9
   

"The Plot to Kill Evolution" (Wired Magazine)

 
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 08:50 pm
"eppur Si muove"
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 12:30 am
You're very welcome.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 09:10 pm
Timber said:
"Makes about as much sense to teach creationism theory alongside evolution theory as to teach voodoo alongside electromagnetism." Colorful but true. I have no objection to the teaching of creationism or any other origin myth, but not in a natural science class--unless you count anthropology as a science.
I would, along this vein, also be pleased to see the posting of moral codes and sutras from many religions in those government buildings where fundamentalists want to post the Judeo-Christian Decalog. Instead of opposing the ten-commandments, we might place them in perspective and post them along side the commandments of all (major) religions.
That would probably really piss off the Jerry Falwells of America.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2004 11:15 pm
Yeah, ol' Jerry might be a tad ticked, but Zarathustra would prolly get a real kick out of such a development.
0 Replies
 
bgillette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 05:47 pm
No, creationism shouldn't be taught in high schools...and neither should the unproven THEORY called evolution!
When science can prove evolution and it becomes fact instead of a theory , then it should be taught.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 06:04 pm
@bgillette,
bgillette wrote:

No, creationism shouldn't be taught in high schools...and neither should the unproven THEORY called evolution!
When science can prove evolution and it becomes fact instead of a theory , then it should be taught.


You need to study up and learn what a theory in science means.
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 09:03 pm
A problem for those on the ID side is that evolution does not describe creation. Evolution describes evolution. It neither suggests nor refutes creation. So where is the conflict then?

The problem isn't that evolution conflicts with ID, it is that it conflicts with a lot of peoples theories of creation. The term "creationism" is used here as a red herring. Most of the people arguing for it being taught in schools don't give a care about my idea of creation - or anyone else's that they don't agree with.

These people are only trying to preserve their own religion. But they can't very well suggest that their particular faith be taught, so they say "creationism" in order to gain more collective support.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 09:29 pm
@USAFHokie80,
Quote:
So I was just wondering what other people though about the fight to teach "Intelligent Design" (aka Creationism) alongside Biology in high schools around the US.


The way the question is usually phrased is this:

Quote:
Should religion be taught on an equal basis with evolution in public schools?


The real answer is this: Only if the religion you choose is the RIGHT one.

In other words, in order to have an apples to apples comparision, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution; the only two plausible candidates would be Voodoo and Rastafari.

In fact, Rastafari would lend itself rather admirably to certain kinds of team-teaching situations. A biology teacher looking for a way to put 30 teenagers into the proper frame of mind to be indoctrinated into something as brain-dead as evolution, could simply walk across the hall to the Rasta class for a box of spliffs.

0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 09:48 pm
@edgarblythe,
Way to go, Edgar. It is not just a theory (hypothesis) of evolution; it is evolutionary theory, a body of integrated and well-established empirical generalizations from the entire range of disciplines, including biology, physiology, genetics, and the physical sciences, e.g., geology. We might consult Farmerman on this.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 04:31 am
@JLNobody,
I don't know how that word became so confused in the public mind. When I was very young, I kept asking myself why it was called a theory, when the evidence very clearly showed that evolution is for real. Then I stumbled across the explanation of hypothesis/theory and was confused no more. I think the definitions of these two words ought to precede any scientific lessons.
Sentience
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 10:46 am
I don't mind creationism being taught in school (but I would prefer it wasn't).
However it has no place in science class.

By the way, I hope ya'll creationists realize that being formally called a 'theory' is one of the highest achievements in the scientific community.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 11:04 am
@Sentience,
Edgar and Sentience: Good points.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2010 12:08 pm
I am guessing bgillette has no real ideas to present here. Possibly another one post wonder.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2010 12:28 pm
I am thinking that perhaps teaching some form of "creationism" alongside evolution in schools could be very beneficial.

If we can't agree on one, the sensible thing is to teach our children all. Tell them that all are true, but each in their own way. That would create an excellent mental learning environment for a young mind, by never implanting the notion of "absolute truth" in the first place.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2010 12:29 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

I am thinking that perhaps teaching some form of "creationism" alongside evolution in schools could be very beneficial.

If we can't agree on one, the sensible thing is to teach our children all. Tell them that all are true, but each in their own way. That would create an excellent mental learning environment for a young mind, by never implanting the notion of "absolute truth" in the first place.

We will have to agree to disagree on that point. Creationism has nothing to offer a science class.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2010 12:33 pm
I think it's hilarious that he wants to teach "all" of the cosmogonies. That's about what, several thousands? Would they have any time left over for science at all?

If people want their kids to learn this horseshit, they can enroll them in comparative religion course. Creation myths have no place in science courses.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2010 12:36 pm
@bgillette,
Somebody should sell that boy a bridge.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2010 01:56 pm
@Cyracuz,
I can't go that far with you Cyracuz, but I DO agree enthusiastically that all attempts to liberate young (and old) minds from all forms of absolutism are worthwhile.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2010 01:56 pm
@Cyracuz,
I can't go that far with you Cyracuz, but I DO agree enthusiastically that all attempts to liberate young (and old) minds from all forms of absolutism are worthwhile.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2010 02:03 pm
@edgarblythe,
I agree that creationism has nothing to offer a science class.

But science has little to offer in the way of "truth", and that is what it is generally taught as, if only because children don't automatically understand the difference between fact and truth. Grown people often don't understand it.

So we need something, some contrast. Or would you deprive your children of the wonderful paradoxes and contradictions that you have sharpened your intellect and understanding on? If you want to teach someone, don't offer solutions, offer problems. Otherwise you are just indoctrinating them.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/17/2022 at 03:38:19