http://gamingtrend.com
November 01, 2014, 09:54:39 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is our children learning?  (Read 2951 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1621


View Profile WWW
« on: September 12, 2013, 01:21:51 PM »

Perhaps not in Texas: the State Board of Education is once again flirting with putting creationist bullshit into science textbooks.

Why do conservatives hate science and reality?
Logged

hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9269


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2013, 01:25:46 PM »

I'm guessing the thread title is sarcastically incorrect?  

But yeah, that's frightening.

Although to be fair, the climate change issue isn't as widely accepted as the writer of that piece thinks.  I'm not disagreeing with it, but there are numerous voices in the scientific community that disagree with the summation in the opening paragraph of that article.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 01:27:47 PM by hepcat » Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15537


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2013, 01:49:06 PM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on September 12, 2013, 01:21:51 PM

Why do conservatives hate science and reality?

Why do liberals love immorality and decay?
Logged
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12527


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2013, 01:52:43 PM »

Could be worse, they could be in Louisiana.

Quote
A biology textbook used by a Christian school in Louisiana that will be accepting students with publicly funded vouchers in the fall says that the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland is real. And it isn’t just any monster but a dinosaur — an effort to debunk evolution and bolster creationist theory.

The Biology 1099 edition includes a passage about the Loch Ness Monster that says, in part, according to the newspaper:

“Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the ‘Loch Ness Monster’ in Scotland? ‘Nessie’ for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.”

 saywhat
Logged

“My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1621


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2013, 01:54:17 PM »

Quote from: ATB on September 12, 2013, 01:49:06 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on September 12, 2013, 01:21:51 PM

Why do conservatives hate science and reality?

Why do liberals love immorality and decay?

We don't. And you've shown no evidence that we do. I, however, just posted a link about a conservative plot to dilute science education with fairy tale bullshit. So my question stands.
Logged

hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9269


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2013, 01:54:22 PM »

Quote from: ATB on September 12, 2013, 01:49:06 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on September 12, 2013, 01:21:51 PM

Why do conservatives hate science and reality?

Why do liberals love immorality and decay?

For someone who wants everyone to believe they're an independent, you sure are overly protective when it comes to conservatives and/or republicans.   icon_wink
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3167



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2013, 03:18:55 PM »

I wish we could discuss issues like this without calling other people's faith "bullshit."
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15537


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2013, 03:20:13 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on September 12, 2013, 01:54:22 PM

Quote from: ATB on September 12, 2013, 01:49:06 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on September 12, 2013, 01:21:51 PM

Why do conservatives hate science and reality?

Why do liberals love immorality and decay?

For someone who wants everyone to believe they're an independent, you sure are overly protective when it comes to conservatives and/or republicans.   icon_wink

I get overprotective when someone goes deep in either direction and responded in kind (I do this all the time on FB and with equal vigor to conservatives who rehash inaccurate tripe about how the democrats cause all the problems in the world)


Quote
I, however, just posted a link about a conservative plot to dilute science education with fairy tale bullshit.

Your ignorance of the countering view does not make it a fairy tale. So uppity in your self-splendor.
Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5107



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2013, 03:29:22 PM »

Quote from: ATB on September 12, 2013, 03:20:13 PM

Your ignorance of the countering view does not make it a fairy tale.

So you're making a claim on a young earth or a non-evolutionary origin to life and/or humans?
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12527


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2013, 04:04:17 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on September 12, 2013, 03:18:55 PM

I wish we could discuss issues like this without calling other people's faith "bullshit."

Isn't that the crux of the problem though?  It's "faith" not "science", yet they're trying to teach it as hard fact.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 04:06:17 PM by Gratch » Logged

“My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1621


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2013, 04:23:45 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on September 12, 2013, 03:18:55 PM

I wish we could discuss issues like this without calling other people's faith "bullshit."

Faith is one thing. But factual statements are either true or not true. Stating that the world is 6,000 years old is to state something that is not true. To say that evolution isn't real is to say something is not true. Those are not questions of faith, but of facts. And if you're telling people the world is 6,000 years old and humans didn't evolve from simpler lifeforms, you're peddling non-factual bullshit, regardless of why you're peddling it.
Logged

Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1621


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2013, 04:25:26 PM »

Quote from: ATB on September 12, 2013, 03:20:13 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on September 12, 2013, 01:21:51 PM

I, however, just posted a link about a conservative plot to dilute science education with fairy tale bullshit.

Your ignorance of the countering view does not make it a fairy tale. So uppity in your self-splendor.

So you're position is that there's an argument in favor of putting non-factual fairy tales in our science textbooks? Please, enlighten us poor benighted souls who mistakenly believe that science textbooks should only contain, you know, actual science.
Logged

hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9269


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2013, 04:58:05 PM »

I'm surprised to find that some here apparently believe religion should be taught in schools.  To me, that's the egregious part.  Schools are there for education, not indoctrination (even though some may argue it happens anyway).  It's wrong and it's harmful to teach creationism in public schools.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 05:04:07 PM by hepcat » Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3167



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2013, 05:34:48 PM »

I don't agree it should be taught in schools. I just think we can argue the issue without insulting people's religion.

Also, I believe while our theory of evolution is correct, there's a reason it's called a theory. It can't be proven conclusively, so to call it a "fact" lumped in with the age of the Earth is incorrect.
Logged
th'FOOL
Executive Producer and Editor-At-Large
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5016


Never whistle while you're pissing


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2013, 05:40:11 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on September 12, 2013, 05:34:48 PM

Also, I believe while our theory of evolution is correct, there's a reason it's called a theory. It can't be proven conclusively, so to call it a "fact" lumped in with the age of the Earth is incorrect.

A theory is not the same as a hypothesis, as a theory is a 'proven' hypothesis, that, in other words, has never been disproved through experiment, and has a basis in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Logged

Mike Dunn
Executive Producer & Managing Editor, GamingTrend
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1621


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2013, 05:42:21 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on September 12, 2013, 05:34:48 PM

Also, I believe while our theory of evolution is correct, there's a reason it's called a theory. It can't be proven conclusively, so to call it a "fact" lumped in with the age of the Earth is incorrect.

Under the scientific use of the term, the word "theory" is the highest level of certainty that can be applied to a concept. When something moves from being a hypothesis to being a theory, what has happened is that a massive amount of data -- facts -- have been gathered to the point that the hypothesis is as close to "proven" as is possible at that time. While the "Theory of Evolution" is not *itself* a "fact," it is composed entirely of tested, proven facts. The individual elements of it are proven as conclusively as they presently can be, and are "facts".

The age of the Earth is also a "theory" in the same manner as evolution, though it is one that hasn't received nearly the degree of scrutiny that evolution has. Evolution is probably the most tested, and thus most confirmed, theory in modern science. We are more certain of the facts of biological evolution than we are those of the age of the Earth or gravity.
Logged

hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9269


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2013, 05:44:18 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on September 12, 2013, 05:34:48 PM

I don't agree it should be taught in schools. I just think we can argue the issue without insulting people's religion.

I can agree with that.  But when it does enter our public schools, I reserve the right to call it harmful and wrong.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Captain Caveman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1339


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2013, 05:56:42 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on September 12, 2013, 05:34:48 PM

Also, I believe while our theory of evolution is correct, there's a reason it's called a theory. It can't be proven conclusively, so to call it a "fact" lumped in with the age of the Earth is incorrect.
And this is perhaps the #1 misunderstanding of science by the general public. A theory in science is an overarching framework that all of the known evidence supports. When evidence is found that is not consistent with the theory, it's revised and refined. That's how science works. The amount of data supporting the theory of evolution stacked on top of each other would reach the moon at this point. Sure, certain evidence about mechanistic aspects of evolution are continuously updated with new information (Darwin for instance did not have access to the genome), but the theory of evolution itself is indisputable.

A scientific theory is not the same as a laypersons theory. The theory of evolution and the theory of the flying spaghetti monster are not equally valid scientifically. The former is an empirical question, testable and falsifiable. The latter is none of these things. That does not mean that the latter can not have a very valid and meaningful role in somebody's life, but it is not a scientific concept and should not be included in the teaching of science.
Logged
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12527


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2013, 06:49:42 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on September 12, 2013, 05:34:48 PM

I don't agree it should be taught in schools. I just think we can argue the issue without insulting people's religion.

I'd agree with YK in this as well.  Regardless of your personal feelings, calling it "fairy tale bullshit" does little to further the discussion.
Logged

“My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
naednek
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4681



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2013, 07:59:17 PM »

The easy solution to this is this...

Present both in the curriculum.  Present the two sides equally, and let the person think, digest and decide what they think is true.  This is what this side believes, this is what this side believes. Simple
Logged
Mormech
Welcome to Gaming Trend

Offline Offline

Posts: 5


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2013, 08:05:58 PM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on September 12, 2013, 01:21:51 PM


Not to mention the thousands of children being taught from conservative Christian textbooks that tout young earth creationism, both at home and at private religious schools.  I've never understood how the government can allow the teaching of factually disproven concepts like young earth creationism in anything labelled a "textbook".  We regulate all sorts of things to restrict misinformation nowadays, so why not apply this to religious textbooks? 

Quote from: YellowKing on September 12, 2013, 03:18:55 PM

I wish we could discuss issues like this without calling other people's faith "bullshit."

That could probably be done, but it's like putting lipstick on a pig - if we don't respect the beliefs, what's the point of pretending otherwise?  Even if we didn't call it bullshit, we all know (well, most of us do, anyway) that's what it is, and our continuing lack of acceptance for those beliefs will still be unsatisfactory to those who hold to them, especially since their end goal is to have their beliefs taught to our children. 

Compromise is not always possible.  Sometimes, you need to fight.  Thankfully, I see this as a fight whose outcome is predetermined, even if it's taking longer than desired to get there.
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9269


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2013, 08:08:05 PM »

Quote from: naednek on September 12, 2013, 07:59:17 PM

The easy solution to this is this...

Present both in the curriculum.  Present the two sides equally, and let the person think, digest and decide what they think is true.  This is what this side believes, this is what this side believes. Simple

Once you make the decision to allow religion in the classroom, it's never a matter of "two sides".  

Teaching religion in public schools is a very, very bad idea.  

If only there was some place that parents could send their kids to learn about their chosen religion.   icon_wink
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 08:09:42 PM by hepcat » Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1621


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2013, 08:10:07 PM »

Quote from: naednek on September 12, 2013, 07:59:17 PM

The easy solution to this is this...

Present both in the curriculum.  Present the two sides equally, and let the person think, digest and decide what they think is true.  This is what this side believes, this is what this side believes. Simple

There aren't "two sides". We're talking about science here. There is only *one* side -- the scientific side. Religion has no place in a science classroom. Creationism isn't science. It's not a valid scientific criticism of geology or biology. Science classes aren't about "belief". People don't "believe" that biological lifeforms evolve; we know that they do.
Logged

Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3634


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: September 12, 2013, 09:23:59 PM »

Quote from: naednek on September 12, 2013, 07:59:17 PM

The easy solution to this is this...

Present both in the curriculum.  Present the two sides equally, and let the person think, digest and decide what they think is true.  This is what this side believes, this is what this side believes. Simple


Side A has 150 years of observable, peer-reviewed physical evidence on its side.  Side B has the singular assumption that all of it is somehow wrong.  Even if the belief that science does not exist qualified as a scientific principle, how would you present these concepts equally?

"Okay class, over the next eight weeks we'll be examining the theory of evolution.  This will include examining regional fossil records in which you can see skeletal structures changing over thousands of generations, the specific methods by which we're able to date these fossils, and examining how observable evolutionary splits from common ancestors have allowed today's species to thrive in different environments.

"Pay close attention because there will be a test at the end of the unit.  In order to pass, you will need to be able thoroughly explain the concrete scientific basis for the theory of evolution....or be able to adapt the phrase "God did it" in answer to every question.  Good luck!"

-Autistic Angel
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: September 12, 2013, 09:38:07 PM »

if they want to teach it in school make it an optional, after-school class so all the bullies know who to beat up.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
naednek
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4681



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: September 12, 2013, 11:23:36 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on September 12, 2013, 09:23:59 PM

Quote from: naednek on September 12, 2013, 07:59:17 PM

The easy solution to this is this...

Present both in the curriculum.  Present the two sides equally, and let the person think, digest and decide what they think is true.  This is what this side believes, this is what this side believes. Simple


Side A has 150 years of observable, peer-reviewed physical evidence on its side.  Side B has the singular assumption that all of it is somehow wrong.  Even if the belief that science does not exist qualified as a scientific principle, how would you present these concepts equally?

"Okay class, over the next eight weeks we'll be examining the theory of evolution.  This will include examining regional fossil records in which you can see skeletal structures changing over thousands of generations, the specific methods by which we're able to date these fossils, and examining how observable evolutionary splits from common ancestors have allowed today's species to thrive in different environments.

"Pay close attention because there will be a test at the end of the unit.  In order to pass, you will need to be able thoroughly explain the concrete scientific basis for the theory of evolution....or be able to adapt the phrase "God did it" in answer to every question.  Good luck!"

-Autistic Angel


Syllabus:

This semester we will be discussing in our science class various topics, such as how the earth was formed with different viewpoints people have such as evolution and creationism.  We'll also be discussing other topics related to earth science such as climate change and blah blah blah.

You can teach a class that offers different perspectives.  It doesn't mean you are preaching to people or trying to convert or whatever else you're afraid of.  You can easily talk about both topics in a matter where it's not confrontational or misleading.

I know this, because I went public schools, and church, and my high school science class did teach about evolution and talked about creationism.  The teacher didn't go to hell for it.  And it was an engaging experience. 
Logged
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3167



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: September 13, 2013, 12:08:27 AM »

Quote
That could probably be done, but it's like putting lipstick on a pig - if we don't respect the beliefs, what's the point of pretending otherwise?  Even if we didn't call it bullshit, we all know (well, most of us do, anyway) that's what it is, and our continuing lack of acceptance for those beliefs will still be unsatisfactory to those who hold to them, especially since their end goal is to have their beliefs taught to our children. 

I'm not defending religion in schools, as separation of church and state should be upheld and teaching creationism is a clear violation of that.

I'm talking more about the condescending and often downright hateful tone some non-religious folks have towards those of faith (usually Christians.) Respect is a two-way street. To a significant portion of the world's population, it's the atheists beliefs which are "bullshit."
Logged
MonkeyFinger
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3303



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: September 13, 2013, 01:26:53 AM »

Quote from: hepcat on September 12, 2013, 01:25:46 PM

I'm guessing the thread title is sarcastically incorrect?

Not sure I really want to step into this thread but wanted to clarify the subject. It's from a George W. Bush speech on education and the full quote is, "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?".

He later came back to this at a Correspondents dinner and said:

Quote from: Urban Dictionary
"Then there is my most famous statement: "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning." Let us analyze that sentence for a moment. If you're a stickler, you probably think the singular verb "is" should have been the plural "are." But if you read it closely, you'll see I'm using the intransitive plural subjunctive tense. So the word "is" are correct. (Laughter and applause.)

 icon_wink
Logged

-craig

PSx: MonkeyFinger
XBx: MonkeyPhinger
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3634


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: September 13, 2013, 01:39:09 AM »

Quote from: naednek on September 12, 2013, 11:23:36 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on September 12, 2013, 09:23:59 PM

Quote from: naednek on September 12, 2013, 07:59:17 PM

The easy solution to this is this...

Present both in the curriculum.  Present the two sides equally, and let the person think, digest and decide what they think is true.  This is what this side believes, this is what this side believes. Simple


Side A has 150 years of observable, peer-reviewed physical evidence on its side.  Side B has the singular assumption that all of it is somehow wrong.  Even if the belief that science does not exist qualified as a scientific principle, how would you present these concepts equally?

"Okay class, over the next eight weeks we'll be examining the theory of evolution.  This will include examining regional fossil records in which you can see skeletal structures changing over thousands of generations, the specific methods by which we're able to date these fossils, and examining how observable evolutionary splits from common ancestors have allowed today's species to thrive in different environments.

"Pay close attention because there will be a test at the end of the unit.  In order to pass, you will need to be able thoroughly explain the concrete scientific basis for the theory of evolution....or be able to adapt the phrase "God did it" in answer to every question.  Good luck!"

-Autistic Angel

Syllabus:

This semester we will be discussing in our science class various topics, such as how the earth was formed with different viewpoints people have such as evolution and creationism.  We'll also be discussing other topics related to earth science such as climate change and blah blah blah.

You can teach a class that offers different perspectives.  It doesn't mean you are preaching to people or trying to convert or whatever else you're afraid of.  You can easily talk about both topics in a matter where it's not confrontational or misleading.


There is precisely as much evidence that the Earth was willed into existence 6,000 years ago with all its biomes and food chains already in place as there is to suggest that it appeared equally intact on June 3rd, 1996.  Both ideas require nothing but the faith to believe that every shred of physical evidence to the contrary is an elaborate hoax.

What do you perceive to be the difference in educational value between creationist biology and, say, creationist geometry?

Q: A cylinder measures 2.5 meters long, with a radius of .75 meters on each end.  Calculate its total surface area and volume.

A: No.  Measurements are tools of the devil, delivered unto man as a trick to make him believe God's glorious creation should be quantified instead of worshiped.  It is unknowable how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, much less inside a cylinder.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1621


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 13, 2013, 02:03:45 AM »

Quote from: naednek on September 12, 2013, 11:23:36 PM

Syllabus:

This semester we will be discussing in our science class various topics, such as how the earth was formed with different viewpoints people have such as evolution and creationism.  We'll also be discussing other topics related to earth science such as climate change and blah blah blah.

That might make an interesting philosophy class, but it is not a science class. There is no science to creationism. There is nothing to measure, nothing to test, nothing to confirm. There is no evidence, no data, no hypotheses. It is not science.

Children deserve to be taught true science. The future of our nation requires us to properly teach children real science.

You can no more teach creationism in a scientific biology class than you can teach astrology in an astronomy class.

Quote
You can teach a class that offers different perspectives.  It doesn't mean you are preaching to people or trying to convert or whatever else you're afraid of.  You can easily talk about both topics in a matter where it's not confrontational or misleading.

To tell people that the world is 6,000 years old and that Genesis is "correct" is preaching, no matter where you do it. To tell kids that creationism can be considered scientifically is by its very nature misleading.

Creation beliefs of all religions is a great topic for a comparative religion class. And I'd be all in favor of requiring students to take a class that teaches them the basic precepts of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. But it's not science, can never be science, and has no place in a science class.
Logged

Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1621


View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: September 13, 2013, 02:13:39 AM »

Quote from: YellowKing on September 13, 2013, 12:08:27 AM

I'm talking more about the condescending and often downright hateful tone some non-religious folks have towards those of faith (usually Christians.) Respect is a two-way street. To a significant portion of the world's population, it's the atheists beliefs which are "bullshit."

I did not say that Christian beliefs are "bullshit". Genesis 1 and 2 are not factual history, but in no way is Christian belief depend upon them being. Now, I am well aware that some fundamentalist Christians worship the Bible as if it was God, and fetishize every letter and word, but that's immaterial to the factual question at hand: evolution is tested, proven science, and creationism is a fairy tale.

Genesis 1 and 2 being a fairy tale doesn't mean the message behind them -- that God created the world -- isn't true. I very much believe it is true. But the (contradictory) descriptions of *how* the world is created in Genesis 1 and 2 are not factual. We know they're not factual.

As to atheists beliefs, I can't speak one way or another to that. I go to church every Sunday. My brother says he's an atheist now, but I don't really believe him.
Logged

Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3402



View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 13, 2013, 02:54:00 AM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on September 13, 2013, 02:03:45 AM

Quote from: naednek on September 12, 2013, 11:23:36 PM

Syllabus:

This semester we will be discussing in our science class various topics, such as how the earth was formed with different viewpoints people have such as evolution and creationism.  We'll also be discussing other topics related to earth science such as climate change and blah blah blah.

That might make an interesting philosophy class, but it is not a science class. There is no science to creationism. There is nothing to measure, nothing to test, nothing to confirm. There is no evidence, no data, no hypotheses. It is not science.

Children deserve to be taught true science. The future of our nation requires us to properly teach children real science.

You can no more teach creationism in a scientific biology class than you can teach astrology in an astronomy class.

Quote
You can teach a class that offers different perspectives.  It doesn't mean you are preaching to people or trying to convert or whatever else you're afraid of.  You can easily talk about both topics in a matter where it's not confrontational or misleading.

To tell people that the world is 6,000 years old and that Genesis is "correct" is preaching, no matter where you do it. To tell kids that creationism can be considered scientifically is by its very nature misleading.

Creation beliefs of all religions is a great topic for a comparative religion class. And I'd be all in favor of requiring students to take a class that teaches them the basic precepts of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. But it's not science, can never be science, and has no place in a science class.

This post sums up my opinion. Nothing to add, really.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8879



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: September 13, 2013, 03:29:21 AM »

Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18584



View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 13, 2013, 03:36:28 AM »

Quote from: th'FOOL on September 12, 2013, 05:40:11 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on September 12, 2013, 05:34:48 PM

Also, I believe while our theory of evolution is correct, there's a reason it's called a theory. It can't be proven conclusively, so to call it a "fact" lumped in with the age of the Earth is incorrect.

A theory is not the same as a hypothesis, as a theory is a 'proven' hypothesis, that, in other words, has never been disproved through experiment, and has a basis in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Bad science happens too - and not challenging science is about as bad as it gets*. Scientific process demands challenge - just because it has not been dis-proven does not mean it is *fact*. The problem with what we call scientific "fact" is that often what was accepted gets disproven and thrown out - and in doing so we discredit this "science" thing, instead of teaching the scientific method.

Creationism very MUCH has a place in science - it is a counterpoint. Can we disprove the world is more than 6000 years old? What methods are there? How reliable are they? Regardless of whether creationism is based on faith or not, it can be used to hold up against evolution, and even open discussions as to other possibilities. Creationism "taught" is different than "examined". There is nothing wrong with the examination.

Anything based on faith alone as the method of teaching doesn't belong in schools IMO. Don't care what colour, creed or race.

*Note - I'm just speaking to that point and not to the concept of creationism which requires far more blind-will to accept than that of thousands of generations of genetic change to evolve from monkeys. It may be that evolution is plausible (aka the likely answer) - but that doesn't rule out other possibilities - ones where we simply don't have enough knowledge to even know where to begin looking.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18584



View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 13, 2013, 03:36:45 AM »

Quote from: Isgrimnur on September 13, 2013, 03:29:21 AM



This. Very much this.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3371


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: September 13, 2013, 04:21:53 AM »

Quote from: YellowKing on September 13, 2013, 12:08:27 AM

I'm talking more about the condescending and often downright hateful tone some non-religious folks have towards those of faith (usually Christians.) Respect is a two-way street. To a significant portion of the world's population, it's the atheists beliefs which are "bullshit."

Atheists often build that disrespect from the way they have been treated themselves. Just hinting at being atheist can be foolhardy thing to do. People of faith by no means have the higher ground on respecting other's beliefs.
Logged
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8879



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: September 13, 2013, 04:35:03 AM »

When atheists are lumped together as being as untrustworthy as rapists, or that it's not that they don't believe, it's because somehow they're angry at God, perhaps that might explain why some become violently reactionary against those that profess a religion and want to project it into the public sphere.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3
Alefroth
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 691



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: September 13, 2013, 05:08:14 AM »

Quote from: naednek on September 12, 2013, 07:59:17 PM

The easy solution to this is this...

Present both in the curriculum.  Present the two sides equally, and let the person think, digest and decide what they think is true.  This is what this side believes, this is what this side believes. Simple

So might as well present vampires and werewolves, too, and let the person decide if it's true. Where do you stop?

Ale
Logged
th'FOOL
Executive Producer and Editor-At-Large
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5016


Never whistle while you're pissing


View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 13, 2013, 05:17:36 AM »

Quote from: Purge on September 13, 2013, 03:36:28 AM


Bad science happens too - and not challenging science is about as bad as it gets*. Scientific process demands challenge - just because it has not been dis-proven does not mean it is *fact*. The problem with what we call scientific "fact" is that often what was accepted gets disproven and thrown out - and in doing so we discredit this "science" thing, instead of teaching the scientific method.

Creationism very MUCH has a place in science - it is a counterpoint. Can we disprove the world is more than 6000 years old? What methods are there? How reliable are they? Regardless of whether creationism is based on faith or not, it can be used to hold up against evolution, and even open discussions as to other possibilities. Creationism "taught" is different than "examined". There is nothing wrong with the examination.

What people who are looking to introduce creationism into schools are looking for, however, is some kind of equivalence between the two, and that just doesn't exist. Yes, individual hypotheses have been disproven along the way, often leading to better knowledge and understanding of evolution as a whole, but there is enough good science to back up the theory of evolution out there to consider it viable. You can teach how scientific method led to the theory of evolution and how that theory evolves as we learn more about it without holding up it to a subjective faith-based 'theory' that can't hold up to the same level of scrutiny.
Logged

Mike Dunn
Executive Producer & Managing Editor, GamingTrend
Razgon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8299


The Truth is out there


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: September 13, 2013, 06:59:51 AM »

In Denmark we have Religion as part of normal school. Its taught for 4 years and covers all major religions, their belief systems, and their history. Since religion is a major part of eveyday life, even for people without faith in any of them, its important to understand in order to understand basic human motivations and society at large as well.

About 30 years ago it wasn't called religion, but Christianity, and was very one-sided with Denmark being a christian country, but that changed shortly afterwards, especially with the influx in the 70-80's of foreigners who were invited by a danish government due to low population in Denmark.

It works out very well, and does the job of teaching youths the basics they need in terms of religion, instead of having to resort to half-truths and things read on a forum. Most youths in Denmark are atheists though, and the Danish Church, with is lutheranian christian, is in dire straits so to speak. Its mostly the elder generation that still adhers to religion in the old way (Sunday church). Most people DO use churches for weddings, Confirmations(14 year olds swear to christianity on their own, mostly for the party they get) and baptisms.

Edit: I will have to check if creationism is taught as well.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 07:10:13 AM by Razgon » Logged

A new one
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.217 seconds with 105 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.079s, 2q)