BlackBerry Forums Support Community

BlackBerry Forums Support Community (http://www.blackberryforums.com/index.php)
-   Sensitive Discussions (http://www.blackberryforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=129)
-   -   President Obama and Evolution (http://www.blackberryforums.com/showthread.php?t=172128)

test54 02-26-2009 11:00 PM

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.

djm2 02-26-2009 11:43 PM

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.

djm2 02-26-2009 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1300885)
djm and others, i would encourage you to read Sean Carroll's books. Referenced earlier in this thread. Untestable assumptions are becoming fewer with new scientific thought. The science of evolutionary development is very recent. And allows specific and precise testing of various hypotheses. And not surprisingly, it ties into and adds to the evidence of evolution. The book I'm referring to is called Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo. This book focuses on development. And he continues to tie it all together in his second book, but on a molecular level with a very in depth analysis of all the current literature on DNA and gene research. It is called The Making of the Fittest. Trust me, it will astound you. Information on his lab can be found here:

Carroll lab

Edit: he focuses his writing on a few of the holy grails of creationism/intelligent design such as irreducible complexity. For instance, vision organs are no longer in the handbook of attacking points of the creationists. They are no longer irreducibly complex.

I'll check it out. I just hit the web site, and it looks interesting.

djm2 02-26-2009 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1301225)
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.

Yes, the tone was a bit emotional -- but it clearly was partially a socio-political piece as well as a strictly scientific piece. I suspect that was in part the reason you are seeing the clarion call for action.

mriff 02-27-2009 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1301225)
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'm not surprised at all by the tone. If you worked in an area of study that came under constant attack from people who use emotional and religious arguments against you, then you might have the same tone. And it's even harder still to have clear evidence, yet still get attacked. It must be difficult to choose a line of study that you are passionate about and then watch others who are not qualified to rationally discuss the subject try to tear it down.

Quote:

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.
Leave it up to them? I just can't believe this could be anyone's stance in teaching our children science. Why shouldn't we teach them what we know to be true? And why does this argument only come about when we talk about teaching in biology? This is a classic line straight out of DI. Academic freedom. Let the kids decide. But only in biology. Not in any other subject. It's for this notion of 'teach them everything and let them decide', that the US is next to last in science among the developed countries.

Quote:

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 was thinking about this last night. It's of course more complicated than what I wrote above. Biologists ask how and why. But the why is related to function, not philosophy.

mriff 02-27-2009 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1301255)
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 suspect that you know more about this than you are letting on. :smile: So I don't think you're being naive at all. But as you read and suspect, there is a strong regional component to the ID movement. It's no coincidence that the court cases have occurred in the South (except for the recent Dover decision). And even though it's a very small sample size, our little discussion here on bbf shows that the opponents of teaching straight science in science class are from the South. So it's easily summed up as, where the bible belt is strongest, so is the opposition to teaching sound science. Did I answer your question?

djm2 02-27-2009 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1301508)
I suspect that you know more about this than you are letting on. :smile: So I don't think you're being naive at all. But as you read and suspect, there is a strong regional component to the ID movement. It's no coincidence that the court cases have occurred in the South (except for the recent Dover decision). And even though it's a very small sample size, our little discussion here on bbf shows that the opponents of teaching straight science in science class are from the South. So it's easily summed up as, where the bible belt is strongest, so is the opposition to teaching sound science. Did I answer your question?

Yes you did. We see some small pressures up here, but by and large the mainstream denominations that dominate religious discourse up here do not try and interfere in education. Even in the private denominational schools the barriers between theology and science are maintained. Way back when, I remember having the same nun teach both the religion class and the biology class, and she clearly felt no conflict whatsoever.

test54 02-27-2009 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1301542)
Yes you did. We see some small pressures up here, but by and large the mainstream denominations that dominate religious discourse up here do not try and interfere in education. Even in the private denominational schools the barriers between theology and science are maintained. Way back when, I remember having the same nun teach both the religion class and the biology class, and she clearly felt no conflict whatsoever.

I went to a Christian College in Illinois and in remembering several geology / biology / anthropology classes, the Professors were not conflicted. I think down here its an everyday & every year struggle for the schools to walk the line between science and protesting parents. That being said I'm in a somewhat liberal pocket of the South so locally its not a major issue.

test54 02-27-2009 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1301493)
Leave it up to them? I just can't believe this could be anyone's stance in teaching our children science. Why shouldn't we teach them what we know to be true? And why does this argument only come about when we talk about teaching in biology? This is a classic line straight out of DI. Academic freedom. Let the kids decide. But only in biology. Not in any other subject. It's for this notion of 'teach them everything and let them decide', that the US is next to last in science among the developed countries.

There are so many cases where science has failed in the past that to depend solely on today's science is not going to work for everyone. Anything from schools teaching the world is flat to children seeing their brothers & sisters being killed by vaccines & unknown diseases. To normal kids they are like a sponge and I think that you can frame the conversations to where evidence is presented as such (the how) and then you can allow the theories of why to be explored as well. I just think that to shut off one idea might help with science but would hurt in other aspects of their education and lives.

mriff 02-27-2009 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1301561)
There are so many cases where science has failed in the past that to depend solely on today's science is not going to work for everyone. Anything from schools teaching the world is flat to children seeing their brothers & sisters being killed by vaccines & unknown diseases. To normal kids they are like a sponge and I think that you can frame the conversations to where evidence is presented as such (the how) and then you can allow the theories of why to be explored as well. I just think that to shut off one idea might help with science but would hurt in other aspects of their education and lives.

I guess I can (begrudgingly :smile:) see where you're coming from. But to reiterate, I've bolded one of your comments. Teach philosophy all you want in other subjects. After all, ID is philosophy and religion, so teach it in those classes. There is no evidence to support intelligent design. Absolutely none. So how does one 'teach' that in science class? You don't. In science class, teach what is scientifically known. And yes, I agree, science is not immune to illogical thinking just as any other subject (your examples are from several hundred years ago and I think we've come a long way since then).

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.

test54 02-27-2009 09:19 AM

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?

mriff 02-27-2009 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1301591)
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?

It makes for an extremely tough situation as a science teacher, especially in High School. As you say, some of them come in to the class ready to argue. And some still are given specific items to argue. The science teacher then has to take time out of teaching actual science to cleaning up after those who don't want science taught in a way that offends their religion (again this only effects evolution, not other branches of science). I simply have a problem with those who purposefully interfere and feel threatened in some way with teaching sound science because it doesn't fit in with their world view. There are many science teachers who do an admirable job in spite of having to argue this idea. Some of the more energetic actually use the 'controversy' to strengthen their teaching in biology class.

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.

test54 02-27-2009 09:48 AM

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.

mriff 02-27-2009 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1301625)
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.

Sure, it plays into the debate. But evolutionary development science doesn't concern itself with the origin of life, it simply explains how it has evolved over time. None of the evolutionary development scientists study from whence living organisms came, they study the form of existing and past living organisms.

test54 02-27-2009 10:14 AM

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?

mriff 02-27-2009 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1301659)
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?

See post 469. Kind of gives you an overall idea. The Theory of Evolution attempts to trace life back to the beginning, but I haven't really studied that area much. Much more work is done in defining the evolution of more advanced biological forms, both plant and animal.

test54 02-27-2009 12:06 PM

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.

mriff 02-27-2009 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1301819)
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.

I wouldn't go that far. I would say that it is not understood by me. But again, I haven't studied that portion of the evolutionary tree so I can't very well comment on it.

test54 02-27-2009 01:03 PM

I understand. I'm just going on what I have seen and read as to the Big Bang & the earliest life.

mriff 02-27-2009 02:09 PM

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?

mriff 02-27-2009 02:12 PM

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3577/...72fd6227_o.jpg

test54 02-27-2009 02:14 PM

that would be the best way to end this thread. Somehow I doubt that will happen.

mriff 02-27-2009 02:30 PM

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

djm2 02-27-2009 02:42 PM

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:

mriff 02-27-2009 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1302001)
Regardless: I must Google Expelled, because I hadn't even heard of it.

You will be shocked.

Quote:

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:
I'll have to get right on that. Although all that early big bang stuff scares me! Not sure I can handle theoretical cosmology. :oops:

test54 02-27-2009 04:08 PM

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.

mriff 02-27-2009 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1302111)
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.

If you watched Expelled first and then watched Religulous second, back to back, your head might explode! :razz: Those two movies are literally 180 degrees apart.

test54 02-27-2009 04:45 PM

I might have to try that. Add about 4 or 5 adult beverages and I might devolve into Neanderthal.

mriff 02-27-2009 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1302184)
I might have to try that. Add about 4 or 5 adult beverages and I might devolve into Neanderthal.

:razz:

test54 02-28-2009 01:29 AM

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.

djm2 02-28-2009 10:08 AM

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

mriff 02-28-2009 11:14 AM

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

mriff 02-28-2009 11:25 AM

Wow, just wow. :smile:

YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists 6

djm2 02-28-2009 12:45 PM

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.

mriff 02-28-2009 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1303050)
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.

Exsqueeze me? :razz: Not sure I understand your point. Maybe it's because I was laughing too hard and missed the laugh lines. :oops:

djm2 02-28-2009 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1303089)
Exsqueeze me? :razz: Not sure I understand your point. Maybe it's because I was laughing too hard and missed the laugh lines. :oops:

What I meant is that you and I can easily find it very humorous -- and believe me I do -- but the entire issue is quite serious when viewed within the context of the goal of "the movement" of watering down an already weak educational system.

Sorry -- I was somewhat cryptic.

mriff 02-28-2009 01:33 PM

Oh, I completely agree. How serious is it? Check this out. Right here in my back yard.

Florida Citizens for Science

djm2 02-28-2009 01:38 PM

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.;-)

mriff 02-28-2009 01:55 PM

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

mriff 02-28-2009 02:01 PM

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

djm2 02-28-2009 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1303135)
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

Reading the comments there was deja vu all over again.

mriff 02-28-2009 02:12 PM

Yeah, it was. But I'm surprised that the proponents of evolution weren't outnumbered like they usually are.

mriff 03-04-2009 09:04 AM

Where's dmead? I thought you were going to come on in and help us with the evolution discussion? Come on man!

dmead 03-04-2009 10:23 AM

i'm here but, I've been sort of busy lately so i haven't scoured the intraweb for evolution related stories.

mriff 03-04-2009 08:57 PM

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

mriff 03-05-2009 07:18 AM

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?

mriff 03-06-2009 09:27 PM

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".

mriff 03-06-2009 09:29 PM

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

kathrynhr 03-09-2009 08:00 AM

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.

mriff 03-09-2009 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathrynhr (Post 1312862)
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.

I would offer that this is hardly a 'pipe smoke debate'. I've highlighted a sentence above. I would add to that sentence 'or understand basic science'. Evolution is the underlying basis for understanding all life sciences. So yes, I think it's important. Why minimize it by comparing it to normal everyday processes?

test54 03-09-2009 09:57 AM

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.

jsconyers 03-09-2009 09:59 AM

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.

kathrynhr 03-09-2009 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1312992)
I would offer that this is hardly a 'pipe smoke debate'. I've highlighted a sentence above. I would add to that sentence 'or understand basic science'. Evolution is the underlying basis for understanding all life sciences. So yes, I think it's important. Why minimize it by comparing it to normal everyday processes?

I disagree completely. I'd definitely call evolution v/s creationism a pipe smoke debate. How, specifically, we got here is interesting conversation material, but is otherwise largely immaterial. We're here. What we choose to do next is the important bit.

mriff 03-09-2009 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathrynhr (Post 1313035)
I disagree completely. I'd definitely call evolution v/s creationism a pipe smoke debate. How, specifically, we got here is interesting conversation material, but is otherwise largely immaterial. We're here. What we choose to do next is the important bit.

How specfically we got here is far more than just interesting material. It may be 'just interesting' to you or any other lay person, but as I said, it is the basis for understanding life sciences. People who work in life sciences use this understanding in every experiment they do. Evolutionary principles are so important to many branches of science. Interestingly, the other topic of debate, stem cells, has at it's very core the evolution of DNA. How basic is that? So it is not immaterial.

kathrynhr 03-09-2009 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1313205)
How specfically we got here is far more than just interesting material. It may be 'just interesting' to you or any other lay person, but as I said, it is the basis for understanding life sciences. People who work in life sciences use this understanding in every experiment they do. Evolutionary principles are so important to many branches of science. Interestingly, the other topic of debate, stem cells, has at it's very core the evolution of DNA. How basic is that? So it is not immaterial.

In the macro sense, my point is this:

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.

test54 03-09-2009 03:50 PM

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.

mriff 03-09-2009 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1313500)
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.

Well said.

mriff 03-09-2009 07:07 PM

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.

TBOLTRAM 03-09-2009 09:20 PM

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.

kathrynhr 03-11-2009 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1313500)
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.

I never said those subjects didn't matter or that they should be dropped.

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?

JSanders 03-11-2009 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathrynhr (Post 1315601)
Who wants their remarks taken out of context and twisted?

You're not saying... no way!

test54 03-11-2009 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathrynhr (Post 1315601)
I never said those subjects didn't matter or that they should be dropped.

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?

Um, you might read some other threads, its really never one sided.
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.

Dawg 03-11-2009 09:38 AM

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

test54 03-11-2009 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1315706)
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

why am i not surprised?

Dawg 03-11-2009 10:26 AM

Thats the best comeback you have. Test I think you post just to see your thoughts on the screen. You really bore me.

test54 03-11-2009 11:02 AM

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.

JSanders 03-11-2009 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1315821)
Dawg, sometimes I think you post just to pick fights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1315689)
But ok, I twisted your statements.

Ha, this ^^ is not by accident, and surely not done in an unconscious state?

test54 03-11-2009 11:37 AM

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.

JSanders 03-11-2009 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1315881)
Yes JSanders I guess i was guilty. But atleast I am not a mod doing the same two things.

lol, always on the attack.

test54 03-11-2009 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanders (Post 1315883)
lol, always on the attack.

right back at you. :-(

jsconyers 03-11-2009 11:45 AM

I think you to should settle this with a good old-fashioned thumb wresting match :?

mriff 03-11-2009 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathrynhr (Post 1315601)
I never said those subjects didn't matter or that they should be dropped.

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?

Kathryn, all these threads in the Sensitive Forum are like this. Especially this one. You can see that in the above few posts.

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.

mriff 03-11-2009 11:47 AM

(jsconyers, I like your sig. I have used it recently.)

mriff 03-11-2009 11:51 AM

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?

test54 03-11-2009 11:54 AM

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:

JSanders 03-11-2009 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1315888)
right back at you. :-(

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1315918)
I think I could take him. Not sure about dawg though. :razz:

You just won't let it go will you?

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.

kathrynhr 03-11-2009 12:17 PM

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?

kathrynhr 03-11-2009 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1313670)
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."

<snip>

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.

As a parent, I am more concerned about the fact that people seem unwilling to teach their children that:

* 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.

mriff 03-11-2009 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathrynhr (Post 1315958)
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.

Wow, went back to the original post. That was a long time ago.

Quote:

(An analogy: I feel the amount of attention Britney Spears receives in the media is out of proportion to her relevance as an artist.)
Please make use of another analogy. You gotta bring it back to reality. :razz:

Quote:

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.
Kathryn, I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I have to say that you have it wrong here. There is nothing tiny about the Theory of Evolution. As I've said, it underlies all of the life sciences. I'm not sure what else I can do to convince you of that, but I can certainly provide some sources.

Quote:

"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?
EXACTLY AND PRECISELY! Thank you for making my point. The Theory of Evolution has been tested and tested and tested. A body of evidence exists that support all aspects of evolution. People have tried and tried to point out flaws. Guess what, none of them work. Just in the last 10 years, science has made tremendous strides in understanding evolution, even on a molecular level. Still, everything, all studies, support the science of evolution.

mriff 03-11-2009 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathrynhr (Post 1315976)
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.

This is exactly what people are worried about. He is forcing his non-evolutionist (religious) views on everyone around him and into the science classroom. A review board? They are also worried about that. So tell me. Are you the least concerned that a man who believes the earth is 10,000 years old has tremendous influence in what is written in science textbooks, not only in TX but the entire country? If not, you really should be.

Quote:

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.
But come on, don't you think that the science curriculum should teach what we know? It's not about multiple points of view and 'teach both sides'. There are no two sides. The Theory of Evolution is the only theory of how forms evolve. There are no other theories.

kathrynhr 03-11-2009 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1316009)
Kathryn, I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I have to say that you have it wrong here. There is nothing tiny about the Theory of Evolution. As I've said, it underlies all of the life sciences. I'm not sure what else I can do to convince you of that, but I can certainly provide some sources.

I disagree. It is one piece, and a piece that gets more attention than it should for the reason that each side of the debate is unwilling to acknowledge the rightful existence of the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1316009)
It's not about multiple points of view and 'teach both sides'. There are no two sides. The Theory of Evolution is the only theory of how forms evolve. There are no other theories.

Whether one believes that intelligent design is a proper theory or not, many people believe it is the truth. So, logic says that in order to engage them in any sort of meaningful debate, you must accept that they begin all reason on a certain foundation. Whether you believe the foundation to be faulty or not is of no consequence. To engage someone else you must meet them where they are. Remarks like "there are no other theories" are unhelpful and inflammatory except in like-minded company.

BTW, I am a software developer.

test54 03-11-2009 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathrynhr (Post 1315976)
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.

This is my view as well, however in reality I'm not sure how practical it is since the teachers are usually not going to be completely impartial. If so then I would think that the evidence of evolution would win out over the complete lack of evidence of creation. But I still think that ultimately the best education comes from being exposed to all viewpoints, no matter how crazy they may seem. But that can also lead to issues like what if Scientology grows and then must there be point in school where the kids must learn the theory of how Xenu seeded the earth with humans?

test54 03-11-2009 01:31 PM

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.

mriff 03-11-2009 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathrynhr (Post 1316050)
I disagree. It is one piece, and a piece that gets more attention than it should for the reason that each side of the debate is unwilling to acknowledge the rightful existence of the other.

Well, we will agree to disagree on this topic. I'm a biologist by training, so as you can see it is near and dear to my heart.

Quote:

Whether one believes that intelligent design is a proper theory or not, many people believe it is the truth. So, logic says that in order to engage them in any sort of meaningful debate, you must accept that they begin all reason on a certain foundation. Whether you believe the foundation to be faulty or not is of no consequence. To engage someone else you must meet them where they are. Remarks like "there are no other theories" are unhelpful and inflammatory except in like-minded company.
Remarks like 'there are no other theories' are absolutely correct. It is a true statment. Why should I not make it when it is so? There truly are no other theories that explain how forms evolve. And when I say theory, I'm talking about a Scientific Theory. Not how theory is stated in the dictionary.

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:

mriff 03-11-2009 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1316063)
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
[B]Bacteriology[/B]: 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.

Interesting list test. Just for kicks, I went through and highlighted all branches of science in which the Theory of Evolution would have an impact.

mriff 03-11-2009 01:55 PM

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

kathrynhr 03-11-2009 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1316074)
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:

Sir... you cannot simultaneously argue that science is pervasive and affects all of life, and then turn around and say with a straight face that people who are not formally trained in science shouldn't join in a scientific debate.

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:

mriff 03-11-2009 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathrynhr (Post 1316142)
Sir... you cannot simultaneously argue that science is pervasive and affects all of life, and then turn around and say with a straight face that people who are not formally trained in science shouldn't join in a scientific debate.

First of all, Sir was my dad. Name's mriff. :razz:

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:

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.
No way that I could debate you in any way shape or form on what is the best way to program anything. That is so far over my head it's not funny. I trust you as a programmer to know what to do.

Quote:

If everybody is affected by something, surely everyone's perspective is valuable? :smile:
Surely it is. Unless it is disingenious. Which is where we find ourselves in the creationism/evolution 'debate'. I'd be interested in your opinion on the post I made (#458) earlier. Several have read it and commented.

mriff 03-11-2009 02:27 PM

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?

mriff 03-11-2009 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathrynhr (Post 1316142)
Sir... you cannot simultaneously argue that science is pervasive and affects all of life, and then turn around and say with a straight face that people who are not formally trained in science shouldn't join in a scientific debate.

Thinking a little further about this comment, what is truly amazing to me is that as pervasive as science is, that most people take it for granted. You're right, it is pervasive. It's an extremely important area of study. Scientific discoveries have greatly advanced our quality of living. Yet, some in certain scientific fields are ridiculed for their chosen field of study. So yes, it is a bit more than a 'pipe smoke' debate. ;-)

kathrynhr 03-11-2009 02:41 PM

Regarding post #458:

I found the paper overtly one-sided, as most such papers are. For instance:

Quote:

Despite political and legal setbacks (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District, 2005), ID creationists continue their campaign to de-secularize public education and, ultimately, American culture and government, thereby undermining foundational elements of secular, constitutional democracy."
Dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!

People need to get a grip.

To me, though, this quote sums up what really unnerves the author:

Quote:

To advance their anti-science and anti-secularism agenda, ID creationists ... seek to use public schools "to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies, to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God, and to see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life. (Discovery Institute, 1998).
If you believed that something was true, that's what you'd choose to teach to your children. The only thing about this situation that's alarming is that people seem to be alarmed -- yet again -- when human beings display normal human behavior.

This, however, is the real point:

Quote:

Although implementing the First Amendmentxxx8217;s guarantee of religious freedom has sometimes been difficult, public schools have been generally successful in providing an educational environment free of religious strife for 90% of American children, thus enabling them to concentrate on acquiring the knowledge and skills necessary to economic and civic life (Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Doc. 623).
Indeed. In spite of the fact that the age of the world is in question, it does continue to turn. :-D

kathrynhr 03-11-2009 02:54 PM

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.)

mriff 03-11-2009 02:56 PM

Quote:

Indeed. In spite of the fact that the age of the world is in question, it does continue to turn. :-D
Yep, it's your last statement that is at the very core of the debate. There are those that want to challenge the First Amendment by inserting their overtly religous leanings into the science classroom. If you don't believe that, then go check out anything written by the Discovery Institute. It's people like Don McElroy who are clearly trying to guide science teaching to areas that cannot be tested or confirmed. Some would say guide science teaching back 300 years. So the world continues to turn because there are those who believe strongly in a sound education, particularly in science, who work hard to keep sound science as the basis for training our students.

mriff 03-11-2009 03:14 PM

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)

JSanders 03-11-2009 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1316074)
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.

Ok, I will give you that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1316247)
There are those that want to challenge the First Amendment by inserting their overtly religous leanings into the science classroom.

Then you give me this: You have no basis at all to speak of the First Amendment. How does that challenge the First Amendment? Remember now, you have very little basis on which to discuss this. You are not a historian nor a political scientist. I have been trained in both, as well as avocational interest in both subjects. It amazes me that people who are not formally trained in this history, particularly constitutional history, think they can understand enough about our Constitution and Bill of Rights to even join the debate at all.

Just food for thought.

mriff 03-11-2009 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanders (Post 1316337)
Ok, I will give you that.



Then you give me this: You have no basis at all to speak of the First Amendment. How does that challenge the First Amendment? Remember now, you have very little basis on which to discuss this. You are not a historian nor a political scientist. I have been trained in both, as well as avocational interest in both subjects. It amazes me that people who are not formally trained in this history, particularly constitutional history, think they can understand enough about our Constitution and Bill of Rights to even join the debate at all.

Just food for thought.

I didn't profess to be an expert on the first amendment. You are correct. I am neither an historian nor a political scientist. (Although I've read extensively on US history, particularly war history, so if you are a war buff, let's start another thead. That one could be a lot more fun than this one.) I was simply responding to something that Kathryn posted. She posted a quote, however, from someone I happen to agree with. It was from the Barbara Foster paper posted some time ago. I'm not sure if you ever read it though, since I can't recall if you posted your comments.

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.

mriff 03-11-2009 06:18 PM

"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

djm2 03-11-2009 06:21 PM

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?

mriff 03-11-2009 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1316534)
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?

None here. My Ph.D. is not in history or political science.

ndub33 03-11-2009 06:38 PM

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.