![]() |
mriff, the pdf on ID was very thorough about the threat that it constitutes. The tone of it is a bit emotional though, I would think that with evidence on the evolutionary side that the argument would be pretty straight forward without getting into the larger argument on religion & government.
I see the need for the discussion but I still think that when it comes to teaching kids that you have to leave it up to them to make the call. On the how vs. why comment, I guess you are correct. I'm no intellectual design believer as it is written, my belief would be that the history of the world can be explained with separate answers for how and why. |
I found the manuscript to be very disturbing; I need to let it sit for the night and distill my thoughts a bit more. I also need to do some more research. Having said that:
- The political context as opposed to the scientific context is the major thrust of the ms, and where that was going was of great concern. My philosophy of science arguments are, in this context, tangential at best. In a more coarse sense I would describe my philosophical arguments as mental masturbation. (Of course that is fun! 8-) ) - On a related plane, both of you gentlemen are in the South, while I am as they say a "Damn Yankee." I am frankly appalled at the footholds that this position has seized, predominantly although not exclusively in your part of the country. In your opinion -- knowing that you and I live in vastly different socio-political contexts -- how naive do you believe that I have been regarding this culture and its effects on the educational environment? I am deliberately asking for your opinions. I look forward to your comments; candor is appreciated. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But I think you agree that the Theory of Evolution is well laid out. Current research has greatly strengthened the understanding and none that I know of has disproven any aspects of the theory. The scientific community has no current arguments against evolutionary development. The only 'controversy' is stirred from those who don't work in the field and have obvious ulterior motives. Which is the reason for the position paper that you read. |
I agree but there is no way to completely remove philosophy from science because that question of why is always there. And until there is a philosophy class in high school / elementary school, some of it falls on the science teacher.
And the fact that a lot of students are taught creationism before they are exposed to evolution only strengthens that. Sunday school for a lot of young kids brings the philosophy into the ballpark of the science teacher later in school. And to me the creation is part of evolution and I know the Big Bang theory is popular but not universally believed or is it? |
Quote:
The Big Bang? Have no idea. I have never studied astonomy in any way that would allow me to speak with any knowledge on this subject. |
I agree, to be a science teacher in a public school is a tricky situation.
Well the foundation of evolution has to start somewhere right? those single cell organisms come from some place along with the earth. That plays into the creationism / evolutionary debate to me. |
Quote:
|
so is they study the development then how far do they go? I mean trace everything to single cells and then stop? was the planet just full of single cell organisms?
|
Quote:
|
I know the idea of the common origin but that only goes to a certain point. Before that point is the unknown or atleast not fully understood.
|
Quote:
|
I understand. I'm just going on what I have seen and read as to the Big Bang & the earliest life.
|
A question for the group. Did you happen to see the movie Expelled, by Ben Stein? If you did, please comment. If you did not, why? Finally, have you even heard about it?
|
|
that would be the best way to end this thread. Somehow I doubt that will happen.
|
If you care to see an interesting debate of the topic at hand, see Roger Eberts review of Expelled. So far there are 1364 comments. And counting.
Roger Ebert's Journal: Roger Ebert: January 2009 Archives |
Sorry if I have been out of the loop again -- those pesky clients. God bless 'em they aree keeping me very busy during this economy, so I am NOT complaining. Rather I want to do everything I can to make sure that they are happy.
Regardless: I must Google Expelled, because I hadn't even heard of it. And mriff, what do you do with your spare time?? I would have thought that you were intimately familiar with all of evolutionary theory! :razz: |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I did not see Expelled, I do however like Ben Stein. I did not go out of my way to see it mainly because it seems too preachy (irony) to me. I am watching Religulous with friends this weekend.
|
Quote:
|
I might have to try that. Add about 4 or 5 adult beverages and I might devolve into Neanderthal.
|
Quote:
|
OK Religulous done next is Expelled. Religulous was very good at inspiring debate which is not always good when you add alcohol, but it was entertaining if you can take Bill Maher.
|
OK mriff, you called it. I was in fact shocked. I usually think that I'm a pretty good judge of character, even on those levels, and I would never have predicted that!
I'm pretty sure that you are familiar with the AAAS commentary on the subject matter, but for others who might be interested here is an abbbreviated clip produced by the pre-eminent scientific ccommunity in the United States, The American Association for the Advancement of Science. YouTube - Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed -- AAAS Response |
Yep, I saw the AAAS response. Well done.
There are some others that are very good on YouTube. Search on 'Thunderf00t' (zero's instead of letter o). He has a series called 'Why do people laugh at creationists'. They are very good. Here's one of my favorites in which he goes after Kent Hovind and one of his silly statements about water and that one drop will cover the earth if you 'spread it real thin'. (He goes after Hovind in many of his videos.) (djm, I think you in particular will like this series, especially the one posted below.) YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists 4 |
|
Very good, although some of the laugh lines can ring hollow, especially in the context of the education debate. Sorry to add the sobering note.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sorry -- I was somewhat cryptic. |
Oh, I completely agree. How serious is it? Check this out. Right here in my back yard.
Florida Citizens for Science |
Obviously the issue is much more germane in your home state than mine, but it does require the sort of constant attention by all concerned citizens. However, I'm preaching to the choir on that one.;-)
|
Senator Stephen Wise recently asked 'if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes'. His friend on the other side of the aisle? Alan Hays. Who had this to say about the Theory of Evolution: xxx8220;The thing we learned last year is that, No. 1, we must keep the discussion scientific. I donxxx8217;t know of anyone who is in favor of teaching religion in public,xxx8221; he said. xxx8220;We want the students to know that the theory of evolution is only a theory, it has never ever been scientifically proven, and it should be accepted as that.xxx8221;
A recent blog entry: Wandering in the Wilderness » Senator Stephen Wise |
I'll be watching this one very closely. It will happen right here in my back yard. I will have my pen/computer keyboard ready. I really can't believe how uninformed this guy is. His comments supporting his bill are shockingly bad.
Wise to introduce bill on intelligent design | Jacksonville.com |
Quote:
|
Yeah, it was. But I'm surprised that the proponents of evolution weren't outnumbered like they usually are.
|
Where's dmead? I thought you were going to come on in and help us with the evolution discussion? Come on man!
|
i'm here but, I've been sort of busy lately so i haven't scoured the intraweb for evolution related stories.
|
Evolution was front and center in the USA Today.
This book was reviewed. Looks like it would be an interesting read. 'Well-Dressed Ape': Humorous look into evolutionary mirror - USATODAY.com As well as this story about a 300 million year old fossilized fish brain. Oldest fossilized brain found in fish from Midwest - USATODAY.com |
Evolution and the Catholic church.
An excerpt: The Vatican under Pope Benedict XVI has been, for the most part, in favor of a compromised view that faith and science can coexist. In 2007, the pope said that the debate between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity.” He said that “there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such,” MSNBC reported at the time. Religious Leaders Debate: Can Evolution and God Coexist? |
I think it's clear that the Catholic church, the largest denomination of christians in the world, has no problem with the Theory of Evolution.
Vatican says Evolution does not prove the non-existence of God -Times Online The Vatican has rejected the claim by Richard Dawkins, the biologist and campaigning atheist, that evolutionary theory proves that God does not exist, proclaiming that on the contrary Darwinian evolution and the account of Creation in Genesis are "perfectly compatible". At a five day conference held to mark the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species this week, Vatican theologians said while Christians believed that God "created all things", the Vatican "does not stand in the way of scientific realities". Vatican officials joined biologists, paleontologists, molecular geneticists and philosophers for the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University, which ends tomorrow. Rafael Martinez, professor of the Philosophy of Science at the Santa Croce Pontifical University in Rome, said although the reaction of Catholic theologians, intellectuals and priests to Darwinian theory had been "generally negative" in the 19th century, "recent declarations by Popes have asserted the full accordance of Catholic doctrine and evolutionary biology". |
So now the not so bright lawmakers in Oklahoma want to inhibit free speech at public universities. I think President Boren had the right answers. What do you make of this?
Tulsa World: State lawmaker files evolution resolutions |
Is anyone else flummoxed that so many people on both sides of this issue put so much time and energy into it... given that so many American kids can't read, write or do basic math? Who cares what someone believes about evolution if he can't go out and get a job??? And that's not counting the young people who leave home without being able to cook a meal, do their own laundry, balance a checkbook, use birth control effectively or attend to their own personal hygiene.
Basic life skills first. Pipe smoke debates after. |
Quote:
|
America falls behind in math and science every year, thats not my idea of a pipe smoke debate. Not sure where the jobs things comes into play since even the best education doesn't guarantee a job in this economy.
|
This is a little off topic, but on the subject of science. I good friend of mine has been suffering from cardiomyopathy for years and has had many close to death experiences in the last 6 years. He's been on the waiting list for a new heart since then. They found a match for him this past Thursday. On Thursday night into Friday morning he has a successful heart transplant. He is doing very well right now and is in good spirits.
It is just amazing that we are able to do these kinds of things, and without science and technology, we would not be able to. As mriff stated, science needs to be included in the above statement. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
If I were in a position to allocate time, energy and resources, I would choose for our president, our teachers, and our parents to spend more time making sure kids are up to speed on those "normal everyday processes" when they graduate, and less time debating evolution, religion, philosophy, the benefits of teaching multiple languages at once, whether juice is just as bad as soda, and other topics that are nice to debate but not vital unless (as you said) one is a specialist. I truly see the amount of energy spent by both sides on this issue as fiddling while Rome is burning, given the general educational crisis in our country. I'd rather our elected officials and public schoolteachers spend my tax dollars (read: their paid time) focusing on more pressing concerns. |
Yes dropping science, other languages, philosophy and history is a great way to improve the "educational crisis".(n)
who needs those things in the modern world. |
Quote:
|
I don't know if you all have been keeping up with what's happening in TX, but it could very significantly effect science education throughout the US. Due simply to the size of the Texas school system.
Don McElroy is an avowed creationist. Here is an interesting story on his crusades. Education board leader set to challenge evolution Here's an excerpt from the story: McLeroy — an avid reader of philosophers and theologians, including Christian theologian Norman Geisler and Dutch reformist Abraham Kuyper — said that in his Sunday school lessons, he seeks to give his students the tools they need to form their own arguments. In Texas public school classrooms, McLeroy says, he doesn't want religion taught. He just wants to let science be science. "If you want to tell (students) there are not weaknesses to evolution and it's as sure as the Earth going around the sun, it's not," he said. "You've got to be honest. You ask why I'm so passionate about this? I don't want America to lose its scientific soul. I feel I am the defender of science." My irony meter just exploded through the glass. :? Another snippet: One by one, he said, his questions were answered by pastors and in Bible studies. The conversion took four months. Over the next year, he began taking seminars on creationism and biblical principles. He is now a young earth creationist, meaning that he believes God created Earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. So we have a Young Earth Creationist as the Chairman of the State Board of Education and who has his hands on the wheel of the science curriculum. Very scary stuff. |
Higher and Lower Criticism vs. Evolution
Perhaps Higher and Lower Criticism of the Bible should be taught in Texas public schools as well as we all want equel time don't we. For those of you who do not know what I am talking about look up higher criticism on Wiki. The publication of a book in the 1850s in England discussing this caused far more outrage and public debate than the publication of Darwins book on Evolution. Higher Criticism was blamed on everything that was wrong in the late 19th century by certain learned scholars.
Did you know that there are more differences in surviving "original" language manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament? Something to ponder. Did you know that there are three separate versions of the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament? I am partial to the one in Deuteronomy. |
Quote:
You guys wonder why more people with differing opinions don't post. Well, this would be why. Who wants their remarks taken out of context and twisted? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And OK, your point was that there is too much emphasis on the "pipe debate" topics like science right? And my point was that American kids are already lagging behind in many areas and your idea to de-emphasize them even more would only add to the problem. But ok, I twisted your statements. To cut back on science and foreign languages simply would add momentum to the trends of us lagging behind. And science is crucial as mrriff says in that it is the foundation to many of the other topics. |
what in the world do foreign languages have to do with falling behind. If a someone cant balance a check book then going out of the country isn't going to happen anyway. I see exactly what she is saying and she is absolutely correct
|
Quote:
|
Thats the best comeback you have. Test I think you post just to see your thoughts on the screen. You really bore me.
|
Dawg, sometimes I think you post just to pick fights. You annoy me.
But back on topic, the points have been made with regards to what to focus on in elementary education. Some feel the best way is to put more emphasis on reading and basic math while some others think that the broad approach must be taken to compete with the global leaders and to overall give the best education. If the US was a developing nation then yes focus on reading and basic math but with 99% literacy and one of the best higher educational systems in the world, I think we are past that point. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Yes JSanders I guess i was guilty of picking fights. But atleast I am not a mod doing the same two things.:razz:
I actually was being facetious about twisting her words. Because her point was that there is too much emphasis on science, atleast that was what I got out of it. And the only way to put less emphasis on it is to drop the time spent on it. So I don;t really see how I twisted her words. To me the debate over what to teach affects the students, teachers and parents all the time so it is not a "pipe smoke" debate. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I think you to should settle this with a good old-fashioned thumb wresting match :?
|
Quote:
But I still don't get what you're saying. If it is true that it is a meaningless debate, then why is it so passionate? The science community sees itself as being attacked. And they are rightfully pushing back. There are other branches of science such as physics and geography that don't suffer from such scrutiny. Why the life sciences? I don't think it's asking too much to teach the most current science in each of the branches without injecting religion. |
(jsconyers, I like your sig. I have used it recently.)
|
Kathryn (and anybody else who'd care to comment), I'd like your opinion on post number 558. If you don't mind, please read what is happening in TX with the school board and the president wanting to inject his creationist views into the science curriculum. Do you agree or disagree with him?
|
These threads for the most part are all debates so there are going to be two or more sides and they do get people upset sometimes. Its all part of the back and forth of it.
Jsconyers, No need for thumb wrestling although I think I could take him. Not sure about dawg though. :razz: |
Quote:
Quote:
The poster above commented about their comments being taken out of context and you admit the issue (finally) you have been guilty of throughout this (and other) threads. If your goal is to poke at me and make me look foolish, have at it, I really don't care what reputation I have with you. But then again, I think you are only poking me because I am a Moderator. I don't throw that around in this Sensitive Discussion area, and as a matter of fact only in like two threads have I even reminded the users of the our supposed rules of civility here. You have thrown my "title" at me several times. And that, I am truly tiring of. Do you want to poke and poke to see what, if any, action I will take? What is your goal in all that? Is this your version of "I can make myself look better, if I first make him (or her) look stupid"? Damn, you win. |
The original post was regarding a journalist having asked the president about his attitude regarding the teaching of evolution in schools. Following that post, and the comments that followed, I asked if anyone else besides me felt that the evolution debate is out of proportion to its relevance.
(An analogy: I feel the amount of attention Britney Spears receives in the media is out of proportion to her relevance as an artist.) There are a handful of issues like evolution that people on both sides get so worked up about that the entire field of study gets hijacked. Science and evolution are not synonymous; one is a tiny subset of the other. Somehow, in spite of the fact that I never used the word "science" in any previous post, or addressed any facet of science apart from the evolution debate, I was interpreted as attacking science. "The science community sees itself as being attacked. And they are rightfully pushing back." The entire point of science is to create a theory and test it against all manner of arguments. How can one have any scientific progress without pointing out the flaws in hypotheses and theorems? What would the point be of "pushing back" against a process that - theoretically - makes one a better scientist? |
Quote:
* people disagree * even teachers * that's perfectly normal * it's OK to disagree with ANYONE as long as it's done respectfully, and * differences of opinion lead to growth So the man has a non-evolutionist view. He's entitled. Will he use his job to advocate his own position instead of behaving impartially? Probably, most people would do that. With any luck, a review board exists that will keep any unilateral decisions in check. I am equally opposed to suppressing either view. "Some people believe X, and others Y. Here's why... " is the best thing for our children to hear. Not only does it make them more tolerant of multiple points of view, but it gives them a chance to apply their own reason. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
BTW, I am a software developer. |
Quote:
|
fyi -
Branches of Science Note: Not all branches are included. Aerodynamics: the study of the motion of gas on objects and the forces created Anatomy: the study of the structure and organization of living things Anthropology: the study of human cultures both past and present Archaeology: the study of the material remains of cultures Astronomy: the study of celestial objects in the universe Astrophysics: the study of the physics of the universe Bacteriology: the study of bacteria in relation to disease Biochemistry: the study of the organic chemistry of compounds and processes occurring in organisms Biophysics: the application of theories and methods of the physical sciences to questions of biology Biology: the science that studies living organisms Botany: the scientific study of plant life Chemical Engineering: the application of science, mathematics, and economics to the process of converting raw materials or chemicals into more useful or valuable forms Chemistry: the science of matter and its interactions with energy and itself Climatology: the study of climates and investigations of its phenomena and causes Computer Science: the systematic study of computing systems and computation Ecology: the study of how organisms interact with each other and their environment Electronics: science and technology of electronic phenomena Engineering: the practical application of science to commerce or industry Entomology: the study of insects Environmental Science: the science of the interactions between the physical, chemical, and biological components of the environment Forestry: the science of studying and managing forests and plantations, and related natural resources Genetics: the science of genes, heredity, and the variation of organisms Geology: the science of the Earth, its structure, and history Marine Biology: the study of animal and plant life within saltwater ecosystems Mathematics: a science dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement Medicine: the science concerned with maintaining health and restoring it by treating disease Meteorology: study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting Microbiology: the study of microorganisms, including viruses, prokaryotes and simple eukaryotes Mineralogy: the study of the chemistry, crystal structure, and physical (including optical) properties of minerals Molecular Biology: the study of biology at a molecular level Nuclear Physics: the branch of physics concerned with the nucleus of the atom Neurology: the branch of medicine dealing with the nervous system and its disorders Oceanography: study of the earth's oceans and their interlinked ecosystems and chemical and physical processes Organic Chemistry: the branch of chemistry dedicated to the study of the structures, synthesis, and reactions of carbon-containing compounds Ornithology: the study of birds Paleontology: the study of life-forms existing in former geological time periods Petrology: the geological and chemical study of rocks Physics: the study of the behavior and properties of matter Physiology: the study of the mechanical, physical, and biochemical functions of living organisms Radiology: the branch of medicine dealing with the applications of radiant energy, including x-rays and radioisotopes Seismology: the study of earthquakes and the movement of waves through the Earth Taxonomy: the science of classification of animals and plants Thermodynamics: the physics of energy, heat, work, entropy and the spontaneity of processes Zoology: the study of animals I liked the list and thought it could be useful at this point of the conversations. |
Quote:
Quote:
Please don't take this personally. But it's amazing to me that people who are not formally trained in science, particularly the life sciences, think they can understand enough about evolution to even join the debate at all. Was that inflamatory? Probably. But I've read extensively on this topic and as you can tell, I have an opinion. :oops: |
Quote:
|
If you want to read up on something that is very interesting, check out the HOX gene. Google it, buy a book on it, whatever. Sean Carroll studies these genes in his lab and their association to development in fruit flies. Here is just one snippet from the web:
These genes became known as 'Homeobox', or 'Hox' genes (derived from the term 'homeosis' , meaning the developmental transformation of a body segment). It was subsequently discovered that mammals possess four sets, or 'clusters', of Hox genes as opposed to the single set controlling development in the fruit fly. By studying these gene clusters in other species, it has become clear that their overriding mechanism, as well as their basic genetic codes, have been highly conserved across evolution and time, suggesting an early development in the history of life. Or you can check out this YouTube video: YouTube - Regulatin' Genes |
Quote:
That's like me saying no one but a programmer should debate which BB OS versions are most superior, since they could not possibly understand the sort of code that goes into creating them or the real reason behind the bugs they encounter. If everybody is affected by something, surely everyone's perspective is valuable? :smile: |
Quote:
And no, I don't want anyone kept from the debate. I just want to see informed debate. And really, I can say that with a straight face. I don't debate whether or not my kids get a vaccine or whether or not they need to see a doctor. I trust what science has to offer. Quote:
Quote:
|
Here's some more food for thought for the crowd. Who do you think is most capable of designing a high school curriculum? Do you think that reading specialists should design the reading class curriculum? Do you think that math teachers should design the math curriculum? It seems to me that we would want people in the best position possible to have a large say in what is taught in each class.
If you agree that this is a good idea, then you will also agree that a person trained in science would be in the best position to design a good solid class curriculum. If you think that this actually happens, you will be woefully surprised. It is not what happens in most school districts in this great country. Curriculums are designed be people who are untrained in the common diciplines for which they are greatly impacting. Comments? |
Quote:
|
Regarding post #458:
I found the paper overtly one-sided, as most such papers are. For instance: Quote:
People need to get a grip. To me, though, this quote sums up what really unnerves the author: Quote:
This, however, is the real point: Quote:
|
Has anyone ever seen "The King and I"? (A broadway musical based on a true story.)
There's a wonderful scene where the King of Siam summons the heroine (Anna, an English schoolteacher) to his study in the middle of the night to speak to him. When she arrives, she sees him lying on the floor reading a Bible. He sees that she's there, he starts their conversation by declaring that Moses was a fool. When the bewildered teacher questions him, the king replies: "Here it stands written by him, that the world was created in six days. You know and I know, it took many ages to create world. I think he shall be a fool to have written so." Anna replies, "The Bible was not written by men of Science, but by men of faith. It was their way of explaining the miracle of creation... which is the same miracle whether it took one week or many centuries." (The king then hmphs, and asks her to compose a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking if he would like any elephants to help him win his civil war.) |
Quote:
|
I mean put yourself in the position of a biologist. The evidence for evolution is so overwhemling that it is granted theory status. (I've posted a couple times just what scientific theory means.) Then say you have a guy like Don McElroy say with conviction that the earth and every living thing on it is no more than 10,000 years old. Then someone tells you that he will drive what gets put into your childrens science text book. If that doesn't burn you up, someting is wrong. I know it burns me up.
(The Young Earth Creationists are on par with The Flat Earth Society, IMHO) |
Quote:
Quote:
Just food for thought. |
Quote:
But I am certainly happy to know that you think that people who are not formally trained in science, particularly the life sciences, should even join the creation/evolution debate at all. |
"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281
|
Good debate point JSanders.
Now this could degenerate into a discussion of what degree of training qualifies as "qualifying" one to discuss these matters as an expert vs. an interested observer -- that is the path that is potentially open. I will be the first to say that by my standards I can only qualify as an interested observer. Do we have any PhD historians or political scientists, with a degree granted from an accredited university, who care to chime into this debate? |
Quote:
|
BA, Organizational and Mass Communications, Eastern Washington University.
Just wanted to say that this has evolved into a thought provoking and very interesting discussion. (y) |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.