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.
That doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that certain events are simply unverifiable.
Now if you're talking about something being "close enough for government work" that's another matter which is not under discussion.
It's the chain of causality that's causing you some problem. That's among the first things to go as you develop Alzheimers.
Sorry, they didn't do such things in those days, and it's remarkable we have as many records as we do.
I think by now all known materials written in Latin in Classical times are actually on the internet, which is a first for any language.
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me.
Thank for your post...in reply to your question about language, this missionary from China, was a very old, little lady, who was completely bedridden and completely aphasic, both active and passive...so I never heard her say one word...my own thought would be, that if she was raised bi-lingual from birth, she would probably retain memory of both languages, and use them as she had done, before she was afflicted with Alzheimers...if she learned the second or third language, later on in life, I would think she might have no memory of this...
I say this, because based on my observations of many, many Alzheimers patients, we do know that altho they have very poor short term memory, their long term memory is quite good...I guess the further back in time the parts of ones life go, the longer the memory of that time has been imprinted on the brain, and the more recent events have not been imprinted all that long and so the more recent events fade much quicker than the memory of the further back in time events...I would think that the same would hold true with language retention...
What also struck me as interesting was how so many of these Alzheimers patients, never remember being retired, but still believed that they were actively pursuing their life long careers, even tho now they were in a nursing home...
For instance, the clergymen, would still preach sermons to the other residents, the doctors would try to treat and diagnose the residents, the lady who was a clown, would often try to perform her routines from the circus, for the other residents, the farmer was always looking for his tractor, the concert pianist, was always fingering the table, resembling playing the piano, the lawyer always greeted me in the morning, dressed in his suit, briefcase in hand, wanting to know if I had typed up his notes from the nite before, one engineer was always trying to build something, and the English professor always would correct any faulty grammar I might have....
It was never dull caring for these residents, and it was always quite delightful, as one never knew what they were going to do next...many people find it difficult to care for Alzheimers patients, I always found it to be a joy...
Ha! It is the seeming dearth of rigorous academic standards of which I complain!
Wow, I am just stunned by that entire post, there are so many things wrong with it, that I am not even going to make the attempt.
Please tell us again how the moon landings were faked.
"So I take it you disapprove of rigorous academic standards?"
"Ha! It is the seeming dearth of rigorous academic standards of which I complain!"
Mandating only one view be can be taught does not enhance the educational process. By mandating that only one view be taught one is teaching students that one must presume that one knows the cause of circumstantial evidence before examining it. By mandating that that only on view be taught it is teaching students that it is unimportant 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 ones presuppositions. Intellectual curiosity is a prime motivation for learning. The best scholars and scientists have a desire/curiosity to explore a subject in detail--learn all there is to know about a subject or a particular area. By mandating that only one view be taught, it is teaching someone not explore a subject, question, or problem in detail or thoroughly. By mandating that only one view be taught it is teaching students it is not important to examine whether a statement is true or the probability of being true, not to develop tests for validity, and to regurgitate statements as true without thinking about them. Mandating that only one view can be taught is teaching students it is not important to be able to analyze and identify the assumptions behind a statement or problem and determine the validity of those assumptions. Perhaps an overabundance of regurgitation of statements about problems or questions while discouraging critical thinking skills about those statements will tend to educate better scientists, doctors, lawyers, detectives and engineers. Mandating that only one view is taught is clearly detrimental to the educational process.
The causality is the same, they are and were fanatics.
Anyone that has a strong enough belief in something, right or wrong, will die for those beliefs.
I am saying that if they are martyrs and killed for their beliefs, or kill others because of their beliefs, it doesn't tell you whether those beliefs are right.
Just because a person is willing to kill or die, does not necassarily make their beliefs true, in any sense of the word.
We have academic freedom in the United States. You're free to investigate any line of reasoning you desire.
The problem seems to be other people are free to point out your errors.
Mandating that science be taught in a science class, is what they should be doing.
The only scientific theory that has held up to any scientific scrutiny is the theory of evolution, to bring in other unscientific "theories" to "compete" with it, destroys the very foundation of what science is.
Science is science, not what you would wish it to be, or want it to be.
So you advocate giving equal weight to 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?
The actual textbooks I have on my shelf, and which I have quoted from, discuss science findings from the historical perspective, detailing the path science took to current understandings. The actual books, as opposed to the caricatures discussed on these threads, discuss how evidence is collected and interpreted. They mention controversies and discuss how science deals with controversies.
Winston Zeddemore:
Ah, if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say.
I've had teachers like that. I don't doubt some of the horror stories.
My son had a science teacher in junior high that said snakes don't have bones.
The books could stand improvement, but they are not as bad as claimed.
"Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?"
I voted YES, and I have trouble imagining how even a true believing evolutionist would vote no.
An evolutionist could very well attribute popular acceptance of ID & creationism to poor scientific education. If students go through school learning lightweight "uncontested" evidence for evolution and then grow up and read posts by DaveLoneRanger, what are they going think? "Hey my teachers implied this was undisputed evidence. They lied, and it’s probably all lies." or "I don't care what anybody says about my belief in evolution, blind faith in it is good enough." Either way, not only did they not learn enough about the subject of evolution, they didn't even learn enough to think about science. No idea can stand strong without being hotly contested, so how does anyone expect evolution to stand in the minds of students without adequate debate?
I ended my lifetime subscription to National Geographic because of a recent cover story on evolution. They pretended to cover both sides of the debate by presenting weak religious arguments and lightweight scientific questions and then proceeded to present some of the heaviest evidence for evolution I had read up to that point with no more room for debate. Later I see all that evidence hotly debated on FreeRepublic and I realize National Geographic merely spoon fed me a one-sided argument and called it objective journalism. Whether I believe creation or evolution, I should be pissed.
I've learned more about evolution in a few months on FreeRepublic than I have from years of biology and zoology, decades of National Geographic; a hundred hours of nature documentaries; and full bookshelf of natural history, because it was debated at FreeRepublic, and that made it both informative and interesting. I feel like everything else I've heard, seen, and read on the topic was just a bunch biologists patting each other on the butt for a fun baseball practice.
If the science taught in schools can't even stand up to debate, then it's not worth teaching at all. Science doesn't answer tough questions if they're not asked. The irony is that the people who are afraid that ID or creationism will make students “unscientific”, would rob students of the greater gift of critical thinking that could develop regardless of which origin world view they adopted.
Of course this works to a creationist’s advantage because they believe there is a debate and could be more prepared for one, whereas a biology student wouldn’t even know where to begin if they met DaveLoneRanger. Likewise, maybe this works to evolution supporters’ advantage as well, since everyone coming out of high school will be completely dependent on them to defend their doctrine.
Prime ...
1000
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.