RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 12:34:57 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1133
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
No, it's not. I am not asking them to teach biblical inerrancy.
Yes, you are. Biblical inerrancy is the only, sole, single reason that anyone would ever, in a million (excuse me, 6,000 years) even suggest that this planet is young. Biblical inerrancy is the only, sole, single reason that anyone would ever suggest that species can not evolve out of their biblical kinds. No one, except those with a religious agenda, would look at the massive pile of evidence from the fields of geology, astronomy, genetics, physics, and chemistry and even suggest that the earth is young.
quote:
And you know the thing is, you seem smart enough to know that the alleged arguments for censoring anything that may contradict UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are flawed.
Tell that to at least 3 federal judges who have shot down the incursion of religion into the publich high school classroom. Public school teachers, as agents of the government, are restrained from endorsing religious views. It's part of the constitution that we are all held to here in the states. If you don't like it then move to a country that allows it's government to teach creationism. I hear the weather in Turkey is quite nice.
What we are all waiting for are LEGITIMATE, SCIENTIFIC criticisms of UCD. All we hear from the creationist crowd is "Sour Grapes!!".
quote:
A characteristic of good science is that it allows, even encourages, the discussion of the pros and cons of all sides.
But you want to do away with science altogether as proven by this quote, "UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are flawed." Every time the evidence is stacked against you you call for the end of science. That is not criticism. That is fear.
quote:
What you are advocating is not scientific. Why do you keep advocating it?
I am asking for something scientific other than "The bible says so".
quote:
Creationism is more scientific than UCD and other naturalistic philosophies.
Another lie.
quote:
This is like me saying, you can not speak about UCD and other naturalistic philosophies without pushing naturalistic religion. Teaching both sides does not push religion.
Why do you try so hard to make science into a religion? Is this a tacit admission that science is better than religion? I think it is. Think about it. When was the last time you heard a scientist denigrate creationism by calling it "just another science". Never, right?
Your only way around facing the evidence is to call science a religion. Sad.
quote:
The notion that an organism that doesn't use the same codon would falsify UCD is a lie.
No. It's not. If you find a species that uses GCC for a methionine I will gladly admit that this species does not share a common ancestor with the rest of life on this planet. I state it right now in front of everybody.
Even more interesting is that there are scientists who commit their time trying to find such organisms. They want to find a species that is not related to the rest of life on this planet. This discovery would very likely earn the scientist a Nobel Prize and an almost guarantee of getting funding for the next 15 years.
quote:
There is no reason for it to falsify UCD just because you (or any consensus) assert it would.
There is every reason in the world that it would falsify UCD. Unlike you, scientists do not follow dogma. Projection is a sickness, not an argument.
quote:
None of it does.
Yes, it does. You and your siblings use the same codons, same ribosomes, same metabolic pathways, and same tRNA's. Is this because you share a common ancestor or because you were all independently formed from mud by a deity? Are you a rock human?
quote:
There is no physical law that states UCD should predict this.
That's a lie.
Just so you know, criticism of scientific theories does not include denying predictions made by the theory.
quote:
If UCD and other naturalistic philosophies were good science they wouldn't need to maintain themselves by censoring criticisms and opposing views.
They are used by scientists in very important research. It needs as much protection as heliocentrism. Sadly, people with a religious agenda would rather see kids receive a poor science education than read something which contradicts religious dogma. Sad indeed.
quote:
Neither of which explain it. They do not explain the emergence of new organs, organ systems, body plans, etc... or the DNA for them.
The DNA for them is seen in the DNA differences between species.
quote:
Gonzales for one. He got denied tenure at ISU for no other reason. Now he does ID research at a private institution.
Being denied tenure does not stop one from doing research. He is still a professor at ISU, still has access to grad students, telescope time, administrative faculty needed for submitting grants, colleagues, and every single thing that a scientist needs to do research. His problem is that he has hitched his career to a bad theory.
quote:
ID and Creationism are two. They're more scientific than UCD and other naturalistic philosophies.
That's a lie. I really don't care if I get banned at this point. Your bully tactics need to be stopped. You are a liar, sir. I will gladly participate in a one on one debate if you feel it necessary, here or elsewhere. You are a one trick pony who thinks calling science a "naturalistic philosophy" somehow scores points. You can't argue against the science so your only tactic left is to call it names. How sad.
quote:
Naturalism is a religion masquerading as science. It's so unscientific that it can't even maintain itself without censoring criticism and opposing views.
Science is naturalism, dork. That's why the first scientists were called naturalists. Is that your only response to mountains of evidence? Repeat phrases from the Wedge Document? Is the Wedge Document your bible, or do you have at least one original thought somewhere in the brain of yours?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 12:42:14 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1420
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Yes, you are. Biblical inerrancy is the only, sole, single reason that anyone would ever, in a million (excuse me, 6,000 years) even suggest that this planet is young. Biblical inerrancy is the only, sole, single reason that anyone would ever suggest that species can not evolve out of their biblical kinds. No one, except those with a religious agenda, would look at the massive pile of evidence from the fields of geology, astronomy, genetics, physics, and chemistry and even suggest that the earth is young.
but I am not asking them to tell students that the Bible is infallible (they are free to tell students in a theology class that many Christians believe the Bible is infallible. They are also free to tell them, in a theology class, that many Muslims believe the Koran is infallible). I am asking them to teach the pros and cons of all sides of the issue. There is a difference.
quote:
Tell that to at least 3 federal judges who have shot down the incursion of religion into the publich high school classroom.
Truth and science are not based on court decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 12:49:31 AM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Truth and science are not based on court decisions.
No kidding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 12:53:44 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1133
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
but I am not asking them to tell students that the Bible is infallible
Yes, you are.
quote:
Truth and science are not based on court decisions.
The truth of motive is based on court decisions. The movement to push in religiously motivated, religiously based, and religiously couched textbooks and criticisms are based on court decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 1:05:31 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1420
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
but I am not asking them to tell students that the Bible is infallible
Yes, you are.
Where?
quote:
The truth of motive is based on court decisions.
No, it's not.
quote:
Is that your only response to mountains of evidence?
Surely, if mountains of evidence for UCD existed, someone would have presented some by now (in the empirical evidence thread). So far, no one has. If mountains of evidence did exist, then you should have no problem with students being exposed to criticisms and opposing views (in public schools) because the alleged mountains of evidence should be enough to convince them that UCD (and other naturalistic philosophies) is true, even in the face of scrutiny and opposing views.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/22/2008 1:26:05 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 4:05:52 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Especially when substantiation is misunderstood, misapplied, rejected and ignored.
Well, you have yet to substantiate.
You have yet to recognize substantive evidence when it is presented to you.
quote:
quote:
Oh, well, if one wants non-strawman views, that does pretty well eliminate creationism since it consists of nothing else.
No, it does not eliminate creationism. Non - strawman = the actual arguments made by those who hold a viewpoint, not a (different) strawman version of it made by an opponent.
So try me. I have not yet seen a single argument for creationism that is not a strawman or some kind of logical fallacy.
quote:
Show me examples where what Behe proposes (in terms of intelligent design) is legally taught in public schools (in, say, California or other states where such teaching is banned
As far as I know, all the court cases were about teaching ID in science classes. No one has taken the matter to court over teaching it in philosophy classes. So it has not been banned from classes where the discussion is appropriate. Remember, even the philosophy of science is taught in philosophy class, not in science class.
quote:
I don't see how UCD is something scientists "do" using the scientific method.
Then you need to study scientific method. The lack of such understanding is probably the reason you are unable to recognize evidence and potential falsifications when they are presented to you.
It would be a good idea to study some logic as well. Understanding an "If A, then B" statement is crucial to practicing scientific method. Every hypothesis has to be put into such a framework in order to determine how to test its validity.
UCD is a logical conclusion given the evidence. When UCD is placed as "A" in the statement above "If A, then B" every B which logically follows is observed. Every not-B (potential falsification) is not observed. IOW, having tested out the "If A, then B" statement in many ways, it is appropriate to conclude "B, therefore A".
quote:
quote:
My background is primarily in Christian education, and I am much more interested in the theological issues than the scientific issues, though in order to deal with the horrid theology of creationism, I have had to learn some of the science along the way.
Do you happen to speak many languages?
I am not sure why the question is relevant but as a matter of fact, yes. My first career was as a teacher of French, so I speak that fluently. I am also not bad in Latin, Spanish and German and I am working on Greek, Hebrew and Japanese.
quote:
Surely, if mountains of evidence for UCD existed, someone would have presented some by now (in the empirical evidence thread). So far, no one has.
That's a lie as anyone reading the thread will see. People, including myself, have presented evidence, which you have hand-waved away, apparently because you don't even understand the word "empirical".
When you are ready to deal seriously with the evidence you have already been provided, there is plenty more to present as well.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 9:07:41 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1420
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
You have yet to recognize substantive evidence when it is presented to you.
That's because it hasn't been presented to me, so there is nothing to recognize.
quote:
So try me. I have not yet seen a single argument for creationism that is not a strawman or some kind of logical fallacy.
You don't seem to understand what the word strawman means. Even if you consider a creationist argument a "logical fallacy" that doesn't necessarily mean it's a strawman.
So you wouldn't mind if the strongest non - strawman creationist arguments were presented to students in these classes?
quote:
As far as I know, all the court cases were about teaching ID in science classes. No one has taken the matter to court over teaching it in philosophy classes. So it has not been banned from classes where the discussion is appropriate. Remember, even the philosophy of science is taught in philosophy class, not in science class.
Uhm.... So then, you would not disagree with my contention in previous posts? If so, I appreciate that and I can rightly call you the first intellectually honest naturalist here.
quote:
Then you need to study scientific method.
It is your own faulty wording that you need to study. I read what people say very literally so I can give a literal response. You said that science is what scientists do. Scientists don't universally evolve from a microbe to a man (though you may argue it is something they did in the past).
If you can be more clear about your definition of science, I can either affirm or reject it.
According to Karl Popper, science is that which is falsifiable. In order for something to be scientific, it needs to be falsifiable.
quote:
It would be a good idea to study some logic as well. Understanding an "If A, then B" statement is crucial to practicing scientific method. Every hypothesis has to be put into such a framework in order to determine how to test its validity.
Again, it's not my logic that's bad, it's your faulty wording. UCD is not something scientists "do" though you may argue it's something some scientists believe is true. See the difference.
quote:
UCD is a logical conclusion given the evidence. When UCD is placed as "A" in the statement above "If A, then B" every B which logically follows is observed. Every not-B (potential falsification) is not observed. IOW, having tested out the "If A, then B" statement in many ways, it is appropriate to conclude "B, therefore A".
But what you said is that science is what scientists "do." UCD is not something that they "do". It's just a matter of poor semantics.
quote:
My first career was as a teacher of French, so I speak that fluently. I am also not bad in Latin, Spanish and German and I am working on Greek, Hebrew and Japanese.
Do you speak any other languages?
quote:
That's a lie as anyone reading the thread will see.
Please, don't resort to calling it a "lie" like Method started doing. I did not call anything you said a lie directly to you (though I called what Method said a lie because he started it, but I do not mean any disrespect to you). You may argue that what I am saying is false (and I'm sure many people on these forums would disagree), or that I'm wrong, but lets keep this debate civil and not resort to using words like "lie."
quote:
People, including myself, have presented evidence, which you have hand-waved away, apparently because you don't even understand the word "empirical".
I disagree. I do not want to keep debating this with you though since you seem to agree that you wouldn't mind my counterarguments and you wouldn't mind the strongest non - strawman arguments for ID and Creationism being presented to students who are exposed to UCD and other naturalistic philosophies. If this is the case, at least you think your views are defendable in the face of scrutiny. However, you better make sure that your arguments make sense if the criticisms (the ones I've mentioned) and if opposing views (like those presented by Behe and Dembski and Gentry, etc...) are to be presented to students. Otherwise, I think you're going to have a tough time convincing students that you're right. I believe that if my counterarguments and if opposing views are presented to students who are also exposed to UCD and other naturalistic philosophies, that many students will not buy your arguments over mine. Read my replies to your posts very carefully, make very certain that you understand them very well because if you want the secular community to try and dispute my counterarguments with your arguments (and your attempted counter arguments to my arguments) and if you want to convince students that your arguments are correct and my counter arguments are incorrect, you had better make sure that that your arguments are logical. When you say, "You have yet to recognize substantive evidence when it is presented to you" you better make absolutely certain that you are right and that you have in fact presented substantial evidence if my counterarguments are to be exposed to those students that are exposed to UCD (and your arguments for UCD and your attempted counterarguments to my arguments). If your arguments are wrong and my counterarguments are right (and I am pretty sure this is the case), then, chances are, students will see this. I'm pretty sure I will know substantial evidence if I see it (I've been debating this on forums for years, I think I know what UCD claims and I'm pretty familiar with most of the alleged arguments for it) and I actually think that you think that you are correct. Read my arguments very carefully, make sure. Read them again, think about them, try to understand them. If you have any questions, ask.
quote:
When you are ready to deal seriously with the evidence you have already been provided, there is plenty more to present as well.
I have been dealing seriously with the alleged evidence for several years now on message boards. I'm pretty familiar with what evolutionists put forth as evidence, none of it is empirical and the circumstantial evidence they present is poorly interpreted at best.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/22/2008 9:15:50 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 9:41:57 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
That's because it hasn't been presented to me, so there is nothing to recognize.
The thread is 9 pages long, with the last few pages being almost nothing but exchanges between you and a few others, where they in fact present plenty of evidence, and you summarily dismiss it all!! And when you dismiss the concrete evidence presented, it is with little more than your tired mantra, "Well, I don't see how that works, UCD still is unfalsible.". You then, of course, usually proceed to proclaim yourself victorious in the discussion!! Good Lord man!
quote:
You don't seem to understand what the word strawman means. Even if you consider a creationist argument a "logical fallacy" that doesn't necessarily mean it's a strawman.
Most scientific creation arguments are straw-men, because there is no scientific argument for it. Their arguments are no more than propped up misrepresentations of geological or biological ideas which they then shoot down and present that as positive evidence for Young Earth, Noah's flood etc etc.
Crickets are still chirping in the "Evidence for a Young Earth Thread".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 9:54:54 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
You have yet to recognize substantive evidence when it is presented to you.
That's because it hasn't been presented to me, so there is nothing to recognize.
Yes, it has been, but you keep refusing to accept valid evidence when it is presented.
quote:
quote:
So try me. I have not yet seen a single argument for creationism that is not a strawman or some kind of logical fallacy.
You don't seem to understand what the word strawman means. Even if you consider a creationist argument a "logical fallacy" that doesn't necessarily mean it's a strawman.
I agree that not every logical fallacy is a strawman and creationists do use other logical fallacies as well as strawman arguments. However, I don't believe than any fallacious claims should be presented to students as worthy of consideration. Creationism would be an excellent field to study in a class on logic because it presents so many examples of logical fallacies.
quote:
So you wouldn't mind if the strongest non - strawman creationist arguments were presented to students in these classes?
Is it only strawman arguments you want to keep out of the class? What about ad hominem attacks? What about examples of Godwin's law? I would keep out all fallacies. And that leaves creationism in tatters.
quote:
quote:
Then you need to study scientific method.
It is your own faulty wording that you need to study. I read what people say very literally so I can give a literal response. You said that science is what scientists do. Scientists don't universally evolve from a microbe to a man (though you may argue it is something they did in the past).
Well, UCD is not something that is "done" either. It is a model, and what scientists do is create models of reality as determined through observation and tested hypotheses about these observations. A good model correctly describes reality. In this respect both evolution and UCD are good models.
quote:
quote:
My first career was as a teacher of French, so I speak that fluently. I am also not bad in Latin, Spanish and German and I am working on Greek, Hebrew and Japanese.
Do you speak any other languages?
Not fluently.
quote:
quote:
That's a lie as anyone reading the thread will see.
Please, don't resort to calling it a "lie" like Method started doing.
I think those reading the thread can determine whether it was called correctly.
quote:
I have been dealing seriously with the alleged evidence for several years now on message boards. I'm pretty familiar with what evolutionists put forth as evidence, none of it is empirical and the circumstantial evidence they present is poorly interpreted at best.
Handwaving away evidence by redefining terms is not dealing seriously with it. The only difference between "empirical" and "circumstantial" is that "empirical" is a larger category which includes both circumstantial and direct sensory experience of an event. All circumstantial evidence is also empirical evidence.
You have not been able to provide an example of circumstantial evidence that is not empirical. So you have no right to say that no empirical evidence has been forthcoming. Only a being with a life-time of 4 billion years can have direct sensory experience of evolution from the last universal common ancestor on. But we can and do have a great deal of circumstantial (therefore empirical) evidence which allows of no other interpretation.
If you think it is bad interpretation, present your case. I am not going to read other message boards or long-buried threads unless you link to them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 9:57:37 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1420
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
The thread is 9 pages long, with the last few pages being almost nothing but exchanges between you and a few others, where they in fact present plenty of evidence, and you summarily dismiss it all!! And when you dismiss the concrete evidence presented, it is with little more than your tired mantra, "Well, I don't see how that works, UCD still is unfalsible.". You then, of course, usually proceed to proclaim yourself victorious in the discussion!! Good Lord man!
I didn't dismiss them, I refuted them. However, if you think I am wrong, you should have no problems presenting my (and others) criticisms and opposing views to students who are also exposed to UCD and other naturalistic philosophies because you should have no problem believing that your alleged evidence is enough to convince them that UCD is true in the face of criticism and opposing views.
quote:
Most scientific creation arguments are straw-men, because there is no scientific argument for it.
Even if the latter is true (and I'm not saying that it is), that doesn't make them strawman.
quote:
Their arguments are no more than propped up misrepresentations of geological or biological ideas which they then shoot down and present that as positive evidence for Young Earth, Noah's flood etc etc.
If you are so convinced that the evidence does not support Creationism over naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) then you should have no problem with students in public schools being exposed to both sides. If you're right then surely the evidence should be able to convince them that you're right, even in the face of criticisms and opposing views.
quote:
Crickets are still chirping in the "Evidence for a Young Earth Thread".
They're waiting for you to provide evidence for UCD.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 10:10:54 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1420
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
However, I don't believe than any fallacious claims should be presented to students as worthy of consideration.
Just because you call something fallacious does not make it so. Students should be presented with all sides of the issue in public schools (including creationism) so they can decide on their own if they want to consider it, "fallacious." Either present them with with all sides or present them with no sides of the issue (ie: either add creationism and ID, even if you choose not to call them "science," or subtract naturalistic philosophies like UCD). You, or any judge, should not be able to determine for them that it's fallacious and therefore they should be exposed to your views and not others. Let them be exposed to all sides and decide for themselves. If you are convinced that they are fallacious, then you should have no problem exposing them to the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views to your side because the logic should convince them that you're right.
quote:
Handwaving away evidence by redefining terms is not dealing seriously with it. The only difference between "empirical" and "circumstantial" is that "empirical" is a larger category which includes both circumstantial and direct sensory experience of an event. All circumstantial evidence is also empirical evidence.
I see you still don't understand the difference between empirical and circumstantial. Circumstantial is not a subset of empirical.
I am not re - defining terms, though I suppose you are not familiar with the evolutionary history of doing just that (ie: trying to re - define "junk" DNA and playing definition games with the word vestigial because Darwin's definition was wrong about things like the appendix).
Read Post 16
Sorry, you have it backwards. It is evolutionists that have a history of playing definition games.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/22/2008 10:39:05 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 10:31:08 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I didn't dismiss them, I refuted them. However, if you think I am wrong, you should have no problems presenting my (and others) criticisms and opposing views to students who are also exposed to UCD and other naturalistic philosophies because you should have no problem believing that your alleged evidence is enough to convince them that UCD is true in the face of criticism and opposing views.
There you go claiming victory again ;).
I think astrology is unscientific, wrong, and if you were to argue a case for it I could probably prove most of your points as wrong or unsubstantiated. In many parts of the world, I would even bet that the # of people that believe in astrology outweighs creationists. By your logic, people should be teaching astrology to psych students.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 10:36:28 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1420
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
There you go claiming victory again ;).
I think astrology is unscientific, wrong, and if you were to argue a case for it I could probably prove most of your points as wrong or unsubstantiated. In many parts of the world, I would even bet that the # of people that believe in astrology outweighs creationists. By your logic, people should be teaching astrology to psych students.
Feel free to continue misapplying my logic (though I'm pretty sure no teacher would lose his job for teaching the pros and cons of astrology. After considering the pros and cons I suspect that few students would consider astrology science. UCD, on the other hand, maintains itself by censoring criticisms and opposing views).
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/22/2008 10:51:25 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 10:52:50 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
There you go claiming victory again ;).
I think astrology is unscientific, wrong, and if you were to argue a case for it I could probably prove most of your points as wrong or unsubstantiated. In many parts of the world, I would even bet that the # of people that believe in astrology outweighs creationists. By your logic, people should be teaching astrology to psych students.
Feel free to continue misapplying my logic (though I'm pretty sure no teacher would lose his job for teaching the pros and cons of astrology. After considering the pros and cons, few students would consider astrology science. UCD, on the other hand, maintains itself by censoring criticisms and opposing views).
There are no pro's of astrology to teach, nor are there any for creationism. I don't think it would be a necessarily a bad thing to teach kids what either is and why they are perfect examples of unscientific, and indisputably wrong pseudoscience. There could be value in showing students why they are pseudoscience, and why they are in the same tier as tarot readers and psychics.
And I do think teachers would be fired for teaching 'the controversy' of astrology. They would feel the wrath of both the religious community (astrology is a demonic tool of the deveil, after all) as well as the scientific community.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 5/22/2008 10:58:58 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 11:09:41 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1420
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
There are no pro's of astrology to teach, nor are there any for creationism. I don't think it would be a necessarily a bad thing to teach kids what either is and why they are perfect examples of unscientific, and indisputably wrong pseudoscience. There could be value in showing students why they are pseudoscience, and why they are in the same tier as tarot readers and psychics.
If you really believe your views are defendable, then you shouldn't have a problem with students being exposed to the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views of UCD and other naturalistic philosophies. They can then try and refute them all they want, but the strongest criticisms and opposing views should be exposed to students who are exposed to UCD and other naturalistic philosophies.
Also, just because you equate Creationism and ID with astrology does not make them equal. I can just as easily equate astrology to UCD and other naturalistic philosophies on origin. After all, Creationism and ID are more scientific than UCD and other naturalistic philosophies.
quote:
And I do think teachers would be fired for teaching 'the controversy' of astrology. They would feel the wrath of both the religious community (astrology is a demonic tool of the deveil, after all) as well as the scientific community.
I do not think they will be fired for teaching the pros and cons. The pros are that everything has an influence on everything else. The stars emit radiation that comes to Earth and has an effect on us to some degree or another (after all, astronomers study the stars to some degree, so stars affect astronomers by causing them to study it). The cons are that this effect is so small that you can't really base ones future on it and it is nearly impossible to determine what effect it will have on anyone regardless. There are other factors that have far more influence (ie: diet).
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/22/2008 11:19:51 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 12:08:49 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1420
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Do you happen to speak many languages?
I am not sure why the question is relevant but as a matter of fact, yes.
People who study a lot of theology tend to understand many of the relevant languages to some degree. For example, different parts of the Bible were written in Hebrew, Greek, and Armenian. The Koran was written in Arabic.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/22/2008 12:20:10 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 1:12:52 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
However, I don't believe than any fallacious claims should be presented to students as worthy of consideration.
Just because you call something fallacious does not make it so.
Whether an argument is fallacious or not is determined by the characteristics of the argument, not by personal opinion. High-school students should not be exposed to fallacious arguments in science class before they get an undergrad course in logic, so that they are able to really identify a fallacious argument and explain what makes it fallacious. Personal opinion on the subject is irrelevant.
quote:
I see you still don't understand the difference between empirical and circumstantial. Circumstantial is not a subset of empirical.
I will understand it fine when you can show me a piece of circumstantial evidence that is not empirical i.e. cannot be sensed via sight, hearing, touch, etc. either with or without enhancements to the senses such as microscopes or chemical analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 1:17:35 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Do you happen to speak many languages?
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
I am not sure why the question is relevant but as a matter of fact, yes.
People who study a lot of theology tend to understand many of the relevant languages to some degree. For example, different parts of the Bible were written in Hebrew, Greek, and Armenian. The Koran was written in Arabic.
Actually, that's Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Aramaic was the spoken language used by Jesus and the disciples. As I said, I am working on Hebrew and Greek. In Arabic I am still working on the alphabet.
< Message edited by gluadys -- 5/22/2008 1:26:02 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 1:46:46 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Whether an argument is fallacious or not is determined by the characteristics of the argument, not by personal opinion. High-school students should not be exposed to fallacious arguments in science class before they get an undergrad course in logic, so that they are able to really identify a fallacious argument and explain what makes it fallacious. Personal opinion on the subject is irrelevant.
This is an important point from gluadys, take it to heart.
An false argument can be false on its merits or false by construction.
Fallacious arguments are constructed to appear true, but are intrinsically meaningless. Examination of an argument can expose its construction as fallacious by recognizing that the arguments follows the construction of known logical fallacies. No opinion of the premises or conclusion need be invoked to prove an argument as fallacious.
As a rule, fallacious arguments are created bottom up, people want a conclusion to be true and construct elaborate 'reasons' to believe the conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 5/22/2008 6:20:56 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1133
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
If you really believe your views are defendable, then you shouldn't have a problem with students being exposed to the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views of UCD and other naturalistic philosophies.
All scientific theories presented to high school students should first pass muster with scientists. This includes presentations at scientific conferences and peer reviewed papers. Creationists/IDers aren't doing this, so there is no theory to present to kids.
However, evolutionary conclusions are presented in these arenas, extensively. The theory of evolution has passed muster, and has done so for 150 years. It is the theory that biologists use in their research. No biologist uses creationism or ID in their research.
I have also started a thread on valid criticisms of evolution. Criticisms can be posted there.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 7/20/2008 5:32:27 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1420
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
All scientific theories presented to high school students should first pass muster with scientists. This includes presentations at scientific conferences and peer reviewed papers. Creationists/IDers aren't doing this, so there is no theory to present to kids.
If they don't pass peer review, then certainly the secular community should be able to justify why. They should present both sides of the issue to students (including the strongest non - strawman criticisms and opposing views of evolution) and then they are free to explain to students why those criticisms and opposing views don't "pass peer review."
quote:
However, evolutionary conclusions are presented in these arenas, extensively. The theory of evolution has passed muster, and has done so for 150 years. It is the theory that biologists use in their research. No biologist uses creationism or ID in their research.
ID research does get done, but it's privately funded. UCD and other naturalistic philosophies couldn't survive without public funding.
As has been shown in the cases of Humphry, Gentry, and Gonzalez, scientists who perform research that may contradict materialism get dishonestly discriminated against by the secular (tax funded) community. The secular community only funds (with tax dollars) people who perform research with conclusions consistent with materialism. This is dishonest and needs to stop.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 7/20/2008 5:40:54 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
ID research does get done, but it's privately funded. UCD and other naturalistic philosophies couldn't survive without public funding.
Well, no it really doesnt get done, nor has it been done. Thats the whole problem with ID. Lets see some conclusive research... before it gets sent to the classroom.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 7/20/2008 5:50:44 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1420
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Well, no it really doesnt get done, nor has it been done. Thats the whole problem with ID. Lets see some conclusive research... before it gets sent to the classroom.
Empirical ID research
They have research that gets done. The students are free to decide how conclusive the research is, you shouldn't decide that it should be censored because, in your opinion, it isn't.
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
