Kansas finds sanity again

[Banquo's Ghost]

Sure it does. That is precisely why threads like this exist, and why pro-evolutionists are always zealous and fundamentalist in their efforts to make sure their evolution propaganda is never removed from schools. Kids are being bashed over the head with evolution and having it shoved down their throats, and the biggest crime against humanity in all of that is that most of them will simply accept that misinformation as correct simply because an alleged "teacher" told it to them as part of their alleged "education".

Crime against humanity?

Navaros, you really need to get out more.

Your Jesus would be the very best person to take you by the hand and show you true crimes against humanity. But then poverty never seems to be very far up the list of 'Christians' does it, only moral outrage. He would also be a good person to warn you about the dangers of taking established religionists' hard-line views at face value. You're not the first to condemn science and thinking as being anti-religious, heresy and the work of Satan, and sadly unlikely to be the last.

But then, just as with Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor, your kind would be the first to condemn a returned Christ for being so radical as to ask people to think.

Eppur si muove. (Assuming you are allowed to read his works rather than burn them).

[Don Corleone]

Can I just interject with a question for a second? Did the Kansas school board require the teaching of creationism and halt the teaching of evolution? Or did it just allow for the teaching of creationism (or intelligent design, or spaghetti monster, etc).

Even an atheist would have to agree that our current working model for life on Earth has holes in it. It doesn't take a religious fundamentalist to recognize that some of the predictions the theory makes aren't accurate (linear time line for one thing, most biologists now hold that evolution happened/happens in quantum spurts).

And frankly, the primordial sea full of proto-proteins, getting zapped repeatedly by lightning to form RNA, sorry, that's just a bit hinky for me. Were this version true, it should be fairly reproducable in a laboratory environment.

Don't get me wrong, I DO hold that the earth is 4 billion years old and I do agree with the progression of the species. I just see some gaps in the tale that's usually told. Not holding it up for inspection because you're afraid of creationists entering the discussion is as bad as the blind creationism itself. We still can't get any closer to a more accurate model. Don't be so thin skinned... We're still not quite certain on an accurate model of particle physics (remember when the proton, nuetron and electron were as small as it gets?) But physicists kept plugging away. Biologists need to do the same.

[English assassin]

It allowed the teaching of creationism...in science classes.

That is fine so long as I can teach enzyme kinetics in RE.

DC, no one would say that science has a complete answer, with copper bottomed proof, for how we went from a ball of lava to me typing these words in 4.5 billion years. No biologist would, I think, say we had a stand out theory for how life began, and no biologist would want children to be told that we did in the absence of evidence. Like you I find the whole "warm little pool" model a bit unlikely although its not the last word on the subject these days, and you and I probably both have difficulty in giving full credit for what might happen when you are considering things on a geological timescale. Its a bit unfair to draw many conclusions from the fact that cells fail to spontaneously assemble in a test tube in a week, when we are talking about the whole surface of the earth and maybe 500 million years.

The trouble with your (otherwise reasonable) comments about not being allowed to question evolution and whats that all about, is we are talking about school level science here. It simplifies. You wouldn't get up in arms about teaching kids Newtonian gravity, even though as it happens we know for a fact its wrong. (ish. Y'all know what I mean. )

So, how come for all other school subjects, we teach the kids the essential outlines of the broadly accepted approaches to the issues, but here, where we have a theory which in its overall form is about as firmly established as any scientific theory has ever been, we want to be open to nit picking and quibbles that don't even affect the basic theory, and that might be relevant at university level but not before.

Oh yeah. Because a few people seriously think the bible says the earth was created in 4004 BC. As pedagogy that doesn't do it for me.

As you said earlier, its lucky for you the bible has nothing to say about electrical engineering.

[Don Corleone]

EA,
You misunderstand the intent of my post. I'm arguing for the right to discuss any contradictory evidence on evolution. Believe me, I'm no creationist, and it would serve as a very poor parallel model.

Schools use evolution as one example of the scientific model, and how extended research and empiricism can lead to the rebuttal of commonly held beliefs. I think this is an important lesson for young minds. But somebody forgot to tell the science teachers. I see no healthy skepticim, no attempt to require designed experiments, no contemplation of alternate theories (and go ahead and leave creationsim out).

I mean, one popular alternative to evolution that requires no relgious faith whatsoever holds that in reality, life was brought to Earth by extra-terrestrial intelligent life forms and that we have been gently nudged in certain directions over the aeons. Why not present that and use that as an example for scientific debate. Present what evidence exists for evolution, present what evidence exists for the X-files version, and let the debate of ideas begin.

The reason I have a problem with the way evolution is taught has nothing to do with Christianity. Because they present it dogmatically, it makes no difference in the students' minds whether they're adopting articles of religious faith or scientific faith. They're simply hearing a message that they must adopt, regurgitate and never question. There's nothing scientifc at all about that.

If people want to claim that it's elves running up and down copper wires and not electricty at all, I'd be happy to debate them on it. If I couldn't, or wouldn't, I hardly deserve to be treated as an engineer. I'm nothing more than an automaton, consulting formulas and following a prescribed recipe... no actual thinking required.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The reason I have a problem with the way evolution is taught has nothing to do with Christianity. Because they present it dogmatically, it makes no difference in the students' minds whether they're adopting articles of religious faith or scientific faith. They're simply hearing a message that they must adopt, regurgitate and never question. There's nothing scientifc at all about that.

Don, you pre-empted me as I was writing!

If what you say is true, then the schools of America are indeed letting their children down badly.

If I accept the standards of teaching are so low in biology teaching, does the same attitude prevail in teaching the other sciences: ie Science is Truth, Don't be Misled by Facts?

If not, might the biology failure be down to an over-reaction to the threats of creationists trying to hijack the school agenda? Might teachers be unwilling to even address other theories because it would be the slippery slope to creationists demanding no critical analysis of the Bible story?*

*See the unyielding Navaros.

[Don Corleone]

Don, you pre-empted me as I was writing!

If what you say is true, then the schools of America are indeed letting their children down badly.

If I accept the standards of teaching are so low in biology teaching, does the same attitude prevail in teaching the other sciences: ie Science is Truth, Don't be Misled by Facts?

If not, might the biology failure be down to an over-reaction to the threats of creationists trying to hijack the school agenda? Might teachers be unwilling to even address other theories because it would be the slippery slope to creationists demanding no critical analysis of the Bible story?*

*See the unyielding Navaros.

Sadly, yes. The scientific method, or as I like to call it, thinking for oneself in an orderly, repeatable way, doesn't really get taught until the University level. Chemistry, physics, geology... they're all taught like Organic Chemistry.... semesters, if not years, of memorizing a series of facts Sometimes these facts are logically related, often they are not. Always, they are facts and why is an unheard question. The scientific method is 'taught', in that the 4 phases are presented as additional material for memorization, but true critique and analysis doesn't begin until after secondary school.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Don't get me wrong, I DO hold that the earth is 4 billion years old and I do agree with the progression of the species. I just see some gaps in the tale that's usually told. Not holding it up for inspection because you're afraid of creationists entering the discussion is as bad as the blind creationism itself. We still can't get any closer to a more accurate model. Don't be so thin skinned... We're still not quite certain on an accurate model of particle physics (remember when the proton, nuetron and electron were as small as it gets?) But physicists kept plugging away. Biologists need to do the same.

Biologists do. Very few people would advocate the banning of creationism as a subject for religious studies, or even including an assessment of creation theory in science class which is subjected to the same rigorous scientific criteria as you espouse be applied to evolutionary theory (rightly). Science is about critical analysis of theory. Faith is about believing your revelation. One cannot apply the same methodology to both.

Gaps in the tale are there because science is always testing new thoughts and tries not to claim things that can't be verified through proofs. There are developing theories of evolution. But creationism is a belief system based on a Middle east tradition - and there are many creation myths out there other than the Christian accepted one. Why is that the one that should be taught in parallel with evolution, even if you are a theist? That, to me, is the first question that needs to be answered by creationists - why your fairy story, not one of the others, just as valid? Why should a Buddhist have to listen to creation stories as fact? Let's face it, if it hadn't been for a pragmatic choice in the Roman Empire, no-one would have heard of it and we'd be arguing about Jupiter impregnating a swan or whatnot being The TruthTM.

The thin skin comes from the outrageous attempts by some religionists to subvert science. We biologists tend to be at the forefront because for reasons unknown to me, the lunatic fundies don't have a go at physics, astronomy, chemistry and the other core sciences.

It's really no different from wanting to teach Flat-earthism in geography class. Alchemy in Chemistry class. Etc. Why aren't creationists pushing for that? (I know from your earlier post that you understand that, so this post is asking open questions, not directed at your post )

And frankly, the primordial sea full of proto-proteins, getting zapped repeatedly by lightning to form RNA, sorry, that's just a bit hinky for me. Were this version true, it should be fairly reproducable in a laboratory environment.

Actually, there's been some good work demonstrating this experimentally. The problem is, the effects of millions of years of random events on a planetary scale is quite difficult to model in the lab. So it's our best guess, drawn from first principles, and there's some experiments to show you can get amino acids and RNA precursors from such an environment. That puts it about a million miles in front of the so far untestable idea that some bearded geezer who likes to be invisible waved his magic wand and it all sprang into view.

[Papewaio]

The thin skin comes from the outrageous attempts by some religionists to subvert science. We biologists tend to be at the forefront because for reasons unknown to me, the lunatic fundies don't have a go at physics, astronomy, chemistry and the other core sciences.

Well since I did Physics, Geophysics as majors, astrophysics as a minor and chemisty core units as an easy elective I might have a good answer which will lead to my ex-communication by my scientific bretheren.

Physics, Chemisty and Geology are referred to in different groups as the Physical Sciences, the Pure Sciences or the Hard Sciences. Biology is considered the impure, fluffy and girly one... mainly because physics courses are 90% male while biology are 90% female... is it a sexist statement?... well it would be until you hear the bitter jealously the undergrads make the statements with.

So in a fit of jealousy the physical scientists arranged a consipiracy where they divereted the fundies attention from themselves and sicced them onto the ones with all the girl germs ... well actually the ones with all the germs.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well since I did Physics, Geophysics as majors, astrophysics as a minor and chemisty core units as an easy elective I might have a good answer which will lead to my ex-communication by my scientific bretheren.

Physics, Chemisty and Geology are referred to in different groups as the Physical Sciences, the Pure Sciences or the Hard Sciences. Biology is considered the impure, fluffy and girly one... mainly because physics courses are 90% male while biology are 90% female... is it a sexist statement?... well it would be until you hear the bitter jealously the undergrads make the statements with.

So in a fit of jealousy the physical scientists arranged a consipiracy where they divereted the fundies attention from themselves and sicced them onto the ones with all the girl germs ... well actually the ones with all the germs.

Don't worry - my father, who is a chemist, has long suffered the ignominy of having his eldest son become a 'softie' biologist.

The excuse of girls didn't impress him much either

[Papewaio]

The thing is because biology has so many unanswered questions it is very much in vogue as the in thing of science.

[Ronin]

Even an atheist would have to agree that our current working model for life on Earth has holes in it. It doesn't take a religious fundamentalist to recognize that some of the predictions the theory makes aren't accurate (linear time line for one thing, most biologists now hold that evolution happened/happens in quantum spurts).

Of course the current theory/model has holes in it....It´s a best guess and nobody is saying the contrary.....


but just because there are holes and parts we don´t understand I don´t think telling the kids fairy-tales is a good alternative.

[Don Corleone]

Of course the current theory/model has holes in it....It´s a best guess and nobody is saying the contrary.....


but just because there are holes and parts we don´t understand I don´t think telling the kids fairy-tales is a good alternative.

Read my whole discussion, Ronin. I'm not advocating for Creationsim, per se. I don't know how evolution is taught in Portugal, but in the US, it is presented as certain as mathematics. No questioning, no identification of areas where the theory needs tweaking, just "Science has the answer. Learn the answer. Never question the answer."

As I said, by all means, use theories (and I hesistate to use that word describing creationsim) other than Genesis. My aforementioned alien visitors (ala Arthur C. Clarke), Odin reaching to the depths of the Ocean and pulling mud up from the bottom, hell, the Simirallion offers an interesting theory of origin. My point is, highlight the evidence (or lack thereof), and teach students that they are there to learn how to evaluate evidence and make an informed decision, which almost always will lead to an adoption of some form of an evolutionary model. But don't shove a bunch of facts down their throats and force them to recite it like a creed. That's worse than not teaching them anything.

[Ronin]

Read my whole discussion, Ronin. I'm not advocating for Creationsim, per se. I don't know how evolution is taught in Portugal, but in the US, it is presented as certain as mathematics. No questioning, no identification of areas where the theory needs tweaking, just "Science has the answer. Learn the answer. Never question the answer."

As I said, by all means, use theories (and I hesistate to use that word describing creationsim) other than Genesis. My aforementioned alien visitors (ala Arthur C. Clarke), Odin reaching to the depths of the Ocean and pulling mud up from the bottom, hell, the Simirallion offers an interesting theory of origin. My point is, highlight the evidence (or lack thereof), and teach students that they are there to learn how to evaluate evidence and make an informed decision, which almost always will lead to an adoption of some form of an evolutionary model. But don't shove a bunch of facts down their throats and force them to recite it like a creed. That's worse than not teaching them anything.

if that is how children in the US are being taught about science then a great dis-service is being done for their education indeed.

I remember being in high school and having good long discussions in Biology class about the issue.....when it came to tests and such the correct answer accepted was the evolution theory...but in class the issue was surely discussed.

[Reverend Joe]

Great.

Everyone else presents talking points and gets argued with, repeatedly quoted and read.

I attempt a rational philosophical explanation of the matter and nobody cares.

Don, I already explained why such a theory as intellegent design has no place in a classroom. Navaros, I already explained why religion has no place in science, and vice versa. But do any of you care? No. It isn't a talking point.

I hate the backroom.

[Don Corleone]

Oy, Zorba, I didn't answer you because you're arguing against a point that I never made. One more time. I am not arguing for the right to teach Intelligent Design. I am arguing that the whole point of teaching evolution in schools is to impart scientific method, but the way it's taught in the US is AS Dogmatic as any fundamentalist religion out there. Questions, contradictory evidence, possible alternatives (NOT NECESSARILY INTELLIGENT DESIGN, SEE MY NUMEROUS OTHER POSTS FOR OTHER ALTERNATE THEORIES...), and the whole concept of weighing the evidence is left out of High School biology. Because the NEA always teaches to the lowest common denominator, what comes out is "EVOLUTION IS RIGHT. DON'T QUESTION EVOLUTION". The fact that you cannot understand what I've said 4 times already just proves how woefully inadequate our educational system is. Yes, I agree with you that evolution is the most LIKELY theory for how life came to be. But scientific theories aren't facts, or we'd call them that. Saying "Evolution is a fact" just goes to show how badly you've been shortchanged at school.