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)

Dawg 01-24-2009 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanders (Post 1258326)
ahhhh, tolerance at its best.

The fact that those you are who are so closed-minded and unenlightened wish also to control what is taught is really disgusting.

Well I for one know that I have a heavenly father who loves me and has a home for me when I pass out of this world as hes done for my father and uncle who have passed recently. And for that I am thankful, I know he loves me because he can not for what I do.

mriff 01-24-2009 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanders (Post 1258326)
ahhhh, tolerance at its best.

The fact that those you are who are so closed-minded and unenlightened wish also to control what is taught is really disgusting.

What is being controlled. With specific examples.

mriff 01-24-2009 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1258267)
well ok, accepted ideas. i guess I meant the big three described here. I do think evolution science should be taught as just that, it has evidence to back it up so teach about the evidence and the theory that fills in the gaps. The other two should be taught as alternatives. Thats what I mean by teach all ideas. Exposing people to all viewpoints and ideas generally pays off in my opinion.

so were you talking of a scientologist creation story? if so then no it should not be taught.

But test, how are they to be taught? As valid science? Does creationism have valid science backing it up? If so, sure, teach it. But to this day, no one has tested any hypothesis about intelligent design or creationism successfully. So tell me how and why it should be taught in the science classroom. Shouldn't these ideas (they are not theories) be taught in humanities classes?

JSanders 01-24-2009 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1258422)
What is being controlled. With specific examples.

Apparently your mind mind and that of a couple other posters in this thread, for a few specific examples.

mriff 01-24-2009 09:08 AM

Typical. Very typical. All I'm asking is for your arguments. But you can't provide any. The entire movement of those who want creationism taught in school (like the Discovery Institute) depends on people like you.

Edit: Sorry about that. I'll try not to resort to personal attacks again. But if anyone wants to argue the merits of why or why not creationism should be taught in the public school system, then I'm ready.

JSanders 01-24-2009 10:07 AM

I was speaking specifically of those closed-minded individuals such as are posting in this thread who advocate censoring ideas other than their own. Is that not enough?

mriff 01-24-2009 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanders (Post 1258521)
I was speaking specifically of those closed-minded individuals such as are posting in this thread who advocate censoring ideas other than their own. Is that not enough?

No, it's not. I want to know what you think is being censored. Are you talking specifically about not teaching creationism in school?

mriff 01-24-2009 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanders (Post 1258521)
I was speaking specifically of those closed-minded individuals such as are posting in this thread who advocate censoring ideas other than their own. Is that not enough?

And I have another question for you. Do think that the theory of evolution should not be taught in public school science classes?

JSanders 01-24-2009 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1258422)
What is being controlled. With specific examples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1258524)
No, it's not. I want to know what you think is being censored. Are you talking specifically about not teaching creationism in school?

Yes, that is what dmead was advocating in posts above. I see test54 said all ideas should be taught, but dmead's thoughts were much narrow.

mriff 01-24-2009 10:21 AM

Do you think teaching subjects in science class should be held to high scientific standard and be testable and researchable? I'm just asking. I don't know why creationism should be taught, in science class, because it cannot be tested. That's all I'm saying. And until such time that it can be and stand up to scientifice scrutiny, then it should not be taught.

djm2 01-24-2009 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1258539)
Do you think teaching subjects in science class should be held to high scientific standard and be testable and researchable? I'm just asking. I don't know why creationism should be taught, in science class, because it cannot be tested. That's all I'm saying. And until such time that it can be and stand up to scientifice scrutiny, then it should not be taught.

Roger that. The scientific process is a very specific process, and to be eligible for instruction in a science class that process must be adhered to with considerable rigor.

Ideas are ideas, and are therefore also valuable, but just because any specific individual is convinced that an idea is "truth" does not make it truth in a scientific sense; it makes it their personal truth. In that context, however, I would add that teaching intelligent design even in a course on humanities would probably open up the necessity of teaching Muslim, Hindu, etc., perspectives on the origins of the universe.

And on a related vein, many of the very devoted scientists that I know are also quite religious within the Judeo-Christian -- largely because they have spent time understanding philosophy of science. The two are not at all incompatible

TBOLTRAM 01-24-2009 11:47 AM

It appears to me that some individuals don't understand the potential difference between how and why in this "debate". One book seems to have a interesting desciption of how and the other has an interesting desciption of why. The real problem, in my opinion, is that there is a misunderstanding by some of the true age of the universe. The earth is made up of parts of an exploded star. Think about it.

test54 01-24-2009 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1258425)
But test, how are they to be taught? As valid science? Does creationism have valid science backing it up? If so, sure, teach it. But to this day, no one has tested any hypothesis about intelligent design or creationism successfully. So tell me how and why it should be taught in the science classroom. Shouldn't these ideas (they are not theories) be taught in humanities classes?

well, I think science class is by default where it will come into play. Ideas or theories, thats fine as long as the students can be presented with the ideas.

mriff 01-24-2009 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBOLTRAM (Post 1258622)
It appears to me that some individuals don't understand the potential difference between how and why in this "debate". One book seems to have a interesting desciption of how and the other has an interesting desciption of why. The real problem, in my opinion, is that there is a misunderstanding by some of the true age of the universe. The earth is made up of parts of an exploded star. Think about it.

Wow T, you care to expand on that? Not quite sure what you're getting at. I think I do, but come on man, tell us more.

mriff 01-24-2009 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1258581)
Roger that. The scientific process is a very specific process, and to be eligible for instruction in a science class that process must be adhered to with considerable rigor.

Ideas are ideas, and are therefore also valuable, but just because any specific individual is convinced that an idea is "truth" does not make it truth in a scientific sense; it makes it their personal truth. In that context, however, I would add that teaching intelligent design even in a course on humanities would probably open up the necessity of teaching Muslim, Hindu, etc., perspectives on the origins of the universe.

And on a related vein, many of the very devoted scientists that I know are also quite religious within the Judeo-Christian -- largely because they have spent time understanding philosophy of science. The two are not at all incompatible

A voice of reason. (y)

mriff 01-24-2009 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1258644)
well, I think science class is by default where it will come into play. Ideas or theories, thats fine as long as the students can be presented with the ideas.

There's a very fine line test. It should be ideas that can be tested. That's what science is all about. Testable, researchable ideas turn into hypotheses. Hypotheses can be rigorously tested and proven over time to fit within a framework of ideas. If an idea has merit, then researchers will test it, plain and simple. This is clearly where the evolution of form sits now. Down to the molecular level. There's just nothing that can be tested with the notion of intelligent design. If there was, and proof could be achieved, there would be Nobel prizes in order.

dmead 01-24-2009 01:34 PM

yes i am being closed minded to a great extent, but then you can send your children to a school of your choice. you don't have to send them to the schools that don't teach your ideals. my point earlier is that you have a choice in what you want taught to your child by way of which schools you send them to.

DallasFlier 01-24-2009 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1258249)
I don't know how it's being taught. I think those proponants (think Ben Stein) of ID like to say that the idea of how forms evolve is being shoved down kids throat, but I don't think that's the case.

mriff, to see some of how it is taught or comes across, look no further than this thread.

"the bible is as much fairy tale"

your own reference to "You forgot the Flying Spaghetti Monstors. :smile:" with the URL to the site which is pretty much in its entirety an attack on Christianity and clearly labels Christians as fools.

"please keep your hyprocricy out of my schools. and that is aimed at the entire christian right"

"evolution is fact" (hmm, but the scientific community calls it a theory)

Now, let me put my engineer hat on for a moment and call you out on one thing.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg (Post 1257652)
If apes have evolved into humans why don't we still have half ape half man things running around?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1257687)
Because we've evolved.

So you really are claiming that evolution explains why the starting point (apes) remains, but any and all midpoints have disappeared? Enlighten me! ;-)

DallasFlier 01-24-2009 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmead (Post 1258756)
yes i am being closed minded to a great extent, but then you can send your children to a school of your choice. you don't have to send them to the schools that don't teach your ideals. my point earlier is that you have a choice in what you want taught to your child by way of which schools you send them to.

And you wish to have the government support and fund those that teach what you wish, but not any others?

DallasFlier 01-24-2009 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1258581)
And on a related vein, many of the very devoted scientists that I know are also quite religious within the Judeo-Christian -- largely because they have spent time understanding philosophy of science. The two are not at all incompatible

There you go! That's what should be being taught in schools! Stop the polarization that this thread clearly shows from BOTH sides! (y)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.