Kansas finds sanity again

[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.

[Reverend Joe]

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.

No, I did not say that evolution was fact... I was saying thay Evolution is the most likely theory- in fact, it is the only theory at the moment in science, because Extraterrestrial influences and visitations have yet to be accepted, for lack of anything other than circumstantial and unsteady evidence (the strongest evidence being video recordings) and the self transforming machine elves have yet to reveal themselves tot he scientific community, so we are left with Evolution as the only plausible scientific theory.

And since when has it been taught as fact? I was never told it was fact. I was told it was the CURRENT THEORY. Noone says it is fact except in your imagination and the wet dreams of Bill O'Reilley (and probably Al Franken too... I kinda lump the two together.)

I heard what you argue. You are trying to get everyone to admit that Evolution is only a theory- okay, it is. So is relativity, and for that matter, so are atoms. Neither is really proven. But I would like to see someone try to argue for an alternative theory. Aristotle's five elements theory, for example. They can't, because the evidence is severely lacking. And so it is with alternate theories of how life came about.

You ought to admit that you are really trying to find a way that intellegent design would have some merit in a classroom. Thus my previous argument.

[Don Corleone]

Okay, let's drop the whole concept of evolution Zorba, because it really, truly, has almost absolutely nothing do with my beef over this.

Let's pick another widely accepted scientific theory that gets taught in schools. As you brought it up, let's pick Bohr's atomic model. I would argue that there actually is quite a bit of empirical evidence 'proving' the existence of protons, neutrons and electrons. But, in chemistry class, they don't say "this is one theory as to how atomic matter is organized. These are the reasons people think this...". You get the diagram, you memorize the diagram, and you never question the diagram. Well, as it turns out, Bohr's atomic model, while advanced for it's time, has been out of date for almost 100 years. It actually isn't so much wrong, but more a question of 'limited'. But even in schools where they teach expanded, more detailed models, such as relativity, they do not teach students to question it on it's assumptions and actually weigh the evidence for alternate theories.

As a result, American students (and I suspect European ones, despite their protests) grow up thinking 'these are the facts, I must learn more facts', when in reality, they should be taught how to make the most intelligent choice from among several competing theories. As it turns out, it took Steven Hawking himself to discredit his own Big Bang theory.... nobody else would dare challenge him. He was mortified! He took a shot at the community of peers, essentially saying that he was so focused on his own idea, he had expected his peers to keep him honest and they failed him.

This is my point. Science is more akin to law than mathematics, but it's not presented that way anymore. It is taught entirely too dogmatically and it is against this that I argue. Heck, I personally can disprove Genesis using nothing more than Genesis itself. I know Intelligent Design is a bunch of jibberish. But only because I know HOW to approach the problem, not just parrot what I've been told.