Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:
Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.
I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.
Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)
If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.
If a student learns to presume that one knows the cause of circumstantial evidence before examining it, and a student does not learn how to contrast the rules of evidence, examine the weight or preponderance of evidence, and determine the relevancy of evidence on grounds of prejudice (pre–judging) or one presuppositions................ How will a student ever learn to how to study claims about "UFO studies, Crop Circles, the difference between ascorbic acid and Vitamin C, alien anal probes, cattle mutilations, ESP, communication with the dead, and so forth?" for themselves?
My teacher in high school civics (who also was the girls basketball coach) said that Democrats were conservative and Republicans were liberal. I think I nearly flunked that class, and I got sent to the office on more than one occasion for arguing with the teacher.
There's certainly room for improvement in the schools, but it's my position that science classes aren't the problem. Actually, science classes (along with math) are the last bastion of critical thinking and problem solving left. Contrary to popular opinion on these threads, science curricula is some of the least politicized.
If they want to improve the schools, there are many avenues to take. I don't think science classes are the problem, and monkeying with the science curriculum to include creationism isn't going to solve a thing. All it's going to do is bring political correctness into life and earth science. Isn't there enough multicultural crap in schools already?
The real problem is with parents. If children don't have any self-discipline or moral values instilled in them, what makes people think a chapter on the garden of eden in life science class is going to do any good? They're just going to blow it off anyway.
No. Parents need to discipline their children. It's not the job of the school system to teach self-discipline. Students need to have it in order to learn. It's not the job of the school system to teach morality. Students should already know right from wrong. The job of the school system is to teach reading, writing, math, and science. The Garden of Eden and Noah and the Ark should be taught in Sunday School.
People who oppose the teaching of creationism and "intelligent design" in science classes are not idolators. We do "true believers" in evolution. This is rather insulting.
If the science taught in schools can't even stand up to debate, then it's not worth teaching at all.
The purpose of science class at the secondary school level is not to debate science, and more than the purpose of math class is to debate math.
As most schools are operated as college prep, the purpose of science class is to prepare students with the material as they will need to know it when they continue at university.
This is just one magazine. there are many.
The textbooks I have seen do some of this also. It's pretty hard to cover every loony idea in a single book, but they do teach how science works and how we got to where we are.
I'm sorry if you missed this in your schooling. It was part of my science education, starting in seventh grade.
No no. Not "the" moon landing, the moon "landings".
Well for starters, they employed evolutionary scientists and, well, you get the picture.
What a treasure to read your narrative.
Thanks.
I understand about such joy.
My mother's redeeming value in that state was she was not QUITE as . . . successfully hostile, demanding, punitive; was more accepting, more in the direction of gracious! LOL.
Thanks much.
If one isn't, they aren't human.
I much agree.
I think the teaching by fiat of one view, construction of reality is very hazardous.
Of course, when God declares and makes His law resident in all alive humans' hearts . . . that will be a different reality.
But in the current one . . . I vote wholeheartedly for a diversity of options--especially where there's remotely reasonable room for differing views, perspectives.
I'd like to think that in most spheres of reality--I'd like an alternate view presented even where it was pretty plainly obvious that only one was consistent with observed reality . . . just to keep folks thinking and alert for alternate possibilities in general.
INQUISITIONS are rather horrible things.
FOSSILIZED TIDY LITTLE NARROW, RIGID BOXED thinking is just a few short steps from INQUISITIONS . . . if not already in lock step with them.
Psst! The Dead Sea Scrolls support the written testimony in the Bible. Peer review? There is a whole bunch of it. Now back to your questions which are sure to follow.
And people who understand AND have read the Bible know what it says and have posted on these threads countless tims.
Well put, imho.
It's pretty hard to cover every loony idea in a single book,
= = = =
I don't know any healthy CREO's who are asking that even 10% of every loony idea be covered in any text books.
Straw dogs are . . . shallow and silly, imho.
I agree that it's impossible to be human without being selective.
However, in the area of teaching and presentation of the basic options in viewing the main constructions on reality . . . at least the main basics should likely be presented . . . at least in minimal form . . . in whatever spheres of reality they have any currency or relevance in.
No, they are selective in the loony ideas they want taught. I give them credit for that.
Huh? It's part of the history of science. In this case attempts to explain the fossil record.
This whole excursion into Lamarck started when I replied to FreedomProtector:
He had posted “If someone was to lift weights and increase their muscle mass, would genetic traits of bigger muscle would be passed on to their children?” --the typical answer was an unscientific, “yes”...
And I replied:
I'm having a hard time believing this; are you claiming that the teacher was so awful that you couldn't tell the disproved Lamarckian theory from normal biology?!
I injected a random character "a" which was not detected as an "unfit" by the carefully designed spelling checker fitness algorithm.
Way
Instead of generating another random character I will insert a carefully designed letter "h" to design a meaningful sentence.
Why
No, they are selective in the loony ideas they want taught. I give them credit for that.
= = = =
So are EVO's. And I don't give them credit for that because of the degree and awfulness of the DENIED hypocrisies involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.