According to the theory of evolution, how scientifically inaccurate is this Christian sweatshirt?

2PhiloVoid · Jun 24, 2025

AV1611VET said:
From AI Overview:

Science teaches us how to understand and explain the natural world through observation, experimentation, and analysis.

Keep in mind, AV, that where science and the academy are at play in the great wide world, "practical" working scientists in labs and out in the field have often been known to flout the importance of both the theoretical teaching of Science as well as the field of the Philosophy of Science. This even affects the methods (i.e. the "how") for the teaching of the Theory of Evolution in classrooms.

In other words, it's not just the Bible that many (but obviously not all) "practical" working scientists think is a waste of time. They also tend to think that science teachers and science philosophers are second rate citizens in the world of science. So, there's a further wrinkle in the larger scheme of the Screwtapian Problem.

AV1611VET · Jun 24, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
Keep in mind, AV, that where science and the academy are at play in the great wide world, "practical" working scientists in labs and out in the field have often been known to flout the importance of both the theoretical teaching of Science as well as the field of the Philosophy of Science. This even affects the methods (i.e. the "how") for the teaching of the Theory of Evolution in classrooms.

In other words, it's not just the Bible that many (but obviously not all) "practical" working scientists think is a waste of time. They also tend to think that science teachers and science philosophers are second rate citizens in the world of science. So, there's a further wrinkle in the larger scheme of the Screwtapian Problem.

2PhiloVoid · Jun 24, 2025

AV1611VET said:

Unfortunately, I have yet to see that particular Kenan Thompson movie, so your allusion is sort of lost on me. My apologies. I'm sure it's funny.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 24, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
Unfortunately, I have yet to see that particular Kenan Thompson movie, so your allusion is sort of lost on me. My apologies. I'm sure it's funny.

It's really a 'as you see it' scene. Kenan, and thus AV, know some of those words, but not what the entire post means.

AV1611VET · Jun 24, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
Unfortunately, I have yet to see that particular Kenan Thompson movie, so your allusion is sort of lost on me. My apologies. I'm sure it's funny.

Sorry.

That clip left a key line out.

If I remember it correctly, the one guy is handing in his resignation in writing and wants his friend to read it and tell him what he thinks.

At the end of the clip his friend says, "Uh-huh. I know some of these words."

Then he says, "So what's it all mean?"

Hans Blaster · Jun 24, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
Keep in mind, AV, that where science and the academy are at play in the great wide world, "practical" working scientists in labs and out in the field have often been known to flout the importance of both the theoretical teaching of Science as well as the field of the Philosophy of Science.

That's an interesting use of the word "flout". How can one flout what is not important (philosophy of science)?

And while we're at it -- what is the "theoretical teaching of science"?

The teaching of scientific theory? The "theoretical" (aka "alleged") teaching of science? The educational theory and methodology of scientific education?

At least on the last of these it is probably true. Most scientists aren't engaged in the latest methodologies of science instruction, K-13, as most aren't engaged in it.

But you have to get pretty deep into a corporate lab, or something like it, to avoid contact with post-secondary students and their science learning.

2PhiloVoid said:
This even affects the methods (i.e. the "how") for the teaching of the Theory of Evolution in classrooms.

The biggest problem with teaching evolution in the classroom is the angry mobs of creationists and the fear thereof. It is primarily a primary and secondary education issue, and not one of working scientists flouting or avoiding anything.

2PhiloVoid said:
In other words, it's not just the Bible that many (but obviously not all) "practical" working scientists think is a waste of time.

I have no idea what most working scientists think about the Bible. It is not a scientific topic, and discussing religion at work is considered taboo in most countries, so it is irrelevant to the work of scientists. What they think of it outside work is irrelevant. I have more interest in it now (as little as that is) as an atheist and scientist as I ever did as a student and Chrsitian.

2PhiloVoid said:
They also tend to think that science teachers and science philosophers are second rate citizens in the world of science.

A great many working scientists *are* science teachers (though not the other way 'round). (As for philosophers, the world needs sandwich artists, not that they were par to of the "world of science" to begin with.)

2PhiloVoid said:
So, there's a further wrinkle in the larger scheme of the Screwtapian Problem.

TMI. No one needs to know how wrinkly your tapeworm is.

[edit to remove overstrikes]

2PhiloVoid · Jun 24, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
That's an interesting use of the word "flout". How can one flout what is not important (philosophy of science)?

And while we're at it -- what is the "theoretical teaching of science"?

The teaching of scientific theory? The "theoretical" (aka "alleged") teaching of science? The educational theory and methodology of scientific education?

At least on the last of these it is probably true. Most scientists aren't engaged in the latest methodologies of science instruction, K-13, as most aren't engaged in it.

But you have to get pretty deep into a corporate lab, or something like it, to avoid contact with post-secondary students and their science learning.

The biggest problem with teaching evolution in the classroom is the angry mobs of creationists and the fear thereof. It is primarily a primary and secondary education issue, and not one of working scientists flouting or avoiding anything.

I have no idea what most working scientists think about the Bible. It is not a scientific topic, and discussing religion at work is considered taboo in most countries, so it is irrelevant to the work of scientists. What they think of it outside work is irrelevant. I have more interest in it now (as little as that is) as an atheist and scientist as I ever did as a student and Chrsitian.

A great many working scientists *are* science teachers (though not the other way 'round). (As for philosophers, the world needs sandwich artists, not that they were par to of the "world of science" to begin with.)

TMI. No one needs to know how wrinkly your tapeworm is.

[edit to remove overstrikes]

Thanks for proving my point. I'll just add your response as another check mark to my ongoing survey.

linux.poet · Jun 24, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
So, there's a further wrinkle in the larger scheme of the Screwtapian Problem.

Hans Blaster said:
TMI. No one needs to know how wrinkly your tapeworm is.

I think the quote this was responding to was a reference to The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, who was a famous English Christian philosopher and novelist. It’s not a reference to actual tapeworms.

The main plot was about a senior demon giving instructions to a novice demon on how best to deceive people.

Hans Blaster · Jun 24, 2025

linux.poet said:
I think the quote this was responding to was a reference to The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, who was a famous English Christian philosopher and novelist. It’s not a reference to actual tapeworms.

I am aware of this author and his dire books for children.

linux.poet said:
The main plot was about a senior demon giving instructions to a novice demon on how best to deceive people.

That the other poster things "daemons" have anything to do with the practice or teaching of science is a problem in itself. A worm might explain that...

BCP1928 · Jun 24, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
Keep in mind, AV, that where science and the academy are at play in the great wide world, "practical" working scientists in labs and out in the field have often been known to flout the importance of both the theoretical teaching of Science as well as the field of the Philosophy of Science. This even affects the methods (i.e. the "how") for the teaching of the Theory of Evolution in classrooms.

In other words, it's not just the Bible that many (but obviously not all) "practical" working scientists think is a waste of time. They also tend to think that science teachers and science philosophers are second rate citizens in the world of science. So, there's a further wrinkle in the larger scheme of the Screwtapian Problem.

I'm afraid that as regards public school science teachers in this country, they are right. And it's not because they don't embrace your favorite philosophers of science, but a lack of actual scientific training. They are not subject matter experts and in fact there is a tendency in public education not to employ subject matter experts in any of the teaching specialties.

Hans Blaster · Jun 24, 2025

BCP1928 said:
I'm afraid that as regards public school science teachers in this country, they are right. And it's not because they don't embrace your favorite philosophers of science, but a lack of actual scientific training. They are not subject matter experts and in fact there is a tendency in public education not to employ subject matter experts in any of the teaching specialties.

Experts aren't needed to teach HS science, but majors (or at least) minors, would be really helpful. Unfortunately, far too many states do make the compensation sufficient to hold people in those jobs who have those credentials.

BCP1928 · Jun 24, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
Experts aren't needed to teach HS science, but majors (or at least) minors, would be really helpful. Unfortunately, far too many states do make the compensation sufficient to hold people in those jobs who have those credentials.

It's not just that, there is definitely a prejudice against it. I subbed my way through grad school in the '90s and as I had a secondary credential I was offered a permanent job on several occasions. I wouldn't have minded being a math teacher but because my undergraduate degree was in math I was told that it was not likely for that reason. "How about music? That's sort of mathematical, isn't it?" There was a guy on staff who had a music BFA. He was teaching PE and wasn't offered the music job. The difficulty is, that the curricula are fixed and not very good in general and a subject matter expert just makes trouble. If there are any teachers with subject matter training they will be in AP classes.

Hans Blaster · Jun 25, 2025

BCP1928 said:
It's not just that, there is definitely a prejudice against it. I subbed my way through grad school in the '90s and as I had a secondary credential I was offered a permanent job on several occasions. I wouldn't have minded being a math teacher but because my undergraduate degree was in math I was told that it was not likely for that reason. "How about music? That's sort of mathematical, isn't it?" There was a guy on staff who had a music BFA. He was teaching PE and wasn't offered the music job. The difficulty is, that the curricula are fixed and not very good in general and a subject matter expert just makes trouble. If there are any teachers with subject matter training they will be in AP classes.

Most of what I know about licensure is from a few states back and in the 80s and 90s. There were standards then and there...

Ophiolite · Jun 25, 2025

BCP1928 said:
It's not just that, there is definitely a prejudice against it. I subbed my way through grad school in the '90s and as I had a secondary credential I was offered a permanent job on several occasions. I wouldn't have minded being a math teacher but because my undergraduate degree was in math I was told that it was not likely for that reason. "How about music? That's sort of mathematical, isn't it?" There was a guy on staff who had a music BFA. He was teaching PE and wasn't offered the music job. The difficulty is, that the curricula are fixed and not very good in general and a subject matter expert just makes trouble. If there are any teachers with subject matter training they will be in AP classes.

I make an effort to learn at least one new thing every day. Sometimes, I learn something I wish I had not known, regardless of how useful the knowledge may be. I find what you have explained here simultaneously bewildering, crazy and vile. On the plus side it has helped me understand part of what informs the attitude to science and evolution by a large number of Americans.

I will now reflect on how I got to be as old as I am without knowing this.

2PhiloVoid · Jun 25, 2025

BCP1928 said:
I'm afraid that as regards public school science teachers in this country, they are right. And it's not because they don't embrace your favorite philosophers of science, but a lack of actual scientific training. They are not subject matter experts and in fact there is a tendency in public education not to employ subject matter experts in any of the teaching specialties.

I wasn't really referring to HS science. But excuse me while I take a lighter to my university studies since obviously, I was just panning for fool's gold.

Hans Blaster · Jun 25, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
I wasn't really referring to HS science.

Your comment seems even less relevant or accurate if you refer to university science education. Hoist again on your attempt to seem erudite, Mr. Pickard.

2PhiloVoid said:
But excuse me while I take a lighter to my university studies since obviously, I was just panning for fool's gold.

Even the job skills they provide are outdated mining techniques? How sad.

BCP1928 · Jun 25, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
Your comment seems even less relevant or accurate if you refer to university science education. Hoist again on your attempt to seem erudite, Mr. Pickard.

Even the job skills they provide are outdated mining techniques? How sad.

Say what you will about Catholics, they evidently do a better job of teaching the philosophy of science in a way suitable to a Christian point of view than whatever institution our Mr. Void attended. Even when they are teaching it to blockheads like me.

2PhiloVoid · Jun 25, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
Your comment seems even less relevant or accurate if you refer to university science education. Hoist again on your attempt to seem erudite, Mr. Pickard.

Even the job skills they provide are outdated mining techniques? How sad.

What?

Maybe I am just a cheap, ignorant chump, and maybe my skills and understanding of the world are far, far under par from yours, but even so, I don't consider the study skills involved in even the most basic of Literature Reviews for a journal article, thesis, dissertation or book to be equivalent to ""outdated mining techniques.""

But who can say these days. What do I know? I only went to a cheap state university.

Hans Blaster · Jun 25, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Say what you will about Catholics, they evidently do a better job of teaching the philosophy of science in a way suitable to a Christian point of view than whatever institution our Mr. Void attended. Even when they are teaching it to blockheads like me.

You threw me off for second there with "Catholics" and "teaching (philosophy of) science" as none of it met my initial filter. The only thing they tried to teach me was theology and dogma. I forgot they actually ran schools. (They weren't any better in our area and offered only a limited education as the nearest HS was probably an hour's drive away. The nearest had a middle school science teacher who was trained as a HS math teacher. I used to grade their HW.)

I was also a little distracted because I was trying to find the post where you posted the creadal formula from your church. It seemed a bit odd to me, but then I find any version than the traditional Vatican II formula to be odd.

Hans Blaster · Jun 25, 2025

2PhiloVoid said:
What?

Maybe I am just a cheap, ignorant chump, and maybe my skills and understanding of the world are far, far under par from yours, but even so, I don't consider the study skills involved in even the most basic of Literature Reviews for a journal article, thesis, dissertation or book to be equivalent to ""outdated mining techniques.""

I thought you were panning for (fools') gold. Maybe you were fishing instead..

2PhiloVoid said:
But who can say these days. What do I know? I only went to a cheap state university.

I think our tuition was slightly higher than the other (lesser?) state universities, but it was much cheaper than the private and religious schools. (And ours had top scientists in the classroom.)

According to the theory of evolution, how scientifically inaccurate is this Christian sweatshirt?

Critically Copernican

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Critically Copernican

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

On August Recess

Critically Copernican

Barshai

On August Recess

Well-Known Member

On August Recess

Well-Known Member

On August Recess

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Critically Copernican

On August Recess

Well-Known Member

Critically Copernican

On August Recess

On August Recess

Similar threads