• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
Jbug's specious and wheedling reasoning here has but one aim: to get creationism into public school classrooms. Nothing more and nothing less. All else is smoke and mirrors.
You are accusing me of being a liar.

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 think that would be a step in the right direction.

I'm also saying if things go too far and Creationism is ridiculed that it will take LONGER for the people still caught in the web of religious deception to see it objectively and reach the natural conclusion that it is flawed/unfounded and let it go.

All in all, I'm simply advocating people be very hesitant to ridicule, etc.
 

David M

Well-Known Member
My oh my... I'm talking about scientists who use the Theory of Evolution as a basis to disparge those who make reference to very evolved and advanced knowledge being in our ancient past.

But ToE says nothing about out ancient past.

Now if you are talking about claims of 500 thousand year old civilisations even then its not really ToE that is being used its physics.

All that ToE says about humanity is that we evolved from common ancestors we share with other life on this planet and that our species has been around for less than half a million years. Its physics that says we have been around for about 200,000 years.

You are mistaking scientists using science (e.g. the many dating techniques) and a whole lack evidence to refute nonsense with anything that ToE says.

There is a lot of ridicule that crosses boundaries that should not be crossed. Agreed?

There is a lot of ridicule that is definitely deserved.
 

camanintx

Well-Known Member
Why ridicule and disparge individuals who try to explain things that are anomolous to the assumptions people are making with the Theory of Evolution as its basis? The people being disparged are not questioning the facts of evolution. They are merely trying to understand factual evidence that exists suggesting we have had very high civilization and technology in our planet's distant past.
Maybe you could provide an example to back up this assertion, because I seriously doubt that anyone who understands evolution would use it the basis to ridicule ideas about civilization and technology.
 

camanintx

Well-Known Member
Despite? The whole of his scientific work was a product of his other pursuits. And, you have the audacity to say 'despite' the very thrust of his whole line of inquiry? His invention of the Calculus was to better facilitate his efforts to understand light, chemistry, etc. for the purpose of understanding holy writ. You can 'question' those pursuits all you want, but you cannot separate them using the word 'despite'.

His great contributions to math and science were 'because of' not 'despite' those things you hold questionable.
When I called his beliefs questionable, I was primarily thinking of his ideas on alchemy, but if you want to throw in biblical studies too, I won't object. Just because someone is considered an expert in one field does not preclude us from questioning their thoughts in another.
 

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
When I called his beliefs questionable, I was primarily thinking of his ideas on alchemy, but if you want to throw in biblical studies too, I won't object. Just because someone is considered an expert in one field does not preclude us from questioning their thoughts in another.
Sure, you are welcome to question them. But, to say he was a great scientist and mathematician 'in spite of' what was his whole reason for being such does not pay proper respect to the man. It's just a nit pick I'm making. Perhaps I sensed his spirit stirring and gave you a nice little :slap: on his behalf! :D
 

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
Maybe you could provide an example to back up this assertion, because I seriously doubt that anyone who understands evolution would use it the basis to ridicule ideas about civilization and technology.
I recall one individual who has received a substantial amount of ridicule for this line of inquiry. Graham Hancock is his name. There's a pretty comprehensive interview out on YouTube you could watch to get an idea of things:
[youtube]WvNEVvHgOOY[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvNEVvHgOOY
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
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"?
 
Last edited:

David M

Well-Known Member
I recall one individual who has received a substantial amount of ridicule for this line of inquiry. Graham Hancock is his name. There's a pretty comprehensive interview out on YouTube you could watch to get an idea of things:
[youtube]WvNEVvHgOOY[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvNEVvHgOOY

After 1 minute and 7 seconds I can see why he came in for a substantial amount of ridicule.

He made claims about antediluvian civilisations, as there was no worldwide biblical flood that makes him a fruitloop.

And that ridicule has nothing to do with ToE, its all Physics and Geology.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
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.


Those poor misguided students. They're not only mentally deficient as to what evolution is and what is says but they don't even understand the basics of biology or ancestry....WOW!!! And people really want teachers like this teaching their children? No wonder we Americans are trying to play catch up to the rest of the economic world.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
after 1 minute and 7 seconds i can see why he came in for a substantial amount of ridicule.

He made claims about antediluvian civilisations, as there was no worldwide biblical flood that makes him a fruitloop.

And that ridicule has nothing to do with toe, its all physics and geology.
bingo!
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
After 1 minute and 7 seconds I can see why he came in for a substantial amount of ridicule.

He made claims about antediluvian civilisations, as there was no worldwide biblical flood that makes him a fruitloop.

And that ridicule has nothing to do with ToE, its all Physics and Geology.

I don't take issue with him considering he and the rest of the people who believe in Aliens or Ancient Aliens are just offering up their opinion. If they try to present it any of it as fact then that's where the line should be drawn.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
You are accusing me of being a liar.

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 think that would be a step in the right direction.

I'm also saying if things go too far and Creationism is ridiculed that it will take LONGER for the people still caught in the web of religious deception to see it objectively and reach the natural conclusion that it is flawed/unfounded and let it go.

All in all, I'm simply advocating people be very hesitant to ridicule, etc.
Hmmmmm.
jbug 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

 

camanintx

Well-Known Member
I recall one individual who has received a substantial amount of ridicule for this line of inquiry. Graham Hancock is his name. There's a pretty comprehensive interview out on YouTube you could watch to get an idea of things:
While I find many people trying to use Hancock's ideas of ancient civilization against the TOE, I don't see anyone using the TOE to ridicule him. It hardly seems necessary too since as David M points out, physics and geology are quite enough.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This is a perfect example of the problem !

Evolution is an observed fact of nature,
just like gravity or electricity.

And, there is a theory to explain evolution,
just like gravity or electricity.

So does anyone claim
"The forced teaching of the Theory of Gravity smacks more of totalitarian repression than scientific enlightenment." ?
Of course not.

But in America, teaching the facts has been corrupted by religion - now a huge percentage of the population actually believes religious myths rather than scientific facts.




US education standards have slipped to nearly the LOWEST in the industrialised world.
The rest of the world is LAUGHING at you.

Just saying...


Iasion

Your premise that evolution is an observed fact of nature is blatantly false. Highly educated scientists believe strongly the observed facts of nature support the belief in an intelligent Creator. Other highly educated scientists believe in evolution. Both sides should be able to present their evidence. However, any scientist who supports the evidence for a Creator faces considerable ridicule and disrespect, and often their career suffers. (Don't believe the ToE proponents protests of innocence regarding this. check the facts for yourself.) Such repression does smack of attempted totalitarian mind control, as does forced repression of any intelligent debate in public schools about the evidence for and against the ToE and Intelligent design. Just sayin..
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Your premise that evolution is an observed fact of nature is blatantly false. Highly educated scientists believe strongly the observed facts of nature support the belief in an intelligent Creator.
Could you name some of these scientists, the fields they studied in and the facts that lead them to this conclusion?

Other highly educated scientists believe in evolution. Both sides should be able to present their evidence.
Over 99.9% of live biologists accept evolution.

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

However, any scientist who supports the evidence for a Creator faces considerable ridicule and disrespect, and often their career suffers. (Don't believe the ToE proponents protests of innocence regarding this. check the facts for yourself.) Such repression does smack of attempted totalitarian mind control, as does forced repression of any intelligent debate in public schools about the evidence for and against the ToE and Intelligent design. Just sayin..
Well, it's quite simple. If such evidence exists, then present it.
 

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
But ToE says nothing about out ancient past.
Why do you take the points I am trying to make and then come back at me as if I need them made to me?

I said there are those who take the ToE to mean we are the top, front and center of all life on this planet. There are those who think it is all just onward and upward only. And so, when people like Graham Hancock talk of ancient civilizations as high or higher than ours they wet their pants because in their mind such is impossible. Though they cannot establish why it is impossible. They just say it.

The rest of your comments are irrelevant because obviously you aren't listening to me.
 

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
No, they are not. Facts and the verification of those facts are the lifeblood science.
So the hypothesis stage of the scientific process is optional?

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.
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.

No, it is not. Science is the pursuit of naturalistic explanations to facts.
Seems you presuppose you know the facts. Wrong!

Do you actively teach your children about alchemy or the occult?
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.

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

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".
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.

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

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

Case in point:
...
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.
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.

However, do you teach your children maths?
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.

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.
Not once did I say Creationism should be given 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.
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. 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.

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

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.
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.

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 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.

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.

And, to you, what is a "scientist in the true sense"?
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.
 
Top