Why don't we teach about the tooth fairy and how she "intelligently" leaves pennies under little kids pillows?
Upvote
0
Evo said:Why don't we teach about the tooth fairy and how she "intelligently" leaves pennies under little kids pillows?
ikester7579 said:Seems to me that science is a little afraid of losing ground in the schools. This is a free country the last I looked. So whats wrong with having a choice? Or has science suddenly became fact and cannot be challenged?
Science, with all it claims with it's fantastic theories. should welcome this. After all it should be easy to disprove anything else.
Just come up with more theories. And more theories to back up those theories until you have a mountain of them.
What is it that science is so afraid of? A God that does not exist(according to science). And if you say science never said that, then what's the problem?
worship4ever said:You know, a couple scientist's were in the presence of God, and they said "Look, we figured out how to create humans without you." God looking at their ignorance said, "well, by all means, go ahead, show me." So the scientist's bent down to grap some soil and God said "Hey, make your own soil" I thought it was humorous.
notto said:lucaspa, call your old acquaintences and get the professionals to take a peak at what is going on in Minnesota and to write letters here to the curriculum committee and legislature - please.
goat37 said:I was just reading through other posts and articles and came across this one.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2003/MI/741_proposed_legislation_requires__7_25_2003.asp
http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2003-HB-4946
I never thought an entire state could be this follish.
"(a) In the science standards, all references to "evolution" and "how species change through time" shall be modified to indicate that this is an unproven theory by adding the phrase "All students will explain the competing theories of evolution and natural selection based on random mutation and the theory that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator.".
(b) In the science standards for middle and high school, all references to "evolution" and "natural selection" shall be modified to indicate that these are unproven theories by adding the phrase "Describe how life may be the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator.".
(c) In the science standards for middle and high school, all references to "evolution" and "natural selection" shall be modified to indicate that these are unproven theories by adding the phrase "Explain the competing theories of evolution and natural selection based on random mutation and the theory that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator.".
If this bill passes, I will lose all faith I have in state legislature.
DGB454 said:I'm hearing a lot about the lack of proof of a creator.I don't have a problem with that. I am also hearing a lot about the disproof of ID. I have no problem with that either.
If you take the creator (I know ID isn't the same as a creator) out of the picture what are you left with?
A universe that started from nothing and created itself from nothing?
Which sounds more absurd?
I don't believe I have ever heard a satisfactory explination of how the universe managed to create itself. Is there one out there?
Back on topic. It's up to the state and the people living in it what they want to teach in their schools isn't it?
gehenna said:*A michigander!*
I can see the validity of presenting different theories to science classes, but I do think that in a place where teachers can't hand out Bibles, it's silly to expect students to consider creationism a valid theory. If they won't present concrete information, just offer theories and have students pick one, then why teach the subject at all?
gehenna said:*A michigander!*
I can see the validity of presenting different theories to science classes, but I do think that in a place where teachers can't hand out Bibles, it's silly to expect students to consider creationism a valid theory. If they won't present concrete information, just offer theories and have students pick one, then why teach the subject at all?
DGB454 said:I'm hearing a lot about the lack of proof of a creator.I don't have a problem with that. I am also hearing a lot about the disproof of ID. I have no problem with that either.
If you take the creator (I know ID isn't the same as a creator) out of the picture what are you left with?
A universe that started from nothing and created itself from nothing?
Which sounds more absurd?
I don't believe I have ever heard a satisfactory explination of how the universe managed to create itself. Is there one out there?
Back on topic. It's up to the state and the people living in it what they want to teach in their schools isn't it?
ElElohe said:And I wouldn't have a problem with all of the theories being taught, given equal time as the teacher can afford, presented each with the evidence claimed by their supporters--myself being convinced of Creation. Let the students be taught to think for themselves through the theories.
Logic and generally, critical thinking, is lacking in the education system to an abominable degree.
I'm not following you on some of your post. There are several what?lucaspa said:There are several out there. See my thread "First Cause". You see, now you are not talking ID but rather slipping into the atheism vs theism debate. And science class is NO place to have that argument.
Yes. However, in order to compare students from different states for college admission there are things like the SAT and ACT that test student knowledge that will be needed to do college-level work. Since nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, wasting class time teaching a falsified theory -- ID -- as valid will give the Minnesota kids a disadvantage.
However, even as you bring up the point, you have to ask yourself: do I want ANY kids being taught untruth as truth? If Minnesota wanted to teach that pi = 3.0 (as stated in a literal Bible), would you think that was permissible or would you object on ethical grounds?
DGB454 said:I'm not following you on some of your post. There are several what?
Could you do me a favor and give me a link to First cause? I don't see it in this part of the forum.
Ok, disreguarding ID what would be wrong with teaching the Creator theory?
Again, it is still up to the state and the people living there what they want there kids to learn.
I honestly doubt that teaching a child only evolution will give him much of an advantage if any on a ACT or SAT.
I have done those test myself and scored rather well and that was long before I even entertained the thought of evolution in man.
lucaspa said:There are several possible ways to get a universe without it being created by a deity. I bumped up the thread so it is on the current page now..
What is the Creator theory? If it is just that a deity created, then that is not part of science. If it is a particular HOW a deity created -- such as formation from dirt of the first 2 humans -- then all those HOW theories except evolution have been falsified.
You are arguing Constitutional Law. I am discussing ethics. Am I supposed to walk away from having used care salesmen con people because it happens in the next state? Should I keep quiet if another state wishes to teach that pi = 3.0 and not worry about the type of engineers that will be turned out and whether the bridges in that state work if I drive on them?
The universe is the same for people living in Minnesota (where I went to undergraduat and graduate schools), Ohio (where I was born and raised), and New York (where I live now). Gravity operates the same. Optics operates the same. Organisms are based on cells (Cell Theory) in each state. So, why would you permit people to tell lies about the universe under the guise that "it is up to the state"?
They say it takes a village to raise a child. Should I walk away from a proper education for the children in Minnesota because the adults are mistaken? Aren't we supposed to stand up and protect children, wherever they may be? Or do you wash your hands of child slavery and abuse because it happens someplace else where the adults have decided it is OK?
I notice it is also up to the state to decide which drugs to allow, yet the Bush Administration landed on Oregon for allowing marijuana to be used as an analgesic. So there is more than a little inconsistency here among the people making the argument that it "is up to the state". It appears that what is allowed to the state are what conservatives WANT to be allowed to the state, but anything the conservatives do NOT want to happen can't be allowed to the state.
You didn't read what I said. I said wasting class time on falsified theories will give them a DISadvantage on the tests because they will have less time to be taught evolution.
How many years ago? My daughter just took the advanced SAT for biology. She said it was all based on evolution.
Ok, disreguarding ID what would be wrong with teaching the Creator theory?
This one.
2. Deity. A God or Gods created the universe.
Looks like the traditional non-answer answer that I always get.
That's not a question for science. It's philosophy. Science simply cannot give you the answer if there's a creator or not, but it *can* tell you quite a lot about *how* he went about molding the universe.2. Deity. A God or Gods created the universe.
I agree with lucaspa here - it IS important what kind of knowledge engineers, scientists, doctors, policemen, construction workers and other people have. Teaching falsified theories (notice: we're talking about CREATION*ISM* here, not CREATION) will give them not just a disadvantage, it will also make it more likely that they commit blunders which will adversely influence the lives of many.If you feel it's your duty to protect every child in the world then you are a better man than me. I feel it's my duty to protect mine and try to help those I can help. If children learning that there may be a creator in science class somehow contributes to child abuse or someone in Oregon doing drugs then maybe I should rethink my position.
Of course not. What were you reading? Creationism is falsified, as a creator is simply outside the realm of science. You can't fix the plumbing with a scalpel - inappropriate use of tools won't get you results.What is the falsified theory? A Creator?
I reckon we don't beat 'em enough nowadays.I have the uncanny ability to learn more than one thing and retain it for extended periods of time. I'm guessing the kids today don't have that same ability. If they did then I would think teaching more than 1 thing to them wouldn't be such a huge problem. Maybe they have evolved into having less memory capacity.
I honestly don't want to debate anything. I don't need science to tell me there is a creator. It can't and I know that.Siliconaut said:@BGB: [/color][/font]
Umm... what non-answer? Do you honestly wish to debate the fact that science does not and doesn't need to tackle the existance of a creator? A creator cannot be tested or falsified by scientific means, so it's like you're asking mathematics to answer the question if lime green is a pretty colour.
He who? The Creator? So science can tell me how the Creator molded the universe but it's not allowed for the teaching of the Creator in science class? Actually that answer came directly from lucaspa.That's not a question for science. It's philosophy. Science simply cannot give you the answer if there's a creator or not, but it *can* tell you quite a lot about *how* he went about molding the universe.
Were talking teaching a Creator in science. Not building bridges with lego's 102.I agree with lucaspa here - it IS important what kind of knowledge engineers, scientists, doctors, policemen, construction workers and other people have. Teaching falsified theories (notice: we're talking about CREATION*ISM* here, not CREATION) will give them not just a disadvantage, it will also make it more likely that they commit blunders which will adversely influence the lives of many.
No amount of wild ranting will change the facts. Creationism is debunked, dead, falsified by the facts, and should be taught only as an example for a dropped scientific theory.
I reckon we don't beat 'em enough nowadays.
Fun aside: Teaching them the theory of gravity was "just a theory" and presenting the theory of "things always fall downwards" (which is a gross misrepresentation, outright lie and not in concordance with observation) as an equally valid explanation will not give you good engineers, no matter how small their cranial capacity. :/