The sad state of science education...

SpazX

SpazX

CAGiversary!
Feedback
170 (100%)
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yzgBj8deKE[/media]

This has been on youtube for a week or so, so I'm sure at least somebody else has seen it, but it just now came to my attention.

It's not particularly surprising to see this on O'Reilly, but I thought Ben Stein was capable of a bit more critical thought than this. People don't know dick about evolution and it leads to this kind of shit. Stein was acting pretty reasonably, but he obviously had no knowledge about what he was talking about.

These things don't require degrees to understand, but it seems like hardly anybody even cares enough to try to learn. I think this video (and the fact that he's making a movie) shows how people either don't care to teach or don't care to learn about basic scientific theories.

So...discuss the sad state of science education in America :p. What are your opinions?
 
Ugh.

There's a difference in testing and exploring Darwinism and simply looking for gaps to fill with "God did it!". One is legitimate scientific inquiry and the other is bogus mysticism. I'm pretty certain there are no scientists who were "fired" for the former.
 
I think that "separation of church and state" is a nice sounding idea that the drafters put into the constitution that is not really being followed in the U.S.

Every once in a while I will hear an encouraging story, like about how the Supreme Court overuled a state statute that required creationism to be taught wherever Darwinism was taught.

My only problem is when our representatives start making decisions based not on what is best for the country, but based on what the Bible, or any other religious edict says is "Moral".

We need to be cognizant of the need for these constituional protections to prevent our country from becoming an aristotheocracy. Always remember that in America "National Religion" is an oxymoron, or should be according to the constituion.

A lot of people, especially wrestling/nascar fans (sorry, just had to throw that in there) towards the middle of the country have a problem with this and think that someone is stealing X-mas when the government and corporations choose to have secular or inclusive displays around the holidays but not me.
 
The freedom of academic inquiry is not an issue of free speech (in this instance, at any rate). It is a simple matter of the intellectual absurdity of trying to present an unfalsifiable theory (ID) as a groundwork for scientific research.

Unfalsifiable theories have no place in any of the sciences, whether it's God or the Flying Spaghetti monster. The problem with ID is not that it's religious in origin, but that in scholarly, academic debates over theory and causation, the "best" theory is the one that withstands the most amount of empirical scrutiny. A theory is always that: a theory. Never a fact. The best theories are the least falsifiable. If I believe that David Hassellhoff was the creator of the universe, you could demonstrate to me that the universe existed prior to Hassellhoof, and thus, my theory is incorrect. With ID, however, the theory is this: other explanations are not adequately explained, and thus a metaphysical origin must be the likely culprit.

We used the metaphysical to describe tons of things before we had proper scientific knowledge. Criminals were possessed by demons and forced into penitence. Loose women were witches and heathens similarly possessed. Illnesses were signs of bad favor in the face of god, rather than the result of stepping on a rusty nail.

Being unfalsifiable, ID is entirely useless. Moreover, it creates false controversy when advanced scientific inquiry finds plausible explanations in the real world that create even greater doubt in the existence of a god. There was doubt created when we no longer considered criminals to be possessed by demons, for example.
 
[quote name='Fanboy']Ugh.

There's a difference in testing and exploring Darwinism and simply looking for gaps to fill with "God did it!". One is legitimate scientific inquiry and the other is bogus mysticism. I'm pretty certain there are no scientists who were "fired" for the former.[/QUOTE]

"Ugh" indeed. That clip was full of such monumental stupidity, I'm borderline apopleptic. And here's why: as you say, legitimate scientific doubt about the theory of evolution as it stands is fine. In fact, that's how the scientific method works. However, filling in the gaps with "God did it -- he can do anything he wants" ISN'T science. Religion in science class/theories/jobs has no more place than home ec belongs in gym. And for a bunch of people who supposedly want all the intellectual cards on the table, I don't see them advocating someone hanging around church pews explaining all the ways that the bible is factually incorrect, or that the "Intelligence" that supposedly did the designing might be Vishnu or whoever. And the idea that science is the OLD way of thinking and religion is the NEW one? C'mon. On second thought, I'll give them that: Aquinas understood the method and didn't have to resort to deux ex machina like they do.

fuckin' A.
 
What's sad (other than everything already pointed out) is that they've been working on this movie for at least a year. Only somebody in denial could work on a movie for a year without understanding the obvious, coherent, satisfying answer that people on here have already given. ID isn't taught in science class because it isn't science, just like english isn't taught in science class because it isn't science.

It's terrible when adults can be so willfully ignorant on a subject but feel that they understand it so completely that they should make a movie. He obviously doesn't even understand evolution at a high school level! Why would he make a god damn movie if he isn't even willing to read a book about the subject?
 
Good stuff.

I liked the way spaz put it "ID isn't taught in science class because it isn't science, just like english isn't taught in science class because it isn't science."

I guess the rebuttal is "We are not allowed to have a 'religion' class to teach ID in a public school. Either way you're preventing us from speaking freely in a public place. We are not asking that we brainwash kids into beleiving ID, just that its presented, in any class, as an alternative explanation for the creation of the universe."

(1) Do you guys have a problem with ID being taught in ANY class? Perhaps a "Survey of Western Religions" class? (2) Is this a violation of Sep. of church and state? (3)Is a moment of silence at a flag pole in the morning organized by the school a violation of sep. of church and state? (4) How about when organized buy the students themselves? If the kids want to assemble and pray at a public school on their free time should teachers prevent them?

Interesting questions, my answers would be
(1) No i guess not.
(2) I dont think a surv. of relig. class would violate SoC&S, so long as its inclusive
(3) Organized by school: no good, it is a violation of SoC&S
(4) Organized by kids, I dont know.
 
i mean you really have to question Stein as a man, for a jew to work for Nixon with his antisemitic feelings on jews is really just pathetic
 
[quote name='pittpizza'](1) Do you guys have a problem with ID being taught in ANY class? Perhaps a "Survey of Western Religions" class? (2) Is this a violation of Sep. of church and state? (3)Is a moment of silence at a flag pole in the morning organized by the school a violation of sep. of church and state? (4) How about when organized buy the students themselves? If the kids want to assemble and pray at a public school on their free time should teachers prevent them?

Interesting questions, my answers would be
(1) No i guess not.
(2) I dont think a surv. of relig. class would violate SoC&S, so long as its inclusive
(3) Organized by school: no good, it is a violation of SoC&S
(4) Organized by kids, I dont know.[/quote]

I think I pretty much agree with you in that area. 1&2)Having a comparative religions class wouldn't be a problem, actually I think there should be one since it's important to culture and communicating with people. I do think you'd have to kind of do the entire world at once in one class though. I don't think that would violate separation of church and state. 3&4) Organized by the school is a violation, organized by students would be fine I think, as long as any student of any religion can do it.
 
(1) Do you guys have a problem with ID being taught in ANY class?
Perhaps a "Survey of Western Religions" class?
If it is a science class, no. Humanities/philosophy, sure.

(2) Is this a violation of Sep. of church and state?
Only in the context of court decisions mandating that ID be taught in science classes at any academic level.

(3)Is a moment of silence at a flag pole in the morning organized by the school a violation of sep. of church and state?
Some may say yes, and I'd agree; nevertheless, a moment of silence being just that does not endorse an specific religion. "Separation of church and state" should not force agnosticism or fail to promote having faith at any level - but likewise, it should not promote any particular faith.

(4) How about when organized buy the students themselves? If the kids want to assemble and pray at a public school on their free time should teachers prevent them?
Nope.
 
The real problem is we have people divided mostly into two camps on this, those who believe in creationism/intelligent design and those who accept the Theory of Evolution as fact. Those who are critical of the Theory of Evolution and would like to see more critical thinking with regard to this theory promoted in schools, while relegating creationism/intelligent design to optional religious instruction (or at least, as myke intoned, humanities classes) are criticized from both sides as either being a Neanderthal or anti-religion...people like me.

Basically, Stein is right to say there are a lot of issues with the Theory of Evolution that should be raised in any class that explains the subject. But he is absolutely wrong in intelligent design needing to be taught in science class, since as myke correctly points out ID is not really able to be examined using the scientific method.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Basically, Stein is right to say there are a lot of issues with the Theory of Evolution that should be raised in any class that explains the subject.[/QUOTE]

A very, very good point - at the risk of sounding like one of those nutso David Horowitz "education is here to indoctrinate us" types (or, alternately, the Marxist types who argue the same thing from the other side of the political spectrum), one thing we sincerely fail to do is teach healthy skepticism and critical thinking. Evolution is a theory with a great deal of skepticism towards it, and rightfully so - so the answer is indeed to promote debate on the merits and shortcomings of *testable* theories. But it is not to accept a theory as fact, nor is it to supplant a "left wing" theory with an untestable right wing ideological perspective.
 
I used to think this was a big deal, but now I see it really doesn't matter that much.

Ben Stein and O'Reilly want to believe that their respective gods created the universe so badly, what's the real problem.

Can you truly be a christian and a scientist - whenever I see someone claim this it really means that they are one and like to be called the other.
 
[quote name='camoor']Can you truly be a christian and a scientist - whenever I see someone claim this it really means that they are one and like to be called the other.[/quote]

Yes, you can use logic and faith and believe that God created evolution, it's not that damn far-fetched. :)

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Basically, Stein is right to say there are a lot of issues with the Theory of Evolution that should be raised in any class that explains the subject.[/quote]

There are plenty of aspects of evolution up for debate in science and students should be told about them and what scientists think (such as something like gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium). Of course none of them actually challenge the idea of evolution itself, it's a pretty solid theory and could only be modified in different ways. They shouldn't be given the idea that evolution itself is up in the air.

[quote name='camoor']I used to think this was a big deal, but now I see it really doesn't matter that much. Ben Stein and O'Reilly want to believe that their respective gods created the universe so badly, what's the real problem.[/quote]

What they think individually really doesn't matter, it's what they convince the general population to think that matters. The fact that he's making a movie about something that he knows nothing about definitely isn't going to help science education. Science education is pretty important.

[quote name='camoor']Can you truly be a christian and a scientist - whenever I see someone claim this it really means that they are one and like to be called the other.[/quote]

I'd agree that you can't be a literalist and a scientist, but christian can mean a whole hell of a lot of things and plenty of them have no effect on science.
 
[quote name='SpazX']There are plenty of aspects of evolution up for debate in science and students should be told about them and what scientists think (such as something like gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium). Of course none of them actually challenge the idea of evolution itself, it's a pretty solid theory and could only be modified in different ways. They shouldn't be given the idea that evolution itself is up in the air.[/QUOTE]

If by "evolution" you mean changes in population due to natural selection, I completely agree. But the Theory of Evolution, i.e. life began in a puddle X million/billion years ago and we are the end result, I definitely couldn't say the same about.
 
What is all this bullshit about "separation of church and state" ? I can't find that anywhere in the constitution. I remember something about "Congress shall not..." do something, but for the life of me I can't remember anything about letting my local school board mis-educatre my child.

Maybe there's some constitutional scholar here who can help me understand this.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']What is all this bullshit about "separation of church and state" ? I can't find that anywhere in the constitution. I remember something about "Congress shall not..." do something, but for the life of me I can't remember anything about letting my local school board mis-educatre my child.

Maybe there's some constitutional scholar here who can help me understand this.[/quote]

Ask and ye shall receive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

I would not consider myself a constitutional scholar, although I have studied it for many years, both in first year run-of-the-mill law school classes and in more advanced upper-level in depth classes like one called "The First Amendment." One wouldn't think that one simple amendment would warrant its own class, but, as you pointed out, there is a lot more to the Constitution than the actual text on its face.

There are a lot of rights that the USSC has interpreted from the Constitution, even though they are not specifically mentioned in it. The right to privacy is a good example.

Basically the SoC&S comes from the First Amendment which states in pertinent part "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." A lengthy progeny of cases has been espoused by the USSC which have served to define what exactly this Amendment means and how it applies to our laws. THIS (the case law) is really where the thrust of the doctrine of SoC&S comes from. I spent a whole semester studying it and am not about to bore you with the details.

If you want more detail, read the wiki article. I hate to cite it but that article is actually pretty good and has good sources for authority.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']If by "evolution" you mean changes in population due to natural selection, I completely agree. But the Theory of Evolution, i.e. life began in a puddle X million/billion years ago and we are the end result, I definitely couldn't say the same about.[/quote]

What you just said is the "Theory of Evolution" is a mischaracterization and not a part of science. It's a strawman put up by opponents. Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, there are different theories/hypotheses that deal with that (abiogenesis) and don't have nearly the same amount of solid research due to the levels of complexity inherent in the subject (cells don't leave remnants, billions of years in the past rather than millions, etc.).

People lump the two together either out of misunderstanding or intentionally to discredit evolution since origins of life aren't nearly as well understood. Then they can act as if something like humans and apes sharing a common ancestor (something as damn near certain as it can come in science) is on an equal level of understanding with the formation of the first cell.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']What is all this bullshit about "separation of church and state" ? I can't find that anywhere in the constitution. I remember something about "Congress shall not..." do something, but for the life of me I can't remember anything about letting my local school board mis-educatre my child.

Maybe there's some constitutional scholar here who can help me understand this.[/QUOTE]

Irrespective of this point, there is still zero scientific ground for any ID theory to be taught upon. The reason that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" theory of the origin of the universe is so hysterically funny is because nobody has ever put together a compelling criticism of FSM theory that can not be similarly be applied to ID. Both are nonscientific, and both are unfalsifiable. Thus, both have no place in the science classroom.
 
For the sake of digging up random stuff about ID from the past, Scott Adams, who doesn't believe in ID and created Dilbert, wrote one of the most interesting defenses of the theory...but it seems his Dilbert blog archives don't go back that far anymore.

Ahh, God bless the "Way Back Machine"Again, this is just an interesting read and really has no bearing on this debate...it's more of a tangential set of comments really.

To be frank, I'm what some might call an Evangelical Christian...and I don't see why evolution and religion have to be two completely separate entities. Then again, I also don't see how the existance of other gods (which is mentioned in the Old Testament) really could shatter any Christians faith...so, I may be the one who's the odd man out here.
 
Evolution and religion do not have to be separate. It's christianity and it's and derivations that must deviate from established scientific theory. The reason is that a variation of evolutional theory does not appear in the bible, the defining document of said religions. As far as I have read, god created things as they are and they have not changed into other things for the entire 5000 year history of earth's existence. The bible cannot be wrong and, unfortunately, cannot be amended or subject to judicial review on a case by case basis like the documents that define our legal system. God's word is, well, the law - case closed.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Evolution and religion do not have to be separate. It's christianity and it's and derivations that must deviate from established scientific theory. The reason is that a variation of evolutional theory does not appear in the bible, the defining document of said religions. As far as I have read, god created things as they are and they have not changed into other things for the entire 5000 year history of earth's existence. The bible cannot be wrong and, unfortunately, cannot be amended or subject to judicial review on a case by case basis like the documents that define our legal system. God's word is, well, the law - case closed.[/QUOTE]



you're right, well i am off to bed now, i have to get up early tomorrow morning for the public stoning for someone uttering god's name.
 
Have we read the same Bible? In Genesis, God created things in the following order -- light, planets, plant-life, fish, birds, mammals, people. Does that sound too far off from the nature of evolution? Not to me. Also -- in the traditional and modern Hebrew text of Genesis, from the way I understand it, it's not the word "day" but the word "indeterminable time unit"

Correct me if I'm wrong, a Jewish friend of mine who has a pretty good understanding of Hebrew told me that once. Then again, I've always been of the mindset that even if you follow the term "day" as is in the Bible, there is no concept of day the way we understand it before there was a sun...so our comparison doesn't really hold as it is.
 
There really isn't a way to rationalize the Biblical creation stories with evolution and geological history. The days are days and the Hebrew word for day. It might be possible to interpret it as something else if you want to stretch it, but the whole purpose of putting it into 7 days was to establish the Sabbath as a day of rest. None of it really makes any sense (like you said you can't have a day without at least the sun and the earth), but that's not the point.
 
[quote name='SpazX']What you just said is the "Theory of Evolution" is a mischaracterization and not a part of science. It's a strawman put up by opponents. Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, there are different theories/hypotheses that deal with that (abiogenesis) and don't have nearly the same amount of solid research due to the levels of complexity inherent in the subject (cells don't leave remnants, billions of years in the past rather than millions, etc.).

People lump the two together either out of misunderstanding or intentionally to discredit evolution since origins of life aren't nearly as well understood. Then they can act as if something like humans and apes sharing a common ancestor (something as damn near certain as it can come in science) is on an equal level of understanding with the formation of the first cell.[/QUOTE]

Can you point me to conclusive proof that any advantageous mutation has occurred in nature and caused a new species to be created? I don't mean separate species coming about due to things like geographical isolation. Please don't take this as patronizing; I'm very interested in this subject and many facets of it.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Can you point me to conclusive proof that any advantageous mutation has occurred in nature and caused a new species to be created? I don't mean separate species coming about due to things like geographical isolation. Please don't take this as patronizing; I'm very interested in this subject and many facets of it.[/QUOTE]

Uh, I'm not sure how to answer this question. Species aren't just created by new mutations. You can't really separate this issue of mutation from other forces of evolution either, including geographical isolation. I'll try to explain things as simply as I can.

Mutation occurs all the time. You probably have some yourself (people average about 3). The fact is that most mutations are neutral or aren't detrimental. Beneficial mutations are rare. This is where natural selection comes in. If the new trait is strongly selected for it will become more common in the population and may eventually be expressed in all members of that population. Now this alone does not make for another species. For some good examples of beneficial mutations see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2

So, to answer your question, I suppose the answer is no, but only because a single mutation is not sufficient for speciation to occur. Speciation is the gradual accumulation of differences in the genetic code. I should also note that mutation isn't the only force causing changes in information over time. First we have natural selection which works to remove traits that hinder fitness. Second we have drift that also serves to remove traits over time simply due to chance. It's complicated and I'm probably not explaining it very well, so if you need some clarification please ask.
 
I'm gonna have to throw out the fact that by their very nature, religion and science must be separate. Religion clearly can't sustain scientific inquiry, as the claims made in the bible are, in a word, gut-bustingly-retarded-for-anyone-above-the-age-of-three. And religion basically seeks evidence after already obtaining the conclusion, while science is done in the opposite direction.

They are just fundamentally incompatible. IIRC, Dawkins talked about this in The God Delusion
 
NIV -- Light, Water, Land, Plants, Fish, Birds, Other Animals, People
King James Version -- Light, Water, Land, Plants, Fish, Birds, Other Animals, People

The Sun and Moon were made in the middle to shine on the Earth, which is a bit out of order -- but doesn't quite concern me considering light was already made at that point.

I still don't see how the traditional story of the universe being created has to conflict with evolution. Then again, I also don't quite find Adam being the first man to be accurate, especially considering the fact that Adam's children found other people elsewhere who were of no relation.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']NIV -- Light, Water, Land, Plants, Fish, Birds, Other Animals, People
King James Version -- Light, Water, Land, Plants, Fish, Birds, Other Animals, People

The Sun and Moon were made in the middle to shine on the Earth, which is a bit out of order -- but doesn't quite concern me considering light was already made at that point.

I still don't see how the traditional story of the universe being created has to conflict with evolution. Then again, I also don't quite find Adam being the first man to be accurate, especially considering the fact that Adam's children found other people elsewhere who were of no relation.[/quote]
If it doesn't concern you when things are out of order, then yes of course it doesn't have to conflict with evolution :p. The second creation story has a different order than the first, light doesn't exist without anything to emit it, and land existed before water. Amphibians, reptiles, and mammals existed before birds (birds evolved from reptiles) and flowering plants came after everything (I guess that's a minor example though). Those would be my main reasons for saying that they conflict and the writers had no special knowledge about the development of life (and I wouldn't expect them to).

And to elprincipe - sorry I didn't have time to reply, but stealthninja's post is probably about what I would say :p www.talkorigins.org is a good place to go if you want info.

EDIT: I excuse my repetition of the crotch with the fact that my internet went out and I sent this as soon as it came back...
 
[quote name='t0llenz']NIV -- Light, Water, Land, Plants, Fish, Birds, Other Animals, People
King James Version -- Light, Water, Land, Plants, Fish, Birds, Other Animals, People

The Sun and Moon were made in the middle to shine on the Earth, which is a bit out of order -- but doesn't quite concern me considering light was already made at that point.

I still don't see how the traditional story of the universe being created has to conflict with evolution. Then again, I also don't quite find Adam being the first man to be accurate, especially considering the fact that Adam's children found other people elsewhere who were of no relation.[/quote]

Rejecting the science on the origin of our solar system while accepting the science for evolution seems like 18 different kinds of ridiculous.
 
ID should be mentioned in public school classrooms, but it should be used as a launchpad into a discussion about scientific inquiry. Class should follow...

1) This is Intelligent Design.

2) This is Evolution.

3) This is why Intelligent Design is not science.


Our children, humans by large, need to be taught that "faith" is not knowledge, and alternate answers should be sought out regardless of whether or not you believe there is an alternate answer. They need to be taught to be skeptics, and that means abolishing faith in all forms, religious and otherwise, from society.
 
[quote name='Koggit']They need to be taught to be skeptics, and that means abolishing faith in all forms, religious and otherwise, from society.[/QUOTE]

Wait just a minute, "abolishing faith" from society? Surely you don't mean that? Unless you want to change the First Amendment.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Faith, in all forms, is detrimental to the progression of science. In a science class, this should be taught.[/QUOTE]

I'm glad you aren't in charge of our schools then. I doubt 90+% of Americans would be pleased to hear public schools are attempting to manipulate their own children into rejecting the values they were taught at home. And I doubt an even higher percentage than that would support such a violation of the separation of church and state, something evidently you feel only goes one way.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'm glad you aren't in charge of our schools then. I doubt 90+% of Americans would be pleased to hear public schools are attempting to manipulate their own children into rejecting the values they were taught at home. And I doubt an even higher percentage than that would support such a violation of the separation of church and state, something evidently you feel only goes one way.[/QUOTE]

Right.

But anyway, back to reality... while true that many parents would be pissed, whether they like it or not critical thinking is a very valuable skill for their children to have.

This is not a matter of having the school say "there is no god" or "we were not created" this is a matter of saying "always seek answers." If you're going to be an evolutionist, fine, but seek answers. If you're going to be a creationist, fine, but seek answers. If you're going to believe time is relative to velocity, fine, but seek answers. If you're going to believe plate tectonics cause most geological phenomena, fine, but seek answers.

Children need to be taught that their faith is not an answer. They can be taught so in a way that does not contradict their beliefs -- critical thinking is not an assault on god or whatever, it's just never to mistake faith for truth.

Look at creationists -- and when I say creationist I mean a educated biological scientist who believes we were created -- they all believe we were created, but they actually seek answers. They have scientific minds, despite their beliefs. That's what we need to instill in our children. Regardless of what they want to believe, they need to not mistake faith for truth.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Right.

But anyway, back to reality... while true that many parents would be pissed, whether they like it or not critical thinking is a very valuable skill for their children to have.[/QUOTE]

Indoctrinating students to reject their parents' upbringing is now "critical thinking"? Right.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']To go back a bit, elprincipe, have you any response to Ninja's post? He was talking to you, after all.[/QUOTE]

I'm still in the process of exploring the (extensive) website he linked to at this time.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Indoctrinating students to reject their parents' upbringing is now "critical thinking"? Right.[/QUOTE]

Is the job of the public school system to educate or babysit?

What if I told my child velocity is the integral of position, and had told them this for years. Would the school system be wronging me to teach my child the proper kinematic formulae?

Regardless of what a parent has told a child, it is the public school systems role to educate, and a very large part of that education, just as important as retaining knowledge, is problem solving.
 
Haha.. nope.. velocity's the derivative of position, position is the integral of velocity.

Position - Velocity - Acceleration - Jerk

To move left you'd be taking an integral, to move right you'd be taking a derivative.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Haha.. nope.. velocity's the derivative of position, position is the integral of velocity.

Position - Velocity - Acceleration - Jerk

To move left you'd be taking an integral, to move right you'd be taking a derivative.[/quote]

Ha, I knew it. I got derivative and integral mixed up.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Talkorigins is great. I prefer ebonmusings.org for an introductory look at evolution, and IIDB for actual debating and arguments. God help ya if you ever wander to a different section of IIDB, though. *shudder*[/quote]

I used to post on IIDB a few years go (mostly while I was in high school). Did more reading than posting though, you can learn a lot from the people on there about both science and religion.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Is the job of the public school system to educate or babysit?

What if I told my child velocity is the integral of position, and had told them this for years. Would the school system be wronging me to teach my child the proper kinematic formulae?

Regardless of what a parent has told a child, it is the public school systems role to educate, and a very large part of that education, just as important as retaining knowledge, is problem solving.[/QUOTE]

So I guess from your answer you are saying, as you said before, that yes, the school system should undermine religious values instilled by parents because they are not scientific?

And you still haven't answered me as to why public schools should get into telling students to dismiss their religious beliefs. Do you believe in separation of church and state or not?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So I guess from your answer you are saying, as you said before, that yes, the school system should undermine religious values instilled by parents because they are not scientific?

And you still haven't answered me as to why public schools should get into telling students to dismiss their religious beliefs. Do you believe in separation of church and state or not?[/QUOTE]

I suppose you would have to further define undermining religious values for me to fully answer that. I do not think what I suggested involves telling students to dismiss their religious beliefs -- I actually went on a small tangent specifying that the school would not be telling the children that their beliefs were wrong simply that they aren't facts.

I bring back into the picture creationism-supporting biologists. They are critical thinkers who are, if you excuse the generalization, mostly Christian. They believe what their parents taught them, go to church, etc. However, they have critical minds. They are seeking answers. They are skeptic of evidence that supports their opinion and skeptic of evidence that opposes their opinion. That is a scientific mind, and it is a very, very valuable resource to our species -- to science. Schools can teach children to be critical without telling students to dismiss their religious beliefs.

Religion should be mentioned in our public school system, by my view. Not attacked or supported -- but discussed. If you consider that a violation of church and state, then yes, I oppose the constitution. After all, it was written when science was a very different field than it was today, and with different intentions than the education of our children.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So I guess from your answer you are saying, as you said before, that yes, the school system should undermine religious values instilled by parents because they are not scientific?[/quote]

How is "the world was created in seven days by the Chrisitan god" a religious value?
 
Science classrooms should only ever discuss religious based claims when they're actually relevant to science. Looking at why ID isn't science is actually a pretty useful exercise in examining the scientific process. However, science classes should not say anything about religion or belief itself. Evaluating claims about the natural world made based on religious beliefs, fine, but anything else, no.

This is where I think I disagree with Koggit. While I agree that faith based thinking is often detrimental to science, science classrooms aren't the place to discuss this. I think classes dealing with logic and philosophy are much better suited to discussions of this kind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top