61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 04:37 pm
@edgarblythe,
The Divine Marquis was opposed to capital punishment. There are a lot of stories made up about the man in order to discredit his political influence which was militant republicanism.

I'm not so sure myself. His stuff can be read as a sort of ironical Devil's advocate essentially defending the Catholic Church by exposing to view what he thought the alternative looked like given human nature. It is a constant feature of these threads that the issue of what atheism looks like in action is always ducked by anti-IDers. de Sade concentrates on those members of the elite who have the power of choice. How does Washington as a city of atheists strike you? And all your local elites. They don't have that good a reputation as things stand now. Try going all the way.

Try disputing his arguments from a scientific point of view.

He was an extremely humane man. He just showed what the human animal is like. If that's not your bag you're neither a proper atheist nor a proper scientist. Your idea of unfettered human nature is a delusion. A sort of tweeting. And the reason you hold that delusion in your Christian background.

How many people do you think are not frightened Ed? What do you think escapism is all about?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 05:11 pm
The fundamental flaw to your thinking is believeing atheists are different from other humans, when in fact we all derive from the same flawed genes. Nobody is exempt from the slings and arrows. Persons of faith have fucked up the world at least as much as anyone else - more, likely, since they usually hold the power.

0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 05:37 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Im dubious because of the intro you gave to the development of such a survey course. You made it sound as if all the "information" both pro and con a subject like evolution would be discussed. Is that what you really meant? If it is, we must recognize that whatever we present to kids in a survey course that serves as a "bad example of past thinking" can often be confused with something truly scientific.


Yeah - I covered that in my first post:

Quote:
2) Much of it is still theoretical premise and would have to be presented as such. And it gets a little confusing to kids when you try to mix too much of the theoretical with the factual and expect them to remember which is which.

So when ci suggested that I define science as a beginning point - although I specifically said three times this would be a separate learning opportunity apart and away from the required science curriculum - I immediately thought - 'No, the first thing you'd do is develop a working definition of 'theory'. So there'd be no confusion as to what is and isn't theory and what is and isn't established fact.

Quote:
Im concerned that students be given the full bag of tricks in their science curricula and not have it watered down with mere speculation that is posing as "Alternative theories" > ESpecially in a survey seminar(As I infer from you posts) where there are neither course prerequisites nor any attempts to keep the students fully informed on how the scientific thought processes develop.

Except that as I said at least three times now - this would not be a part of the required science curriculum. I would envision it as being :
(from my second post two pages back)
Quote:
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.

which also spoke to your next qualm about it:
Quote:
(A TEACHER WIELDS ONE HELL OF A WEAPON BY BEING ABLE TO SELECT AND COLOR THE INFORMATION THAT HE/SHE PRESENTS)


In terms of preparing anyone for a career in the sciences, I'd envision this course as being more geared toward critical thinking overall-gathering all the available information- established facts, as well as current trends in cultural, historical and political climates that maybe even influenced which theories are more likely to funded for further research and why, depending upon which socio/political and religious power base holds sway at any given time in a society.

It'd be extremely educational for these students in terms of the life they live as a citizen of their country, which is at least as important as job preparation (when you're seventeen) because most kids in highschool are working at Burger King or something - career paths start a little further down the road.

And yeah, there are libraries and college courses, etc., etc...but I thought this thread was about how to present this information in the public school system which to me meant highschool. I think this would be a good start.





aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 05:40 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Which side are you on Rebecca?

I'm on the side that understands that some highschoolers are very bright and capable of complex thought and interested in learning about more than just the facts. I'm on the side of presenting all the information objectively and letting them come to their own conclusions.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 05:46 pm
@aidan,
If you're after critical thinking, then philosophy fits that bill.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 05:49 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
The Divine Marquis was opposed to capital punishment. There are a lot of stories made up about the man in order to discredit his political influence which was militant republicanism.

I'm not so sure myself. His stuff can be read as a sort of ironical Devil's advocate essentially defending the Catholic Church by exposing to view what he thought the alternative looked like given human nature. It is a constant feature of these threads that the issue of what atheism looks like in action is always ducked by anti-IDers. de Sade concentrates on those members of the elite who have the power of choice. How does Washington as a city of atheists strike you? And all your local elites. They don't have that good a reputation as things stand now. Try going all the way.

Try disputing his arguments from a scientific point of view.

He was an extremely humane man. He just showed what the human animal is like. If that's not your bag you're neither a proper atheist nor a proper scientist. Your idea of unfettered human nature is a delusion. A sort of tweeting. And the reason you hold that delusion in your Christian background.

How many people do you think are not frightened Ed? What do you think escapism is all about?


This reminds me of a movie and book review I just read which really piqued my interest- 'The Road' by Cormac McCarthy. It's supposed to be a superbly evocative and very stark illustration of what exactly society will be like when all the veneer of civility is stripped away (due to natural disasters and not atheism) but still - apparently the message of the book is that there is only one common aspect of our humanity and when that is gone - all else goes with it. I won't tell you what it is - that would spoil it.

Anyway - the movie comes out in the UK on the 4th of January. I'm gonna try to read the book over my Christmas vacation (I've never read Cormac McCarthy) but apparently every sentence is so perfect it could be carved in stone (the book reviewer said).
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 05:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Okay - this is at least the FOURTH time I'm saying 'IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A REQUIRED OR EVEN ELECTIVE PART OF THE STANDARDIZED SCIENCE CURRICULUM!

And no I'm not yelling - I'm just enunciating very clearly, slowly and carefully.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:00 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
allowing the faithful to focus on reality for dealing with worldly issues and to focus on their faith for dealing with emotional and psychological issues.


Which is exactly what the modern religious person does. I wonder how it happened that ros hadn't noticed that glaringly obvious fact and thinks he has had some brilliant Eureka moment in his meditations.

Most religious Americans probably have electric pencil sharpeners like osso has.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:05 pm
@aidan,
Quote:
So there'd be no confusion as to what is and isn't theory and what is and isn't established fact.


But Rebecca dear, it is a theory what an established fact is.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:07 pm
@aidan,
Quote:
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.


I presume you are being cynically ironic Rebecca.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:08 pm
Evolution is not primarily a "theoretical premise" and the teaching of evolution is not about realizing a religious faith. Schools is not about realizing a religious faith. That is done at home and in the churches (well, and on TV, and in movies!). What I was taught in high school biology and in anthropology, biology, and other related sciences to evolution in university was all based on facts. Now there is even more of a preponderance of fact proving evolution, including the DNA evidence. You have to prove first that evolution science is not based on facts and tested discoveries before you have a case to offer an elective class for the so-called pros-and-cons. Then you'd have to have another elective class of the pros-and-cons of religions. Now, come on, talk about confusing a young mind. Get serious.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:08 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
But Rebecca dear, it is a theory what an established fact is.
oh well then scratch the whole thing.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:15 pm
@Lightwizard,
Did I use the term 'pros and cons'? I doubt it, although I'm not gonna go back and reread everything I wrote. But I don't think I did because guess what? This wouldn't be a contest of some sort in which anyone was trying to convince anyone of anything.

have you never been in a class when simple information was just presented? Without editorializing or opinion given?

Maybe not. Maybe that's why you cannot understand that I'm not talking about preaching or converting or even religion for Christ's sake. I'm talking about simply communicating information as in:

"This is what creationists believe and this is what evolutionists believe and this is what is and was happening in our country at the specific time that these separate beliefs rose to the forefront of the issue of what should be taught in a public school curriculum.'

I'm not talking about presenting theory as fact or allowing the teacher to insert his or her own pet theory as fact.

If we had a test for finding the main idea of my previous two pages of posts- I think you'd fail. Sorry - but you don't seem to be reading very carefully.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:19 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I presume you are being cynically ironic Rebecca.

No, I'm not. Are you?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:20 pm
@aidan,
Quote:
oh well then scratch the whole thing.


There's no need to get defeatist Rebecca. It is a fact that there is a theory about what the exact scientific nature of an established fact is. Linguistic theory for example. It is an established fact that there are professional linguistic practitioners who spend all their time trying to find out what the meaning of an established fact is. Wittgenstein was one. Gilbert Ryle. Benny Hill.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:25 pm
@spendius,
Well, I think we need a linguistic practioner on this thread to translate for me the FACT that PRESENTING a theory carries no implied ENDORSEMENT of that theory if you are also PRESENTING all of the other theories with equal objectivity.

I do think there are teachers who can do that. Apparently some people have never experienced that so they don't believe it is possible.

Maybe that's why they only want these kids to hear one side.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:26 pm
@aidan,
Quote:
If we had a test for finding the main idea of my previous two pages of posts- I think you'd fail. Sorry - but you don't seem to be reading very carefully.


These anti-IDers can't read at all Rebecca. You are wasting your time on here if you are expecting them to be able to read in the sense of going through some simple word formulations and comprehending what they mean. They are far too subjective for anything in that line.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:28 pm
@aidan,
You appear to want us to step back in time, before evolution was born out by every single fact pertaining to the subject. What is the point of using a school to mislead the student into thinking facts are not important?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:29 pm
@aidan,
Quote:
No, I'm not. Are you?


This just made me laugh--

Quote:
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.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:30 pm
@edgarblythe,
Theory in science is the study of how it happens, not questioning, does it happen?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 3.28 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 01:18:00