|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I know there are many benefits to science, and math, but as hypocritical as it may seem, none of it will matter someday, don't you agree?
Jesus did things to help the poor and suffering of his time. None of them will matter someday, don't you agree? So should we reject Jesus and his teachings? Is that really what you believe, Charlie? What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
What do you call Haeckel's drawings and the theory of recapitulation, if not a myth?
The randman account of Haeckel's drawings are what strike me as myth making. I took one year of biology as an undergraduate. The text included Haeckel's drawings. They had no influence on my views of evolution. I started the course uncertain about evolution, and I finished the course uncertain about evolution. The trouble with Haeckel's drawings, is that I would have needed to spend considerable time studying embryology before I could have a reasonable idea how to interpret them. While the diagrams suggested something interesting, there was no way that I could take them as substantial evidence for evolution. Sure, there is a myth. That myth is the absurd conspiracy theory that randman is peddling. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
randman writes:
I shall consider that an unwarranted and scurrilous attack. So doctoring evidence and putting it in textbooks is acceptable to you. Ok, but most of the rest of America thinks things like that are wrong. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
randman writes:
That is not actually relevant to what I posted.
Why? Did not Haeckel doctor his drawings and faked the data? You act like I am wrong to bring it up.
You were certainly wrong to bring it up in the form of an unwarranted accusation against me. For the record, I don't know whether Haeckel doctored his drawings and faked the data. I'm not an historian, so I have no way of determining his intent. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
quote:I didn't. I wasn't on the textbook committee that approved the book. I was just a student. My main point is that the whole issue is not nearly as important as you make it out to be. Even if they were correct, Haeckel's drawings would not be particularly significant on the question of whether ToE is a sound theory. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Fine, but that is secondary to the issue that they do show evos have a serious problem getting rid of false arguments and beliefs, to such a degree in fact, I think it brings into question the nature of whether evolutionary theory is science-based or myth-based.
Nonsense. It just shows that textbooks for beginning courses are not always up to date. I should have mentioned that biology course I took was somewhere around 1957.
Could be, as you claim, that the myth is true, or as I think, not true, but either way, appealing to false data is myth-making.
There you go putting words in my mouth again. I haven't claimed anything about embryology to be true. I don't know much about the subject at all. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Do people see a lack of knowledge in science as a possible cause for their inability to understand what evolution truly is?
No. It is unrealistic to expect the entire population to fully understand the theory of evolution. For most people it should suffice that they have a broad overview, and that they have some respect for the scientific community. The problem is a willful dogmatic rejection of science. This rejection is done with enormous hypocrisy, with those who reject science still feasting on the benefits it has brought to them.
Are their any papers or statistics on the variation of science education among evolutionists vs. creationists?
I don't know of any, but they probably exist. But such studies can only show correlation. They cannot demonstrate cause.
Do you think we would be having these problems with evolution and creationism if education in science were stronger?
I'm all for improving science education. But that would be no panacea. It is possible for people reasonably well educated in science, to nevertheless reject that science. See Message 1 as one example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Philip writes:
Education is always good. I can think of nothing better than enabling people to examine the evidence, and decide for themselves. It is unfortunate that the home schooling movement is denying some children an adequate education.
But, the topic question remains NWR: Is education helping or not? Why do you think creos and evos so *sarcastically* debate against each other?
I don't know for sure. But I suspect it is because fundamentalist Christianity is failing, and we are seeing the struggles of its death throes. Protestantism started as a rebellion against authority (the authority of the pope). It was a grass roots movement, and a quite effective one. Now it has changed into an authority based system, appealing to government legislation, constitutional amendment, and a rigidly conservative judiciary, in an apparent attempt to impose its belief system on people. In the meantime the gay rights movement and the new age religions are using grass roots methods that are making deep inroads into the culture. In spite of its appeal to authority, fundamentalist Christianity seems incapable of resisting these grass roots movements. At the same time, we see the fundamentalists denominations splintering into multiple sects. It is a little like the high rate of mutation that is sometimes seen in a biological species that is under heavy pressure. Some of the splinter groups become successful and form mega-churches. But often this success is temporary and based on the personality of a single leader. It is like a spurt of growth on a new shoot, which runs out of steam after a while. Some of the new splinter denominations are successful because of social programs rather than as a result of their theology. Some of them are experimenting with alternative theologies (considered heretical by the more orthodox denominations). Oops! I'm wandering off-topic here. If anyone wants to argue the OT issue I just raised, please start a new thread. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Jazzns writes:
I think the number of people affected by an absolute dogmatism is actually rather small. The bigger problem is the number of highly gullible people who are swayed by these dogmatists. The only thing that keeps the die hards from doing the same is absolute dogmatism and an unprecidented skill to be able to reject reality right in the face of it. Some people make their decisions based on evidence. Others seem to make their decisions by picking someone to trust, and then playing "follow the leader." And often their decision on whom to trust is based on emotion rather than reason. Over the last few decades, we have seen a transformation from a knowledge based society into an entertainment based society. We are seeing the consequences of that change. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
A curious paradigm and fallacy: "Education for education's sake."
I distinguish between education and mere book learning.
Actually, I've seen the opposite: That is, my prior home-schooled students demonstrated *less dopish* learning (in my former high school science science classes).
I did not intend to suggest that all home schooling is bad. I'm sure some is quite good. And even where students do attend an academy (whether a public school or a private one), what they learn at home is still quite important. When parents abandon their educational responsibilities and rely exclusively on the schools, that can be just as much of a problem as is some of the home schooling.
Eclectic education that includes home schooling seems more "adequate education" don't you think?
I avoid sweeping generalizations.
Should a boy *dopishly learn* by a faulty evolutionist system
Dopish learning is a bad idea at any time. One of the problems in todays education scene is that there is often too much emphasis on mastery of facts and too little attention paid to developing an understanding of processes and relations. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
quote:That's evidence that the diagrams were inaccurate. It doesn't appear to say anything about them being faked. quote:Is "this field" evolution, or is "this field" embryology. My impression was that Richardson was talking about embryology, and that the "significant influence" was there. quote:Aristotlean scientists were wrong for well over a thousand years. Newtonian scientists were wrong for 300 years. It's the way science works. Science is not guaranteed to give exact indisputable truth. It can only give a useful approximation. So get over it. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill. As best I can tell, there is one reason and one reason only, that you repeatedly bring up Haeckel, pakicetus, transitional fossils. And that is because you have no credible evidence, none whatsoever, against the theory of evolution. So you repeatedly bring up minor quibbles, blow them out of proportion, and attempt to weave them into a grand conspiracy theory. There is no conspiracy. Like it or not, the theory of evolution is well suppported, although there is still room for some fine tuning. Can we now stop debating Haeckel and return to the topic of the OP? What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
"But that is where you would be wrong. The evidence for ToE is objective. Everybody does agree about the evidence,..."
To be fair to Ringo, most of the disagreement is about the conclusions drawn from evidence, rather than about the evidence itself. No they don't Ringo, that's why we have these boards.... By the way, you can use the "Peek" button to see how I am achieving those shaded quotes. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Philip writes:
None of those is a scientific thesis. None of those belongs in a science class. None of those is appropriate as a statement of the National Academy of Science. 1) God (specially) created Heaven and Earth2) God (specially) created living entities 3) God (specially) created "psyches" Impeach Bush.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Carico writes:
Neither. So are you interested in teaching truth of fiction? I'm interested in teaching method, process, understanding. That gives students what they need to be able to make their own assessments of truth.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024