If Darwin knew what science knows today, he'd probably be a creationist... he wasn't purposefully blind to God.
Joe
Joe
If I knew what you will post next, I may not have posted this. 
gotta go do some work, have a great day!!!
gotta go do some work, have a great day!!!
<< Life is so complex, there is no way that any "entity" could have designed every function, of every cell, of every organism in the universe. >>
Care to explain this?
<< I have also heard a "creationist" argue that...our bodies are 98% water and a watermelon is 98% percent water therefore we are related to watermelons!!!!!! haha! This was in response to the fact that Humans and Orangutans share 98% of our DNA. I don't think they get it! >>
No intelligent thinker would make a conclusion like that. Creationists may in general believe in anything, but as a proponent, I can tell you this much. No one who believes in intelligent design will support that argument, so your criticism there is out of a misplaced context.
Darwin - all Darwin did was make very keen observations on the variations in animals in an area. It's not immediatly apparent when you have animals with similiar traits which evolved from which, if any; or if they may in fact both be split off from an unknown common ancestor - or not - and have since developed certain traits that adapt better to their enviroment.
My point is, all he did was articulate what any intelligent person could given his observations - also known as common sense.
Netopia: "He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep for that which he cannot lose." Jim Elliot?
The problem with some scientists today is that they are astute scientists but poor philosophers and even worse at epistemological arguments and understanding the questions that the existence of logic itself raises about intelligent design.
Part of the reason for this is because scientists often fall into the rather ignorant presupposition that, because our technological expertise has multiplied manifold and our adherence to scientific methodology has become so concrete, we therefore must be superior in all respects to those who went before us.
If someone argues "Intelligent Design," then it is usually a matter of minutes before one gets lumped with dark-age medieval religionists who silenced Galileo. But the dark ages were dark, not because of faith in God, but because of the stranglehold that uninformed ideology placed on the culture.
Of course, no modern day materialist would stop to think that, in its own subtle way, materialism could have just as much of a stranglehold on his mind.
To help establish some balance in this regard, let me mention a couple of historical facts. Modern materialists often suggest that the size of the universe argues against intelligent design or any kind of innate significance to earth. The modern materialist will suggest that the "ignorant ancients" could believe in intelligent design because they had a primitive view of the world.
But this is not really true. Ptolemy's Almagest, written in the second century A.D., was the standard astronomical textbook used in ancient Alexandria. In that work, Ptolemy said, in Book I, chapter 5:
<< "The earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point." >>
If one knows history, than one knows that second century Alexandria was a capital of Christian thought, producing men who were brilliant, highly educated, and fully capable of reconciling science, Greek thought, and Christian belief. Yet Ptolemy's discovery did nothing to "shake the pillars of faith."
Three other aspects of modern thought are evolutionary theory (of course), recycled universes, and multiple universes. But Augustine of Hippo alludes to all three of these theories in Book 12, chapter 12, of his work, "The City of God," written around 400 AD. Furthermore, when commenting on the days of Genesis, Augustine says, in Book 11, Chapter 6, of the same book:
<< The fact is that the world [universe]was made simultaneously with time, if, with creation, motion and change began. As for these 'days' [of Genesis], it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think -- let alone explain in words -- what they mean." >>
Which brings us to the Genesis account itself. I have yet to hear a modern materialist explain to me how the Genesis text got so much right, albeit perhaps in poetical form. Since it has never been a cardinal tenant of "Intelligent design" that the days of Genesis must be interpreted literally, I think it would be beneficial to hear how the ancient Hebrews got so much right.
How did the Hebrews (alone of ancient near eastern cultures) know that this universe is not eternal, that it had a beginning and is running down or wearing out? All other ancient near east cultures, along with modern materialism, held to an eternal universe until the logical fallacy of infinite regression and the principles of relativity made that position untenable. Even as late as 1992, the Big Bang Theory was ridiculed precisely because it smacked of Judeo-Christian traditions and linear time. Consider this quote from John Boslough in his book, "Masters of Time: Cosmology at the Age of Innocence." In it he says:
<< For the time being, the big bang remains a scientific paradigm wrapped inside a metaphor for biblical genesis, a compelling although simplistic pseudoscientific creation myth embodying a Judeo-Christian tradition of linear time. . . . which ordained an absolute beginning. >>
How did the Hebrews know that light preceded the visible appearance of the sun and the moon? Of course, opaque clouds that would diffuse the heavenly lights are a fundamental element in the theory of planet formation now. But how could an ancient man draw that conclusion?
How did the ancient Hebrews know that plant life preceded animal life, and that animal life preceded man? How did the ancient Hebrews know that marine life preceded land life? Was it all a lucky guess?
Intelligent Design is not only a solid hypothesis for cosmology. It is perhaps the only hypotheses that can tie together cosmology, the existence of logic, the basic tenets of language, epistemology, psychology, etc into something taking on a unifying, if shadowy and undefined, character.
Yet Intelligent Design is often steadfastly ridiculed in the university setting and in much of the scientific community. Why? The reasons are emotional, not intellectual.
Robert Jastrow, an agnostic astonomer, admits as much when he says:
<< For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of human reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. >>
Part of the reason for this is because scientists often fall into the rather ignorant presupposition that, because our technological expertise has multiplied manifold and our adherence to scientific methodology has become so concrete, we therefore must be superior in all respects to those who went before us.
If someone argues "Intelligent Design," then it is usually a matter of minutes before one gets lumped with dark-age medieval religionists who silenced Galileo. But the dark ages were dark, not because of faith in God, but because of the stranglehold that uninformed ideology placed on the culture.
Of course, no modern day materialist would stop to think that, in its own subtle way, materialism could have just as much of a stranglehold on his mind.
To help establish some balance in this regard, let me mention a couple of historical facts. Modern materialists often suggest that the size of the universe argues against intelligent design or any kind of innate significance to earth. The modern materialist will suggest that the "ignorant ancients" could believe in intelligent design because they had a primitive view of the world.
But this is not really true. Ptolemy's Almagest, written in the second century A.D., was the standard astronomical textbook used in ancient Alexandria. In that work, Ptolemy said, in Book I, chapter 5:
<< "The earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point." >>
If one knows history, than one knows that second century Alexandria was a capital of Christian thought, producing men who were brilliant, highly educated, and fully capable of reconciling science, Greek thought, and Christian belief. Yet Ptolemy's discovery did nothing to "shake the pillars of faith."
Three other aspects of modern thought are evolutionary theory (of course), recycled universes, and multiple universes. But Augustine of Hippo alludes to all three of these theories in Book 12, chapter 12, of his work, "The City of God," written around 400 AD. Furthermore, when commenting on the days of Genesis, Augustine says, in Book 11, Chapter 6, of the same book:
<< The fact is that the world [universe]was made simultaneously with time, if, with creation, motion and change began. As for these 'days' [of Genesis], it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think -- let alone explain in words -- what they mean." >>
Which brings us to the Genesis account itself. I have yet to hear a modern materialist explain to me how the Genesis text got so much right, albeit perhaps in poetical form. Since it has never been a cardinal tenant of "Intelligent design" that the days of Genesis must be interpreted literally, I think it would be beneficial to hear how the ancient Hebrews got so much right.
How did the Hebrews (alone of ancient near eastern cultures) know that this universe is not eternal, that it had a beginning and is running down or wearing out? All other ancient near east cultures, along with modern materialism, held to an eternal universe until the logical fallacy of infinite regression and the principles of relativity made that position untenable. Even as late as 1992, the Big Bang Theory was ridiculed precisely because it smacked of Judeo-Christian traditions and linear time. Consider this quote from John Boslough in his book, "Masters of Time: Cosmology at the Age of Innocence." In it he says:
<< For the time being, the big bang remains a scientific paradigm wrapped inside a metaphor for biblical genesis, a compelling although simplistic pseudoscientific creation myth embodying a Judeo-Christian tradition of linear time. . . . which ordained an absolute beginning. >>
How did the Hebrews know that light preceded the visible appearance of the sun and the moon? Of course, opaque clouds that would diffuse the heavenly lights are a fundamental element in the theory of planet formation now. But how could an ancient man draw that conclusion?
How did the ancient Hebrews know that plant life preceded animal life, and that animal life preceded man? How did the ancient Hebrews know that marine life preceded land life? Was it all a lucky guess?
Intelligent Design is not only a solid hypothesis for cosmology. It is perhaps the only hypotheses that can tie together cosmology, the existence of logic, the basic tenets of language, epistemology, psychology, etc into something taking on a unifying, if shadowy and undefined, character.
Yet Intelligent Design is often steadfastly ridiculed in the university setting and in much of the scientific community. Why? The reasons are emotional, not intellectual.
Robert Jastrow, an agnostic astonomer, admits as much when he says:
<< For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of human reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. >>
<< I know you don't share my view, but, if you also don't believe the matter that makes up the universe is eternal, what do you propose then? What made it come into being? (I know you probably will say that it is "unknowable", which I understand. But if you had to guess, what would you guess existed before the universe?) >>
We don't know.
The only conclusions which can be made at examining the available (empirical) evidence, is that the universe originated from a single point and is expanding. It will either expand forever or 'fall back' on itself (big crunch).
Beyond that there is insufficient evidence.
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
You can't prove how the world started anyway, so there really is no debate. The Big Bang? It's just the only hypothesis that scientists can think of right now. In 100 years, there will probably be some other theory that "everyone" believes based on some new evidence. People will still be having the same debate and the scientists will think they are correct and everyone else is a crackpot. Then, two hundred years from now there will be an even newer theory that is completely different again. You see how this works? My prediction is that in 200 years, people will wonder how we even lived in such a terrible world filled with ignorance. Know anything about physics? I bet in 200 years over 50% of what we believe happens in physics will change. Yet, it's being taught as fact now just as Aristotle's views were taught for centuries before.
A great man once said the universe is not bound by our understanding of it. Now, am I this great man, or has someone said this before me?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
You have no way of knowing that you have no way of knowing that you have no way of knowing whether or not 'you have no way of knowing whether it is within the capabilities of a single entity to have designed the universe."
Getting a bit dizzy in here. Anyway, no one knows what started the universe, or what control or guidance if any exists. Many theories put forward by some creationist as science are ridiculous. Many statements against a god are equally scientifically unfounded. So, lets say evolution exists, and that there is a way to prove it without doubt. Great. Now you have no conclusive evidence that there is no creator, because what if the creator made it this way? All science can do is describe the phenomena. It cannot explain it. Science can say how but not WHY. Learn to know the difference. Science as faith is a bad idea, because it clouds objectivity, which is hard enough to achieve in real science anyway. Actually, there is always bias in science, but you try to mimimize it.
Getting a bit dizzy in here. Anyway, no one knows what started the universe, or what control or guidance if any exists. Many theories put forward by some creationist as science are ridiculous. Many statements against a god are equally scientifically unfounded. So, lets say evolution exists, and that there is a way to prove it without doubt. Great. Now you have no conclusive evidence that there is no creator, because what if the creator made it this way? All science can do is describe the phenomena. It cannot explain it. Science can say how but not WHY. Learn to know the difference. Science as faith is a bad idea, because it clouds objectivity, which is hard enough to achieve in real science anyway. Actually, there is always bias in science, but you try to mimimize it.
<< Netopia: "He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep for that which he cannot lose." Jim Elliot? >>
Yep.... I hope to meet him and converse one day... how about you?
Joe
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
<< <I>The idea of a "creator" should definitely be taught in school, but it should be made certain that this belief is not attributed to any one religious belief.</I> >>
<<Nothing that cannot be proven should be taught in school>>
Please prove the Big Bang
<<Nothing that cannot be proven should be taught in school>>
Please prove the Big Bang
<< <<Nothing that cannot be proven should be taught in school>> >>
Gosh.... I guess all postulates MUST be purged from Geometry and never taught in schools again!
Joe
<< The problem with some scientists today is that they are astute sceintists but poor philosophers and even worse at epsitemological arguments and understanding the questions that the existence of logic itself raises about intelligent design. >>
Much like philosophy intelligent design is not science. It has none of the requirements to be a science, hence it should not be taught in a science class. You wanna have a philosophy class where you debate the meaning of existence or even if you do exist then that is fine, but intelligent design is not science and deserves no play in a science class.
killface
Golden Member
- Aug 17, 2001
- 1,416
- 0
- 0
<< A great man once said the universe is not bound by our understanding of it. Now, am I this great man, or has someone said this before me? >>
Sounds like the Carl Sagan quote "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition."
Hi rahvin:
Well, I actually agree with what your are saying. The problem is that science is taught in schools, while the philosophical and epistemological questions that it cannot answer are not. Into this void, something will flow. What flows in is materialism. I am not arguing materialism versus another -ism here, I am simply saying that we do our kids a serious injustice because materialism becomes the grid by which all data is interpreted without a counterpoint being given. Is that really a solid education? By abdication, many kids are taught what to think instead of how to think.
Intelligent Design can be argued apart from any specific ideology. It is the imposition of specific ideologies that the government is forbidden to force.
Yet, by abdication, materialism becomes the ideology, because it is never examined as an ideology.
Consider this statement made by Arno Penzias, co-winner of the Niobel prize for physics for his discovery of microwave background radiation. He made this statement in 1994:
<< We ought to make sure, since scientists can only speak in physical terms, that they don't take that to be the entire world. . . I think scientists are very poor witnesses, because they are looking at such a very small part of the world. That's my view. And they tend to thinkof the physical part of the world which they are able to experience as all of reality >>
Well, I actually agree with what your are saying. The problem is that science is taught in schools, while the philosophical and epistemological questions that it cannot answer are not. Into this void, something will flow. What flows in is materialism. I am not arguing materialism versus another -ism here, I am simply saying that we do our kids a serious injustice because materialism becomes the grid by which all data is interpreted without a counterpoint being given. Is that really a solid education? By abdication, many kids are taught what to think instead of how to think.
Intelligent Design can be argued apart from any specific ideology. It is the imposition of specific ideologies that the government is forbidden to force.
Yet, by abdication, materialism becomes the ideology, because it is never examined as an ideology.
Consider this statement made by Arno Penzias, co-winner of the Niobel prize for physics for his discovery of microwave background radiation. He made this statement in 1994:
<< We ought to make sure, since scientists can only speak in physical terms, that they don't take that to be the entire world. . . I think scientists are very poor witnesses, because they are looking at such a very small part of the world. That's my view. And they tend to thinkof the physical part of the world which they are able to experience as all of reality >>
<< Well, I actually agree with what your are saying. The problem is that science is taught in schools, while the philosophical and epistemological questions that it cannot answer are not. Into this void, something will flow. What flows in is materialism. I am not arguing materialism versus another -ism here, I am simply saying that we do our kids a serious injustice because materialism becomes the grid by which all data is interpreted without a counterpoint being given. Is that really a solid education? By abdication, many kids are taught what to think instead of how to think.
Intelligent Design can be argued apart from any specific ideology. It is the imposition of specific ideologies that the government is forbidden to force.
Yet, by abdication, materialism becomes the ideology, because it is never examined as an ideology. >>
If you agree with me do you support the idea of something other than science being taught in science class? I could very easily argue that idealology and epistemological questions should be taught in the home rather than the public school system. As long as a child is a minor they are subject to their parents, the state has accepted responsibility for teaching a base understanding in reading/math/science and social interaction. The theological and philisophical questions are best left to the parents and a higher education if the child pursues it.
Any attempt by deists to insert intelligent design into a science class (where it doesn't belong) will always be seen by non-deists to be an attempt to indoctrinate children with the deist views. And I ask you this, if it doesn't belong in a science class isn't teaching it in a science class really an attempt to indoctrinate children?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Rahvin-
I wonder at times if science as taught is not indoctrination? The problem is not with science, but that science, and by extention, technology are being put forward as the answer to things it ought not to address. How many people haven't a clue what science can and cannot ask? Even further, how many see science as a replacement for religion or philosophy, deeming anything that cannot be duplicated or modeled as somehow antiquted and intellectually impure? To be sure, science needs to be taught in science class, but sometimes I see science (again as commonly interpreted and presented) as Marley's chain.
I wear the chain I forged in life. I made it link by link,
and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will,
and of my own free will I wore it. Is its pattern strange to you;
Or would you know the weight and length of the strong coil
you bear yourself? It was full as heavy, and as long as this,
seven Christmas Eves ago. You have labored on it, since.
It is a ponderous chain!
Limiting ourselves to one way of thinking is an encumbrance I do not intend my children to bear.
I remember taking a course in analytical chemistry years ago. The professor brought in a very old copy of "Through the looking Glass and what Alice found there". He started to read, and after a few minutes one of the more annoying members of the class raised his hand and asked "What has this got to do with analytical chemistry" Smiling, the professor closed the book and turned towards the student. After a pregnant moments pause he said "Young man, never let your schooling interfere with your education" and went back to reading the book. Perhaps that is the wisest attitude.
I wonder at times if science as taught is not indoctrination? The problem is not with science, but that science, and by extention, technology are being put forward as the answer to things it ought not to address. How many people haven't a clue what science can and cannot ask? Even further, how many see science as a replacement for religion or philosophy, deeming anything that cannot be duplicated or modeled as somehow antiquted and intellectually impure? To be sure, science needs to be taught in science class, but sometimes I see science (again as commonly interpreted and presented) as Marley's chain.
I wear the chain I forged in life. I made it link by link,
and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will,
and of my own free will I wore it. Is its pattern strange to you;
Or would you know the weight and length of the strong coil
you bear yourself? It was full as heavy, and as long as this,
seven Christmas Eves ago. You have labored on it, since.
It is a ponderous chain!
Limiting ourselves to one way of thinking is an encumbrance I do not intend my children to bear.
I remember taking a course in analytical chemistry years ago. The professor brought in a very old copy of "Through the looking Glass and what Alice found there". He started to read, and after a few minutes one of the more annoying members of the class raised his hand and asked "What has this got to do with analytical chemistry" Smiling, the professor closed the book and turned towards the student. After a pregnant moments pause he said "Young man, never let your schooling interfere with your education" and went back to reading the book. Perhaps that is the wisest attitude.
<< If you agree with me do you support the idea of something other than science being taught in science class? >>
I like to look at the etymology of words so that I can get a better understanding of what the word is SUPPOSED to represent.
- [Middle English, knowledge, learning, from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scins, scient- present participle of scre, to know. See skei- in Indo-European Roots.]
It would seem to me that science at its root is the practice of seeking what is knowable. Even if unprovable, and therefore unknowable via the "scientific method", many things are yet "science". Quantum Mechanics deals with all sorts of things that cannot be proven, cannot be seen, cannot be replicated... and yet it is considered a branch of science.
Since the beginning of learning, there have been things that are outside the "current" ability to directly observe and one could only theorize. Why is it that when God is brought into a "scientific" discussion, that suddenly this false separation appears that seems to divide all other yet unknown things and "God" into to different catagories... one for exploration, the other for shunning.
For the sake of arguement, let's say that there are extra-terrestrials and that they not only planted life on this planet, but completely genetically engineered it all. They used the same "program" and "sub-routines" in all of the "life" on earth, just rearranging this or that or excluding certain calls or branches... but basically the same program (DNA). A scientist might be willing to discuss the possibility of this, after all, we ourselves are starting to delve into genetic engineering, so it's not that unheard of that some advanced species could do it that much better. But if we say that GOD created all things and that He genetically engineered us, suddenly the "unseen creator" is a off limits topic. Why?
Why must science, the quest for knowledge, be under the curse of tunnel vision for the last several score? It wasn't always this way... you can see that from the writings of men of science over the ages... but now, science feels the need to shun God and say He has no part in any discussion of science. Why?
Joe
<< I wonder at times if science as taught is not indoctrination? >>
Is learning a method for seeking truths in the known universe an indoctrination? Or is learning what we know about the known universe an indoctrination?
<< The problem is not with science, but that science, and by extention, technology are being put forward as the answer to things it ought not to address. >>
So what you are saying is that because you don't like the way our culture is headed that you feel it is paramount to impose on our youth the teaching of a non-science in a science class under the premise of educating them, when in fact this responsibility lies with the parents?
<< How many people haven't a clue what science can and cannot ask? >>
Actually a very small percentage of this country. I would wager that percentage is even lower in areas where religious indoctrination is present to a high degree. The bible belt would be a good example.
<< I like to look at the etymology of words so that I can get a better understanding of what the word is SUPPOSED to represent. >>
Fortunately you don't get to redefine what words mean based on the roots of the word. You can try, but we can toss it away as rambling nonsense with no bearing on anything. What you think a word should mean and what a method is actually defined to be are two entirely different things.
<< Why is it that when God is brought into a "scientific" discussion, that suddenly this false separation appears that seems to divide all other yet unknown things and "God" into to different catagories... one for exploration, the other for shunning. >>
Because the premise and definition of a God place that arguement outside the realm of science and what the method defined by it can prove. For any argument to be a scientific arguement it must be reproducable/predicable and falsifiable. The premise of a god violates both those principles so science can never consider that option otherwise it ISN'T science. If it isn't science why should it be discussed in a scientific discussion? Why not discuss brownie recipies in a scientific paper, they both have equal applicability to science.
The above paragraph should answer both your other two because they ask the same question phrased differently.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
ravin-
I noted you disregarded my emphasis on AS TAUGHT.
And yes, the act of teaching, if improperly used IS an act of indoctrination. Once I read in another thread how a science teacher belittled anyone who did not consider his version of science as ignorant and in error. Now what do you think a 4th grader is going to think of this? How is this teaching science? How is it appropriate that he, in effect is calling the child and his family stupid, if they happen to subscribe to a religious belief?
<So what you are saying is that because you don't like the way our culture is headed that you feel it is paramount to impose on our youth the teaching of a non-science in a science class under the premise of educating them, when in fact this responsibility lies with the parents?>
The actual quote I made was this:
To be sure, science needs to be taught in science class, but sometimes I see science (again as commonly interpreted and presented) as Marley's chain.
Note I say science needs to be taught in science class. I am not arguing that anything else be. I am advocating less opinion on the rightness and inherent superiority of what some would have science to be. Science is a tool for understanding the physical universe. It is a wrench, a hammer, a METHOD. You learn about HOW things function. What I object to is when those who educate overstep their bounds and teach science as religion or philosophy. Or in other words "I am right and everyone else is wrong" It is attitude, and not course material I object to.
I also stand by my statement that limiting onself to any one way of thinking is tantamount to bondage. Narrow views make shallow lives.
FYI you should know I AM a proponent of GOOD scientific eduation. My wife is a professor of biology at a Boston area college, with a doctorate in molecular biology. I wont go into my background in detail, but suffice it to say I have more letters after my name than I care to think about. And ALL of it is science related. My 3rd grade daughter knows more about the solar system and astronomy than many high schoolers. What we do NOT do is adopt the attitude that our knowlege is the ONLY knowlege worth having or is valid.
I noted you disregarded my emphasis on AS TAUGHT.
And yes, the act of teaching, if improperly used IS an act of indoctrination. Once I read in another thread how a science teacher belittled anyone who did not consider his version of science as ignorant and in error. Now what do you think a 4th grader is going to think of this? How is this teaching science? How is it appropriate that he, in effect is calling the child and his family stupid, if they happen to subscribe to a religious belief?
<So what you are saying is that because you don't like the way our culture is headed that you feel it is paramount to impose on our youth the teaching of a non-science in a science class under the premise of educating them, when in fact this responsibility lies with the parents?>
The actual quote I made was this:
To be sure, science needs to be taught in science class, but sometimes I see science (again as commonly interpreted and presented) as Marley's chain.
Note I say science needs to be taught in science class. I am not arguing that anything else be. I am advocating less opinion on the rightness and inherent superiority of what some would have science to be. Science is a tool for understanding the physical universe. It is a wrench, a hammer, a METHOD. You learn about HOW things function. What I object to is when those who educate overstep their bounds and teach science as religion or philosophy. Or in other words "I am right and everyone else is wrong" It is attitude, and not course material I object to.
I also stand by my statement that limiting onself to any one way of thinking is tantamount to bondage. Narrow views make shallow lives.
FYI you should know I AM a proponent of GOOD scientific eduation. My wife is a professor of biology at a Boston area college, with a doctorate in molecular biology. I wont go into my background in detail, but suffice it to say I have more letters after my name than I care to think about. And ALL of it is science related. My 3rd grade daughter knows more about the solar system and astronomy than many high schoolers. What we do NOT do is adopt the attitude that our knowlege is the ONLY knowlege worth having or is valid.
<< And yes, the act of teaching, if improperly used IS an act of indoctrination. Once I read in another thread how a science teacher belittled anyone who did not consider his version of science as ignorant and in error. Now what do you think a 4th grader is going to think of this? How is this teaching science? How is it appropriate that he, in effect is calling the child and his family stupid, if they happen to subscribe to a religious belief? >>
How is this anything other than a local staffing issue? How does this relate to the thread in question?
<< I also stand by my statement that limiting onself to any one way of thinking is tantamount to bondage. Narrow views make shallow lives. >>
So are you, or are you not advocating the teaching of a non-science (intelligent design) in a science course? I agree with you about exposure to all views. I don't feel that exposure to certain views is the bastian of a publicly funded school system. I firmly believe that those views are the parents responsiblity and can be explored further by the child when they attend an institution of higher learning.
You seem to be implying that because I don't think intelligent design should be taught in a public school that somehow I'm closed minded or that the action itself is closed minded. Otherwise I'm not sure if you are even trying to make a point.
I'll say it again, as an athiest I firmly believe any attempt to teach intelligent design (a philisophical issue, not science) in a science course is a deliberate attempt by the theists to indoctrinate children in their world views potentially against the wishes of the parents.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Actually, the topic at hand wandered when I had found it. No matter. To directly answer intelligent design. No, it is not appropriate to teach it in science class. As I have already said, teach science in science class. English in english class. The thread was opening into a more general discussion. When teaching science, teach science. We are really not far apart as to what should be taught. My point is HOW things are being taught. Attitude. Perception.
<<You seem to be implying that because I don't think intelligent design should be taught in a public school that somehow I'm closed minded or that the action itself is closed minded. Otherwise I'm not sure if you are even trying to make a point>>
My comments are general in nature and are not critical of you or anyone else here for that matter. If I thought you were closed minded, I would not have started this dialogue, as I would have considered it a waste of time
Perhaps the difference in perspective is that you are an athiest, and I am an agnostic. I have not the knowlege to deny the existance of a god, nor the personal experiance some say they have that proves there is a god, at least to their satisfaction. I simply cannot know. You have certainty of a godless universe, and I accept that you do. Others are conviced to the contrary. Again, I accept their right to do so without judgement. Regarding a local staffing issues- obviously. However. the attitude this man presents is more common than you might think based on personal observation.
<<You seem to be implying that because I don't think intelligent design should be taught in a public school that somehow I'm closed minded or that the action itself is closed minded. Otherwise I'm not sure if you are even trying to make a point>>
My comments are general in nature and are not critical of you or anyone else here for that matter. If I thought you were closed minded, I would not have started this dialogue, as I would have considered it a waste of time
Perhaps the difference in perspective is that you are an athiest, and I am an agnostic. I have not the knowlege to deny the existance of a god, nor the personal experiance some say they have that proves there is a god, at least to their satisfaction. I simply cannot know. You have certainty of a godless universe, and I accept that you do. Others are conviced to the contrary. Again, I accept their right to do so without judgement. Regarding a local staffing issues- obviously. However. the attitude this man presents is more common than you might think based on personal observation.
rahvin:
I am not so sure of your statement that the schools operate on the following premise: the state has accepted responsibility for teaching a base understanding in reading/math/science and social interaction. I think the public education system has gone far beyond reading, math, science, and "social interaction." I find the fourth one a little fuzzy but I assume you mean "commonly recognized standards of decent behavior and the social structures of human society." Furthermore, many in the educational establishment have a much greater agenda, which is neither good nor bad in itself.
It seems that the very areas the "state has accepted responsibility for" are the very ones where the children are increasingly lagging. But that is another topic.
You mention "social interaction," but that introduces a wide variety of issues that are hardly concrete. Use analogy: here we are as humans, who find ourselves as a convoy of vessels huddled together on this journey called existence.
Well, we are here, so lets try to keep the ships together and not running into each other. Lets look at this ocean of existence we are in and see what its nature is so that we can keep afloat more efficiently. That is level one and involves the more physical sciences and statecraft.
But many of the individual ships do run into each other. They seem unable to keep a straight course. We need to examine the interior of these ships and see what is going on. This is level two and involves psychiatry, psychology, medicine, etc. And yet, even here, we begin to deal less with the physical and more with certain ideals about how humans should be.
Once we ask how humans should be, we are entering a third level. Now we are setting goals and taking the convoy in a certain direction. This is the domain of ethics, philosophy, etc. Which begs the question: how can we know what direction we should head in unless we agree, at least to some extent, about why we are in the water in the first place? Such questions are "level four."
This may seem complex, but I think the typical child, if allowed to think for himself, will come to level four quite quickly, and rather seamlessly. If educators really stuck with level one and maybe level two, then things would be fine. But it is virtually impossible to do. We all bring biases and presuppositions (our own level three and level four beliefs) into every situation. The biases are there, they influence us, and they influence those around us.
As far as "science should be taught in science class", I am fine with that, so long as it is emphasized that science, under its current paradigms, has limitations and that one has to search in other places. But such is not the case in many instances. The prevailing attitude is often, "Science cannot answer that question, which means it is not a question worth asking. Let's deal with real life."
I am not so sure of your statement that the schools operate on the following premise: the state has accepted responsibility for teaching a base understanding in reading/math/science and social interaction. I think the public education system has gone far beyond reading, math, science, and "social interaction." I find the fourth one a little fuzzy but I assume you mean "commonly recognized standards of decent behavior and the social structures of human society." Furthermore, many in the educational establishment have a much greater agenda, which is neither good nor bad in itself.
It seems that the very areas the "state has accepted responsibility for" are the very ones where the children are increasingly lagging. But that is another topic.
You mention "social interaction," but that introduces a wide variety of issues that are hardly concrete. Use analogy: here we are as humans, who find ourselves as a convoy of vessels huddled together on this journey called existence.
Well, we are here, so lets try to keep the ships together and not running into each other. Lets look at this ocean of existence we are in and see what its nature is so that we can keep afloat more efficiently. That is level one and involves the more physical sciences and statecraft.
But many of the individual ships do run into each other. They seem unable to keep a straight course. We need to examine the interior of these ships and see what is going on. This is level two and involves psychiatry, psychology, medicine, etc. And yet, even here, we begin to deal less with the physical and more with certain ideals about how humans should be.
Once we ask how humans should be, we are entering a third level. Now we are setting goals and taking the convoy in a certain direction. This is the domain of ethics, philosophy, etc. Which begs the question: how can we know what direction we should head in unless we agree, at least to some extent, about why we are in the water in the first place? Such questions are "level four."
This may seem complex, but I think the typical child, if allowed to think for himself, will come to level four quite quickly, and rather seamlessly. If educators really stuck with level one and maybe level two, then things would be fine. But it is virtually impossible to do. We all bring biases and presuppositions (our own level three and level four beliefs) into every situation. The biases are there, they influence us, and they influence those around us.
As far as "science should be taught in science class", I am fine with that, so long as it is emphasized that science, under its current paradigms, has limitations and that one has to search in other places. But such is not the case in many instances. The prevailing attitude is often, "Science cannot answer that question, which means it is not a question worth asking. Let's deal with real life."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter