms are DNA's/organisms method of responding to environmental change and adaptation but are limited. Hence species are descriptors of in-kind varations of Gods initial creations. So there is no common ancestor to humans and chimps. Rather there are many variations of non human primates and there are many variations of mankind, but no creature had the genetic diversity to move beyond their kind. A dog kind may be a wolf and many other dog like creatures such as Canis lepophagus, but it was never anything that did not resemble a kind of dog.
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?
As a matter of fact, I disagree with you. I don't think you or your researchers can 'easily' answer this question, at all. This kind of black and white attitude, to me, calls into question what poster actually knows about recent research. As you can see from the red additions I made to your evo processes, researchers can theorise but they have more questions than answers. They 'know' very little.

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?Perhaps if there were thousands of ID or creationist researchers provided funding to ask the right questions we would also have many more answers. Although I am not an IDer. The truth is that with the spectacular advances in research that show how so many species share similar genes that perform very different functions is testamony within itself of intelligent design. A song bird and bat have Foxp2. It is expressed differently and shows superb design, and to me, obviously not necessarily ancestry. I think their case is strong, regardless of not being able to answer every question. I see intelligent design of the genome as a creative thing which is different to IDers, I suppose

I really think if anything is taught in schools it should reflect the unbiased status quo. There is no value in teaching 'pop' evolutionary science. By that I mean presenting the 'up' side without informing the inconsistencies or valid contradictory or problematic research.

For example Horizontal Gene Transfer has basically killed LUCA, these days. (Wiki Horizontal Gene Transfer). More recently there is good research that has identified Horizontal gene transfer is not confined to simple organisms.

Scientists Uncover Transfer of Genetic Material Between Blood-Sucking Insect and Mammals

ScienceDaily (Apr. 30, 2010) — Researchers at The University of Texas at Arlington have found the first solid evidence of horizontal DNA transfer, the movement of genetic material among non-mating species, between parasitic invertebrates and some of their vertebrate hosts.

Until recently, it was not known horizontal transfer could propel the evolution of complex multicellular organisms like mammals. In 2008, Feschotte and his colleagues published the first unequivocal evidence of horizontal DNA transfer.
Millions of years ago, tranposons jumped sideways into several mammalian species. The transposon integrated itself into the chromosomes of germ cells, ensuring it would be passed onto future generations. Thus, parts of those mammals' DNA did not descend from their common ancestors, but were acquired laterally from another species.

The actual means by which transposons can spread across widely diverse species has remained a mystery.
When the human genome was sequenced a decade ago, researchers found that nearly half of the human genome is derived from transposons, so this new knowledge has important ramifications for understanding the genetics of humans and other mammals.

So I wouldn't say your researchers, let alone you, KNOW exactly how anything works, right now! Scientists can tell nothing by comparing 2 genomes together. They must use an outgroup for comparison. So to compare a chimp and a human they may use a monkey as an outgroup to infer what has changed in what line and of course presume ancestry.

There is also research to suggest that traits arise independently. Gorillas, chimps, platypus and anteaters use knucklewalking. Gene expression via gene families, including non coding regions, gives rise to traits. Hence one would expect genetic similarity between the above species that has nothing to do with ancestry. Another example is Ungulates(Wiki), Afrotheria has examples, Whales are related to ungulates like cow and hippo. Many sea creatures supposedly decendended from land animals, hence evolved an ability to live aquatically independently etc etc etc.

These days with all the recent data, I feel Toe is less convincing than it ever was, rather than being more robust in response to new research. Hence, if TOE is taught at all, it should be in the form of an elective along side other religious teachings, or presented as a theory, warts and all, not just the glossy side. That way students and the community will have the opportunity to make their own informed decisions, religious or otherwise.

 

[kylixguru]

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

That is NOT the ideal I am promoting. What does the word 'objective' mean to you? I didn't say anything should be said in regard to it's 'appropriateness' as an alternative.

When information is being presented objectively it stands or falls on its own. If the students have been properly trained in the scientific method the conclusion they will reach naturally is that the mainstream Creationist view is unscientific.

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. Just as people were wrong about the "flat earth" they could also be wrong about the Bible.

Any field or endeavor can be greatly benefitted by approaching it with a scientific mind. It's goal is to identify blind spots in our reason and help us root out our false presumptions about things because surface appearances have our perceptions fooled.

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?

You begin to approach that topic scientifically. If there was no intelligence behind life and I ultimately had no purpose here other than to be a quivering mass of protoplasm then what I would wish to be is the world's greatest hedonist. The fact that for myself, I intuitively sense there is intelligence in action and there is purpose to my being, I am absolutely enthralled with the opportunity I have to search and discover and see how it all works.

Some people lament that Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientists of our time, spent so much time hotly pursuing an understanding of the Divine. They fool themselves thinking his scientific prowess had no connection to his religious pursuits. The source of his drive and tenacity was to understand the Divine.

 

[Noaidi]

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.

What weaknesses?

What evidence?

What prominent ToE advocates deny natural selection or the role of mutations?

(Apologies for the colours - I've forgotten how to multi-quote posts!)

Your reply is an example of denying evolution. I said in my post that let's assume ID is the accepted position. I would like an answer detailing the ID position, not the denial of evolution. In the exam question, let's substitute the word 'creation' for 'evolution'.

Edit: Just realised Immortal Flame above asked the same question as I was typing mine!

 

[Noaidi]

That is NOT the ideal I am promoting. What does the word 'objective' mean to you? I didn't say anything should be said in regard to it's 'appropriateness' as an alternative.

Easy there, Tiger!! My post was addressed to Rusra02.

 

[kylixguru]

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?

My time was limited when I responded. And, yes, that was a cop-out at best.

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.

What you want will not encourage children to become scientifically minded and better equipped to discern facts on their own.

I do not acknowledge your valid points, for there are none.

You perceive none.

They are drawn from the same place: your strawman of my argument, and your seemingly irrational fear of the mainstream education system.

What strawman?

You are who came after me for advocating science classrooms actually give children an opportunity to learn and experience the scientific method for themselves. That is what you oppose. What you propose as a systematic method of education will mesmerize children into expecting to just be told what to think. This is dangerous. Especially when we have a strong democratic component to our society. It leads to a society that is very easy to manipulate to their own collective detriment because its masses are divested of critical thinking skills.

 

[waitasec]

Easy there, Tiger!! My post was addressed to Rusra02.

you have to remember jbug has a god complex...

 

[kylixguru]

Easy there, Tiger!! My post was addressed to Rusra02.

Yikes! My humble apologies!

 

[kylixguru]

you have to remember jbug has a god complex...

Yes, I do love my God! As for myself? We've got a lot of work to do yet... :yes:

 

[Skwim]

Yes jbug, when the hole you've dug yourself into is just too deep, silence is your best stratagem. Take care.

 

[Noaidi]

I really think if anything is taught in schools it should reflect the unbiased status quo. There is no value in teaching 'pop' evolutionary science. By that I mean presenting the 'up' side without informing the inconsistencies or valid contradictory or problematic research.

Teachers do, in fact, tell pupils that science is a human endeavour and is, as such, flawed. Of course there are inconsistencies, but as research progresses many inconsistencies are solved. My point to rusra02 was what would ID have to offer in terms of evidence in order to replace ToE?

For example Horizontal Gene Transfer has basically killed LUCA, these days. (Wiki Horizontal Gene Transfer). More recently there is good research that has identified Horizontal gene transfer is not confined to simple organisms.

Scientists Uncover Transfer of Genetic Material Between Blood-Sucking Insect and Mammals

ScienceDaily (Apr. 30, 2010) — Researchers at The University of Texas at Arlington have found the first solid evidence of horizontal DNA transfer, the movement of genetic material among non-mating species, between parasitic invertebrates and some of their vertebrate hosts.

Until recently, it was not known horizontal transfer could propel the evolution of complex multicellular organisms like mammals. In 2008, Feschotte and his colleagues published the first unequivocal evidence of horizontal DNA transfer.
Millions of years ago, tranposons jumped sideways into several mammalian species. The transposon integrated itself into the chromosomes of germ cells, ensuring it would be passed onto future generations. Thus, parts of those mammals' DNA did not descend from their common ancestors, but were acquired laterally from another species.

The actual means by which transposons can spread across widely diverse species has remained a mystery.
When the human genome was sequenced a decade ago, researchers found that nearly half of the human genome is derived from transposons, so this new knowledge has important ramifications for understanding the genetics of humans and other mammals.

Yes, this is interesting. You could add hybridisation to the list too, but how does it deny evolution? All it suggests is that evolution is more complex than originally thought.

So I wouldn't say your researchers, let alone you, KNOW exactly how anything works, right now! Scientists can tell nothing by comparing 2 genomes together. They must use an outgroup for comparison. So to compare a chimp and a human they may use a monkey as an outgroup to infer what has changed in what line and of course presume ancestry.

There is also research to suggest that traits arise independently. Gorillas, chimps, platypus and anteaters use knucklewalking. Gene expression via gene families, including non coding regions, gives rise to traits. Hence one would expect genetic similarity between the above species that has nothing to do with ancestry

This is convergent evolution and, yes, does not necessarily involve close ancestry. It shows 2 or more species adopting similar traits according to the niche they occupy. Again, nothing to refute evolution.

Another example is Ungulates(Wiki), Afrotheria has examples, Whales are related to ungulates like cow and hippo. Many sea creatures supposedly decendended from land animals, hence evolved an ability to live aquatically independently etc etc etc.

These days with all the recent data, I feel Toe is less convincing than it ever was, rather than being more robust in response to new research. Hence, if TOE is taught at all, it should be in the form of an elective along side other religious teachings...

Biology teachers don't teach religion.

...or presented as a theory, warts and all, not just the glossy side. That way students and the community will have the opportunity to make their own informed decisions, religious or otherwise.

I agree. But where is the evidence for ID for the teachers to present? To date, ID publications consist of denying evolution but not actually presenting their own case. I feel that this is what you have done (similar to rusra02) in your post. Last year, I was sent a complimentary copy of the school book 'Explore Evolution' by an organisation called Truth In Science (a creationist organisation, so the irony of their name was overwhelming...). Basically, no actual evidence for their position was given - instead it was full of 'evolution can't explain this' or 'evolution can't explain that'. That's not a textbook - that's an anti-evolution rant.
In keeping with the OP, the bottom line is: what do you want taught in place of evolution?

 

[Noaidi]

Yikes! My humble apologies!

No problem. Given your current volume of posts, I understand you may be distracted!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What you want will not encourage children to become scientifically minded and better equipped to discern facts on their own.

I wish you'd stop using the phrase "scientifically minded". I've already explained that it's a nonsense phrase that doesn't mean anything. I would describe myself as "scientifically minded" in that I understand science, the scientific method and am capable of examining scientific facts for myself. If this is what you mean by "scientifically minded" then you are demonstrably wrong, since I was raised in such a system that science was taught solely through the study of facts with no mention of alternative, unscientific hypotheses.

You perceive none.

You wrote none. I demonstrated it in my refutations which you did not have time to respond to.

What strawman?

The strawman that I think children should be "unthinking drones" or that my view of how science should be taught (which happens to be the way it is already taught and has been taught for years) makes science "soulless". This is, even to a layman observer, ludicrous.

You are who came after me for advocating science classrooms actually give children an opportunity to learn and experience the scientific method for themselves.

No, I came after you for suggesting that creationism be presented in classrooms so that the children may "make up their own minds" about the issue. I have no issue whatsoever with children experiencing the scientific method for themselves - they so in classes already all of the time through conducting experiments - but what relevance does creationism have to teaching this?

That is what you oppose. What you propose as a systematic method of education will mesmerize children into expecting to just be told what to think.

Again, no I'm not. I'm suggesting that only facts be taught in science class rooms, not spurious belief-based pseudo-science. I am in no way suggesting that children be encouraged not to question what they learn; this is part of that "strawman" I was talking about.

A quick question: do you believe that alchemy should be mentioned (negatively or otherwise) in the science classroom?

This is dangerous. Especially when we have a strong democratic component to our society. It leads to a society that is very easy to manipulate to their own collective detriment because its masses are divested of critical thinking skills.

Again, strawman.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

The anwer may include quotes from prominent ToE advocates who deny that natural selection or mutations can produce new species, or has done so.

Quotes from believers?
Worthless.
But creationists LOVE quotes from people - almost ALL there arguments are QUOTES which repeat their beliefs, or which they THINK do so.

But science doesn't deal with quotes - it works with EVIDENCE.
There is a vast body of clear evidence for evolution - millions of tests by 1000s of scientists in dozens of countries over a century and more - ALL of them confirm evolution.

ZERO disagree with evolution.

That's the score so far :
* MILLIONS of evidence for evolution
* ZERO evidence against evolution.
* ZERO evidence for creationism


But like most creationists you are still stuck on an ignorant word-game.

You keep referring to the ToE - as if evolution is still just a "theory" and not yet been graduated to a fact - wrong !!!

Evolution is a fact,
And there is a theory to explain it.

Do creationists harp on and on about the "theory of gravity" to pretend gravity is just a theory?

Do creationists harp on and on about the "electromagnetic theory" to pretend electricity is just a theory?

Do creationists harp on and on about the "the germ theory of disease" to pretend gravity is just a theory?

Of course not.

But when it comes to evolution - creationists are so ignorant of science that they think that merely repeating the phrase "theory of evolution" shows it is not a fact.

What complete an utter nonsense.

An honest examination of ALL the evidence is needed, not just the ToE orange drink.

The evidence HAS been examined by scientists - they all agree evolution is a fact (apart from some religious loonies.)

But I doubt strongly such a debate would ever be allowed.

Hahahahahaha!
A debate about evolution and creation would NOT be allowed?

Are you completely BLIND and DEAF ?
We are having such a debate right now. Dozens of fora have such debates. Evolution vs Creationism is endlessly "debated" and argued in many ways all over the word. Scientists are endlessly bombarded with idiotic arguments about creation.


And guess what?
Creationism LOST.
The debate is over.
Evolution is a fact of nature.
(And there is a theory to explain those facts.)


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

When information is being presented objectively it stands or falls on its own. If the students have been properly trained in the scientific method the conclusion they will reach naturally is that the mainstream Creationist view is unscientific.

Creationism is NOT scientific.
That's why it should NOT be taught in science classes.

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 !

The Bible is NOT science - NO science teacher should ever need to mention the bible - apart from perhaps an example of how ancient science was WRONG.

Suppose a drug-using teacher encouraged children to try to drug life-style to see what it's like ?

Suppose an astrologist science teacher should encouraged children to investigate astrology to find if it's true ?

Suppose a homosexual science teacher encouraged children to try the homosexual life-style to see if it's OK ?

You would scream blue murder !

But here you are, a BELIEVER, insisting that your favourite BELIEFS be taught in science class.
Wow.

Science classes are for teaching SCIENCE - not personal beliefs that are NOT true.

Just as people were wrong about the "flat earth" they could also be wrong about the Bible.

How bizarre.
The Bible describes a flat earth.
We know the earth is not flat.
We know the Bible is not accurate history or science.

We will NEVER find out the Bible is right.
Never.
We KNOW that will not happen.

You're argument amounts to claiming :

One day we may find out that the world WAS flat !
Hallelujah - the Bible is RIGHT ! Praise Jesus ....

Bollocks.
Complete and Utter balderdash.

Any field or endeavor can be greatly benefitted by approaching it with a scientific mind. It's goal is to identify blind spots in our reason and help us root out our false presumptions about things because surface appearances have our perceptions fooled.

It HAS been approached with a scientific mind.

And we found out that :
* the bible is wrong
* evolution is a fact of nature

You begin to approach that topic scientifically.

It HAS been done.
Evolution is an observed fact of nature.
The Bible is not science, not history.
The debate is over.

Some people lament that Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientists of our time, spent so much time hotly pursuing an understanding of the Divine. They fool themselves thinking his scientific prowess had no connection to his religious pursuits. The source of his drive and tenacity was to understand the Divine.

Newton was one of the great SCIENTISTS of his time.
His SCIENCE is famous.

But he was an OCCULTIST - did you even KNOW that? Hmmm?
Newton's family was so ashamed of his occult beliefs that they secretly hid his library of occult books after his death so that no-one would know his secret.

So here you are claiming the world's most famous scientists was a BELIEVER - and you don't even know WHAT he believed in !

Seriously jbug - did you know Newton was an occultist?
Isaac Newton's occult studies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Iasion

 

[kylixguru]

I wish you'd stop using the phrase "scientifically minded". I've already explained that it's a nonsense phrase that doesn't mean anything.

It doesn't mean anything to you but it does to me. I won't stop using it because it best conveys what I am trying to communicate that you seem incapable of understanding.

I would describe myself as "scientifically minded" in that I understand science, the scientific method and am capable of examining scientific facts for myself.

You are capable but that doesn't mean you actually do. We wouldn't be having so much difficulty in this dialog if you did.

If this is what you mean by "scientifically minded" then you are demonstrably wrong, since I was raised in such a system that science was taught solely through the study of facts with no mention of alternative, unscientific hypotheses.

Yes, and you are demonstrating this engrained pattern of thinking here in this dialog. You are flat out denouncing potential alternative approaches or perspectives with the presumption that things are 'case closed' without actually applying the skills a true scientist would apply.

You wrote none. I demonstrated it in my refutations which you did not have time to respond to.

I have written plenty already. You are simply closed-minded.

The strawman that I think children should be "unthinking drones" or that my view of how science should be taught (which happens to be the way it is already taught and has been taught for years) makes science "soulless". This is, even to a layman observer, ludicrous.

You jumped a gap here and created a strawman. I did not accuse you of having the intent to create "unthinking drones". I said the method or approach of educating that you promote will entrain children to become "unthinking drones".

I justified it by saying children get mesmerized when they are filed in, sat down, and interacted with in a manner that implies "you are here to be told what to think and you will be rewarded on the basis of verifying that you now think what we want you to think".

No, I came after you for suggesting that creationism be presented in classrooms so that the children may "make up their own minds" about the issue.

Right, you came after me. I clarified my intent sufficiently to help you see I am not trying to lend credibility to mainstream Creationism. I'm saying that if the children are given the skills of applying the scientific method and allowed opportunity to do so in a classroom setting, that this would be a far more effective way of purging error out of our society. I also suggested to ridicule mainstream Creationism will simply make matters worse. If it is presented objective then the truth will shine through.

I have no issue whatsoever with children experiencing the scientific method for themselves - they so in classes already all of the time through conducting experiments - but what relevance does creationism have to teaching this?

I have been trying to tell you all along. I don't know how else to say it. I'm perfectly content to just give up.

I'm suggesting that only facts be taught in science class rooms, not spurious belief-based pseudo-science.

To present mainstream Creationism as scientific is NOT what I am suggesting. For some reason you seem to not be allowing the word I used as to how it should be presented to soak into your mind. I said if it is mentioned it should only be brought up objectively. The only objective fact about mainstream Creationism is that it is a product of a large number of people interpreting the Bible in a certain way. It is a belief and therefore the natural conclusion is it is an unscientific belief.

If I were the teacher and I had a classroom full of Bible believing students, I would go on to further say a good scientist would not assume that the Bible is of no value either. I would merely take issue with the way some people are interpreting it. I would also assure them, if there happens to be truth in the Bible, then it won't disagree with any scientifically proven facts.

I am in no way suggesting that children be encouraged not to question what they learn; this is part of that "strawman" I was talking about.

I'm not accusing you of having that objective in mind. But, none-the-less you are promoting a context for learning that entrains them to not question.

A quick question: do you believe that alchemy should be mentioned (negatively or otherwise) in the science classroom?

In today's context I don't see any reason to make a special issue out of it. If there were places in the USA where 70% of the children held a fervent and dedicated interpretation of alchemical texts that was flawed and detrimental then I would like to see some sunlight on it. But, since people are generally ignorant about it and it is well off the beaten path, not to mention more controversial than the Bible, it's likely best left alone.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

You are who came after me for advocating science classrooms actually give children an opportunity to learn and experience the scientific method for themselves.

Rubbish.
We DO teach children exactly that - right now.

What we DON"T do is re-introduce religions fantasies that are known to be false. Why don't you insist on teaching astrology so children can learn the scientific method ?

You are not interested in science.
You are interested in preaching religious beliefs, while pretending it's all about science.

That is what you oppose. What you propose as a systematic method of education will mesmerize children into expecting to just be told what to think. This is dangerous.

Bollocks.
We teach children about science and facts.
But you pretend this is mesmerizing them !
And your solution : teach ancient religious fantasies that we know are false !!

Especially when we have a strong democratic component to our society. It leads to a society that is very easy to manipulate to their own collective detriment because its masses are divested of critical thinking skills.

The US is an international laughing stock - 40-50% of your people believe in the rapture being imminent. Your education standards have fallen to about 29th in the top 30 industrialised nations. Many of your teachers refuse to teach science, and like you, insist on preaching ancent religious beliefs.

How sad.
Most of a generation of kids growing up believing in ancient religious myths, rather than face the facts.

What a tragedy.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

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

 

[kylixguru]

Creationism is NOT scientific.
That's why it should NOT be taught in science classes.

I acknowledge and agree it is not a scientifically supported thing. However, since it happens to be so prevalent among Western Civilization, it is going to come up in any classroom where children's questions are still encouraged. And, I'm saying, when it does come up, it should be touched on in an objective manner and allowed to be seen as belief alone.

Complete an utter RUBBISH!

Simmer down please...

The Bible is NOT science - NO science teacher should ever need to mention the bible - apart from perhaps an example of how ancient science was WRONG.

I advocate making no presumptions. I think it is very fair to hold out the possibility that people may not be deciphering it correctly. Fine discernment for deeper and less obvious truths requires much patience. Even if the Bible was a cobbled up work of useless fiction, a good scientist wouldn't state it as such until he proved it without any question for himself.

Suppose a drug-using teacher encouraged children to try to drug life-style to see what it's like?

Suppose an astrologist science teacher should encouraged children to investigate astrology to find if it's true ?

Suppose a homosexual science teacher encouraged children to try the homosexual life-style to see if it's OK ?

You would scream blue murder!

Would I? Obviously there are some things here that age and maturity would come into play. But, those topics don't scare me. They come up in my home school setting from time to time. There is pleny of evidence out there my children would easily find in their efforts to investigate any of those things. Truth stands on its own when people have minds to probe and cut away the chaff.

But here you are, a BELIEVER, insisting that your favourite BELIEFS be taught in science class.
Wow.

I am NOT a believer in mainstream Creationism. Have you read any of my posts without trying to cram me into a stereotype? I would like to see mainstream Creationism seen for what it is, false. The more people denigrate it and mock it the greater people will cling to it.

Science classes are for teaching SCIENCE - not personal beliefs that are NOT true.

You are missing a level of depth I am coming from.

How bizarre.
The Bible describes a flat earth.
We know the earth is not flat.
We know the Bible is not accurate history or science.

The Bible is an oracle that requires a special understanding to decipher it. You presume you have fully deciphered it and I say you have not, and that therefore you should reserve full judgment. I could care less if you ever try to decipher it, but until you actually do I consider your posture to condemn it shallow minded.

We will NEVER find out the Bible is right.
Never.
We KNOW that will not happen.

You presume such.

You're argument amounts to claiming :

One day we may find out that the world WAS flat !
Hallelujah - the Bible is RIGHT ! Praise Jesus ....

Bollocks.
Complete and Utter balderdash.

You are demonstrating a very serious lack of mental discipline.

In my reading of the Bible I have yet to see it say the earth we live on is entirely flat. And, in case you may not be aware, there is a metaphoric context for the term "earth" that doesn't mean planet. But, since you are not a person who can read oracles, you are tripping all over yourself.

It HAS been approached with a scientific mind.

And we found out that :
* the bible is wrong
* evolution is a fact of nature

You found out mainstream interpretation is wrong. Congratulations. And, BTW, kudos are in order because it helped me greatly to see this too.

It HAS been done.
Evolution is an observed fact of nature.

Where have I disputed the facts presented about evolution?

The Bible is not science, not history.
The debate is over.

You are ending the debate relying upon presumptions. A good scientist wouldn't do that. He would at least say "I am not motivated to look further into those possibilities." and wish me the best.

Newton was one of the great SCIENTISTS of his time.
His SCIENCE is famous.

But he was an OCCULTIST - did you even KNOW that? Hmmm?

Of course I knew that. Do you expect me to assume, as a lot of misinformed Christians would, that this means he was a Satanist? Occultism simply meant he worked in secret. His religious views would have brought great trouble for him if he made them known. Not to mention his efforts in alchemy.

Newton's family was so ashamed of his occult beliefs that they secretly hid his library of occult books after his death so that no-one would know his secret.

People were paranoid. So what? Is all that means is Sir Isaac Newton was a fearless investigator of truth.

So here you are claiming the world's most famous scientists was a BELIEVER - and you don't even know WHAT he believed in !

I do know what he believed in.

Seriously jbug - did you know Newton was an occultist?
Isaac Newton's occult studies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I've known that for many years. I respect him for it. He was willing to step up and investigating things, all things, including the Bible, and the occult for himself. I have done the same. He was a person who took great care to avoid blind spots. He is to me a great mentor.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It doesn't mean anything to you but it does to me. I won't stop using it because it best conveys what I am trying to communicate that you seem incapable of understanding.

And you still have yet to define it. Was my definition accurate?

You are capable but that doesn't mean you actually do. We wouldn't be having so much difficulty in this dialog if you did.

Then, again, please define what you mean by "scientifically minded".

Yes, and you are demonstrating this engrained pattern of thinking here in this dialog. You are flat out denouncing potential alternative approaches or perspectives with the presumption that things are 'case closed' without actually applying the skills a true scientist would apply.

Once again, you seem to be talking nonsense. I arrived at my conclusion through careful study of the facts and an understanding of the scientific method. I'm not denouncing alternative approaches, I'm denouncing your specific alternative approach.

I have written plenty already. You are simply closed-minded.

When all else fails, just call someone closed-minded. I mean, why bother forming an argument, right?

You jumped a gap here and created a strawman. I did not accuse you of having the intent to create "unthinking drones". I said the method or approach of educating that you promote will entrain children to become "unthinking drones".

Where you are coming from is promoting a model that makes everyone's box for them and then to educate them in a way to stay in that box. Thinking is only for Phd's so go back to your video games and sports viewing... Bah!

"You would rob them of their own sense of discovery and just turn them into non-thinking drones."

"Rigid thinking such as you advocate saps away the creative side of things."

"you don't see how your approach stiffles creation and discovery and you are obviously incapable of recognizing the valid points I make."

"You are who came after me for advocating science classrooms actually give children an opportunity to learn and experience the scientific method for themselves. That is what you oppose. What you propose as a systematic method of education will mesmerize children into expecting to just be told what to think."

You repeatedly claimed that I opposed children learning things for themselves and advocated some form of mind-control.

I justified it by saying children get mesmerized when they are filed in, sat down, and interacted with in a manner that implies "you are here to be told what to think and you will be rewarded on the basis of verifying that you now think what we want you to think".

Is this a problem with mathematics, history and geography as well?

Right, you came after me. I clarified my intent sufficiently to help you see I am not trying to lend credibility to mainstream Creationism.

I never said you were. I said that what you're suggesting would lend credibility to creationism.

I'm saying that if the children are given the skills of applying the scientific method and allowed opportunity to do so in a classroom setting, that this would be a far more effective way of purging error out of our society.

And I'm not remotely against that, but, as I have repeatedly asked, where does creationism fit into that?

I also suggested to ridicule mainstream Creationism will simply make matters worse. If it is presented objective then the truth will shine through.

But here is where my problem lies: it does not need to be presented in any scientific context whatsoever for anyone with any knowledge or understanding of science to see that it is unscientific. Mentioning creationism in the classroom, even to objectively analyze it, only gives the impression that there is a scientific controversy with regards to it. Creationism is not, never has been and probably never will be a scientific concept, so it would be about as useful to mention creationism in a science classroom as it would be to mention alchemy, black magic or the tooth fairy. If these kids are well educated in the sciences, they should easily be able to see for themselves that creationism is not real science.

Meanwhile, leave the science classrooms for the kids to learn about real science.

I have been trying to tell you all along. I don't know how else to say it. I'm perfectly content to just give up.

And I have already explained at length why what you are suggesting is not only wrong, but completely against the point of teaching science in the first place. For a restatement, see above.

To present mainstream Creationism as scientific is NOT what I am suggesting.

Once again, I never said you did. What you are suggesting is that creationism be "presented objectively", and my argument is and always has been that no matter how "objectively" creationism may be presented, it is utterly wrong to present it in science lessons regardless, for the exact same reasons science teacher's don't waste their time explaining why father Christmas isn't real.

For some reason you seem to not be allowing the word I used as to how it should be presented to soak into your mind. I said if it is mentioned it should only be brought up objectively. The only objective fact about mainstream Creationism is that it is a product of a large number of people interpreting the Bible in a certain way. It is a belief and therefore the natural conclusion is it is an unscientific belief.

If I were the teacher and I had a classroom full of Bible believing students, I would go on to further say a good scientist would not assume that the Bible is of no value either. I would merely take issue with the way some people are interpreting it. I would also assure them, if there happens to be truth in the Bible, then it won't disagree with any scientifically proven facts.

Then you would, probably, be instantly dismissed. And rightly so. Religion is of absolutely no relevance to science.

I'm not accusing you of having that objective in mind. But, none-the-less you are promoting a context for learning that entrains them to not question.

No, I am not. I and all of my friends (several of whom are currently studying live sciences in further education) are living proof of that. We came from a system such as I have described, and it did not hamper our ability to question one iota.

In today's context I don't see any reason to make a special issue out of it. If there were places in the USA where 70% of the children held a fervent and dedicated interpretation of alchemical texts that was flawed and detrimental then I would like to see some sunlight on it. But, since people are generally ignorant about it and it is well off the beaten path, not to mention more controversial than the Bible, it's likely best left alone.

So, whether or not something is worthy of mention in a science class room is determined by it's popularity?