Posted on 05/03/2005 2:12:35 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
This is the problem - most teachers really don't know much about what they are teaching. None of my history teachers really knew that much about history - if a student ever asked anything that wasn't mentioned in the book, the teacher would have been lost. Most think that rote memorization of trivial facts that will quickly be forgotten ("what exact date was the battle of Vicksburg fought") rather than teaching the big picture ("why was the battle of Vicksburg important").
I was in line at a Chik-fil-A one a few years ago and some teachers on break from a teacher's conference were behind me. I heard them complaining about the state's new teacher standardized tests - they were upset that it would have 7th grade math on it. I heard one teacher say "Bob may be for it, but he's a math wiz - I'm good with kids though".
How does any adult get through daily life if 7th grade math is a challenge? For most, 7th grade math is still arithmetic and not even algebra.
There are certainly exceptions, but education majors are typically the ones that couldn't hack it in any other major. Every one that I met are basically women that just want like kids and couldn't pass anything else.
Many states require a masters now, but that doesn't help since the masters is in education which at most schools is basically worthless. Schools would be better off hiring guys with bachelor of science degrees that at least know what they are doing in their respective subjects.
I have made the arguement that it is a philosophy, and the worship of human endevours IS a religion.
Again, there is no compelling evidence for macro evolution. You are talking about micro evolution. And I'm not a creationist. If we are stereotyping should I call you an atheist evolutionist?
That's just an incorrect statement.
The problem is that when a gap is filled, the creationist sees a new gap on either side.
And there is a whole lot of biology that can be taught that has nothing to do with evolution.
On the contrary. Science (as I argue) IS a philosophy.
You are using an archaic connotation of philosophy that includes the physical sciences. The modern usage defines philosophy as the study of leaning and of human knowledge, but is distinct from the technical sciences. Philosophy includes such branches of study as ethics, metaphysics and epistemology. Defining science *as* philosophy for the purpose of including the physical sciences hopelessly muddies the issue, when I and many others have been trying very hard to mark a clear boundry between the physical and metaphysical, and between origins and evolution.
"Science doesn't address questions that can't be studied with scientific methodologies."
The statement was directed at scientISTS that hold that atheism is "unbiased."
Not all, mind you. Just the ones that stick out to Creaionists attacks and the rest of the world's non-stereotype scientists.
Science is unapplied engineering.
Interestingly, one of the scientists who wrote for the "In 6 Days" book was a student of Gould's.
God help us!
Nope, merely touting stereotypes that have been yet to be laid to rest. (For reasons of a lack of contradiction)
Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. And it cannot do so unless the foundations of science are changed. For example, you would not expect answers from science as to what is "art", or what is "beautiful". Science might learn to detect when a human thought those things, but I think it would be impossible for science to design a computer program to determine such.
Likewise, science can only operate in a world that is predictable and measurable. Any supernatural entity, by definition, it outside that range because such a being is not limited to the predictable and measurable.
God is the supernatural, while science, by definition operates in the natural world.
Thus science cannot claim to detect God, even in the "design" of the universe. And it cannot falsify Him either.
GOOD!!! Question EVERYTHING! That's being a good scientist, and a good thinker!!!
Even if even if every scientist in the world were a monster of depravity, it would have no bearing on the correctness of their empirical statements and theories.
You should read this about the textbook process:
http://www.edutopia.org/magazine/ed1article.php?id=Art_1195&issue=nov_04
Out of curiosity, being a creationist, if you were to pick one of those books for me to read, which would it be?
OK, let's parse this.
If "science is too narrow a tool for the study of these subjects", then doesn't it follow that critiques of explanations for human origins that include the supernatural are therefore "unscientific".
What you're asking for is the redefinition of science, at the behest of those who are outside the field.
It's no wonder scientists take offense at such intrusion.
"How can you truly "know" something if there's no way to "know" if that something is false?"
Such is the problem facing Science. If something CAN be false in science, it is taken as "scientific"
If it is SHOWN as false, it is dismissed or adjusted.
There is no focal point that can be "true" unless it can be "false" and upon being false, it is no longer true. An effective naturalistic response to the world, but conflicting. Notions are only good if they are possibly NOT? Daoism much?
Socrates posited that EVERYBODY knows "the Truth." The only task is to ask the correct questions. Any answer will lead to the next step in logic, and thus eventually to the "trail head" of truth.
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.