"I pray to Zeus to let me deliver the Internet!"
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.
Pretty sad.
There's probably a scientific reason for that!
No, that is one thing that I would never do, the difference between Christianity and Islam is like night and day.
But, yes, restating it made much more understandable, I was in a bit of a hurry the first time, was in the middle of a report.
I loved that episode of TNG. LOL
So you support other "views" of mathematics, chemistry, astonomy, physics, etc? You call for astrology, alchemy in science class to provide another "view?"
Well at least you are honest. You are anti-science.
How are you on the Internet? Or do you just draw a line at "science that directly helps me?"
In fact, so prosaic a course of study like Euclidean Geometry was "designed" by Greek mathematicians who also designed several other systems of Geometry.
They chose to push the "Euclidean" form because it was relatively easy to understand (in an intuitive sort of way), and therefore easy to teach.
Still, it does not represent anything in the real world, and fails to recognize the curvature of space/time.
The internet didn't evolve. It sprang fully designed from the head of Zeus.
Yes, the internet was designed so that it could not evolve, only add and subtract, as well as re-route. It's the same now that it was in the beginning and will be in the future. Web without end.
Best post on the thread
Always good to hear from you. You are truly a credit to your side of the argument.
I am sure the kids would love that -- lotus eating all day while contemplating the Nature of Things, rather than that dry foundation stuff.
And the rest of the world will, of course, completely destroy what small lead in science and technology we have been able to hang onto despite the anti-science Luddites.
"I pray to Zeus to let me deliver the Internet!"
Forgive me for saying so, but it seems you are looking for a map/guidebook or litmus test, not for a way to look at the world experientially, directly. It's not enough to know how to read; you also must know how to "read in-between the lines."
Much of the foundations of learning involve rote activities, such things as learning how to count, memorizing the multiplication tables, adding new words to one's vocabulary, memorizing Latin declension rules, being able to give dates for critical historical events and their sequence over time, etc., etc.
But a scientific theory -- not less evolutionary theory -- is not that sort of thing. It is an abstraction from the foundational stuff, tried and true we expect (hope). It is not a rote activity with all problems settled (or at least in the main outline) before the kids' little butts even hit their desk chairs, whereupon you can bore them silly with inane, doctrinal drivel, rather than engage their curiosity and their minds by teaching science (biology) from its first principles. Which means more emphasis on foundational concepts, and more opportunities for direct experiments, and much less "spoon-feeding" of the currently received doctrine.
By so doing, you are telling them their minds, their reasoning ability is superfluous. You are instructing them that just saying the right mantras will get you ahead in life....
[And then people wonder why so many kids drop out of school.]
But then, inevitably that might get you into the "teaching the controversy" problem; and, not only is that wildly unpopular with the status quo, but practically speaking you couldn't find many teachers today actually able/qualified to teach such a course.
I hate to say it, but there really are public school teachers out there who aren't terribly bright. That's why such folk major in "pedagogy" in the teachers' colleges, not in actual subjects like science, or literature, or history, or mathematics, or what have you.
The teacher's-college-style education degree is effectively a degree in pedagogy -- class (or school) management and the strategies of "effective teaching." Which is why such folks stick to the Teacher Guide like flies on blistering tarpaper, slavishly following the prescibed course syllabus to the letter. In too many cases they are unknowledgeable in the very subject area and course content they purport teach.
Plus it's worth remembering that the First Amendment says that "preaching" in the public schools is unconstitutional anyway. To me, "preaching" and "indoctrination" are synomyms, mutually exchangeable terms....
Well them be my thoughts anyhoot. best wishes, bb.
That's why I'm very sensitive to stories about the development and design of modern math as taught to children in schools.
People didn't just go out and pick it up off the ground, or check fossils. No, nothing that simple. At least you'd have a starting point for your conjectures if you had a bone, or a piece of rock. With math, it's always been a creation of the mind, that is an INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Math also has many different paths to any solution ~ and though all are called, few are chosen. Some are not chosen because they are too difficult for ordinary, average people to understand or use readily. However, even the rejected paths can achieve the same result as those chosen.
I think math majors develop a mind-set far different than the popular idea that they'd all be "rigid" ~ far from it ~ they are loathe to reject any path irrespective of its degree of improbability.
For those "concerned", I changed over to History just about the time I'd be moving into "advanced topology" ~ so I didn't take that course. Still, I spent a couple of semesters discussing the topic with guys who were taking it ~ and did that at least 1 or 2 hours an evening, depending, of course, on whether or not we were playing hearts or chess.
Yeah, they're both zero sum games, but there's psychology involved, and they teach discipline.
Just checking, editor-surveyor!!! LOLOL!
NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
To even ask a question like that indicates, in all probability, that you didn't understand a word I wrote. But then, maybe my writing style is too fancy or somethin'.....
1,100
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.