Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Teacher informs students of evolution lies in textbooks

Page 5 of 18 [ 277 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 18  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

28 Feb 2014, 9:37 am

TallyMan wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Similarly people can learn about the creation myths of various religions and cultures in their own time. It most certainly doesn't belong in science classes.

Creation myths or theories of various religions and cultures certainly are not science, but even secular schools need those subject matters in order to push their own agendas! ;)


What agendas? The only agenda that secular schools should have is to provide an accurate and quality education in the subjects being taught to their students. It isn't (and should not be) the role of schools to subvert the classes for any other "agendas".

If America views it important that religion is taught then it should have its own classes and not be used to subvert other classes degrading the education of those students.

We agree as to the matter of "The only agenda that secular schools should have", but then your own words just above imply that any mention of the possibility of creation by design would somehow degrade the education being offered.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

28 Feb 2014, 9:38 am

Quote:
If you can, please stop seeing me in whatever stereotypical mold is blocking your view! I do investigate things, but not because I am driven by skepticism. Either way, however, the goal of this thread is to give anyone willing to do so an opportunity to admit his or her cling to evolution is a religious one as evidenced by all the religious debate going on!


I know exactly what you are saying because it's standard creationist rhetoric that Ive heard for decades. That doesn't make it true.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

28 Feb 2014, 9:51 am

sonofghandi wrote:
What specifically do consider to be these lies in the textbooks? I have seen quite a few videos of education councils from various states (Texas being the most chronic offender) editing their textbooks to remove parts of history and science that do not agree with their religious beliefs (including the complete omission of evolution in some cases), but have not seen much in the way of actually adding falsehoods.

I have no expertise is discerning the validity of things presented in textbooks. For that, at least here, I can only rely upon Hovind and even others right here in this thread. However, I do know the difference between trying to teach people *what* to think and trying to teach them *how* to think, and the examples I have seen so far (such as presented by Hovind) reveal quite an absence of critical thinking being taught in public schools.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

28 Feb 2014, 9:53 am

leejosepho wrote:
TheGoggles wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
Creationists might or might not be scientists, as such, but their "theories" existed before they were born.

Oh cool, so slavery, genocide, and dynasty building are all perfectly cool then. I call Vlad the Impaler! All hale Prince Dracule!

I think you are trying to imply Scripture somehow promotes those kinds of things, but I believe that is inaccurate.


The Bible most certainly does promote those things, but only acceptable for God's chosen people. Unless you want to eliminate the Old Testament from the discussion, which puts creationism out of the discussion as well.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Last edited by sonofghandi on 28 Feb 2014, 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

28 Feb 2014, 9:58 am

leejosepho wrote:
Like you, I would have no problem with "evolution by design" or whatever, but the idea that my eyeballs just naturally grew out of some kind of ooze is ridiculous...and I say that after learning various facts about them over these past few months while having some surgeries.


If eyes were God's creation, why are they so extremely limited in the range of visibility? Out of the entire spectrum, we can only discern a tiny, tiny bandwidth. There are plenty of biological examples out there that would be much more suited to this particular portion of your beliefs. Bats would be your best example. Their ability to "see" using sound waves requires quite a few specific biological structures, and if a single one of those structures do not develop in their young, they will not be able to send or receive those messages. There are still plenty of possibilities for this from an evolutionary standpoint, but this would be a much better choice for your argument.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

28 Feb 2014, 10:01 am

ruveyn wrote:
Yes. Let the students decide between geocentric and heliocentric. As if they had the smarts to do it.

ruveyn

Quote:
The irony is that after all the disputes over these different theories, neither one is necessarily correct. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity upset both models. New evidence has also shown that the Solar System’s center of gravity is not the exact center of the Sun. This means that either model is acceptable regardless of the fundamental differences between the theories. Astronomers use both the heliocentric and geocentric models for research depending on which theory makes their calculations easier. It definitely seems as if some things are relative after all.

http://www.universetoday.com/36487/diff ... iocentric/

At least let them know nobody can prove either at the exclusion of the other!


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

28 Feb 2014, 10:06 am

sonofghandi wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
Like you, I would have no problem with "evolution by design" or whatever, but the idea that my eyeballs just naturally grew out of some kind of ooze is ridiculous...and I say that after learning various facts about them over these past few months while having some surgeries.


If eyes were God's creation, why are they so extremely limited in the range of visibility? Out of the entire spectrum, we can only discern a tiny, tiny bandwidth. There are plenty of biological examples out there that would be much more suited to this particular portion of your beliefs.

My beliefs are not the subject of research here, and the question for you would be the same:

If evolution is (or has been) at work, why are our eyes so extremely limited in the range of visibility?

Second-guessing either "God" or evolution might be human nature, but it is not science.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

28 Feb 2014, 10:07 am

leejosepho wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
"Evolution is the religion of people with issues against the idea of 'God?'" you say?
Well, I fancy myself a Christian, but I also believe in a divinely guided evolution. I can tell you, I hardly am against the idea of God. And what do you base your assertion that evolution is religion on?

The fact that evolution comes primarily from people who are essentially saying this earth or universe needs no "God" to explain it, and no, I am not saying it does.


I still don't quite understand your basis for saying that evolution is a religion, unless you also consider other scientific theories to be religions as well (i.e. the theory of gravitation, theory of general relativity, steady state theory, atomic theory, cell theory, germ theory, theory of electrolytic dissociation, etc.).


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

28 Feb 2014, 10:08 am

leejosepho wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Similarly people can learn about the creation myths of various religions and cultures in their own time. It most certainly doesn't belong in science classes.

Creation myths or theories of various religions and cultures certainly are not science, but even secular schools need those subject matters in order to push their own agendas! ;)


What agendas? The only agenda that secular schools should have is to provide an accurate and quality education in the subjects being taught to their students. It isn't (and should not be) the role of schools to subvert the classes for any other "agendas".

If America views it important that religion is taught then it should have its own classes and not be used to subvert other classes degrading the education of those students.

We agree as to the matter of "The only agenda that secular schools should have", but then your own words just above imply that any mention of the possibility of creation by design would somehow degrade the education being offered.


"creation by design" cannot be pushed into science classes because it is not science. Simple as that. It is no more valid than trying to push the value 3 into mathematics classes as the value of pi. It is not, despite the bible implying otherwise. Trying to tell students otherwise is subverting the truth. If you want to teach "creation by design" do so in a religious studies class, because it has nothing to do with science.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

28 Feb 2014, 10:11 am

leejosepho wrote:
If evolution is (or has been) at work, why are our eyes so extremely limited in the range of visibility?


Because further improvement is not required for the survival of this species.

leejosepho wrote:
Second-guessing either "God" or evolution might be human nature, but it is not science.


A significant and vital part of science is second guessing things.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


AspergianMutantt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,782
Location: North Idaho. USA

28 Feb 2014, 10:14 am

All I see is religions are starting to see their faiths crumble from society while the evolution of science takes it place. and their wanting to get to all children regardless of what their parents wish, forcing the subject down others just because its your faith thats being replaced.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

28 Feb 2014, 10:16 am

Jono wrote:
Lee, haven't we discussed this before? Evolution is pretty much fact with evidence ranging not only from the fossil record but from radiometric dating, geology, genetics etc. It's actually creationism that isn't supported by the facts.

There are no facts showing creation did not happen or could not have happened. That is a construct of the human mind merely being presented as fact while alleging "evidence" also attained from the exercise of the human mind.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

28 Feb 2014, 10:20 am

leejosepho wrote:
Jono wrote:
Lee, haven't we discussed this before? Evolution is pretty much fact with evidence ranging not only from the fossil record but from radiometric dating, geology, genetics etc. It's actually creationism that isn't supported by the facts.

There are no facts showing creation did not happen or could not have happened. That is a construct of the human mind merely being presented as fact while alleging "evidence" also attained from the exercise of the human mind.


Lee, like it or not, evolution is a fact. Where you want to go from there is up to you. You can deny it all you want but it isn't going away.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

28 Feb 2014, 10:25 am

sonofghandi wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
If evolution is (or has been) at work, why are our eyes so extremely limited in the range of visibility?


Because further improvement is not required for the survival of this species.

leejosepho wrote:
Second-guessing either "God" or evolution might be human nature, but it is not science.


A significant and vital part of science is second guessing things.

Understood and my answer would have been essentially the same, but your implication that "God" should or could have done better was religious, not scientific...and all I seek here is at least a modicum of honesty along that kind of line.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

28 Feb 2014, 10:28 am

Quote:
The fact that evolution comes primarily from people who are essentially saying this earth or universe needs no "God" to explain it, and no, I am not saying it does.


The theory of evolution deals with the change in life over time. It doesn't deal with cosmology or galaxies or even the origin of life. It can be used as part of the intellectual justification for atheism (or agnosticism) but they aren't automatically linked.

Quote:
There are no facts showing creation did not happen or could not have happened. That is a construct of the human mind merely being presented as fact while alleging "evidence" also attained from the exercise of the human mind


Repeat that to yourself when you cross a street and refuse to look both ways.



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

28 Feb 2014, 10:33 am

simon_says wrote:
Quote:
The fact that evolution comes primarily from people who are essentially saying this earth or universe needs no "God" to explain it, and no, I am not saying it does.


The theory of evolution deals with the change in life over time. It doesn't deal with cosmology or galaxies or even the origin of life. It can be used as part of the intellectual justification for atheism (or agnosticism) but they aren't automatically linked.


Well said. I'd emphasise though that the word "theory" in this context is often taken by non-scientists to mean something that is merely an intellectual conjecture. Evolution is most definitely not someone's whimsy. It has been verified to be happening beyond any reasonable doubt.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.