|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Knowledge is the common enemy. When you claim special knowledge of God ("communion"), you don't want people showing you real-world proof that you are wrong. Apart from picking on each other, science appears to be the common enemy...at least in creations world.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
You believe in natural physical laws, and trace them back in your mind to the big bang and man having come from beasts..etc. This you thought was fact.
I believe in a known living proven God, known through history, and proven with prophesy and rising from the dead. I trace back from what He said. My conclusion is that you are in error using the present nature to models the future and past. That is as much fact as anything science can teach.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
I don't think schools anywhere teach baloney like that. The issue is belief based issues. Issues that affect history, sex education, geography, biology, etc. Science has no monopoly on beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
It is. Your opinion cannot change that.
No, different beliefs on creation do exist, and can never be filtered out. Those who have done the filtering will learn better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
Science has no monopoly on beliefs. The irony, it burns.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
You cannot explain why science of origins is not belief based. It is. Your opinion cannot change it. The science of abiogenesis is relatively new, the theories deal with self-replicating molecules and how they arise in certain situations, but have not reached any major conclusion about the origin of life as yet. That is not a belief.
The evidence for spirits having lived was that they were known to people then. ... That is not evidence, that is belief, mythology, story-telling. You do not know what evidence is if you pretend that stories are evidence of anything more than human imagination.
... Science has no ability to confirm or deny. ... ... that for which there is no evidence. Agreed. All it can say is that there is no evidence for it or against it, and leave it until such time as there is evidence.
... To pretend otherwise is dishonest. To pretend either way is dishonest.
Human behavior is the result of what is in man. One cannot understand sin without understanding creation and God. That is your belief, for which you have no evidence, and to pretend otherwise is dishonest. To pretend that others should live by your beliefs instead of theirs is evil.
Private schools? How about if people do not want anything influencing them from the majority, they go private? ... That is the option.
... Meanwhile, one should not have to resort to private education to have majority beliefs included! Public schools should not be in the business of teaching beliefs, they should be teaching fact based courses and leave the beliefs to the homes and religious institutions. Then everyone has the same access to factual education and religious beliefs to suit their particular beliefs and understanding.
yOU ARE IN NO POSITION TO TELL ANYONE WHAT FALSEHOOD IS. Says the person who has no evidence to back his beliefs, but wants them to be considered equal to or superior to fact based, evidence based knowledge. The irony. There is enough objective empirical evidence that shows the earth is not flat -- teaching such a belief is teaching a falsehood. There is enough objective empirical evidence that shows the earth is not the center of the solar system -- teaching such a belief is teaching a falsehood. There is enough objective empirical evidence that shows the solar system is not the center of the universe -- teaching such a belief is teaching a falsehood. There is enough objective empirical evidence that shows the earth is not less than 12,000 years old -- teaching such a belief is teaching a falsehood. When beliefs are contradicted by objective empirical evidence they are false/invalid beliefs and should be discarded. Teaching such a belief is teaching a falsehood. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Public schools should not be in the business of teaching beliefs, they should be teaching fact based courses and leave the beliefs to the homes and religious institutions. Back when, from the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) I obtained a copy of the 1990 Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve -- that document is still available online as a PDF at http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED325324.pdf. Here is that document's anti-dogmatism statement (also available on the NCSE's web site at http://ncse.com/...a/voices/california-state-board-education). Part of that statement says:
quote:Later in the Framework it says: quote: Just to summarize, the policy is to teach the facts and not to compel belief with the goal being that you understand the ideas, not that you are to be forced to believe them. For example, when I was an NCO in the US Air Force I was send to NCO Leadership School. At that school, we were taught Communist ideology. Did the US Air Force want its NCOs to become Communists? No, of course not! They wanted us to have some understanding of how our opposite numbers thought. In accordance with the teachings of Sun Tsu, they wanted us to understand our enemies. In stark contrast, we do have real-world cases in which "creation science" curricula have been taught in public schools. In each and every such case, the goal of the instructional materials was to force the student to decide then and there between "atheistic evolution" and their so-called "unnamed Divine Creator". IOW, their obvious goal was to compel belief in direct conflict with actual educational goals of understanding. IOW, creationist curricula in public schools are nothing short of a naked effort at sectarian religious proselytizing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
mike the wiz writes: So it seems to me based on the evidence, there is every reason to disregard abiogenesis as science fiction. Made me smile I'd like to say a few things, but it would be more appropriate in your new thread.Maybe you should chat with Phat just a little bit and get it promoted so you can stand behind your logical proposal?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From Victory in Arizona :
quote: I had to look up pedagogy quote: Sounds good to me. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Wrong. It is a belief that somehow it happened. They just grasp at straws to try and find some plausible way it happened other than creation.
Human records that almost universally include spiritual beings and influences is evidence. What is not evidence is your hand waving attempts at washing it all away for no reason. Claiming human behavior is a result of evolution or any other cause is belief. So, if we teach in an area with a majority Christian population, it seems meet to include their beliefs where beliefs must be inserted. Public schools or any other schools have no option but to include teachings riddled with and spawning from beliefs, and that very much includes so called science beliefs. If you want to include all the things there is no evidence for top of the list is origin science claims and fable. If you want to claim there are no beliefs underlying the teaching of history, sex education and other lessons, you are ot fooling all of us here. Science can fool some of the people...some of the time...and out of this they make a good living!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Wrong. It is a belief that somehow it happened. ... Quite amusingly and obviously wrong. At 4.5 billion years ago there was no life, at 3.5 billion years ago there was fully developed (single cell prokaryote) life. In between something happened, we don't know what, but obviously somehow it (life) happened.
... They just grasp at straws to try and find some plausible way it happened other than creation. Because science uses natural processes that can be tested and cannot use supernatural processes that cannot be tested. Thus the current theories all employ natural processes. The several existing theories are being tested to see how they can predict how life could form. Creation (pan-spermia, etc) are possibilities but they are untestable and therefore not subject to scientific inquiry.
Human records that almost universally include spiritual beings and influences is evidence. ... Indeed, there is a wide and rich variety of mythologies from all cultures and all corners of the world. What is also remarkable is that there is little consensus between these mythologies.
... What is not evidence is your hand waving attempts at washing it all away for no reason. LOL. It is the lack of evidence -- objective empirical evidence -- for these stories to be historically factual. Some may have tid-bits of fact (the city of Troy was held to be mythological until an archaeologist found it using the mythology for hints to the location), but that does not make the stories factual (ie that Achilles was a real person with magical invincibility).
quote: The Wizard of Oz is not a historically factual story even though Kansas exists. The reason for dismissing the stories from a teaching of history is that there is no evidence they are factual. Find that evidence and things can change.
Claiming human behavior is a result of evolution or any other cause is belief. ... Human behavior is a result of both cultural morals and innate (instinctual) behavior, and varies from culture to culture. Some behaviors are learned, and successful ones are passed on to others. Behaviors that lead to early death are not passed on (see Darwin Awards). Some behaviors are genetic (right-handedness), and successful ones are passed on to following generations.
... So, if we teach in an area with a majority Christian population, ... Again with the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity. There is the additional problem, for you, that you are also employing the logical fallacy of the part for the whole: not all Christians believe in a young earth or a factual world wide flood, only a fraction of them: you do not speak for the others, and hence your use of the inclusive "Christians" is a false portrayal of beliefs. It is only the much smaller number of Fundamentalist Christians that you can claim to represent ... if even that. So a majority Christian population that has no problem with an ancient earth, that sees the flood as an allegorical story, and that even embraces the teaching of evolution (see The Clergy Leter Project), that believes public school should teach based on known facts rather than beliefs would still be a problem for you in spite of you fallacy based argument.
... it seems meet to include their beliefs where beliefs must be inserted. and that would be at home and in religious institutions. Such learning would be available to each and every person according to their beliefs, without bias for any one belief over another.
Public schools or any other schools have no option but to include teachings riddled with and spawning from beliefs, and that very much includes so called science beliefs. Which you have yet to demonstrate are beliefs and not fact based knowledge. Your assertions are based only on your belief and not on any accurate portrayal of science.
If you want to include all the things there is no evidence for top of the list is origin science claims and fable. If you want to claim there are no beliefs underlying the teaching of history, sex education and other lessons, you are ot fooling all of us here. Science can fool some of the people...some of the time...and out of this they make a good living! Says the person hard at work trying to fool himself with his beliefs. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
creation writes:
It isn't. Your opinion cannot change that.
It is. Your opinion cannot change that. creation writes:
That's because they're made up, not based on reality.
No, different beliefs on creation do exist, and can never be filtered out. creation writes:
Creationists don't like to learn. A creationist who does learn about reality ceases to be a creationist, so they avoid learning anything. You're a prime example of that. Those who have done the filtering will learn better.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porkncheese Member (Idle past 268 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: |
I went to a catholic school that wasn't dogmatic like my parents.
We got shown evolution as well as other religions which is insightful and helps in accepting culture and ancient literature instead of opposing everyone with a different view They never really said this is the one truth which is clever considering no one really has all the answers. Definitely think this trend of athiest biologists in universities is unhealthy because the athiest conclusion is not scientific based but just to oppose religion. And the way of thinking coming in from the social department left is "feelings over facts" which is frightening but explains so much in society and what i see in campus. Its a poison that educes hate. We cannot even have a civilized discourse like the ppl b4 us. Its like the Jerry Springer show. Fucked up. They want to introduce a "safe space". A stupid idea from America. If a student is "offended" by another opinion they can leave the room for this "safe "space" like wtf stop treating us like glass babies. U know this society ive grown up in has always discouraged me of all masculine thought or actions. I always resisted and was always punished. And for what? Why have i been spoon fed this idea that im inherently criminal for the media, women and mostly my sister. My original thought was that its a load of crap. Well I finally asked wat the noise was about. Spent 6 weeks probing this issue from ever angle. Reading info, listening to scholars, men, women, gays. U know objective thinking is alive still in engineering but i dont see it anywhere else. Anyway my conclusion shook me so profoundly. Its all based on "feelings over facts" which boggles my mind and really confuses young men like myself. I know i want to be a mechanical engineer. Apart from that i don't know where im going. Its disconcerting. My role in a hetrosexual relationship is very unclear but any feminists will only be used for sex, nothing more. Though I think a written consent may be required once iv got some money. Gone are the days of chivalrous gentlemen. Enter men who have been indoctrinated to be more feminine. Now there making boys play with dolls Can anyone shed some light of this femimist movement of social justice warriors. Im raw to social politics. I see its coming from America. Bad influence u guys.. lol Damn i wrote way too much leaving me exposed to the typical tactics of the extreme athiest left. oh well its written now... lol Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Damn i wrote way too much leaving me exposed to the typical tactics of the extreme athiest left. oh well its written now... lol Yes, you’ve raised several issues, each one worth if debate. I’ll pick the first one atheist biologist ... To begin with most scientists believe in a religion. Second, science is agnostic neither pro religion nor contra religion. This is because it deals with the natural world and natural processes that can be observed, tested and theorized for better understanding of how the natural world works. By definition it cannot work with supernatural processes. For instance we can observe evolutionary processes in action, we can see that there are changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. This is the process of evolution. It is a fact that this process occurs and is ongoing in all the species we can observe. (*) This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next. (/*) The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is that this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life we see around us and in the fossil record. As a theory this is regarded as a tentative explanation of how biology works, the best explanation using natural processes we know, an approximation of reality. It is testable, and has been tested, a lot. Every field and lab study tests the theory, every new fossil tests the theory, every new genetic finding tests the theory. So far the theory has held up, and is considered a strong theory that we can have confidence in. That is the goal of science to develop strong theories that explain life, the universe and everything, to the best of our ability and knowledge, ones we can have confidence in for making predictions for new knowledge. As a Deist I believe god/s are unknowable, but that what we can know is their works and the laws that operate to keep them working. Thus evolution, celestial mechanics, etc. ABE: So what should be taught in school is how to learn, specifically how to learn what is valid in relation to reality, what can be tested for that validity and how we can know that it approximates reality. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ABE Edited by RAZD, : (*) image added (/*)by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... And the way of thinking coming in from the social department left is "feelings over facts" which is frightening but explains so much in society ... Whoa Nellie! Cease with the broad brush branding ... it is the extreme right that is ignoring facts in favor of "alternate reality" feelings. "Feelings over facts" would be anti-science, like climate change denial, and I'm pretty sure that is not "left". Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024