Re: This is very mean of me...
 

Seriously... it would have made some classes a hell of a lot easier to just answer "Because God made it so"... or only have one source to cite - ie. Origin of Human Species see Genisis :rolleyes:

Imagine this: Brownie troop goes to Chicago for a weekend trip with their moms. We are at the Field Museum, looking at Sue (actual T-Rex bones.. said to be the most complete T-Rex skeleton) and one of the moms tells her daughter "Don't look, we don't believe that".

There are just some people whose minds you can't change, so these types of arguments end up fruitless.

Dee

thanks man!

I'm sorry I disappeared for so long - I don't want to look as if I'm running from the discussion, but this was one of the top two worst days I've ever had at work. *sigh* I absolutely hate racism!!!

This is how my school worked, only it was a public school. Put all the theories etc out there, and "explore all options". (Must have been a former hippie who designed our curriculum!)

Just wanted to answer one question a couple pages back, I think from valkyrie: I think we can all agree that using different religions in literature/philosophy type classes is only beneficial to students - and I'm aiming this at the middle/high school level. Kids need to know the different idioms, analogies, etc.

So, why not in other forms of classes? What if the only theory of mankind was based on the Big Bang theory, and suddenly, upon entry to college, the student hears about evolution for the first time? Granted, I doubt that it would happen, but wouldn't you rather have teachers have controlled discussion (or assigned reading) on each theory, rather than students picking it up on the streets? We don't allow - or shouldn't allow Sex Ed to be picked up from the streets, why not allow the theories to be at least considered?

When presented with several options, if the student is somewhat intelligent, he or she is going to make an informed decision, rather than simply spout the theory of their childhood, their best friends, or some blog that seemed to make sense. YES, this is more work for the teachers, but I really think that any subject that has more than one theory needs to explore as many as possible. Back to the sex analogy: prior to Margaret Sanger etal, the vast majority of women used rhythm or primitive sheep skins, if any birth control. Then came the diaphragm, then the pill - when there was only ONE pill - then the sponge, etc. Now, there's a plethora of options that a woman can use, and by exploring and comparing all the options, she can select the method(s) right for her.

This may sound simplistic to some, but again, I'm going back to my own school district. I think there was a rate of 89% of graduating students who went to college, and a lot more statistics that I can't remember right now (Letterman just had two aardvarks go at it on his desk, and I can't get the image out of my mind!). I honestly feel that children should be taught all options, that they feel secure in thinking outside the box, and teaching only one theory is just too limiting, IMHO. I'd rather see them laugh themselves silly over one theory or another than not have any comparisons.

Re: This is very mean of me...
 

Hey, that's not fair, not all of us that suck at math and science are ignorant and bigoted.

Re: Re: This is very mean of me...
 

Seriously!!

Re: This is very mean of me...
 

I may be risking a little too much presumption -- I'd like to think I'm one of the people making sense in this argument -- but I'm hardly a science geek. I pretty much endured science in school and, while I did make decent grades, any one could have told you that science and math just weren't my things. I took what was required and avoided the rest. History, English, Foreign Languages, Social Studies, Arts -- those were my strong suits. But I do think it is of prime value to be well-rounded in one's education.

I'm a musician and a lawyer. And perhaps it's my training as the latter that forms my approach here. We don't live in Wonderland, where a Mad Hatter can say "Words mean what I say they mean." Words in specific disciplines have meanings specific to those disciplines.

Much of the problem in the ID/creationism/evolution, as I hear the discussion drag on, is that too many people either do not know or refuse to recognize that "theory" has a specific meaning in science. Because in everyday discourse, "theory" can mean "conjecture" or "opinion," too many people try to make the "theory of evolution" mean the "opinion of evolution."

So it is quite possible for many of us non-scientist types to "get it."

[HIJACK]


or someone who practices the same religion as me, unitarian universalism. in junior high our entire sunday school curriculum was "church across the street" that taught us of various religions from across the world, and we would have "field trips" of sorts and attend the services of the religions we learned about. kind of a "explore all options" feel as well as showing kids some ideas to work off of, since a large tenet of our religion is to develop your own theology and ideals...

i think that's entirely awesome that you had a class like that in a public school.

[/HIJACK]

[hijack, part 2]
Yeah, I wish that was still that way. We got to try out SOOO many methods of different subjects. I honestly feel that knowledge is power, and rational decisions can only be made when there's a comparison available.

When I taught Sunday School, I always took my kids to a Temple. Too many people fear that which they don't know about.

[/hijack]

Re: Re: This is very mean of me...
 

Yes!

I'd also like to qualify my earlier comment with, "I am one of those non-science geeks who gets it".

My only hope is that these "Intelligent Design" advocates don't try and peddle off their laughable book: Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins as an altenative "science" textbook... I shudder to think of the damage that that load of propaganda could do to any poor kid hoping to have a future in science (well outside of Bob Jones Uni).

I had the dubious pleasure of reading it in my Prehistoric Anthropology class - the lectures where we covered the "crack-pot" theories of history and evolution (aliens, Atlantis, time travel, etc. )... At first I was offended by the oversights and/or poor research that the authors where guilty of... then I realized that they purposefully misrepresented or ommitted information in order to "prove" their point. AKA_Monet if you ever want to see the cutting edge of Intelligent Design "material" check this book out... but have more than a few stiff drinks before hand...

Have you all actually checked out all the articles about this case? They aren't even talking about evolution and creation being taught together. That was already decided in the 80s. Evolution and creation cannot be taught together in public schools.

The people in this trial are talking about teaching evolution, but leaving room for students, if they so choose, to find other theories for themselves. Specifically, not teaching evolution as fact.

My notes to those who care to respond:

1) The Intelligent Design camp has non-Christian scientists claiming that something started the universe. So, while they are not Christians, they are not atheists.

2) What exactly is it about creation that is less scientific than evolution? Neither can be proven, while both can be studied starting with a hypothesis.

3) Not all conservative Christians are of the Young Earth Creation belief. Some believe in Old Earth and stages of creation, with God creating the various parts instantly - but with each stage taking thousands, millions or billions of years.

*Personally, as a conservative Christian and minister, the method of creation doesn't change my theology. For me, the only piece that matters is that God spoke and things came forth. If he did it over 7 days, 7 years, 7,000 years, 7,000,000 years...I don't care. Genesis is in mythic history and therefore cannot be understood fully - if it could, we wouldn't be in this debate in the first place.

It's simply not worth the fight.

By the way, when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, he assumed (and remarked on) Intelligent Design. He wasn't a Christian, however.


Edited for a spelling error...

Sorry you have had a tough couple of days due to ignorance... At least you can come on here and I will listen to your argument and we will discuss it peacefully... ;)


Okey, the way I understand it, Evolution falls under the Big Bang Theory or vice versa (I forget the order sometimes)...

The point is all these things can be readily MEASURED, CALCULATED AND TESTED, THEN RE-TESTED A BIGILLION TIMES--either way we get the same exact result... That is the scientific process...

Now, I call myself a Christian and I do not have an internal conflict with doing my job, science and practicing my religious beliefs...

In fact, I pursued science even more--specifically pharmacogenetics because of what I read in the Bible... Now if you want to DEAL with some facts about some things in the Bible, best be prepared to understand that have the pharmacology used in the Bible are like serious hallucinogenic and psychodelic drugs... And many of those figures in the Bible were probably "high" when they saw things... I mean if I saw a burning bush, I'd probably toke up too after that...

If you read "Serpent in the Rainbow" you start to get a "picture" of old world pharmacology...

The biggest civilizations that were involved were the Egyptians that mostly found newer and newer poisons to kill folks quicker...

Like find out where the "Balm in Gilead" came from, then you begin to understand the gravity of what we are dealing with in medicine...

The only part that intrigues many scientists, including myself, is the pool at Bethesda... But even Jesus Christ told the man "do you WANT to be healed" before he healed him...

And Luke who wrote his Gospel was called a physician--as well as Joseph of Arimethia [sp?]...

Long time ago, High Priests and Priestesses were mostly the scientists at the time... The Egyptians, The Aztecs, The Chinese--maybe the Greeks and the Romans... But somehow it all got segregated with the "snake oil" mentality showed up...

So it ain't about do you have a belief in a measurement system versus a spiritual system... It's more about how come the two cannot peacefully co-exist?

Re: Re: This is very mean of me...
 

I sucked at music theory... It made NO SENSE to me... That stuff was hard...

How could you NOT leave room? Anything you do allows students to find things. Even if you teach evolution as fact, people can think it's wrong. People taught the earth was flat and there were those who thought that was wrong.

Maybe some people just aren't raised to question? :confused: