Evolution on "trial" in Kansas

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by honeychile
I would normally endorse this, but for the same reason I gave a couple pages ago. So much of different religions & mythologies are part of our culture that, by ignoring them, a schoolkid will be missing out on a lot of fairly necessary idiom.

I agree with what you're saying in theory, but I can't imagine how difficult it would be in practice. Maybe an elective class on religious/spiritual based theories would be a good idea, but I'd be concerned about it in a regular, required class. Which religions are included? Who is left out, or what parents are going to object to what is included? How many teachers can really be objective about it?

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Rudey
We studied the bible as a requirement in my classes in high school as well as in college. But then again we were very smart kids.

-Rudey

So did we - in literature classes and humanities classes, not biology class. MysticCat has done a great job of summing up the reasons - they're simply not answering the same questions.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by ADPiZXalum
I think this is important for people to understand, you think "god" is a crazy theory, just as I think the theory of evolution and big bang is crazy. So why should we teach either one as fact?

Evolution has a scientifc basis. I'm not saying that it should be taught as fact, but it's science. Creationism is not science.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by KSig RC
So did we - in literature classes and humanities classes, not biology class. MysticCat has done a great job of summing up the reasons - they're simply not answering the same questions.

The question was if the bible/religion had a place in schools and not science classes.

There is a select group of very "special" people out there who think any book having to do with religion needs to be burned if it's in a school.

-Rudey

Originally posted by valkyrie
I agree with what you're saying in theory, but I can't imagine how difficult it would be in practice. Maybe an elective class on religious/spiritual based theories would be a good idea, but I'd be concerned about it in a regular, required class. Which religions are included? Who is left out, or what parents are going to object to what is included? How many teachers can really be objective about it?

If they could be objective, I think that would be fascinating. My senior year, our religion class was all about world issues. We learned the different world religions, and of course all issues were taken from a Catholic standpoint (which I didn't agree with, but I WAS in a Catholic school so not much I could do). It also helps, for some people, to stregthen their own faith, by knowing what others believe. I don't think they should be ignorant of what is going on in the world. Politics in many parts of the world is very closely tied with relgion. How do you possibly begin to teach about the middle east and avoid the subject of Islam? Next to impossible.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Rudey
The question was if the bible/religion had a place in schools and not science classes.

Nah, I'm answering the questions raised by the OP ("Should evolution's role in science education be reduced and counterbalanced by alternative theories of 'intelligent design'?") and by the discussion raised from ConnieBama ("Is it right to teach evolution 'theory' in science classes, and not creationist theory?").

There's no doubt in my mind that religious documents belong in education - I also disagree with how some would implement these documents (ie 'not in science, and not from only one perspective'), but I'm an idiot.

Originally posted by Rudey
There is a select group of very "special" people out there who think any book having to do with religion needs to be burned if it's in a school.

well put, my euphemistic compadre

Originally posted by valkyrie
Evolution has a scientifc basis. I'm not saying that it should be taught as fact, but it's science. Creationism is not science.

I see your point although I don't agree.

[RACooper]

Evolution has a scientifc basis. I'm not saying that it should be taught as fact, but it's science. Creationism is not science.

Originally posted by ADPiZXalum
I see your point although I don't agree.

Okay I'm just at a loss here then... are you saying that Creationism is a science? or are you saying Evolutionary Theory isn't science? Did you read KSig RC's or MysticCat's explaination of what a Theory is as opposed to theory?

Finally you mentioned that you attended a Catholic school - what was taught in Religion and what was taught in Biology/Phyisics/Chemistry/Geography? Do you understand the difference between a theological theory and a scientific Theory?

[RACooper]

Originally posted by valkyrie
I agree with what you're saying in theory, but I can't imagine how difficult it would be in practice. Maybe an elective class on religious/spiritual based theories would be a good idea, but I'd be concerned about it in a regular, required class. Which religions are included? Who is left out, or what parents are going to object to what is included? How many teachers can really be objective about it?

When I went to school (Catholic) it was a required class - World Religions... lets see we covered Protestantism, Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Sikhism and a number of days on Cults and Sects - in each case someone (except for the Cults/Sects) was invited in to speak with us about their faith. Further if students asked about a particular faith, Father Ron was more than happy to deal with the subject - that's the reason we learned about Zoroastrianism. I guess I was lucky to come from a system where the Brothers and Priests believed that "knowledge was the best defense against the Devil".

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by RACooper
When I went to school (Catholic) it was a required class - World Religions... lets see we covered Protestantism, Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Sikhism and a number of days on Cults and Sects - in each case someone (except for the Cults/Sects) was invited in to speak with us about their faith. Further if students asked about a particular faith, Father Ron was more than happy to deal with the subject - that's the reason we learned about Zoroastrianism. I guess I was lucky to come from a system where the Brothers and Priests believed that "knowledge was the best defense against the Devil".

That is really, really awesome.

Originally posted by RACooper




Okay I'm just at a loss here then... are you saying that Creationism is a science? or are you saying Evolutionary Theory isn't science? Did you read KSig RC's or MysticCat's explaination of what a Theory is as opposed to theory?

Finally you mentioned that you attended a Catholic school - what was taught in Religion and what was taught in Biology/Phyisics/Chemistry/Geography? Do you understand the difference between a theological theory and a scientific Theory? [/B]

I do not agree that creationsism is not a science.

Honestly, I don't remember what they taught, biology was taught freshman year and I started school there when I was a sophomore. I don't remember them talking about that in physics, chemistry, geography, etc.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by ADPiZXalum
I do not agree that creationsism is not a science.

Honestly, I don't remember what they taught, biology was taught freshman year and I started school there when I was a sophomore. I don't remember them talking about that in physics, chemistry, geography, etc.

Right so if Creationism is a science (which it was consider until the 19th Century) it should then be subject to the same rules that other scientific Theories are subject to... which then by defualt invalidates Creationism as a scientific theory. I don't understand how this crap keeps coming up - wasn't this dealt with well over a 100 years ago - after a 100 years of scientific and theological debate? Seriously why the hell does this keep popping up in the US (well as persistantly or vocally), but not in other Western Nations?

Right grabbed this from the web - I think it somes up a lot nicely:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art...9_2002.asp#can

ACADEMY OF SCIENCE OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA

The Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada considers that "scientific creationism" has nothing to do with science or the scientific method. "Scientific creationism" does not belong in any discussion of scientific principles or theories, and therefore should have no place in a science curriculum.

Science provides knowledge of the natural world in the form of evidence gathered by observation and experiment. Analysis of this evidence allows scientists to generate hypotheses that link and explain different phenomena. Scientific hypotheses must be capable of being tested by further research. If a hypothesis is found to explain many different facts, and even to allow accurate predictions of subsequent discoveries, greater confidence is placed in it, and it is called a theory.

The theory of evolution by natural selection was first clearly formulated in 1859, and for over a century it has been tested and improved by the research of many thousands of scientists: not only by biologists and geologists, but also by chemists and physicists. From deductions based on abundant data, the theory has been developed to explain the changes that have taken place in living things over much of the Earth's history. In its modern form, it remains the only explanation for the diversity of life on this planet that is acceptable to the scientific community.

Science itself evolves, since it must continuously modify existing explanations to incorporate new information. The theory of evolution continues to be refined as new evidence becomes available. Only one thing in science is not open to change: its demand that every explanation be based on observation or experiment, that these be in principle repeatable, and that new evidence be considered.

Scientific creationists adopt an entirely different approach in their attempt to explain the natural world. They accept either biblical or some other authority as overriding other kinds of evidence. They reject much of the accumulated scientific knowledge, and commonly deny the validity of deductions based on directly observable phenomena such as radioactive decay. This is because their philosophy is rooted in a different aspect of human culture. If their claim, that the Earth and all its living things were created only several thousand years ago, was correct, many of the central concepts of modern science would have to be abandoned. The methodology and conclusions of scientists and "scientific creationists" are therefore incompatible, and the term "scientific creationism" is a contradiction in terms, since it has no basis in science.

Delivered by Fellows of the Academy to each Provincial Minister of Education in Canada. Published in Geotimes, November 1985, p. 21.

For people further interested in the this "debate" the following link should prove invaluable:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~dmjacobs/pro...eationism.html
An academic who is interested in the debate.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally posted by ADPi Conniebama
I am not arguing anything I am just stating for the last time. Public schools should not teach "theory" (or opinion) as FACT.
Public schools should not teach the "theory of evolution" as a scientific fact. The End.

AKA_Monet we all get it you are a scientist or a scientist wannabe. This thread does not lead me to "argue" with you about evolution. You have the right to believe what ever you want to believe, and study whatever you want to study. I respect your right to flex your scientific muscles on GC however you are arguing with yourself about, God knows what, when I was making a statement about how public schools shouldn't teach scientific theory vs scientific fact.

I will let you do a SEARCH on GC to determine my credentials as a Molecular Geneticist that keeps a close eye on the far reaching effects dating human evolution through haplotype genetic mapping, mitochondrial DNA rearrangement and single nucleotide polymorphisms--an active evolutionary process that is readily measured with real time polymerase chain reaction protocols...

Till then, you would NOT want to be arguing with me about what is and what is not science unless you have double doctorates in Mathematics and Physics...

[AKA_Monet]

To whom the gods wish to destroy, they must first make them angry...

So why is it that the folks that are making sense about this argument either are science geeks, like myself and got good grades in math and all the science courses...

And the folks that are bigoted probably got failed basic bonehead biology that just looked at things at a pond or draw a picture of an extinct bird at a museum...

I mean, dayum some folks are just plain stupid about math and science, in general--no wonder Bill Gates wants to outsource more jobs overseas--those folks don't have these kinds of arguments...

I am not asking you to re-caluculate Kepler's concentric paths of the planets and verify them with the Theory of Relativity, but you should at least know that there are 5 Kingdoms of Life in Biology and the Earth revolves around the Sun for 365 days...

How hard is that???

Epistemology is the argument here... Why do we think what we think and did a political force make sure that future generations would think that way...

For example--what is Greenwich Mean Time and why was the international date line set? Who decided that this would be the way it is???

There is a reason why we have some folks on here not getting the idea of what a scientific theory from a testable hypothesis...

As Socrates said, long ago, "What is Truth"?

Then Jesus said, "I am the Truth, the Way and the Light"...

I wish it was just as simple as evolution is crap and creationism is awesome...

[AKA_Monet]

Originally posted by ADPiZXalum
I don't want a toaster worshipper leading my child in some butter and jelly prayer to the knife god.

That was about the funniest thing I've read all day...

You had me on ROTFLOL...

Originally posted by ADPiZXalum
Maybe they can just skip that part of science class.

There should not be any kind of "spirituality" in a science class... If it cannot be demonstrably measured, then we cannot use it in science class...

I can tell kids to compare DNA sequences from 10,000 years ago from one group of humans to humans are living to day and see if there are differences and ask why are they there...

I cannot tell if someone is on a spiritual high or not, unless they tell me...