Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@aidan,

These anti-IDers don't understand the issues Rebecca and they are committed to not even trying to. They are standing isolated on the square marked "Science is science". Which I can do as easy as falling off a greasy log.

They see no difficulties in staff rooms between people on such a square who are at loggerheads with other teachers, the school board, parents and the wider community on whether that square is the be all and end all of education. They end up arguing like Ed did in your quote.

There is no science of origins because nobody knows. These evolutionists know a little about the what and a bit less about the when but nothing about the why or the how. I have even offered perfectly reasonable speculative ideas about the how and they were unresponsive to that. Nobody can say anything scientific about the why. They proceed from their superficial knowledge of the what and the when derived from their own interpretations which the public don't understand to conclusions about the why and the how which are as unwarranted as those of any fundamentalist but lack the latter's story-telling irony and comforts.

When I was teaching organic chemistry to degree students I was also running the college library and an elective literature course for the fast trackers. So you can possibly imagine what I think about Ed's ridiculous jibe. I also taught sociology for five years.

Anti-IDers work on the principle that getting in the last snidey jibey assertion is an argument clincher. Anyone with the education of kids on their agenda might easily conclude that such an attitude deserves removal from the electoral register.

The number of teachers the US requires combined with the low salaries they are paid is a guarantee of the general incoherence found on these evolution threads. I gave the job up. There's more real intelligence in the average pub than in school staff rooms.

1 Reply

There you go Rebecca. How would you like coffee breaks including drivel like that twice a day?

Quote:

Do you understand simple physics?

That is intended to convey the notion to all those daft enough to take any notice that ci. understands simple physics when in actual fact he is bereft of the slightest knowledge of the subject which he exposes to view in every post he writes. He probably knows that it is gravity which causes the clanger he drops to fall towards the floor.

0 Replies

What evolutionists know is that the planet earth is about 4.5 billion years old, not the 7,000 years old the bible seems to imply.

Why is it that god never mentioned dinosaurs? Strange that a god who created all life on this planet didn't tell us about all the species of animals he created that became extinct. A person believing that the earth is 7000 years old would never know about dinosaurs; that would be humans writing religious books during the supposed time (about 100 years later) of a man named jesus born from a virgin.

All fiction and no facts that has lived after 2000 years.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You are advocating for bringing creationism into science class even though there is no evidence of such a thing.

Did you even read what I wrote, ci?
You're doing the same thing that you're accusing spendius of doing, in that you seem to be assuming there are only science classrooms in highschools.
A school is supposed to be a place where knowledge and information is disseminated to students.

I specifically said that this could be a really interesting sort of hybrid course - but only if you could find teachers who were willing to suspend their own agenda and be objective enough to gather and present all the information in an evenhanded manner. The point would be for the students to be given the information - not for the students to be guided into an opinion.

Like I said, there has been a literal explosion of information in terms of the cultural/historical/ as well as the scientifically significant data gathered in the past twenty-odd years that is enough to create an interesting and relevant course on its own.
I think it's a great idea.

3 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

There's more real intelligence in the average pub than in school staff rooms.

Yeah - I gotta go to the pub right now - it's the CHRISTMAS quiz!!! I'll try to pick up some general physics- really stretch myself.

1 Reply

@aidan,

Same thing the DI is doing; bring creationism into the classroom. Religion belongs in the homes and churches, not in any "course" in school. There are already all the subjects available at most schools on "information in terms of the cultural/historical/ as well as the scientifically significant data gathered in the past twenty-odd years."

If you bothered to read the media, they have also covered all those topics.

Your generalized classification of "cultural/historical/scientifically significant data gathered" is meaningless if you haven't kept up with the news. You might try a subscription of the National Geographic for a year or two.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Actually, I get more in-depth and up to date information about what's happening in science biology classrooms and curriculums by actually being there or talking to my friends who are the ones who teach what they're asked to teach and as per my conversation with the department head of the science department at East chapel Hill High School in North Carolina, as of Monday when she and I spoke- there is no such course in the curriculum and she thinks it'd be a great idea.

so I'll leave the national Geographics to you - (except for the pictures) I do enjoy looking at those.

And when I'm down there next week visiting her, I'll ask her for a copy of her syllabus so you can see what actually is being taught in a highschool biology class so you yourself can be informed.
I'll say you're welcome in advance as I know you'll appreciate that.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Are there schools in the US which teach world history in elementary, junior high school and high school who would not cover different world religions? I don't believe a student needs any more exposure to religion and especially Christianity in this country. If their parents go to church and require that their children also attend, would there be any more effect on what they decide as adults to believe in, in terms of faith, if Creationism/ID were mentioned at all in any science class? There's only one reason for that -- a fear they are not being indoctrinated by their parents into, specifically in the US, believing in Christianity. Of course, it makes it tough on parents after they have to explain there's no Santa, no Tooth Fairy, and, BTW, babies are made by Momma and Daddy having sex. It was my Grandmother on my Mom's side who even got me into church, not my parents, and pressured my Mom to get me to attend Sunday School. It didn't last very long, but, of course, if I visited my Grandmother, it was off to Christ Unity Church LA for Sunday services. It just didn't take -- it was not credible and I was much more excited over going to meetings at the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society (not only because I became close friends with Ray Bradbury, either), or the Pacific Rocket Society, and the majority of my friends were Cal-Tech students and professors. I also was in close relationship to the Episcopalian church, two acquaintances being Priests who were in charge of their dioceses in Long Beach and Sierra Madre, Ca (the former a huge church, the latter a charming small church in the California foothills surrounded by a forest). Privately, neither priest believe in Creationism as written in the Old Testament. I think people would be shocked as to how many clerics actually don't and how far back that extends. I was sporadically in attendance at their masses out of respect for them even though they knew I was not convinced there was any supernatural being who had planned everything in existence and was the master of the Universe.

There is absolutely no need for Creationism or ID to be taught in any science class and only those who are mentally obsessed with proselytizing all young minds would think so. They resent being outed and we see the results in this forum where they start their little spiels and sputter like an old Tin Lizzy which is running out of gas.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

There is absolutely no need for Creationism or ID to be taught in any science class and only those who are mentally obsessed with proselytizing all young minds would think so.

Nobody on this thread is talking about teaching anything of the sort in science classes or in any other classes. Nor is it the subject of the thread.

So--you're trolling Wiz. Objectively. If you want to argue with people who are suggesting teaching C&ID in science classes why don't you look for threads and sites they are on instead of bothering us with your obsessions.

It is the teaching of evolution to adolescents we are debating. The over 18s are old enough for some of it. If a teacher is going to start abusing the EC in the Fifth by talking about superstitious nonsense what's he going to be saying once he has the green light and a staff room, school board and admin. all on his side? And all wearing threatening spectacles to correct their short-sightedness. Especially when they are all going off to celebrate the anniversary of the birth of Jesus having got rid of the fat from their Thanksgiving dinner both of which events are easily described as superstitious nonsense got up by the High Priests of the Jingling Tills Sisters of Mercilessness. NFL is got up by the Bums on Seats Brothers of Invention. Some cynics reckon that wars are got up by the armaments industry. Hence the Nobel Peace Prize funded by the legacy of the master of high explosives. They say it was due to a guilty conscience which appeared when the Pearly Gates were in the post and whether to submit to Extreme Unction was being considered as Voltaire had been asked to.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

Yeah - I gotta go to the pub right now - it's the CHRISTMAS quiz!!! I'll try to pick up some general physics- really stretch myself.

If you are asked to name the colours of the rainbow Rebecca don't give the correct scientific answer because they won't understand it. Give them that rubbish everybody learned in science classes about ROYGBIV (Roy G Biv who descended from Sir Isaac Newton the well known scientist and dabbler in mystical wonderworkings) line of deluded bullshit. It's quicker too. You could be there for a month with the scientifically correct answer. Maybe a month of Sundays which is, I think, 30 weeks for September, April June and November, 31 weeks for all the rest excepting February which is 28 weeks if it's a Leap Year in which case girls are permitted to jump on boys but only in Lent.

That Sunday business is superstitious nonsense. Think of how efficient and productive we would be if we rid ourselves of that out-dated nonsense and worked all year round with no weekends and no festivities. We could soon have a wind-turbine each. Every bit of a wind turbine starts out as "dirt" and has labour applied to it. Brain labour included. It's just a question of us working harder. Priests are exemplars of the state one has to get into in order to be respectable not working so hard. It's the same with fossil hunters. It's their idea that we should be interested, even fascinated, with where we have come from and they have hyped it up and they have a fair proportion goggle-eyed at it. Some of us do not give one teeny-weeny on the wing fornication, under the willows, where we have come from. "Don't Look Back". The only creatures in the vast vista of evolution that ever looked back are these evolutionists so they are anti-evolution right out to the tight end.

It's where we are going that counts. And the kids are a big investment in that so you should start getting your act together and start teaching instead of rabbiting about teaching as a trick to hold onto your fading powers as they come snapping at your heels. Watch the parking meters. We know we are going to join John Brown but Stendhal shows you how to forget it if its so boring as to be what every Tom, Dick and Harry is going to do from the paupers to the kings.

Don't forget---Becksie--ROYGBIV. (Roy's oscillating YO-YO gave Belinda incredible variations. Or vibrations if that's easier to remember.

1 Reply

Quote:

Americans need to affirm the power, capabilities of science, math
(By Gilbert D. Shapiro, Commentary, THE ARIZONA DAILY STAR, December 16, 2009)

In a Nov. 23 address to the nation titled "Education to Innovate," President Obama lamented that "for decades we've been losing ground" in science and math education. He pointed out that "American 15-year-olds now rank 21st in science and 25th in math when compared to their peers around the world."

The White House went on to say that there should be "a nationwide effort to help reach the administration's goal of moving American students from the middle to the top of the pack in science and math achievement over the next decade."

Unfortunately, however, this administration will have to deal with millions of Americans who will undoubtedly reject this initiative and continue to harbor and, in many cases, teach children deep-seated suspicions and fears of evidence-based thinking.

The most egregious example of what the Obama administration has to contend with, according to a 2008 Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life Survey, is that "45 percent (of Americans reject) the notion that evolution best explains the origins of human life." It continues, "At least seven in 10 members of evangelical Protestant churches, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses reject the evolutionary account as the best explanation for the development of human life," and that "among the public overall, nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of those who attend religious services at least once a week reject the idea of evolution."

According to further survey results, millions of Americans would most likely agree with these statements of belief:

"The universe and everything in it was created by God rather than by spontaneous generation and development from one kind to another."

"All creation was accomplished in six consecutive literal days, not over millions of years, and the Earth is relatively young (thousands, not billions, of years)."

"There is a divine design and purpose in nature as opposed to an unorganized random and chance development."

"A worldwide, historical flood, caused by God, occurred at the time of Noah. It was not just a local flood."

"The Bible is the inspired, revealed word of God to man and is accurate in all areas."

Setting aside the fact that these beliefs are all refuted by current scientific knowledge and understanding, at best, they contain premises to be proved scientifically rather than "revealed" conclusions to be accepted on faith.

Indeed, The Center for Inquiry of Southern Arizona would challenge all those who believe that revelation and ancient biblical beliefs are the preferred pathways to an accurate understanding of our world to simply name a single medical or scientific advancement in our culture that is provably attributable to divine intervention.

We are troubled that such a large segment of our population does not understand that mainstream science and mathematics are the tools most responsible for the improvements in our standard of living.

All Americans, therefore, need to unequivocally affirm the power and capabilities of mainstream science and math. These two fields may never answer life's deepest question, "What is it all about?" But science and math have (thankfully thus far!) gotten it right when it comes to accurately explaining, understanding and gaining knowledge of our tangible earthly reality and, additionally, to at least answering the question, "What is going on here?"

1 Reply

@aidan,

Fine. Just don't call it a science class.

1 Reply

Well, when you've had a previous President who showed obvious apathy towards anything math or science, and probably due to his stupidity on those subjects, and has the attitude that the only thing valuable science produces is something that can blow someone's legs off, you get what we've got.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

you seem to be assuming there are only science classrooms in highschools.

You seem to miss the point that in some jurisdictions science classes are the ONLY ones under assault by the religious and the "nearly" religious. The US Supreme Court has passed judgement that, according to our Constitution, the teaching of Creationism does not qualify as science and is actually teaching religion in the science curriculum. In the same vein, a Federal District court has determined that Intelligent Design similarly , is a religion trying to pass itself off as science. Therefore it too doesnt qualify as science.

It is wonderful that , for the most part, school science curricula follow mandates by the various state education boards and the teaching of science and only science as defined by Pa's and MAss' definition, and these are, for the most part what are followed. However, there are a few states that lie on the border of reality , such as Louisiana , TExas, and a brief few others that will, always attempt to stretch the guideleines and try to legislate that religion belongs in biology and geology. CI is part of the posse that has been fairly consistent in reminding newcomers and oldtimers of these facts.

0 Replies

@aidan,

First you begin with

Quote:

"cultural/historical/scientifically significant data gathered"

, then spin it into "science biology." Which is it that you are talking about? We all understand the topic of "Biology" as taught in our schools. What more do you want taught in our Biology classrooms?

1 Reply

@aidan,

Quote:

I specifically said that this could be a really interesting sort of hybrid course - but only if you could find teachers who were willing to suspend their own agenda and be objective enough to gather and present all the information in an evenhanded manner.

You have to pardon me when I appear dubious about the intent of this statement. A hybrid course on what?
Do you suggest that we hybridize a course by raising crap like "irreducible complexity" or "specified intelligence" or "Intelligent design" to alevel of scientific inquiry? Or are you suggesting that someone teach a survey course of how guys like HL Mencken and other American atheists were able to , even though unaided by more enlightened religious leaders, begin an inexhorably slow turn around in this country"s education system that led from a "science curriculum" that was BIBLE CENTERED until about the mid 1930's , and the ensuing court fights and local featherings of science teachers for trying to teach METHODOLOGICAL MATERIALIST SCIENCE, until today, like some cosmic game of Whacka mole, there still are a few appearances of the snake handlers and the Evangelical "Science teachers" who claim innerancy from a single sacred book, yet nothing that even closely approximates evidence.

If that's what you mean, I dont think itd do much good because if the course is only taught as some survey history course, most of the kids wont get it.

Like Spendis's overly frequent references to "Professor" Veblen, a course that you propose would perhaps be handy to represent one time, be applicable in one place, and probably be useful in only one school district.(An apology to the "Worldly Philosophers")

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Fine. Just don't call it a science class.

I didn't

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

"cultural/historical/scientifically significant data gathered", then spin it into "science biology."

I thought you were saying that what I was talking about was already covered in science classes, namely biology. That's why I offered to get you a course syllabus to show you what exactly is covered in some specific 'science' or biology courses that I'm aware of.

Obviously I misunderstood you. My humble apologies.

But I do think it'd be an interesting course. I never proposed to call it science or add it on to the science curriculum. One doesn't have to believe in Greek mythology to find it interesting to learn about. One doesn't have to believe in Marxist theory to find it interesting and useful to learn about.

I guess I just don't understand what all this fear and aversion to offering all points of view- or even the historical, cultural and/or political climate which the rise of these theories spring from.
These kids are living in very interesting times. I think it'd be good for them to be made aware of all the nuances of them- now- while it's happening as opposed to fifty years from now when it's a done deal.

1 Reply

You're in the trap Rebecca. They have got the debate switched to teaching religion in science classes, which nobody on here is proposing, rather than the topic of the thread which is the teaching of evolution which is being proposed. It's an old trick. The Roman rhetoricians had a technical name for it which I forget.

They are all trolls. They have come on a thread about teaching evolution which is a subject they are scared to death of and are disrupting that debate with another agenda probably associated, like all forms of gnosticism and heresy, with subjective justifications of various forms of immorality.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Don't forget---Becksie--ROYGBIV. (Roy's oscillating YO-YO gave Belinda incredible variations. Or vibrations if that's easier to remember.

We won- I do happen to know the colors of the rainbow- thanks for the hint although that wasn't one of the questions - I'll remember it if it ever comes up.

0 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know