|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ken Ham is ... EXPELLED | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
If they're avoiding evolution, how would you expect them to score in biology? I think they can perform just as well as anyone, first because the ToE is usually a small portion of the biology class even in public schools, and second because a kid can learn the mechanism of RM+NS without necessarily believing that it can amount to anything. (of course, this last one depends on if the parents don't think evolution is the devil, which it isn't) And, if you ever remember your biology classes, you don't really need to believe in evolution to know how a cell works, or how dna is being transcripted, etc. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
So you're saying that Buzsaw's point about test scores is irrelevant. I agree. Homeschoolers can learn to fake it instead of learning science. I think they can perform just as well as anyone, first because the ToE is usually a small portion of the biology class even in public schools, and second because a kid can learn the mechanism of RM+NS without necessarily believing that it can amount to anything. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
So you're saying that Buzsaw's point about test scores is irrelevant. I agree. No, I'm saying that from a theoretical point of view, I see no reason to think homeschooled christian children have no reason to score less in biology then anybody else. This is quite independant of any surveys of what happens in reality, which doesn't care of any theorisation we can have.
Homeschoolers can learn to fake it instead of learning science. You think that learning the mechanism of evolution, without accepting that this can produce the diversity in life we see is ''faking it'' ? So learning about something, without believing it, is faking it ? And when I study my physics classes at university (which is science), am I ''faking it'' because I think the ToE is false ? What sort of logic are you using ? Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
Learning to regurgitate onto a test paper while secretly rejecting the evidence is faking it, yes.
So learning about something, without believing it, is faking it ? slevesque writes:
Taking an ignorant, uninformed stand on biology doesn't relate directly to studying physics. However, rejecting one area of science does call into question the honesty of your approach to science in general. And when I study my physics classes at university (which is science), am I ''faking it'' because I think the ToE is false ? If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
slevesque writes: ringo writes: Homeschoolers can learn to fake it instead of learning science. You think that learning the mechanism of evolution, without accepting that this can produce the diversity in life we see is ''faking it'' ? So learning about something, without believing it, is faking it ? I have to agree with you here. The theory of evolution is not so difficult that it cannot be understood without believing in it. I can imagine test questions that might require a disbeliever in the ToE to lie, but I doubt that such questions would be used on a test. IMO such questions would have constitutional problems.
slevesque writes: And when I study my physics classes at university (which is science), am I ''faking it'' because I think the ToE is false ? Learning undergraduate physics does not require a scientific method loyalty oath, but learning undergraduate physics does not make you a scientist. If you continue your studies beyond the undergraduate level and actually become a physicist, you may have some cognitive dissonance about the scientific method. Perhaps that will involve "faking it" in some sense. But your disbelief of the theory of evolution probably won't be front and center because you probably won't have to confront biological evidence in your physics studies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
I think they can perform just as well as anyone, first because the ToE is usually a small portion of the biology class even in public schools, and second because a kid can learn the mechanism of RM+NS without necessarily believing that it can amount to anything. (of course, this last one depends on if the parents don't think evolution is the devil, which it isn't) And, if you ever remember your biology classes, you don't really need to believe in evolution to know how a cell works, or how dna is being transcripted, etc. I take a different view on these things. What I always wonder about is all of the great future biologists that were scared away from science by homeschooling. I will agree that one does not need to understand evolution that well in order to score well on high school standardized tests. I think this speaks more to the awful state of standardized tests and high school education as a whole, but that is a topic for another day. So even if kids are not taught evolution and pass tests with high marks it still does not change the fact that parents have told their kids that the evolution boogey man is lurking out there in biology classes. This boogey man can lead you to atheism and a rejection of God if you let him get his fingers into you. What else is a kid supposed to think other than to stay away from further education in the biological sciences? How many great future scientists have been scared away from a great and rewarding career because their parents threatened their everlasting soul with damnation if they did so? Also, one of the philosophical tenets of science is that there are no sacred cows. There are no questions that should not be asked, or hypotheses that should not be considered. From the time of Galileo science has given the religious aristocracy the middle finger time after time. IMHO, science should have an air of being crass, anti-establshment, and daring. This shouldn't be taken too far, don't get me wrong. However, science doesn't work if it is kowtowing to unsupported religious beliefs. Learning science should be a slap in the face. It should open your eyes and tell you that whatever you believe is wrong, and this is why. I'll leave it there, but there is plenty more to the rant if you want to hear it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Also, one of the philosophical tenets of science is that there are no sacred cows. There are no questions that should not be asked, or hypotheses that should not be considered. From the time of Galileo science has given the religious aristocracy the middle finger time after time. IMHO, science should have an air of being crass, anti-establshment, and daring. This shouldn't be taken too far, don't get me wrong. However, science doesn't work if it is kowtowing to unsupported religious beliefs. Learning science should be a slap in the face. It should open your eyes and tell you that whatever you believe is wrong, and this is why. What we think we know with the most confidence should be what we test most rigorously. It's not just a matter of being able to ask any questions - it's about needing to ask those questions that are uncomfortable, that challenge our current beliefs, more than any other questions. The most important discoveries of science are not those that confirm what we previously believed, but those that cause a paradigm shift in our understanding of the world. Whenever we say "we know this with certainty" and stop testing it (as in a sacred cow or other form of cherished belief), we are setting up an authority we cannot challenge, a standard beyond which we cannot improve. When we say "this belief is absolutely true," then however accurate that belief is, that's the limit of our accuracy from that point on. We must be not only willing but driven to challenge our own beliefs, to seek out real reasons to change our minds, especially when doing so is uncomfortable, because those beliefs are our intellectual weak spots, the places where we most need to be tested to become stronger. After all, the only thing we can lose by challenging our own knowledge is a false belief; accurate beliefs are strong enough to survive any challenge of evidence. I think false beliefs are sacrifices any rational person is willing to make, even if giving up "nice" beliefs can sometimes be hard. When I stopped believing in Santa Claus, I was a little sad, but my internal map of reality became a little more accurate, and I became a little stronger intellectually with the sacrifice of that false belief. "Home school" is typically used (at least in the states) as a method of avoiding knowledge and evidence that could challenge a specific belief. It's a place where parents can ensure that their children are exposed to nothing more than an echo chamber of their own approved set of knowledge. Only weak and false beliefs need such protection. To hell with them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Someone might be able to be a physicist and not believe in Evolution, but don't see anyway someone could be a physicist and believe in a young earth.
I also can't see anyway someone could be a biologist and not believe in evolution or a geologist and believe in a young earth. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
jar writes:
Someone might be able to be a physicist and not believe in Evolution, but don't see anyway someone could be a physicist and believe in a young earth. I also can't see anyway someone could be a biologist and not believe in evolution or a geologist and believe in a young earth.Belief gets in the way of learning. (See also tagline.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
ringo writes: slevesque writes:
Learning to regurgitate onto a test paper while secretly rejecting the evidence is faking it, yes.
So learning about something, without believing it, is faking it ? slevesque writes:
Taking an ignorant, uninformed stand on biology doesn't relate directly to studying physics. However, rejecting one area of science does call into question the honesty of your approach to science in general. And when I study my physics classes at university (which is science), am I ''faking it'' because I think the ToE is false ? The point of my question (abe: which initiated this segment of the debate) was to determine how home schooled children score compared to public school children. You are evading the question (abe: at hand). I'll repeat it. Can anyone cite a home schooling group which scores lower than the average public school group of that region. That means any group anywhere. Edited by Buzsaw, : as noted BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Coyote writes: Belief gets in the way of learning. (See also tagline.) Only if one lets it. I don't think Slevesque would let it. There's too much at stake for him. It is likely that he scores better than some in his class who do believe in the ToE. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
Buz, you still don't get it! Coyote writes: Belief gets in the way of learning. (See also tagline.) Only if one lets it. I don't think Slevesque would let it. There's too much at stake for him. It is likely that he scores better than some in his class who do believe in the ToE. Belief gets in the way of learning! If you firmly believe in something you can't learn about anything that is opposed. That's where you and most creationists are. Scientists don't operate that way. They are more likely to say, "What's your evidence." And they'll look at that evidence. It's not our fault that what you keep presenting to us is shoddy evidence, bolstered by your belief into an irrefutable dogma. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
And my point is that the test scores are irrelevant if the homeschooled children are only learning to do well on tests. The point of my question (abe: which initiated this segment of the debate) was to determine how home schooled children score compared to public school children. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Learning to regurgitate onto a test paper while secretly rejecting the evidence is faking it, yes. You are misrepresenting what is happening here. They are learning the evidence, but openly reject the explanation of the evidence, ie the theory. This is perfectly legitimate, in that a theory isn't an absolute truth; it is a human construct to try and explain the data, and if someone feels it does not adequatly do so he is free to think something else.
Taking an ignorant, uninformed stand on biology doesn't relate directly to studying physics. I think so too, but it was only to highlight how equivocating ''the theory of evolution'' and ''Science'' was poor logic.
However, rejecting one area of science does call into question the honesty of your approach to science in general. But, if we take me for example, I am not rejecting ''science'', I am not rejecting the scientific method, or even methodological naturalism. I am simply rejecting a scientific theory. And guess what ? It's perfectly normal. In my own field, if I ever go on and actually become a physicist, it will be expected of me that I accept and reject certain theories. I will still be expected to understand string theory, for example, but understanding it and still rejecting it (I'm not saying I do) does not equate to ''secretly rejecting the evidence'', ''faking'' or ''rejecting science'' ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I have to agree with you here. The theory of evolution is not so difficult that it cannot be understood without believing in it. I can imagine test questions that might require a disbeliever in the ToE to lie, but I doubt that such questions would be used on a test. IMO such questions would have constitutional problems. Yes and I think this can be seen when high-school biology teachers get confronted by over-zealous creationists teenagers in their class. They tell them ''I don't expect you to accept or believe it, but I do expect you to understand it''
Learning undergraduate physics does not require a scientific method loyalty oath, but learning undergraduate physics does not make you a scientist. If you continue your studies beyond the undergraduate level and actually become a physicist, you may have some cognitive dissonance about the scientific method. Perhaps that will involve "faking it" in some sense. But your disbelief of the theory of evolution probably won't be front and center because you probably won't have to confront biological evidence in your physics studies. See previous reply to Ringo which deals with this. I see nothing 'unscientific' about someone not adhering to a theory. Of course, this person must also have valid reasons and evidence to back-up his disbelief, which I think I have.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024