modest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 It is de rigueur here to link to a source supporting your position; it's what we do here. :rolleyes:Really. I don't see so much of that. This is the thread re: evolution MUST be taught in schools, and I am replying to that. See drdino... This is a science site. The forum rules are not open to debate and we know well a troll when we see one. As a rule, do not post links to religious sites outside the theology forum. Your "drdino" is Kent Hovind, creator of the website "Creation Science Evangelism". He is an anti-semitic, anti-government, conspiracy theorist nutcase who is currently spending 10 years in federal prison for among other things:falsely declaring bankruptcy, making threats against federal officials, filing false complaints, failing to get necessary building permits... and various tax-related charges. No more of that [stern look] ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 You are listed as a "moderator". Correct. Though not, I gather, an unbiased one. Correct. Who gets to decide which scientists are "legitimate". Science gets to decide. Scientists are merely robots. The results exceed the virtues of the performers. And do you accept the previous statement that there are no problems whatsoever with the theory of evolution. Absolutely not! If you have evidence that contradicts the theory, please present it, otherwise, you have no basis for argument. THAT is my point in this thread...if you want to teach it to the students, should we not be sure what we are teaching is supportable and correct? And is there no room for dispute of the supposed facts? Science is not close-minded. The biggest problem with science is the lack of education. Science requires that you have specific knowledge before understanding specific problems. In other words, if you are content with the relationship between a light bulb turning on and the flick of a light switch, it's unlikely that you will ever fully appreciate Evolutionary Theory, not to mention most other scientific theories. Science demands curiosity and exploration. One who decides on a whim that Evolutionary Theory is incomplete has not explored the immense knowledge base showing the opposite findings, nor have they actively researched the subject. I would hope, Mr. Kite, that you would seek to understand your target more. Every successful advertising scheme is based upon this. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemit Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 This kind of takes us away from the tenor of this thread, but it's something I need to say just for me: I don't know how many of the rest of you are of a certain age and grew up in the Bible Belt. I am, and I did. Those of you who are like me should not have trouble with the idea that this is a Christian nation. We can quote scripture freely. The names of the Gospels trip off our tongues. Even if we are no longer practicing Christians, we feel something undefineable but deeply important on Christmas Eve and Easter morning. I'm sure those from other traditions have those feelings at other times for other reasons. The Bible Belt of the 1950's is most likely similar to the world the Founding Fathers lived in. It is the world today's political leaders must live in, my local member of Congress has whispered in my ear, so it is probably the world the Founding Fathers needed to publicly live in. That's fine with me. It's fine with me because it should include the Christian qualities of understanding and forgiveness. It should include all those elements that make up our moral compass. Most of all, it should include the Christian quality of charity. We should express that quality of charity by accepting in our midst those of other beliefs. We should express the quality of charity by being willing to learn from others. We should express the quality of charity by being inquisitive about the world occupied by us and by others. We should love our neighbors as ourselves, regardless of their their races, genders, religions, or understandings of the natural world. Does that make sense? If not, then you can stop reading this. If it does, how do we achieve love of those who understand the natural world in a way we don't? We establish a base of knowledge from which all of us can deviate. But that base will still be there, like the base of Bible Belt Christianity will always be inside me. The base for understanding the natural world is the scientific method and where it has led us the last few centuries. If we lose that base, we lose our intellectual compass. We are no better off without an intellectual compass than without a moral compass. --lemit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 This kind of takes us away from the tenor of this thread, but it's something I need to say just for myself: I don't know how many of the rest of you are of a certain age and grew up in the Bible Belt. I am, and I did. Those of you who are like me should not have trouble with the idea that this is a Christian nation. We can quote scripture freely. The names of the Gospels trip off our tongues. Even if we are no longer practicing Christians, we feel something undefineable but deeply important on Christmas Eve and Easter morning. I'm sure those from other traditions have those feelings at other times for other reasons. The Bible Belt of the 1950's is most likely similar to the world the Founding Fathers lived in. It is the world today's political leaders must live in, my local member of Congress has whispered in my ear, so it is probably the world the Founding Fathers needed to publicly live in. That's fine with me. It's fine with me because it should include the Christian qualities of understanding and forgiveness. It should include all those elements that make up our moral compass. Most of all, it should include the Christian quality of charity. We should express that quality of charity by accepting in our midst those of other beliefs. We should express the quality of charity by being willing to learn from others. We should express the quality of charity by being inquisitive about the world occupied by us and by others. We should love our neighbors as ourselves, regardless of their their races, genders, religions, or understandings of the natural world. Does that make sense? If not, then you can stop reading this. If it does, how do we achieve love of those who understand the natural world in a way we don't? We establish a base of knowledge from which all of us can deviate. But that base will still be there, like the base of Bible Belt Christianity will always be inside me. The base for understanding the natural world is the scientific method and where it has led us the last few centuries. If we lose that base, we lose our intellectual compass. We are no better off without an intellectual compass than without a moral compass. --lemit I'm willing to give you the benefit of doubt. How does this relate to the thread subject? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemit Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 It is just my feeble way of suggesting to Mr. Kite that we should allow science to go where it will go instead of forcing something possibly of great value in other areas of our life to impose itself upon the teaching of science. Sorry to interrupt. --lemit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawcat Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 There is absolutely no need to teach evolution in public schools. Teaching of genetics, cells, and natural selection in beans does the trick sufficiently. There is no need to go further and shove the theory of evolution down people's throat. It's completely unnecessary for proper primary and secondary education in public schools. You can teach young students scientific facts without shoving conclusions down their throats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 It is just my feeble way of suggesting to Mr. Kite that we should allow science to go where it will go instead of forcing something possibly of great value in other areas of our life to impose itself upon the teaching of science. Sorry to interrupt. I don't see it as an interruption at all. :rolleyes: Thanks for your input! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 There is absolutely no need to teach evolution in public schools. Ok...why?Why is it not important to understand that all life changes? Why is this to be omitted? Teaching of genetics, cells, and natural selection in beans does the trick sufficiently. Apparently, the trick has not been done. You do realize that the scientific study of evolution posits natural selection as its major tenet, right? There is no need to go further and shove the theory of evolution down people's throat. It's completely unnecessary for proper primary and secondary education in public schools. You can teach young students scientific facts without shoving conclusions down their throats. I agree! Shoving fossils and massive amounts of data down a child's throat is likely to result in an ignorance-based suffocation. If, on the other hand, we wish to actually educate the child, it is imperative that we present the truth as established through science. Evolutionary theory is so robust, that your petty remarks have absolutely no effect. Provide substance, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawcat Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Evolution is a likelihood theory. It is like Big Bang. You do not tell people that big bang occured. That is idiotic and a lie, because you are not 100% sure. We are dealing with likelihoods, and likelihoods are to be determined by each an every one of us. They are not to be shoved down people's throats as truths by arrogant and ignorant scientists and peddlers of truths. Give me the facts, the 100% truths, and teach me how to reason, and I will deduce for myself how it is. Other than that, Mr. scientist can go screw itself. GAHD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Evolution is a likelihood theory. It is like Big Bang. You do not tell people that big bang occured. That is idiotic and a lie, because you are not 100% sure. We are dealing with likelihoods, and likelihoods are to be determined by each an every one of us. They are not to be shoved down people's throats as truths by arrogant and ignorant scientists and peddlers of truths. Give me the facts, the 100% truths, and teach me how to reason, and I will deduce for myself how it is. Other than that, Mr. scientist can go screw itself. Good luck! Nothing is 100% certain. Science has the unique advantage of being able to separate the wheat from the chaff. It's over 90% certain that current evolutionary theory is correct (notice that I reported an illegal figure, but still maintain sanity). Again, if you care to argue this, present your argument! Otherwise, it's sufficient to ask that you perform your own experiments and report the data. It is science afterall... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawcat Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Shoving fossils and massive amounts of data down a child's throat is likely to result in an ignorance-based suffocation. Well, that is one of the problems with current teaching. We suffocate students with facts, and derivations, without first teaching them how to reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 What a strange conclusion. Evolution is the spine on which all of the limbs of biology are hung. Having a grasp of evolution is the single best way to understand how biological systems work and how they change over time, how life shifts, and it also allows one to better predict how life will shift in the future. Teaching mere facts puts the child at a significant disadvantage, and has the added cost of causing the childs mind to numb over and care less about how their world actually works. Your argument is akin to saying we should not teach kids about gravity in their physics classes because some people will feel like something is being "shoved down their throat." Further, you seem to suggest that having a child memorize a dictionary is better than teaching them the mechanics of communication and vocabulary. I can't understand how this seems reasonable to any non-indoctrinated mind. On top of that, evolution is BOTH fact and theory, so there's another flaw in your approach here on this topic (thanks to Galapagos for the link): Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galapagos Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 There is absolutely no need to teach evolution in public schools. Teaching of genetics, cells, and natural selection in beans does the trick sufficiently. There is no need to go further and shove the theory of evolution down people's throat. It's completely unnecessary for proper primary and secondary education in public schools. You can teach young students scientific facts without shoving conclusions down their throats. I completely disagree. In fact, beyond the science, I believe understanding who we are, where we came from, and how our minds were constructed is knowledge that can profoundly and positively change ones political and philosophical views. The fact that our minds were evolved in an environment different from the one we find ourselves in now, for purposes different than the ones that distract us in our day-to-day lives is an important one that can inform ones views on topics such as race, gender, intelligence, responsibility, disease, and yes, even religion. Secondly, as Inow has noted, and I have in this post, evolution is both fact and theory. Biologists of different stripes observe the evidence, and evolution is and has just been happening; there is so much evidence it is undeniable. Unless you would like to directly and scientifically engage all of the evidence presented thus far in this thread, you won't be convincing anyone of anything. Evolution is a likelihood theory. It is like Big Bang. You do not tell people that big bang occured. That is idiotic and a lie, because you are not 100% sure. We are dealing with likelihoods, and likelihoods are to be determined by each an every one of us. They are not to be shoved down people's throats as truths by arrogant and ignorant scientists and peddlers of truths. Give me the facts, the 100% truths, and teach me how to reason, and I will deduce for myself how it is. Other than that, Mr. scientist can go screw itself.No. That evolution happened is not a lie, it is a historical and science fact, the kind the science community is obligated to communicate to the public. All organisms have descended from common ancestry. Molecular data spanning all domains of life has confirmed this again and again, and it didn't have to. An inconsistency could have been observed, but none have been. IF evolution didn't happen, then we live in a universe in which it looks EXACTLY like evolution happened. REASON 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawcat Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 All organisms have descended from common ancestry. Molecular data spanning all domains of life has confirmed this again and again, and it didn't have to. An inconsistency could have been observed, but none have been. IF evolution didn't happen, then we live in a universe in which it looks EXACTLY like evolution happened. bwahahahaha. First, there were simple cells, then there was living mud. Then there were dinosaurs , and then most of life was extinguished. It's all a theory that requires one likelihood after another. It's truth in your head, but do not sell it as a fact to children. It's a likelihood. Luckily scientists do not set policies, and that's how we want to keep it. Scientists should be locked up in labs and universities, but not in policymaking chambers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 bwahahahaha. First, there were simple cells, then there was living mud. Then there were dinosaurs , and then most of life was extinguished. It's all a theory that requires one likelihood after another. It's truth in your head, but do not sell it as a fact to children. It's a likelihood. Let's just go ahead and get this out in the open...Do you see another likelihood with the same or better certainty? I ask this because your argument is a very popular one with believers of Intelligent Design.If this is the case, then it's best to come out with it so we can expedite the education. If this is not the case, then are you just being trollish with intention? If neither of these scenarios fit you, then I suggest that you take a step back and try to figure out why I (and most likely everyone else reading this thread) have interpreted it as such. Luckily scientists do not set policies, and that's how we want to keep it. Scientists should be locked up in labs and universities, but not in policymaking chambers. I agree that practicing scientists should not make policy decisions. They should inform policy decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REASON Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 bwahahahaha. First, there were simple cells, then there was living mud. Then there were dinosaurs , and then most of life was extinguished. It's all a theory that requires one likelihood after another. It's truth in your head, but do not sell it as a fact to children. It's a likelihood. Luckily scientists do not set policies, and that's how we want to keep it. Scientists should be locked up in labs and universities, but not in policymaking chambers. Obnoxious response. Apparently you are unaware of the level of ignorance that is revealed in your posts. Cocky snarkiness doesn't make you seem more knowledgeable. It's clear you lack a basic understanding of evolutionary theory so let's take a look at your approach to policy making since that's what seems to be your focus. What should be the qualifications for becoming a politician, and what should be the foundation for policy decisions when it comes to public education, and in particular, science education? Galapagos and Turtle 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 There is absolutely no need to teach evolution in public schools. Teaching of genetics, cells, and natural selection in beans does the trick sufficiently. :cup: How on earth could natural selection be taught without teaching evolution? I wonder if Lawcat knows what evolution is...? ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.