|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: It's a Sad Day For the Future Of American Children. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
It seems that they've finally decided to destroy what is left of science education in Cobb County and start teaching pseudo-science instead. 59% of the people there voted to include the pseudo-science of Intelligent Design (Creationism) as an alternative to the legimate science of evolution. Time to get out your star charts, Philosopher's Stones, and flatten globes since the rest are on the way out as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
Nos,
I presume you refer to the school board of Cobb County. My understanding was that the school board vote was unanimous. Where does the 59% come from ? I feel this issue is far from decided. Thanks Clear Skies ! Frank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: They had put it up to a vote in the county itself. Like the old saying goes, "Democracy is the worse form of government... Except for all of the rest." It just goes to show that some things shouldn't be left up to a vote, especially by those who don't have a clue on what they are voting for. IMO, teaching children a belief based on ignorance and superstition (Creationism) is almost bordering on child abuse. [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
I was not aware of a county vote. SHEESH ! I had been following this for a while and must have missed it. Education should not be a popularity contest. I will have to check it out again.
Thanks for the info. Clear Skies ! Frank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
I don't believe the school board chose correctly but those people have a right to teach whatever they want to their children, and in this case, anything that does not violate the Establishment Clause goes. The board has decided to teach 'alternative theories' to evolution but so far neither ID nor Creationism has been included.
I think they are misguided but it is their right to do this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: There are national standards for education. If they want to teach their children such nonsense they should put them in private schools which are also privately funded. Plus, there are no "alternative theories" to evolution which aren't pseudo-science and religiously inspired as well. [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
Gene,
So far as I know, nothing has been taught that violates any law. I have also found nothing indicating a vote other than the one taken by the school board last month. Perhaps Nos can provide additional information on this. I agree, I think the school board did not choose correctly. Clear Skies ! Frank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: I had caught the tail end of a report on CNN about it this evening. It had one biology teacher who didn't see anything wrong with it, and in another school one who said that this is wrong and the only way he'd teach ID (Creationism) is as an example of bad science. [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][B]There are national standards for education.[/QUOTE]
[/B] Yes there are. However teaching things other than evolution does not lower the standards, it simply give the students more things to learn. The problem is if they decided to completely replace or omit evolution. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they would like to but that's not what their decision does.
[QUOTE][B]If they want to teach their children such nonsense they should put them in private schools which are also privately funded.[/QUOTE] [/B] If that 'nonsense' includes religiously driven theories I agree. However you are forgetting that these are 'public' schools...therefore the public has a right to influence what is taught. The only constaint is that from the US Constitution, which precludes teaching religion. Theoretically though they have a right to teach whatever else they want--alchemy, astrology, whatever. It is wrong, but they have a right to be wrong.
[QUOTE][B]Plus, there are no "alternative theories" to evolution which aren't pseudo-science and religiously inspired as well.[/QUOTE] [/B] Incorrect. As far as I can tell, Hoyle's (silly) panspermia model is an alternative to evolution and is not religiously inspired. Whether or not it is a pseudoscience is a tough call and I'm not venturing an opinion there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by gene90:
Yes there are. However teaching things other than evolution does not lower the standards, it simply give the students more things to learn. In this case including pseudo-science does lower the standard. If that 'nonsense' includes religiously driven theories I agree. However you are forgetting that these are 'public' schools...therefore the public has a right to influence what is taught. Actually no they don't. If that were true then things would really be more of a mess than they already are. The only constaint is that from the US Constitution, which precludes teaching religion. Theoretically though they have a right to teach whatever else they want--alchemy, astrology, whatever. It is wrong, but they have a right to be wrong. National standards are not set by public vote. Incorrect. As far as I can tell, Hoyle's (silly) panspermia model is an alternative to evolution and is not religiously inspired. Whether or not it is a pseudoscience is a tough call and I'm not venturing an opinion there. It maybe silly but it has nothing to do with evolution, even as a so-called alternative. It is more to do with abiogenesis as a theory of how life got started on Earth and we both know that that isn't what evolution is about. [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
Child abuse?
...hmm. Let me see. Kid taught creationism at school. Kid grow up & learn how to use the internet. Kid finds EvC (or other similar platforms). Kid arrogantly starts attacking evolution without knowing. Kid received a sound beating (debunkings & flames & stuff) from nos482 (can be replaced with anybody else) in EvC (or else). Kid retreats with a broken ego & destroyed trust to those who taught him/her creationism. Kid enters dilemma and ends up in a mental wreck. Okay. I agree. That's child abuse!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Any child coming on here already believing in creationism is a mental wreck. One can only do them a favor by showing them the errors of that belief. [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-15-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Hi gene90
G:Yes there are. However teaching things other than evolution does not lower the standards, it simply give the students more things to learn. The problem is if they decided to completely replace or omit evolution. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they would like to but that's not what their decision does. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ M: Of course it lowers science standards gene. If kids are taught that anon-scientific premise i.e. untestable hypothesis is the way that science works then the kids will be handicapped if they attempt to become scientists. Creationism is not science and should not be taught as such. Otherwise kids are not learning science or the scientific method and hence the standards are lowered. It is not merely more stuff to learn...otherwse why not teach alchemy in chemistry class, flat earth theories in geography, or astrology in astronomy classes? G: If that 'nonsense' includes religiously driven theories I agree. However you are forgetting that these are 'public' schools...therefore the public has a right to influence what is taught. The only constaint is that from the US Constitution, which precludes teaching religion. Theoretically though they have a right to teach whatever else they want--alchemy, astrology, whatever. It is wrong, but they have a right to be wrong. M: However, the establishment clause separating church and state prevents teaching religion in publicly funded schools and creationism is a religious doctrine. G:Incorrect. As far as I can tell, Hoyle's (silly) panspermia model is an alternative to evolution and is not religiously inspired. Whether or not it is a pseudoscience is a tough call and I'm not venturing an opinion there. M: However, panspermia has been falsified so there would be no reason to teach it though it may not be religously inspired any more than there is a reason to teach Aristotle's theories of nature as up to date science. Science is not a feel good democratic method where people agree by majority decision how theories should work. Saying that people should have an influence on what science says is not particularly helpful i.e. what if 51% of people would like 2+2 to equal 7? Should that then be accepted as a national standard in math classes? I agree with nos482...let private schools teach whatever they want but public schools should abide by teaching the results of the scientific method...not the result of lobby politics. cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2765 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
quote: quote: I studied a California accredited course in biology at a Christian college, but theories of Aristotle which are pertinent to the "science" of Genesis were not brought forward. The Book of Genesis predates Aristotle by a few hundred years and reveals theories which were already out of date when the oral traditions were committed to writing. It was not until I understood ancient ideas of Origin, including those of Aristotle, that I came to see how the Book of Genesis, although certainly outdated now, was at one time quite nicely aligned with the standard "science" of the ancient world. I suspect that if people were aware of the similarities, there might be less conflict between science and religion. Or is this naieve of me? db ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: ******************* Hi db,I don't think it is naive of you but what you are suggesting would be better taught in a history of science class rather than in a biology lecture per se. I learned about Galileo's conflict with the church in a history class not in an astronomy lecture. Also, what the creationists are trying to subvert in the classroom is not evolution per se but the entire teaching of science and the scientific method by equating pseudoscience and untestable hypothesis with actual science. A good grounding in the history and development of science would be great but I would not hold my breathe waiting for that to become a national standard. cheers,M
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024