Printable View
You realize that atheism is every bit as strong (and arguably dangerous) a religion as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Budhism, etc., yes? I frankly don't want any of those taught in school under anything but a theology or comparative religion heading. If you consider yourself a scientist or a critical thinker, I don't know how you could be anything other than agnostic or undecided.
I'm fully on record that a lot of atheists don't know science either and hide behind it and are no better than people that think God made the earth 4,000 years ago. I'm not athiest (I have no problem with people that are). But I think evolution is real and there's no place in school for ID.
If you "think" evolution is real, then you believe in faith based learning. It's either been proven with regard to humans, which it hasn't fully, due to the "missing link," or it's still a hypothesis. If you're a proponent of teaching certain hypotheses as facts at the expense of even mentioning alternatives, you don't support the teaching of critical thinking.
If I wasn't hungry and headed out the door, I'd give you a likely fictitious scenario where creationism and evolution can co-exist and not contradict each other.
You can say that about everything ever, so unless you're just going to have the same two logic classes for 15 years, might as well pack it up
No you can't. Most of what we teach as science has been proven and peer reviewed. We just aren't there yet on the whole evolutionary chain of humans.
People much smarter than you or I would disagree.
Fuck you guys. I'm going to go take a bong hit for Jesus.
OK. Now one for the Commandant.
One for the Corps.
Now let me see your war face.
It's pretty obvious they meant critical thinking as a general act, it's spelled out multiple times in the doctrine without even using the term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I really thought you were smarter than this. You don't seem to quite understand how science work. Evolution is not something that is faith basedQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Way to completely miss the point.
It's not a hypothesis but a scientific theory, which means that it is a substantiated explanation of how the world works, backed up with repeatable experiments and taking all prior evidence into account. As far as I can tell, everything we have learned since Darwin has backed up the theory, up to and including DNA sequencing which Darwin obviously had no way of knowing about.
The idea that it needs to be some sort of closed-end fully 100% articulated proof is simply ridiculous, especially when the "competition" offers up explanations that cannot be tested or proven.
Disagree with what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I'm not arguing that they are equally valid by any stretch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
If you want to set up a "creationism vs. evolution" class and teach that in that class... okay. I think it would be a ridiculous class and a waste of time, but whatever. The problem is that people are trying to teach "the debate" in the science class. The problem is that creationism is not science, and stuff that isn't science doesn't belong in a science class.
I don't think there's anything wrong with an approach that puts evolution on a pedestal as "the leading theory," along with its evidence and then also identifies alternatives as just that. Since this started as a discussion of critical thinking, it would be quite obvious to kids who give that any thought which one makes the most sense. I'm not a proponent of outlawing any kind of information, and kids are going to come into contact with intelligent design supporters, so to me it's better that they are made aware of it. It's similar logic to what a lot of liberals use to promote sex ed, ironically enough.
This thread is a false flag.
Or it may be. I don't know. I'm just asking questions ok.
There is no science in creationism, hence why it doesn't belong in a science class. Should they also teach Shakespeare in calculus classes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It's stupid because then there's just a 30 second disclaimer. Ok, here is ID, it exists, people think it's right. Now, let's get to science for the other 200,000 seconds of class
Every single thing in a science textbook presented as fact, without exception, contains the hidden subtitle of 'as far as we know so far', you just don't see it because you have the wrong glasses. You can't just say IT'S JUST A THEORY because fuck you, so's gravity.
Yoshi, FYI, you can be a Republican dude without subscribing to every bullshit idea that comes out of the base.
It's OK, man.
The issue here is that evolution has gone through the grind of the scientific method. Its been scrutinized, prodded, and proven multiple times. Even over the generations since its inception the Finch has proven to evolve. Creationism has never and cannot ever be proven. When asked for proof "faith" is the answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The problem is faith defies reason. You're believing based on emotion and feeling. And reason is the cornerstone of science (and math), so that's why the whole idea of creationism being presented in the same realm as evolution is preposterous. It can't.
What CAN happen is in social studies, or other english-based classes, that Christian creationism, judaism, buddhism, divine intervention, scientology, and whatever else can be presented as beliefs that people have (or had). That's where it belongs in a classroom setting and no where else.
Bill Nye is punk as fuck. I'd like to see his war face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeve
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I have no issue with any of this. My point is that hiding it from kids may do more harm than good. Again, it's a kin to the sex ed argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Hiding Creationism from the kids?
In sex ed they teach sex ed, so yea, fine.
Creationism/ID is not science, so it just doesn't belong in science class. It's not about hiding it. It's about putting it where it belongs.
Yeah, I'd rather they here about it in a balanced way in school than from fundamentalists somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
I don't have a problem with that, but I don't think it has to be that way. In science class, as long as it's not presented as fact in any way, is better than nowhere is my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Fuck that. This shit should never be taught in public schools. I mean, if we are teaching they myths of one religion, then why not all religions? Where does it stop? Why should a non-christian student have to sit and listen to a bunch of hilarious nonsense to get their grade in Science class? SCIENCE CLASS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Maybe "Scared of Dying 101" should be an elective, but never a requirement.
Your point is invalid, ignorant, offensive, and your mother is a streetwalker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
What point am I missing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Creationism is not science. It doesn't belong in a science classroom.
Teach the creationism "controversy" in a history or political science class, if you must.
My point is that you wouldn't give creationism a second thought if it weren't an issue beloved by the Republican base. You talk about the superiority of STEM education at every turn, yet you have a blind spot for this silly pseudo-science, for no other reason than your political beliefs. It's silly. Stop it.
Where the fuck are you getting this? Equating not teaching it to not teaching sex ed because of the danger of hearing about it elsewhere is lip service to the Republican base? Are you serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeve
Sex Ed is life-affecting though. Maybe I don't know what you mean.
Where are they hearing about it elsewhere again?
I don't know what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I never compared creationism to sex ed. And no, I don't think creationism is such a vital topic that it must be taught in school, nor do I agree that it should be taught in school for the same reasons sex ed is taught in schools. The two subjects aren't comparable.
As I said before: if you must teach creationism, do it in social studies or history or political science or religion class. Not science class.
And I still think you wouldn't give a fuck about creationism if you weren't so vested in the Republican pantheon of political positions.
Exactly at what point would the gun debate and the 'correct' way to think about it come up in school?Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
A more realistic example is sex ed, where christian fundy parents don't want their kids hearing about safe sex because of muh devils, when all the other kids from households making less than 35,000 need to damn well know how to not making babies.
They already do. Most of his work was derivative of other people's work. And much of our current entertainment is derivative of his.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
My question for Yoshi is this: why do you stop at creationism? Why not teach any and all less supported theories on anything technical? Why not spend a day talking about the elements like we only have fire, water, earth and air? How about stopping to talk about Phlogiston when discussing fire?
(personally I'd like a science class like that, but good luck getting that to change. Most science classes refuse to teach the history of why or what. They just present the best ideas and then give you a vocab sheet or some math problems to do)
Do you want it taught because people still make decisions based on creationism and not Phlogiston? Are we really at risk of kids not knowing about creationism when our biggest holiday is Christmas? I'm afraid we are far far far away from schools and the outside world become so analytical that a child would never be exposed to religion and be ignorant of it as the default. It is very unlikely that anyone would have no idea what any of popular religions thinks about creation and then proceed to make horrible social decisions, of which could have been prevented had they just known about this idea that some awesome dude made everything.
He is an integral part of Western literature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
I'll be here all week
a sad fact
in both instances
I hate you both
Yoshi trollin' hard up in here.
Why do you or kids have to hear about it at all? In math should they teach about the evils certain numbers or teach about the risk of Satanic chords in band?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Why should religion or religious ideas be given ANY credence at all in schools? History class maybe. That's it. Every other bit of it can GTFO. A church would LOSE their shit if Bill Nye stuck his head in Sunday school class and asked, let alone demand, he get some screen time to talk evolution.
How can this even be debatable in modern schools? Astounds me for sho'.
Clearly. You can think whatever you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeve
That will actually be an interesting experiment. I wonder how long it will be before my daughter hears about it and from where.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
I'm going to break into your house at night and scatter a bunch of pamphlets around her room telling her all about the dirty truths of the world that scientists - more like lientists - are trying to keep hidden from the people because of what it would mean for our political structure.
RISE UP
ACCEPT CREATIONISM
Answer my question, Yoshi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
Can we go back to the precold war period where people thought it was rude to talk about religion publicly?
You know, before all this shit was forced into the public mind as a way to distinguish ourselves from our enemies?
My kids were introduced to religion in general at daycare by prayer before lunch. We were sending them to a daycare that was supposed to be non religious. Boy were we surprised. But it doesn't matter, other kids, their parents, or the media will tell them soon enough even if school doesn't. Then they'll likely hear about creationism crap too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
shit like that is pretty horrible here. I've lost a friend or two over it. Be mostly agnostic their whole life then date a religious girl. Next thing you know, you never see them much at all and they go to church 3 times a week.
I have a strong suspicion that if you don't teach it to them, they will judge it to be asinine when they finally hear it. Unless, you know, you live in Mississippi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
It is utterly ridiculous to teach any religion in school unless its from a historical perspective. It is literally putting stupid thoughts in childrens heads. Nonsense is still nonsense even if its old or popular.
Religion belongs in classes like history or maybe some type of "World Views" class. It's not some hidden secret that children are going to be unaware of and teaching it in school is just giving it more credence when it doesn't deserve any in typical general education related to biology, physics or science in general. Sex-ed is taught (or should be taught) in public schools because sexual interaction is a regular part of our lives and something that everyone has some sort of direct connection to. Ignoring sexual studies in school would be like ignoring other biological sciences that are a part of us understanding the world and interacting with it in an intelligent and responsible matter. While the majority of the Christian backbone in this country would like everyone to believe that evolution is false, dinosaurs weren't real, and that God created the world in 6 days only 10'000 years ago; it is a concept that can exist side-by-side with the currently understood realm of science. It doesn't mean that ID design should be incorporated into that understanding in the public school system though. It is something that children should be left to figure out and come to a conclusion on their own.
I bet most kids don't even care one way or the other.
I took a religious survey/history class in college. It was REALLY interesting. Similar to Bertrand Russell's book on the history of western philosophy, it's such a significant part of world history that it should be taught.
But it's not science!
World religions are worth knowing about. They've had a huge impact in setting up how each of us thinks and our point of view.
Take American individualism for example. Christianity (more so the Protestant version) primed us for that. Concepts like there being only one way into heaven or each person being responsible their own salvation set the ground work for it. If there is only one way and it is up to you to find it, you better think like an individual, right?
Then you have our rights and equality. Both started in religion.
Then on he flipside, you can look at Asian religions to partially explain why they liked communism so much.
And that's exactly the point I was making. Wouldn't you rather they hear about it in school in the context of evolution?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
So how would you explain it to kids in class? How long would you take explaining it?
How about we leave evolution in science class and religion in history class as to not perpetuate the polarization of the issue by forcing their teaching into some arbitrary "either or" scenario?
As someone that had to hear about creationism in high school, I can safely say that it is stupid and undermines the authority the teachers are suppose to possess.
In my world history class, one of the very first things the teacher did, was imply evolution was stupid.
I think his exact wording was "we're going to take a moment to talk about evolution. These scientists work so hard to come up with this stuff, and I'd hate for them to lose their jobs. Evolution is the theory that all living organisms are derived or evolved from previous living organisms. I don't personally believe that we came from dumb apes, but we have to talk about this stuff."
Then he told us what creationism was. I don't remember what he said about that. I knew from that point on I didn't have to listen to him.
The class was a joke. He gave notes and for work we just did the end of the lesson questions, which he didn't look at. He just went through and checked to see if you turned them in. I always did the first page right, then wrote about aliens, dinosaurs and sega games for the other 7 pages.
I think it was mentioned one time in my biology class. I don't even think the teacher explained what it was. He just told us what evolution was, and that he wasn't trying to upset anyone or change anyone's beliefs.
I'd teach it the same way I'd teach that people once thought the world was flat. There is historical context to many pieces of science. So you teach the flat earth with astronomy or geology, and you teach creationism with evolution. It's one of the "those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it" things that demonstrates that we don't know everything and that well accepted ideas can be radically changed by new evidence. Isn't that the entire point of science? Or would you rather have kids memorize the periodic table and F=mA with no context, which is how we all ruin math classes in schools?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Thats about how it is done now. You're lucky if they explain that the units are named after the person that discovered it or in honor of their work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Exactly. And that's criminal, because kids learn to memorize and never understand anything. This is why we have an innumerate society.
Yeah, what does that have to do with ID? Your issue is with education, which is lacking. My piece on creationism in a biology class would be 5 minutes on Day 1 and that's that and would boil down to "This is what people used to think but then it was blown out of the water by the thinking man and backed by empirical data". That isn't what people from bullshit areas are arguing for. Their argument is WELL YOU WEREN'T THERE SO THIS IS JUST AS VALID.
I don't care what they are arguing. I think the five minutes (maybe a little longer than that) is what is warranted. This is why I was so confused by sleeve's ramblings. But I don't know why you would remove it entirely when it's part of arguably the most important lesson in science, which is we know very little in the grand scheme of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Neil deGrasse Tyson: When Students cheat on exams it's because our School System values grades more than Students value learning.
Yeah but I fail to see how not even giving those five minutes is going to leave the door open for the bad guys to corrupt the kids. So equating Sex Ed to the teaching of biology doesn't make sense. Kids don't seek out biology answers. It's not natural.
Is there a more important lesson in any science class than we know very little and ideas drastically change over time as empirical evidence is discovered? It would be like having a statistics class where you teach arithmetic, ignoring the fact that real life has variability in essentially everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
mental disorders run pretty deep in science and tech people. Frankly, SEMT people don't really care about anything not in their line of vision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Like for my senior design project I wanted to build a tube amplifier that used high power rated switches to rewire itself. So instead of spending $2000 on one amp, you spent 2500 or 3000 and got like 5-10 or more. There is a clear market for it, as 1. modeling amps are popular and 2. tube amps are popular. The guy in charge of the design class didn't know that anyone still liked tube amplifiers, that guitars still used them (or prefer them), that there is still a company in MS that builds tube amps, or that Alabama still has a factory that makes them.
It wasn't in his line of give a fuck, so it didn't exist. 50-70 years of electrical engineering, forgotten. And he has a PhD.
But I know what you're thinking. Anecdotal whatever.
If you want something more concrete, go read up about the Saturn V rocket. We no longer know how to build them. We didn't keep cohesive records on how they were built and they haven't taught the theory that the components were built with in years. We could probably build something that did the same thing as the Saturn V with modern methods, but we have no idea how to reproduce a 1 to 1 copy.
That's a fair point. But ultimately not why people want to push creationism. The only reason why you would mention it is to show how much of a sham it is, making them look even worse.
But I don't think that's what we were talking about in the first place.
No. Everyone knows what we are really talking about. People who push heavy for creationism in school are the same people who fight to get their personal version of Christianity back in schools. These are the same people that want us to go back to having a 20 minute assembly at the start of each school day where a teacher leads the school in prayer.
The only organized daily recitation in school should be the Pledge of Allegiance, and it should be mandatory in public and private schools nationally.
Yoshi, die gut amerikanQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
What about public and private madrassas?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Why? I'm not trying to be a smartass, by the way. I know you have strong feelings about America but saccharine nationalism doesn't seem (to me) to be up your alley. Follow-up question: which version of the Pledge?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The Pledge of Allegiance is the stupidest thing. It's just terrible. It has no business being recited anywhere in the United States, ever. Especially in its current form.
I agree but Yoshi has different views than I do so I'm genuinely curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
It's a show of respect for all the people that have sacrificed so much to give us everything we have at a time where society seems to be losing an awful lot of respect for anything that's actually important. Honestly, I didn't know there were different versions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I think you might be thinking of the National Anthem, rather than the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge makes no reference to sacrifices or anything.
I'm well aware of the words of both, but I don't think you're going to get room fulls of people to sing, especially in (Francis Scott) Key.
Yok yok yok
I just don't get how it's respecting people when the entire thing is basically a proclamation of subservience to institutions, detached from any humanizing context.
It's what they fought for...
"Under God" was added I think in the '50s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Doing something because old folks think it's the way things ought ta be is a rather slippery slope. They also don't like swearing on TV and wish the minorities would stop moving into their neighborhoods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
They also fought against societies where people didn't get a choice in such matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
America is an idea. It isn't really a place, a bunch of land and borders, or a group of people with a common ancestry. When people fight for America they are not fighting because of an allegiance to borders, land, or the ancestry of their people. They are fighting for an idea.
And part of that idea is the freedom to question and doubt. To have choices. To be able to not say this and that pledge because you're still thinking about it AND NOT be flogged, beaten or imprisoned for doing so. To be momentarily wrong about stuff, without facing punishment so long as your decisions do not impact others.
the minorities would act better if the whites stuck around long enough to be good examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon McShig
We're seeing an awful lot of people taking freedoms for granted and in a big hurry to give them away. I think we could use some reminding of that idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
... by pledging our allegiance to a piece of cloth and the country? Kind of a stupid way to do that.
Part of the nice thing about living here is being able to say "geez, fuck this place" at will.
I'd argue Diff's statement is part of the problem.
I don't think so. What part of the government compelling me to pledge my allegiance kosher in your mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I was more referring to the "piece of cloth and the country" part, as if there is something revolting about showing either a little respect.