-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
The Crusade Against Evolution
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Todd33
Diamond Member
It makes little difference what Darwin thought about his own book. The current theories bear little resemblance to Darwin's original work, which had some wrong spots (but good ideas). Science is about explaining observables. It's backed by peer review and millions of brilliant minds around the world. It's never about one man or one theory. You cannot discount volumes of work by millions of scientist just because you want to stick to children stories. That's not how human progress works. The Earth is not the center of the universe, the Earth is not 8,000 years old, Adam and Eve are not fact, they are fables.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
Darwin made this claim on his deathbed. The creationist types love to cite it as if it's some form of invalidation of Darwinism and evolution in general.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
There's Intelligent Design and Divine Intervention, etc...plenty of funny acronyms. But nice dodge.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
I'd be honored. Er....uh...I DARE you.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
Speaking of a dodge...we are speaking of the claims of Intelligent Design here, if you're following along.
DI can mean Drill Instructor as well. I don't believe we are discussing drill instructors in this thread.
sandorski
No Lifer
I'm with you! Don't let the White Cloaked man keep you down!!
Remember, everyone who tries to leap between 2 tall buildings fails on the first try. First you have to Free your mind!! 😉
"Creation SCience", "ID", the "Moral Majority", and other movements are just various Religion's attempts to become the defacto Official Religion supported by Government. If you want to Teach Unscientific Theories to your kids, go ahead, just don't expect an Education system designed to Educate to do it for you.
for the record, im a strong evolutionist, but thats not what im arguing here.
What surprises me is this hell bent anger coming from people who cant stand the thought of even another idea existing. how many times have people on this board spouted off about how righteous and well informed they are, and they only come to thier own conclusions based on information from a wide array of sources. Whats so bad about having multiple ideas being exposed to students? And then letting the students come to thier own conclusions? In a way this sounds like it would be a better learning experience, exposing the children to several theories, and let them compare and ague the validity and then reason for themselves.
One problem with todays schools (in america at least) is they dont encourage thinking, they just try to pump kids with facts, no thinking involved. Its like, ok kids, heres this theory, memorize it and take a test, heres another, memorize it and get tested on it, etc. I for one would like to see science classes for young people taught like they were under Soviet Russia. They didnt just read off theories like schools here, they instead went over the history of the science, having the children learn about the trials and erros regarding a certain area, then "discover" the answer for themselves. of course the intent was for the children to discover the same conclusion that was wideley accepted at the time, but more importantly it taught the children to think using the scientific method.
What surprises me is this hell bent anger coming from people who cant stand the thought of even another idea existing. how many times have people on this board spouted off about how righteous and well informed they are, and they only come to thier own conclusions based on information from a wide array of sources. Whats so bad about having multiple ideas being exposed to students? And then letting the students come to thier own conclusions? In a way this sounds like it would be a better learning experience, exposing the children to several theories, and let them compare and ague the validity and then reason for themselves.
One problem with todays schools (in america at least) is they dont encourage thinking, they just try to pump kids with facts, no thinking involved. Its like, ok kids, heres this theory, memorize it and take a test, heres another, memorize it and get tested on it, etc. I for one would like to see science classes for young people taught like they were under Soviet Russia. They didnt just read off theories like schools here, they instead went over the history of the science, having the children learn about the trials and erros regarding a certain area, then "discover" the answer for themselves. of course the intent was for the children to discover the same conclusion that was wideley accepted at the time, but more importantly it taught the children to think using the scientific method.
You're not exposing children to a theory when you teach them ID. A theory can be tested and disproven. How can you ever disprove ID? And don't mistake it for anything but religion. They say that ID design means that it had to be created by someone of intelligence whether that is God/aliens. They make sure to throw in aliens. Yet who designed the aliens? Eventually it comes down to a God/gods.
Should other ideas like the earth is flat, planets orbit around the earth be given time in the classroom? I argue no because they are a big joke. ID is nothin but a waste of classroom time for an american school science system that is already behing the rest of the world. It is simply an attempt to inject religion into the classroom.
It's a fair argument BUT creationism is basically an insidious ploy to teach religious beliefs to children and as such is a danger to them at a certain age. Also younger children might not be sophisticated enough to understand why a certain idea is completely bogus or not. At a certain age we just want them to have a basic understanding then we build on it later.
I know in certain european systems they teach you the same history of the country multiple times but each time they go into more detail. So for example you might at first have an explanation of WWI as follows: these two countries fought, this one was bad and lost. Then when they're older: you might say Europeans were becoming colonial powers, etc... and neither side was really evil but it was because of such and such factors. You could do this for science too but creationism is really a way to sneak religion in classrooms. I say only for last two years of highschool IF they have a understanding of the scientific method (which apparently most do not).
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: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
