Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science in Public Schools
SuperDave
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 42 (205778)
05-07-2005 12:57 AM


back to Science in Public Schools
I have always held that classes in public schools should expose students to a wide variety of ideas and let the kids explore them and argue them as much as they want. Of course, when I say argue I mean debate intelligently.
Evolutionists should have no problem with the mention of various creationist ideas, just as creationists should welcome the inclusion of evolutionary theories into curriculum. Excluding either is a reduction of available data which under any circumstance can only be construed as an attempt to coerce students to believe only what the authority would have them believe.

"When in argument, those who call upon authority use not their intellevt, but rather their memory."-----Leonardo daVinci

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Yaro, posted 05-07-2005 1:06 AM SuperDave has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6497 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 32 of 42 (205779)
05-07-2005 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by SuperDave
05-07-2005 12:57 AM


Re: back to Science in Public Schools
Evolutionists should have no problem with the mention of various creationist ideas, just as creationists should welcome the inclusion of evolutionary theories into curriculum.
Unfortunetly creationisim is Theology and not science. Thus, it does not belong in a science/biology class. It, however, could be discussed in a philosophi/religion class.
Debateing and discussing ideas is a good thing, but it's important to stay on topic. For example: If I were in an English class, it would be inapropriate to discuss math. Likewise, if I were in a Biology class, it would be inapropriate to discuss theological concepts like creation.
Excluding either is a reduction of available data which under any circumstance can only be construed as an attempt to coerce students to believe only what the authority would have them believe.
No one is coercing anyone to belive anything. They are mearly being taught what current science has to teach. Just like they teach you history in history class, math in math class, they teach you science/biology in science/biology class.
I see no problem with creation being adressed in a philosophy/theology class.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 05-07-2005 01:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by SuperDave, posted 05-07-2005 12:57 AM SuperDave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by SuperDave, posted 05-07-2005 1:24 AM Yaro has not replied
 Message 34 by SuperDave, posted 05-07-2005 1:48 AM Yaro has replied
 Message 36 by ProfessorR, posted 05-07-2005 12:07 PM Yaro has not replied

SuperDave
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 42 (205784)
05-07-2005 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Yaro
05-07-2005 1:06 AM


Re: back to Science in Public Schools
sure....just please note that I did not expressly define that all curriculum be involved in any one particular class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Yaro, posted 05-07-2005 1:06 AM Yaro has not replied

SuperDave
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 42 (205790)
05-07-2005 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Yaro
05-07-2005 1:06 AM


Re: back to Science in Public Schools
I suppose I should reply further.
First, I am a devout proponent of evolutionary theory over creationism. I tend to believe that those who have insisted that evolutionary theories be banned from public classrooms are indeed trying to coerce one way of thinking upon the students, just as the opposite would hold true for anyone who insisted that creationist views could not exist as part of any public classroom information.
One classroom subject that this may relate to better is history. It is pretty much always taught from only one point of view: ours. The way we look at a historical event may be very different from the way it is viewed in another country. To a great degree, this is unavoidable. But by deliberately leaving out or altering information, it becomes more accurately described as propaganda rather than history. And what is propaganda if not material designed to influence your life by restricting your understanding of the facts?
This is what I mean by my statement:
quote:
Excluding [..any information..] is a reduction of available data which under any circumstance can only be construed as an attempt to coerce students to believe only what the authority would have them believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Yaro, posted 05-07-2005 1:06 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Yaro, posted 05-07-2005 11:32 AM SuperDave has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6497 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 35 of 42 (205835)
05-07-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by SuperDave
05-07-2005 1:48 AM


Re: back to Science in Public Schools
One classroom subject that this may relate to better is history. It is pretty much always taught from only one point of view: ours. The way we look at a historical event may be very different from the way it is viewed in another country.
Very true. Not only people in other countries, but even people in this country who tend to look further into historical subjects. However this is not to say there is not a "true" history. After all certain events did indeed happen. A good teacher would simply portray these events factually and do his best to avoid bias. It's tough, but then again that what good teachers are for.
However, I don't think creation and science fall in to the same league as this situation. Evolution is as much a product of bias as the Theory of Gravity is, it's just what the observed facts point toward. Creation is not even in the same ballpark.
Creation does not offer an "alternate view" any more than Hollocaust deniers have a valid "alternate view" of history. It's just plain wrong in a scientific context.
As long as it is not in the science classroom, creation is a good subject to adress. As suggested before a phillosophy/theology class would be the best place to discuss it.
The only way I could see it fitting in to a science curriculum is if they were teaching it as one of the many "old theories" that science has left behind long ago. Like the theory of phlogistin, geocentrisim, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by SuperDave, posted 05-07-2005 1:48 AM SuperDave has not replied

ProfessorR
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 42 (205843)
05-07-2005 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Yaro
05-07-2005 1:06 AM


Re: back to Science in Public Schools
I think I agree very strongly with Yaro, on all points.
Thinking that creationism can be taught in science classes as an "alternative view" or "alternative theory" simply destroys the purpose of teaching science. Creationism, by definition, is outside of the scope of science because it deals with supernatural. I am a Christian and I very sincerely believe that God is the Creator of all, but I do not know it because I learned it in science class - I simply believe it, in a way like I believe that I exist and the world exists. It's a basic truth for a believer, it does not need to be taught "scientifically" and it does not mesh or mix with the empirical method of modern science.
I grew up in the former Soviet Union and I know from experience of my parents' generation, what tragedies can follow when people who are, allegedly, scientists, stop following the commonly accepted rules of the scientific method and sacrifice science for ideology. In the USSR of the 1940's - 1950's genetics was officially declared wrong, because the Communist party line was, genes do not exist, everything is "nurture" (implying that proper indoctrination by the Communist authorities can change everything, and these weird "genes" that resist the direct influence of the environment must be simply put out of the way). When I think about teaching the scientific theories such as the TOE and the anti-scientific ideologies like creationism as simply two alternative "views," I sometimes make a mental comparison with teaching genetics and the 1940's Soviet-style "advanced biology of Michurin-Lysenko-Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin" as two "alternative views." Why, let students decide what they "believe" in, right?
Richard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Yaro, posted 05-07-2005 1:06 AM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by SuperDave, posted 05-07-2005 5:54 PM ProfessorR has not replied

SuperDave
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 42 (205902)
05-07-2005 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ProfessorR
05-07-2005 12:07 PM


Re: back to Science in Public Schools
You know what is funny? I agree with Yaro too. I never said anything to mean that I did not agree with Yaro on those points. I especially agree that it is not in the same ballpark as science and does not compare to it even as an alternative view.
I will try to reiterate my point one more time...
I tend to be against the practice of schools taking sides in this issue. The idea is to make the information available and then leave it at that. It is the children and their families' decisions when it comes to which way they go with it.
When you start to introduce legislature that forces either of these, or indeed any doctrine, to be limited in the scope in which it may be presented, then you start to lean towards making it propaganda and not science nor philosophy.
Please, please, please note that I am not saying science should be taught in a philosophy class or religion in a science class. You keep arguing these semantics with me and missing my intended point.

"When in argument, those who call upon authority use not their intellect, but rather their memory."-----Leonardo daVinci

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ProfessorR, posted 05-07-2005 12:07 PM ProfessorR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Yaro, posted 05-07-2005 6:31 PM SuperDave has not replied
 Message 39 by SuperDave, posted 05-07-2005 9:04 PM SuperDave has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6497 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 38 of 42 (205919)
05-07-2005 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by SuperDave
05-07-2005 5:54 PM


Re: back to Science in Public Schools
LOL! sorry if I misinterpreted you. I wan't trying to argue, just clarify the point. It may be my fault for jumping to conclusions about your intended meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by SuperDave, posted 05-07-2005 5:54 PM SuperDave has not replied

SuperDave
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 42 (205974)
05-07-2005 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by SuperDave
05-07-2005 5:54 PM


Re: back to Science in Public Schools
Now, that last post of mine makes me think that I might sound too much like I condone teaching religion in public schools, which I do not. I do not mean to sound so contrary to my earlier arguments, but I feel that if parents want religion to be a part of their child's curriculum, then they have plenty of church groups and private schools that they can have them attend.
The reason for this, is that once you begin to allow any religious practice such as group prayer, or display religious icons such as a cross or a star, then you begin to show favoritism. Even if there is only one muslim or hindu in the entire school, it is hard to justify excluding their religious observances. The only fair way is to leave it to the parents and the churches. I need to look here and see if there are any good threads that include some of the letters by Thomas Jefferson on this subject. That guy had the right of it, and people today forget much of what he said.
That being said, I still have no objections to a comparative discussion of religions and philosophies. The obvious difference is that one may be promotional of a religion or certain religious practices, whereas the other is purely intended for unbiased educational purposes.
I hope I am still making sense. Sometimes I talk myself into circles.
This message has been edited by SuperDave, 05-07-2005 09:04 PM

"When in argument, those who call upon authority use not their intellect, but rather their memory."-----Leonardo daVinci

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by SuperDave, posted 05-07-2005 5:54 PM SuperDave has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 05-07-2005 9:13 PM SuperDave has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 42 (205977)
05-07-2005 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by SuperDave
05-07-2005 9:04 PM


Re: back to Science in Public Schools
Come on over to Message 1 and put in your 2 cents worth, please.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by SuperDave, posted 05-07-2005 9:04 PM SuperDave has not replied

Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 42 (208142)
05-14-2005 6:00 PM


A middle ground?
In a nutshell, there is a middle ground which science and religion overlap on: philosophy. This is the key to a long-term solution.
There are at least two balanced ways we could do this. We could do it in a high-school science class or we could do it in a high-school philosophy class. Preferably both.
If in a required science class, we could have one or two weeks out of one semester for the students to learn about the different aspects/history of the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
During this period, students could conduct simple thought and/or lab experiments designed to demonstrate exactly when and how different philosophical approaches to science influence the nature of the scientific theory...and how different approaches can lead to different philosophical interpretations. This is, after all, what this whole mess is about.
This is when the concerns of Darwin critics can be addressed...without it being ABOUT "religion vs. science"...but rather it would be about the philosophical approach Darwin took...and without pointless back-and-forth bickering about the details of this fact or that fact.
If this is done in a required philosophy class instead, then all they need to do is the exact same thing but maybe toss in a field trip down to the lab.
Even better would be a separate class devoted to the philosophy of science.
Mankind could use a dose of philosophy in any event.
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-14-2005 06:11 PM

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 42 of 42 (208161)
05-14-2005 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jbthree
03-05-2005 7:51 AM


Weak topic, no focus, originator long gone, closing down
Replay of opening message:
Having read through some of the articles in these forums, I have noticed strong evidences which seem to support creation, global flood, young earth, etc. As long as such evidences are religion free (no Bible, no God, etc.), should they be admitted and taught in Public School Science Curricula?
Admin was extremely generous in promoting the vague, hodge-podge topic. Regardless of where it got filed, it is at best, of "Short Term" nature.
The topic originator was around for two days, and that was over two months ago. Since then, understandably, the topic has been all over the place.
Closing it down. Please find better homes for the many themes brushed upon in this topic.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jbthree, posted 03-05-2005 7:51 AM jbthree has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024