Planetarion Forums

Muslim · 27 Mar 2003, 18:42

I was wondering about the fact that they removed the evolution theory off the teaching plan in some schools in the USA and the fact that it is meant to "show respect to other people´s beliefs".
Well, what if there is a religion wich its major premise where "2+2=5" then should we take addition out of elementary school?

i know its a lame theory, but its essentially true.
This arose in the middle of a discussion about the iraqi regime. Some dude said " democracy would be tough in a religion-ruled state" to wich I replied "well, this sadam dude is a sunite, so religion does not matter a lot to him. It matters just a little bit more then it does in the US, where they imply that creacionism may be right, and all the innaugaration speechs end with so help me god"

any thoughts?

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Mar 2003, 18:47

See: Kansas education authority.

Muslim · 27 Mar 2003, 18:49

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
See: Kansas education authority.

see: Supreme Court

Nodrog · 27 Mar 2003, 18:52

Which schools have refused to teach evolution?

Marilyn Manson · 27 Mar 2003, 18:54

I'm not sure about an outright rejection, but I know there are places where Evolution and Creationism have to be taught on an equal footing.

Muslim · 27 Mar 2003, 18:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Which schools have refused to teach evolution?

kansas and texas, thou im not sure about the texas one
prolly not

Muslim · 27 Mar 2003, 18:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I'm not sure about an outright rejection, but I know there are places where Evolution and Creationism have to be taught on an equal footing.

do you consider this reasonable??

Dante Hicks · 27 Mar 2003, 19:01

A better history of this sort of thing can be found in one Stephen Jay Gould's books, but I'll be buggered if I can remember which one.

Either way, the "real danger" isn't banning evolution (which isn't the case).

It's (a) various idiots thinking their ideas are even vaguely vald and (b) an effect on the text-book market. If, eventually, a couple of states did ban evolution (not the case, as I say) then you might find it'd be economic to either miss out to downgrade the evolution material.

Still, if people wish for their children to learn nonsense I don't see why it's our business to intervene (within reason). Conversely, children shouldn't be forced to learn about religion if they (or their parents) choose not to.

Then again I had to say the Lord's prayer every day and it didn't do me no harm. Apart from a fanatical hatred of all religion, and possibly lasting psychological problems.

Nodrog · 27 Mar 2003, 19:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Muslim
kansas and texas, thou im not sure about the texas one
prolly not

links?

Nodrog · 27 Mar 2003, 19:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Muslim
do you consider this reasonable??

Define 'equal footing', and I'll answer.

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Mar 2003, 19:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Define 'equal footing', and I'll answer.

'Taught as science' if memory serves.

queball · 27 Mar 2003, 19:11

Intelligent design is not quite as bad as 2+2=5.

Dante Hicks · 27 Mar 2003, 19:11

I think also there might have been some precondition that where evolution is taught the teacher has to say "it's a theory". And that creation is also a valid theory that some people believe explains it all.

Could have been something else though.

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Mar 2003, 19:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I think also there might have been some precondition that where evolution is taught the teacher has to say "it's a theory". And that creation is also a valid theory that some people believe explains it all.

That's what I heard.

It's idiocy of the highest order, especially because the process of evolution is undeniable fact.

Nodrog · 27 Mar 2003, 19:13

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
'Taught as science' if memory serves.

Again, it completely depends upon how its being presented.

Nodrog · 27 Mar 2003, 19:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I think also there might have been some precondition that where evolution is taught the teacher has to say "it's a theory". And that creation is also a valid theory that some people believe explains it all.

Could have been something else though.

This has more to do with the complete failure of schoolls to teach scientific philosophy or the scientific method than it does with anything else. Telling children that "creationism is true because its in the Bible" is no worse than telling them that "evolution is true because science said so". It's worthless indoctrination either way, and completely fails to encourage critical/independant thinking.

Judge · 27 Mar 2003, 19:15

Creationism is a belief based on the Bible.

Evolution is a theory based on the "best guess we have at the moment"

It does not fit every circumstance, but then not many theories I can think of do, they tend to be work in progress.

To teach both on a equal basis would cause confusion in most children.

Aryn · 27 Mar 2003, 19:16

they don't teach us creationism cause the teachers aren't allowed to talk about god in school.
when we learned evolution.. if the parents of the christian kids wanted, their kids didn't have to attend school. (skip school for the evolution bit then come back)

Nodrog · 27 Mar 2003, 19:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Judge
Creationism is a belief based on the Bible.

Evolution is a theory based on the "best guess we have at the moment"

It does not fit every circumstance, but then not many theories I can think of do, they tend to be work in progress.

To teach both on a equal basis would cause confusion in most children.

Neither evolution or creation should be "taught". Teenagers at high school level should be presented with the supporting evidence for both viewpoints, and encouraged to decide for themselves. Anything else is indoctrination, regardless of whether its "scientific indotrination" or religious indoctrination. The underlying principles are the same in either case.

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Mar 2003, 19:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Judge
It does not fit every circumstance, but then not many theories I can think of do, they tend to be work in progress.

Any scientific theory is 'work in progress' in the sense that it can never be proven to be correct.

And examples of circumstances where it doesn't work?

Judge · 27 Mar 2003, 19:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Aryn
(skip school for the evolution bit then come back)

That must have been difficult for the kids who skipped it, if other later work was based on having that knowledge?

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Mar 2003, 19:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Neither evolution or creation should be "taught". Teenagers at high school level should be presented with the evidence for both viewpoints, and encouraged to decide for themselves.

That'll never happen, because the evidence is basically all for Evolutionary theory.

The only thing creationism has going for is that it's in a book.

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Mar 2003, 19:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Judge
That must have been difficult for the kids who skipped it, if other later work was based on having that knowledge?

I don't really see what other part of the syllabus would be based on evolutionary theory.

Judge · 27 Mar 2003, 19:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Neither evolution or creation should be "taught". Teenagers at high school level should be presented with the supporting evidence for both viewpoints, and encouraged to decide for themselves. Anything else is indoctrination, regardless of whether its "scientific indotrination" or religious indoctrination.

I believe that Muslim was indicating the Curriculum for Junior School level (5 - 10 yr olds)?

Nodrog · 27 Mar 2003, 19:20

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
That'll never happen, because the evidence is basically all for Evolutionary theory.

The only thing creationism has going for is that it's in a book.

Then you should have no problem with teenagers being taught that people believe in creationism for reasons outwith the scientific method.

Sub · 27 Mar 2003, 19:21

Blindly accepting science and refusing to question the theories seems to be the best way of doing things.

Judge · 27 Mar 2003, 19:22

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I don't really see what other part of the syllabus would be based on evolutionary theory.

I have no idea what the syllabus may or may not contain, I said IF later work was based on it?

But I will take your word for it.

Muslim · 27 Mar 2003, 19:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Again, it completely depends upon how its being presented.

ok
since you cant get the picture, is something on the lines of

So, to explain all the creatures that we have today we have 2 main theories, each one respectable and theoretically possible
First we have the evolutionism, wich bases on the fact that life has emerged out of chemical components of earth´s initial stage, wich has evolved from simple organisms to more complex one with the ideia that the most adapted organism has the hability to pass its "know how" to the next generation, wich will be different from the anterior, creating every time diferent creatures, and only the sucessfull ones will reproduce again, and so, generating more evolveld creatures

in the other hand we have creationism, wich bases on the fact that god created all creatures as they are now, and altough there is no evidence of it but religion scriptures, it is respectable also

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Mar 2003, 19:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Then you should have no problem with teenagers being taught that people believe in creationism for reasons outwith the scientific method.

I don't if they're taught in the method described above, that of free choice with evidence, and a grounding in the scientific method. If it's a dogmatic choice for either, then that's stupid anyway.

Muslim · 27 Mar 2003, 19:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
This has more to do with the complete failure of schoolls to teach scientific philosophy or the scientific method than it does with anything else. Telling children that "creationism is true because its in the Bible" is no worse than telling them that "evolution is true because science said so". It's worthless indoctrination either way, and completely fails to encourage critical/independant thinking.

except for the fact that it is indeed true

i rather have my children believing in darwing becouse science said so then have an erroneous conception of things

Nodrog · 27 Mar 2003, 19:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Muslim
ok
since you cant get the picture, is something on the lines of

So, to explain all the creatures that we have today we have 2 main theories, each one respectable and theoretically possible
First we have the evolutionism, wich bases on the fact that life has emerged out of chemical components of earth´s initial stage, wich has evolved from simple organisms to more complex one with the ideia that the most adapted organism has the hability to pass its "know how" to the next generation, wich will be different from the anterior, creating every time diferent creatures, and only the sucessfull ones will reproduce again, and so, generating more evolveld creatures

in the other hand we have creationism, wich bases on the fact that god created all creatures as they are now, and altough there is no evidence of it but religion scriptures, it is respectable also

I see no problem with teaching this, in the way you have describted.

(btw, stating that ID is a strictly bibilical theory is a blatent fallacy)

Nodrog · 27 Mar 2003, 19:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Muslim
except for the fact that it is indeed true

i rather have my children believing in darwing becouse science said so then have an erroneous conception of things

The difference between us appears to be that youre annoyed that children are being indoctrinated into something you disagree with, and would prefer that they were being indoctrinated in a way that conforms to your personal beliefs, wheras I'd rather schools were more centered around providing children with the evidence for each viewpoint and encouraging them to think for themselves.

Muslim · 27 Mar 2003, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
I see no problem with teaching this, in the way you have describted.

(btw, stating that ID is a strictly bibilical theory is a blatent fallacy)

are you referring to the remains of the huge ark on the top of a mountain in the middle east wich could be of Noah?

Muslim · 27 Mar 2003, 19:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
The difference between us appears to be that youre annoyed that children are being indoctrinated into something you disagree with, and would prefer that they were being indoctrinated in a way that conforms to your personal beliefs, wheras I'd rather schools were more centered around providing children with the evidence for each viewpoint and encouraging them to think for themselves.

not really
what annoys me is that scholl should be a scientif place
id rather have them telling that the lamark theory is respectable them some doutrinary dogmatic point of view

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Mar 2003, 19:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Muslim
except for the fact that it is indeed true

i rather have my children believing in darwing becouse science said so then have an erroneous conception of things

I wouldn't.

The entire point of science is to ground your opinions in evidence.

To believe it with a lack of evidence when evidence could easily be given simply because it's 'science' without giving a grounding in the scientific method comes down to hypocracy.

Nodrog · 27 Mar 2003, 19:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Muslim
are you referring to the remains of the huge ark on the top of a mountain in the middle east wich could be of Noah?

There isnt any remains of a huge ark on the top of a mountain in the middle east which could be Noah, as far as I'm aware.

Muslim · 27 Mar 2003, 19:34

but the main discussion here should be
"should a belief that is evidently erronous be respected just becouse its a belief?"
or should we show how wrong they are?

Dante Hicks · 27 Mar 2003, 19:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
The difference between us appears to be that youre annoyed that children are being indoctrinated into something they disagree with, and would prefer that they were being indoctrinated in a way that conforms to your personal beliefs, wheras I'd rather schools were more centered around providing children with the evidence for each viewpoint and encouraging them to think for themselves.

Obviously I agree totally.

And I'm also with J.S. Mill on this one - this way of teaching is really lousy even independent of personal development. I went to a "technical" school, one which had been given by the Tories to boost their science spending. We had basically more science lessons than other comprehensives in the area.

My groups of friends (who all went to the same school) mainly ended up in the "Fast Track" class (I didn't as I was ****e) - a class which got taught even more science. I think it was like 7 hours a week or something.

And amongst them this group there are only a couple who I'd say understand evolution (at age 22/23). I'm not talking about the nuances of genetics or whatever, I'm talking about the fundamental principals. It's routine to hear them confuse Darwininan principles with Lamarksism (sp?) or even to argue against evolution on some really silly point which is nothing to do with anything.

Beyond the age of 11 (which is when I started proper science lessons) I would want as little as humanly possible to be "taught" in this sense. Provide material and support if needed, but let people get on with it (by and large).

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Mar 2003, 19:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Muslim
what annoys me is that scholl should be a scientif place
id rather have them telling that the lamark theory is respectable them some doutrinary dogmatic point of view

To justify something as true because it's 'science' without explaining what this means IS dogmatic.

Muslim · 27 Mar 2003, 19:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
There isnt any remains of a huge ark on the top of a mountain in the middle east which could be Noah, as far as I'm aware.

so what are your basis on saying that there is more evidences on creationism than the dogma?

Nodrog · 27 Mar 2003, 19:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Muslim
but the main discussion here should be
"should a belief that is evidently erronous be respected just becouse its a belief?"
or should we show how wrong they are?

I dont understand what you mean by "respecting" a belief, could you be more specific?

The fact of the matter is that a lot of people believe in strict evolution, a lot believe in Bibilic Creationism, and a lot believe in various other forms of ID/Creationism. I see no problem in providing children with supporting evidence for each of these positions, trying to explain why people believe in them, and then encouraging to decide for themselves.

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Mar 2003, 19:39

People can believe whatever they like, as long as they don't start to put it on an equal footing with science.

Nodrog · 27 Mar 2003, 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Muslim
so what are your basis on saying that there is more evidences on creationism than the dogma?

Im saying that if there is no evidence of an ark in the mountains that could be Noah, there is no point in telling children that there is an ark in the mountains that could be Noah. Most people who believe in Bibilic Creationism do so because of the Bible. I have no problem with this being taught in schools.

Nodrog · 27 Mar 2003, 19:41

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
People can believe whatever they like, as long as they don't start to put it on an equal footing with science.

define science.

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Mar 2003, 19:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
define science.

The empirical predictions made by following the scientific method.

Muslim · 27 Mar 2003, 19:42

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
People can believe whatever they like, as long as they don't start to put it on an equal footing with science.

exactly!
thats why I dont want to see crazeh theories on schools
its not the place for that
why dont they teach also the Hindu belief on the creaetion of the world in biologic classes, then?
of course they could teach that for a cultural stuff, but not in scientific ****

Sub · 27 Mar 2003, 19:43

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
as long as they don't start to put it on an equal footing with science.

Why?

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Mar 2003, 19:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Sub
Why?

Because it's in 'science' lessons.

Sub · 27 Mar 2003, 19:47

So you don't think that any of the material on the current syllabii (?) will be found to be incorrect in the future?

Dante Hicks · 27 Mar 2003, 19:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Muslim
why dont they teach also the Hindu belief on the creaetion of the world in biologic classes, then?

Because they don't have a majority of Hindu's in Kansas one presumes.

Ideally, all systems of ideas should be approached in the same manor.

Because we don't have infinite resources (time and money) though, it's a bit difficult to print enough text-books (or whatever) to to cover every belief system. And I think teachers will always have a role in pushing people in a certain direction (as a starting point).

So, when kids get to 11 they can hear the "two" sides of the argument. What those two/three/infinite sides are though is ultimately going to depend on which ones are popular at the time.