It wasn't too hot, it was too boring.
Since all major sciences support evolution (chemistry, physics, geology, genetics, biology, ect.) I suppose the creationist student could put any answer on an exam he wants as long as it is supported by Biblical mythology.
But what happens if a parent doesn't even want their kids to be *exposed* to a particular idea. But that idea (scientific knowledge) happens to be part of the public education system (in the US).
But that idea (scientific knowledge) happens to be part of the public education system (in the US).
Have you ever heard the expression "Might is right"?
What ethics have you to oppose that with.And altruism is no good on its own.Those who think might is right will come to power.
Altruism underpinned by an appeal to an imaginary other wordly authority is weak enough. Without that appeal what is it apart from easy going for the ruthless. Powerful,ambitious and ruthless people will laugh at altruism. And yoke its adherents.
Yes it is but the above applies to that as well.There would be no limits to what a ruthless leader would do with medical science. He would define good and evil if no groundswell of a religious authority existed.
Polygamy is the same as monogamy in this debate. The real alternative is promiscuity.
Yes, but only by those being exploited by business to protect themselves. Business itself finds ethics anathema.See Robert Maxwell,Enron and price gouging in New Orleans.(Chosen from long list.)
I'll accept that providing there's no clash in the social field and that when there is the science is curtailed and subservient to the ethics.
A chance at that curtailment.
You and I are British, Wolf. We don't have a written constitution.
ID is an American idea to try to get that curtailment's nose under the tent when the rigid constitution has kept it out. Some people don't like the direction society is moving in and see ID forms as a possibly check on it. They may well be too late.
I'm sure you'll find plenty of people here who have done altruistic things not because they fear the punishment of some God but because they think it is right.
And I can argue that promiscuity is bad from a medical science perspective, because promiscuity increases the chances of spreading STDs, which is detrimental to the health of the population and of the gene pool.
Yes, but if we teach students to be ethical and reinforce the positives, when they get into the positions of being CEOs, they will act more ethically.
. Animals for animal testing are treated as ethically and humane as possible.
Yeah, I always found that strange. How is a non-written constitution better than a written one?
It doesn't even reinforce God's status, because there is no evidence to support ID.
A good Christian should always assume that God made our world, which makes the ID perspective redundant.
It is certainly better in the sense that it represents a civilised debating style which is often absent on this thread.
The point about "might is right",a stumbling block for all philosophy,is that it is always there in the background and will spring out if the circumstances permit quite naturally.The law,religion,ethics,tradition and conditioned popular sentiment hold it in check and the discrediting of these,which is what happens when they are seen to be in disarray,weakens the checking force.
I'm sure you are right there but the cynic would say that the altuistic things are done for a selfish purpose such as to build up a store of goodwill or to be perceived as a "good" person.Which,of course,doesn't alter the value of them socially.
The "God" problem,it seems to me,resolves itself into the simple choice of whether a society can function successfully with no God idea.
A view has to be taken on it but once taken I suppose anything is justifiable to support it. Even lies. The success of one's society is more important than telling a few porkies I tend to think.
I guess you are thinking of promiscuity in our world which is not quite the same as promiscuity itself. Then you are probably right. But it is much too sensitive a subject to open up on.
That's a bit idealistic. Not many students will become CEOs and acting ethically can be detrimental to an ambition to become one.Not always of course.
The position VIZ takes regarding Mr Branson is more cynical than you allow.
It doesn't even reinforce God's status, because there is no evidence to support ID.
I agree.
There are certain new ways of thinking which need The Bible to be discredited and removed.
You have raised the tone Wolf for which many thanks.
Arkansas Science Teachers Association members hold various personal views concerning the origin of the universe and of life. As a professional organization, ASTA is opposed to any religious view, such, as creationism or intelligent design, being taught in the public schools as science.
ASTA finds science and religion to be complementary rather than contradictory. Science strives to explain the nature of the cosmos while religion seeks to give the cosmos and the life within it a purpose. Human existence is enriched by a knowledge and understanding of both science and religion.
Religious explanations of the origin of the universe and of life are based on faith. Because these explanations vary among different religions, the views are best taught in the home or within the context of religious institutions.
Scientific explanations regarding the origin of the universe and of life are based on experimentation and may change, as new evidence is uncovered. The goal of science is to discover and investigate universally accepted natural explanations. This process of discovery and description of natural phenomena should be taught in public schools. Therefore, both curriculum and selection of instructional materials for public schools must reflect established scientific evidence.
Civilised debating styles tend to go out of the window when one side gets exasperated with the other.
My tone changes based on how exasperated I am at the time of writing something.
Quote:
The point about "might is right",a stumbling block for all philosophy,is that it is always there in the background and will spring out if the circumstances permit quite naturally.The law,religion,ethics,tradition and conditioned popular sentiment hold it in check and the discrediting of these,which is what happens when they are seen to be in disarray,weakens the checking force.
And Evolution is not powerful enough to discredit one of these, let alone all of them.
Quote:
The "God" problem,it seems to me,resolves itself into the simple choice of whether a society can function successfully with no God idea.
You mean, like a Buddhist society?
Of course I'm talking about promiscuity in our world. What other type of promiscuity is there? A theoretical one in a world without STDs? What use is that?
Science classes is about teaching students about how the real world works,
Exactly. Not many students will become dictators with a "might-is-right" mentality after being taught Evolution.
Quote:
It doesn't even reinforce God's status, because there is no evidence to support ID.
Irreducible complexity, however, states that evolution is too complex for it to happen without a God; it is far too presumptious.
Irreducible complexity doesn't concern the natural laws. It states that somethings are so complex, evolution alone couldn't possibly have been its cause, so God must have done it.
So why is it that you insist on defending ID and attacking the teaching of Evolution?
Quote:Quote:
The "God" problem,it seems to me,resolves itself into the simple choice of whether a society can function successfully with no God idea.
You mean, like a Buddhist society?
I wouldn't know.I don't know anything significant about Buddhist scocieties.
There's natural promiscuity.The promiscuity in our world is not natural.But I take your point that discussing that isn't much use except for a scientific debate on the subject which,of necessity,transcends our world.I doubt that natural promiscuity causes STDs.
Quote:Science classes is about teaching students about how the real world works,
Up to a point yes.ID is a real fact in a real world.
Dictators are a very rare breed.After being taught evolution I don't see how any other position than "might is right" can be held. It is the doctrine of the survival of the fittest.
Quote:Quote:
It doesn't even reinforce God's status, because there is no evidence to support ID.
Surely I didn't say that. I think I know how it happened but I feel a need to clarify it.
Quote:Irreducible complexity, however, states that evolution is too complex for it to happen without a God; it is far too presumptious.
Maybe,but I can see reasons why some people accept it.It opens the door to wonder for one.Everything can seem mundane without it.A society with no wonder left in it could become subject to mass ennui.
Quote:So why is it that you insist on defending ID and attacking the teaching of Evolution?
I'm doing neither.I'm questioning evolution as a principle to organise society around.
My beef is on the social function side of things.On that evolution does contradict Christian values.And Darwin was well aware of it.His wife was a Christian.
From your final remarks I presume you are a liberal on the well known contentious issues.
Well, there you go. Buddhism is a bit like Evolution in that it does not deny nor affirm the existence of any God, and does not have a creator God. Yet it functions with people doing things that seem exactly the same as what Jesus preached.
ID is not a real fact.
If this might is right thing is being accepted because of the teaching of Evolution, do you really honestly think that so many people would be protesting against the Iraq War and against Guantanamo?
Do you really think they'd say things like "Free Tibet"? Because clearly, these people who are being oppressed are the weak. Yet these people who've been taught evolution want equal rights, they want the NHS to be able to help those that need it.
Wolf wrote-
Quote:Well, there you go. Buddhism is a bit like Evolution in that it does not deny nor affirm the existence of any God, and does not have a creator God. Yet it functions with people doing things that seem exactly the same as what Jesus preached.
It was taken over after 2000 odd years by a few sailors armed with glass beads and firesticks.That is hardly evolutionary functioning.It's societies are now totally dependent on Faustian science and technology.It's a tourist attraction and sometimes a fashion statement by people who want to be different and exhibit that difference.To all intents and purposes it has been selected out and is extinct.
The rest is not my place to argue anymore. This topic stopped being about the science a long time ago. I will now leave this thread to die. Frankly, I don't want you having the last say or coming off thinking you've won, but I've grown tired arguing against something nonsensical with no proof.
Testing Darwin's Teachers
(By Stephanie Simon, Los Angeles Times, March 31, 2006)
LIBERTY, Mo. ?- Monday morning, Room 207: First day of a unit on the origins of life. Veteran biology teacher Al Frisby switches on the overhead projector and braces himself.
As his students rummage for their notebooks, Frisby introduces his central theme: Every creature on Earth has been shaped by random mutation and natural selection ?- in a word, by evolution.
The challenges begin at once.
"Isn't it true that mutations only make an animal weaker?" sophomore Chris Willett demands. " 'Cause I was watching one time on CNN and they mutated monkeys to see if they could get one to become human and they couldn't."
Frisby tries to explain that evolution takes millions of years, but Willett isn't listening. "I feel a tail growing!" he calls to his friends, drawing laughter.
Unruffled, Frisby puts up a transparency tracing the evolution of the whale, from its ancient origins as a hoofed land animal through two lumbering transitional species and finally into the sea. He's about to start on the fossil evidence when sophomore Jeff Paul interrupts: "How are you 100% sure that those bones belong to those animals? It could just be some deformed raccoon."
From the back of the room, sophomore Melissa Brooks chimes in: "Those are real bones that someone actually found? You're not just making this up?"
"No, I am not just making it up," Frisby says.
At least half the students in this class of 14 don't believe him, though, and they're not about to let him off easy.
Two decades of political and legal maneuvering on evolution has spilled over into public schools, and biology teachers are struggling to respond. Loyal to the accounts they've learned in church, students are taking it upon themselves to wedge creationism into the classroom, sometimes with snide comments but also with sophisticated questions ?- and a fervent faith.
As sophomore Daniel Read put it: "I'm going to say as much about God as I can in school, even if the teachers can't."
Such challenges have become so disruptive that some teachers dread the annual unit on evolution ?- or skip it altogether.
In response, the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science is distributing a 24-page guide to teaching the scientific principles behind evolution, starting in kindergarten. The group also has issued talking points for teachers flustered by demands to present "both sides."
The annual science teachers convention next week in Anaheim will cover similar ground, with workshops such as "Teaching Evolution in a Climate of Controversy."
"We're not going to roll over and take this," said Alan I. Leshner, the executive publisher of the journal Science. "These teachers are facing phenomenal pressure. They need help."
About half of all Americans dismiss as preposterous the scientific consensus that life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Some hold to a literal reading of Genesis: God created the universe about 6,000 years ago. Others accept an ancient cosmos but take the variety, complexity and beauty of Earth's creatures as proof that life was crafted by an intelligent designer.
Religious accounts of life's origins have generally been kept out of the science classroom, sometimes by court order. But polls show a majority of Americans are unhappy with the evolution-only approach.
Daniel Read, for instance, considers it his Christian duty to expose his classmates to the truths he finds in the Bible, starting with the six days of creation. It's his way, he said, of counterbalancing the textbook, which devotes three chapters to evolution but just one paragraph to creationism. A soft-spoken teen with shaggy hair and baggy pants, Daniel prepares carefully for his mission in this well-educated, affluent and conservative suburb of 28,000, just outside Kansas City, Mo. He studies DVDs distributed by Answers in Genesis, a "creation evangelism" ministry devoted to training children to question evolution.
Other students gather ammunition from sermons at church, or from the dozens of websites that criticize evolution as a God-denying sham. They interrupt lectures to expound on the inaccuracies of carbon dating; to disparage transitional fossils as frauds; to show photos of ancient footprints that they think prove humans and dinosaurs walked side by side.
Most will learn what they need to pass the test, but some make their skepticism clear by putting their heads down on their desks or even stalking out of class.
Liberty High School senior Sarah Hopkins was proud of her response when a botany teacher brought up evolution last year: "I asked, 'Have you ever read the Bible? Have you ever gone to church?' "
Such personal questions can make teachers uncomfortable, but they're fairly easy to deflect. Far tougher are the science-based queries that force teachers to defend a theory they may not ever have studied in depth.
"If a teacher is making a claim that land animals evolved into whales, students should ask: 'What precisely is involved? How does the fur turn into blubber, how do the nostrils move, how does the tiny tail turn into a great big fluke?' " said John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research near San Diego. "Evolution is so unsupportable, if you insist on more information, the teacher will quickly run out of credibility," he said.
Anxious to forestall such challenges, nearly one in five teachers makes a point of avoiding the word "evolution" in class ?- even when they're presenting the topic, according to a survey by the National Science Teachers Assn.
"They're saying they don't know how to respondÂ…. They haven't done the research the kids have done on this," said Linda Froschauer, the group's president-elect.
In a classroom cluttered with paper models of DNA, newspaper clippings about global warming and oddities such as a four-eared pig in formaldehyde, Frisby parries his students' questions patiently but with a bit of disappointment.
For the first 27 years of his career, he taught life's origins without controversy. Then in 1999, the Kansas Board of Education deleted evolution from the mandatory science curriculum.
Frisby was teaching biology at the time in Shawnee Mission, Kan., and he was determined not to alter his curriculum. His students, however, seemed emboldened by the board's action.
The daughter of a local minister took to bringing in creationist research that she thought proved Charles Darwin wrong. That year, more than a third of the students wrote in their class evaluations that they did not accept their teacher's account of how life emerged.
Kansas restored evolution to the science curriculum in 2001 after conservatives lost their majority on the board. A subsequent election again shifted the balance, and last year the board issued a mandate that still stands: Students must be taught that the theory of evolution is a "historical narrative" based on circumstantial evidence. They must also learn specific criticisms of evolution.
Though he retired from his Kansas teaching job in 2002 for personal reasons, Frisby remains active in efforts there to elect a more liberal state school board. His job across the state line in Missouri is less political; Missouri does not require teachers to introduce criticisms of evolution or alternative accounts of life's origins. Nonetheless, those views come up in Room 207 every year.
Toward the end of his second class one recent morning, Frisby held up an old issue of National Geographic. The cover asked in bold type: "Was Darwin Wrong?"
"Yes!" one student called.
Another backed him up: "Yes!"
Six or eight other voices joined in. Frisby quieted them and opened to the article inside, which began with the one-word answer: "No."
"It's my job to show you the overwhelming evidence for evolution," he said.
"What about the other side?" Jeff Paul called. An approving murmur swept the room.
Frisby, 59, rarely gets angry at such interruptions; even his most skeptical students praise his willingness to listen. He has attended two creationist conferences to hear their evidence firsthand; he digs out articles that respond to their doubts; he'll even sit down with a student to talk about God ?- though only after class.
Growing up in nearby Independence, Mo., Frisby learned the biblical creation account from his mother, a Sunday school teacher. "I believed it without question," he said. "It was literal to me."
He doesn't remember hearing about evolution in high school, but then he didn't pay much attention to academics. It wasn't until college that he discovered a passion for biology.
One evening in 1968, Frisby was dissecting a shark's heart for a night course. As he spread the organ out in front of him, studying the looping valves and arteries, he had what he can only describe, with wonder, as a religious experience. "All those beautiful arches coming off the heart ?- it was just too perfect," he said. "I thought to myself, 'God could have created this animal just this way.' "
That satisfied his religious nature. But the scientist within him wouldn't let the matter rest. Dissecting more animal hearts, Frisby found the same awe-inspiring beauty. He also came to understand how an organ as complex as the heart could evolve; he could see the progression there on his lab table, from one chamber to two to four.
Frisby still believed that God created the universe, but his faith couldn't tell him what happened next; to answer that question, he concluded, he would need science.
At 22, he decided the best way to honor his faith was to hold it sacred in his heart ?- and to keep it out of his lab.
I will now leave this thread to die.
