"Arkansas Bill Lets Teachers Promote Creationism and Intelligent Design in Science Class"

[Reggie Miller II]

You creationists are hilarious. The above isn't any different than Deeje's claim about evolution not generating "new kinds". In both cases, yours with "another organism" hers with "a new kind", neither of you will say what you mean by your terms.

I guess you could surprise me and actually tell us what you mean by "an organism changing into another organism". Care to try?

Good morning, Jose.
No. Because it doesn't happen, anyway, no need to speculate about it.

 

[Father Heathen]

Hello. Assume much? It's not good for you.

No need to assume when your posts suggest as much.

Also, you're the one making assertions contrary to insurmountable mountains of evidence simply because they conflict with some ancient fables that were pulled from the asses of primitive savages.

 

[leibowde84]

Hi again........
That's the problem...... if a majority of Arkansas voters (and parents) think that Genesis is science, then I'm afraid that neither your ideas or mine (Kent, England) will count.

Let me waffle for a bit.....
At risk of being heckled by more heated members D) I will venture to suggest that the word SCIENCE be excluded from class titles other than when it is called (something like) General Science, which includes a clutch of subjects like biology, physics, chemistry, IT. But since all subjects require scientific research and development then the word should be used less often.

Biology is a stand-alone subject, and so are all the others.
Today, science includes 'the laying of better roads' I expect. Science includes 'Salmon farming in tidal estuaries' or the 'discovery of adrenal-gland tumours'.....?

In fact, Science includes any archeology, historical research techniques, blah blah connected with research into...... anything to do with Genesis, I expect. ??

I simply think that whether the Bill is passed or not, teachers in Arkansas (and everywhere else) need to focus upon teaching kids how to research and investigate objectively....... in connection with anything!

Science refers to the "scientific method". Theories not based on the scientific method should not be included in any science class. It isn't fair to children for parents to intentionally confuse and change the meaning of the term "science".

 

[viole]

Actually astronomy will tend to make the most conjectures with the least data... so ... not a good example

Astronomy? Can you give me an example?

That is unless you're trying to make a point scientists can be as dogmatic as any religious person? are you?

Even if someone does conjectures, that does not entail being dogmatic.

You can have conjectures also in math. For isntance the Goldbach conjecture. But nobody is so dogmatic to claim that it is surely true for all numbers, pending sufficient evidence/proof.

Ciao

- viole

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yeah..... just a bit!
The irony of your post is laugh of the evening for me!
Now let's see, so you obviously thought that the cartoon was amazingly clever..... and scientific?
I wonder at your school qualifications? But in any case, let me just explain the stupidity of that cartoon, and its presence here on a thread about Creation and Evoluition.

How stupid of them at the Press Syndicate!

Question: Did you think that was a clever cartoon?

See ya later...!
(What Fun!)

The cartoon was fairly clever, yes. And any and all items you posited as "failures" of the cartoon are really you putting all sorts of requirements on it that it wasn't trying to live up to in the first place. That you don't understand this is what is troubling.

The literal content of the cartoon had nothing to do with religion. I know this may be hard to grasp, because it can, very well I might add, be presented as a set of analogies that display why teaching creationism in schools is a bad idea. Basically (and I feel like an idiot having to break this down for you), the cartoon juxtaposes each of the two sets of studies in each quadrant to get the reader to stop and question whether it is a good idea to teach "old world", out-dated, outmoded knowledge as relevant today. Obviously this is not the best of ideas, and the comic assumes that the reader will agree in the 4, non-religious areas it addresses.

Taking this further, you could then apply the idea that the cartoon relates to any number of subjects/fields. For instance - old styles of baby transport - or infant "car seats". Should we be teaching people to use the oldest, and most fallible devices? Sure, they "worked" for the time, and did the job for a certain percentage of cases - no one says they didn't! But the old designs were found to be lacking under particular circumstances - circumstances that new discoveries and design elements could account for.

And yes, you could easily apply this idea to the creationism/evolution argument. Here's a rebuttal on each of your "revelations" about the cartoon's failings:

TOP LEFT BOX:- Look up Alchemy in a dictionary.
It was Medieval CHEMISTRY! Ergo:- Many of Alchemy's discoveries are taught today in CHEMISTRY!

Does the cartoon state that alchemy had absolutely NOTHING going for it? No... it doesn't. But did alchemy have within its arena some particularly incorrect/wrong information being paraded around as accurate? Why yes, yes it did. Therefore does it make sense to teach the old form of chemistry that was named "alchemy" in today's society? No... no it doesn't. That's all the comic puts forward. As I said, everything else you wanted to require of it is your own fault and misunderstanding.

BOTTOM RIGHT BOX:- They matched Astronomy with Astrology, ok, but showed a picture of...... PALMISTRY!

This was to underscore the point, obviously. To draw the reader's mind to the superstitious side of astrology, purposefully. Not the mapping and recognition of stars and constellations (the part that survived into astronomy as having actual utility), but the part where your birth under the stars grants the astrologer an innate knowledge about your being. The part that is a total and hilarious farce - like palm reading. Think about it for a fraction of a second, and it makes sense.

TOP RIGHT BOX:- Neurology is still a fairly inexact science, but no matter, because these jokers matched it with Phrenology which has no religious significance at all!

Again - WHY does it have to have "religious significance?" Your hang-up on this is what tells me that you don't get it. Still having "fun?"

BOTTOM LEFT BOX:- Magic matched with Physics, which is fun, but I do wonder whether you and the OP could pass a simple test in Einstein's theory, but the crowning Irony was that Magicians are to be PUT TO DEATH in OT Law! Deut: 18:10.

Again with the religious requirements. Where is this coming from? The comic also isn't referencing literal "magicians"... it's saying that, ignoring Einstein's theories, one of the only explanations you'd have is something akin to "magic". A "black box", an unknown and unknowable quantity. You insist on equating this with "magicians" and then say that it makes no sense because magicians would be put to death by Biblical law. What the hell? Where do you get any sort of reference to any of that from the comic?!

And the absolute final Irony is that the Philadelpia Press Syndicate chump who produced this forgot to include CREATION and EVOLUTION.

If the comic were specifically created in an attempt to convey how ridiculous it is to teach creationism in school, can you not see now that this omission was DELIBERATE??? You are forced to try and make the connection yourself, and the comic does not directly assault creationism, which is even more clever.

 

[Cobol]

Creationists won't admit it, but the debate is over, and they lost. Every time creationism has been brought into public schools, the courts have found it unconstitutional. We don't want to violate the Constitution, dumb down our students, and make our nation an international laughingstock.

Creationists want the Bible to be treated like a science book. Creationist efforts fail in the court system because creationism begins with a series of conclusions anchored in a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, and then cherry pick "facts" to back up that religious view.

Real science begins with a question, and looks for the answer wherever it may be found. It's about open inquiry, and not dogma. Scientists aren't afraid to change their hypothesis, because science is self correcting.

We do our young people no favors when we pretend that there are controversies in science, when in fact there aren't. Evolution is accepted by the overwhelming majority of biologists in this nation. In other developed countries, creationism is considered a bad joke that scientists don't take serious.

Advances in medicine, biology, and the study of human origins hinge on evolution. Failure to teach evolution properly, leaves our youth ill-equipped to contribute to our future.

Creationists have had many decades to put forth scientific evidence. They have been unable to do so. The reason that their ideas have been expelled is that those ideas lack scientific value.

 

[Reggie Miller II]

No need to assume when your posts suggest as much.

Also, you're the one making assertions contrary to insurmountable mountains of evidence simply because they conflict with some ancient fables that were pulled from the asses of primitive savages.

Hmm. You seem quite unhappy, sir. Good day.

 

[leibowde84]

Actually astronomy will tend to make the most conjectures with the least data... so ... not a good example

That is unless you're trying to make a point scientists can be as dogmatic as any religious person? are you?

Can you give some examples of conjectures with the least amount of data in astronomy?

 

[Father Heathen]

Hmm. You seem quite unhappy, sir. Good day.

Not unhappy, just disappointed.

 

[Jose Fly]

Good morning, Jose.
No. Because it doesn't happen, anyway, no need to speculate about it.

What doesn't happen?

 

[oldbadger]

Science refers to the "scientific method". Theories not based on the scientific method should not be included in any science class. It isn't fair to children for parents to intentionally confuse and change the meaning of the term "science".

Hmmm.... parents have never been fair to children. imo.

Oxford Dictionary:- Knowledge of the physical and natural world based upon observation or experiment. And so apart from the Arts mostly every subject under 'our' Sun is all about science. But ........

..........I'm a pagan (a Deist) but the most impressive young people whom I know around here are deeply religious and have been educated in the bible. They mostly belong to trades and have excellent reputations as trustworthy, conscientious and capable people. They all believe absolutely in Genesis. They are all fully employed, busy, and have high 'feedback' around here.

That's just on-the-side of this debate.... the main theme imo is for devoted teachers to use any lesson plan to develop objective research in minors. Most adults today are rubbish at this, although we all think we're brilliant at it. In general our prejudices are quite as extreme as any deeply religious person.

And we get stung by corrupt folks using science all the time. One extraordinary example is the collection of deisel motor car manufacturers who have used technology to deceive emmissions testing stations. For a couple of decades we have (nearly) all been chanting merrily away that deisels are cleaner than petrol engines! But we forget the number of times that this kind of thing happens.......

Our kids need to be better at objective scrutiny and investigation that us.... here's a chance for Arkansas teachers to benefit frdelivering it....

 

[oldbadger]

The cartoon was fairly clever, yes. And any and all items you posited as "failures" of the cartoon are really you putting all sorts of requirements on it that it wasn't trying to live up to in the first place. That you don't understand this is what is troubling.

The literal content of the cartoon had nothing to do with religion. I know this may be hard to grasp, because it can, very well I might add, be presented as a set of analogies that display why teaching creationism in schools is a bad idea. Basically (and I feel like an idiot having to break this down for you), the cartoon juxtaposes each of the two sets of studies in each quadrant to get the reader to stop and question whether it is a good idea to teach "old world", out-dated, outmoded knowledge as relevant today. Obviously this is not the best of ideas, and the comic assumes that the reader will agree in the 4, non-religious areas it addresses.

Taking this further, you could then apply the idea that the cartoon relates to any number of subjects/fields. For instance - old styles of baby transport - or infant "car seats". Should we be teaching people to use the oldest, and most fallible devices? Sure, they "worked" for the time, and did the job for a certain percentage of cases - no one says they didn't! But the old designs were found to be lacking under particular circumstances - circumstances that new discoveries and design elements could account for.

And yes, you could easily apply this idea to the creationism/evolution argument. Here's a rebuttal on each of your "revelations" about the cartoon's failings:


Does the cartoon state that alchemy had absolutely NOTHING going for it? No... it doesn't. But did alchemy have within its arena some particularly incorrect/wrong information being paraded around as accurate? Why yes, yes it did. Therefore does it make sense to teach the old form of chemistry that was named "alchemy" in today's society? No... no it doesn't. That's all the comic puts forward. As I said, everything else you wanted to require of it is your own fault and misunderstanding.


This was to underscore the point, obviously. To draw the reader's mind to the superstitious side of astrology, purposefully. Not the mapping and recognition of stars and constellations (the part that survived into astronomy as having actual utility), but the part where your birth under the stars grants the astrologer an innate knowledge about your being. The part that is a total and hilarious farce - like palm reading. Think about it for a fraction of a second, and it makes sense.


Again - WHY does it have to have "religious significance?" Your hang-up on this is what tells me that you don't get it. Still having "fun?"


Again with the religious requirements. Where is this coming from? The comic also isn't referencing literal "magicians"... it's saying that, ignoring Einstein's theories, one of the only explanations you'd have is something akin to "magic". A "black box", an unknown and unknowable quantity. You insist on equating this with "magicians" and then say that it makes no sense because magicians would be put to death by Biblical law. What the hell? Where do you get any sort of reference to any of that from the comic?!


If the comic were specifically created in an attempt to convey how ridiculous it is to teach creationism in school, can you not see now that this omission was DELIBERATE??? You are forced to try and make the connection yourself, and the comic does not directly assault creationism, which is even more clever.

..... I hope you don't write Lesson Plans for schools.

 

[leibowde84]

Knowledge of the physical and natural world based upon observation or experiment.

ID is based on an argument from ignorance (God of the gaps), though. It isn't based on observation or experimentation. Creationism is based on nothing more than claims made by unknown ancient men. So, I fail to see how either would qualify under the definition you gave.

Just because something "makes sense" based on what you see in the world in no way means that it is based on observation or experimentation.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

..... I hope you don't write Lesson Plans for schools.

So funny how you try to redirect and make me look like the foolish one here. No longer worth the time... probably never was.

 

[Jose Fly]

Our kids need to be better at objective scrutiny and investigation that us.... here's a chance for Arkansas teachers to benefit frdelivering it....

I'm still at a loss to understand how teaching false information alongside established facts, and treating them as scientifically equal accomplishes your goal.

 

[Skwim]

Our kids need to be better at objective scrutiny and investigation that us.... here's a chance for Arkansas teachers to benefit frdelivering it....

Assuming you mean to say:

"Our kids need to be better at objective scrutiny and investigation than we.... Here's a chance for Arkansas teachers to benefit from delivering it..."​

I have to wonder why you evidently care more about teachers benefiting than children benefiting. Care to tell us? However, if my interpretation of your misstated remark above is in error please tell us what you actually mean.

.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Can you give some examples of conjectures with the least amount of data in astronomy?

The Oort Cloud

 

[oldbadger]

I'm still at a loss to understand how teaching false information alongside established facts, and treating them as scientifically equal accomplishes your goal.

You're still at a loss to understand ..........

Let me try to help you with that. You cannot subject Arkansas to 'tell' its kids to accept the Jose Fly perception of the world.. If Arkansas wants to present Genesis to kids as a theory (read the Bill Jose) then it can.

One way of 'making a difference' to a kid's mindset is NOT to TELL it anything, Jose. Have you ever tried to TELL a group of kids anything? Did it work?

It's fristrating, trying explain to you that a fundamentalist religious household is going to do subject its kids to fundy beliefs. You want those same kids to go to school and listen to a teacher subjecting them to something different. Now, think about it..... what will happen? ???

But if those same kids come to a school where the Lesson Plan presents various theories (not established facts, Jose, theories!) and asks the kids to INVESTIGATE do you think that this might be one way of giving them an opportunity to look at theories OBJECTIVELY?

Your idea about TEACHING ESTABLISHED FACTS is just not an objective method of education.

You don't get it.... I can see that. Your idea of education is ..... all subjective. Dreadful..... for kids, and education.

 

[oldbadger]

Assuming you mean to say:

"Our kids need to be better at objective scrutiny and investigation than we.... Here's a chance for Arkansas teachers to benefit from delivering it..."​

I have to wonder why you evidently care more about teachers benefiting than children benefiting. Care to tell us? However, if my interpretation of your misstated remark above is in error please tell us what you actually mean.

.

You just want to subject kids to the Skwim World!
When niggled by those who disagree you pick out typos like 'fr' ....? Is that the depth of your debating skill, Skwim?

When you correct an 'us' to a 'we' in a post, this tells me that you've lost the plot within your thread, lost the debate.

Your position is so totally biased and prejudiced that your ideas about subjecting kids to information is bad. The idea that a kid is pulled one way in a deeply religuious household and then pulled another at school is .... frankly..... disgusting. It's a kind of mental bullying.

Now.,..... try and understand that to present various ideas to a child as THEORIES and give that child the opportunity to research, investigate, experiment and discover for themselves, discussing their findings as a class, is the modern method of objective delivery.

Subjective lesson deliveru is disgusting, and it seems that this is what you want? That's primitive.

PS...... please don't highlight my typos. that just shows a level of disability discrimination in yourself.

 

[Estro Felino]

The idea that a kid is pulled one way in a deeply religious household and then pulled another at school is .... frankly..... disgusting. It's a kind of mental bullying.
.

I kinda understand what you mean. Thinking of my experience, children who attend strictly secular schools, as I did, tend to develop a rational attitude and a sort of unconscious anti-theism very prematurely. In fact the number of atheists among teenagers is growing constantly in my country, because they receive a very rational education at school, and this increases the generational gap, and a lack of mutual understanding with their parents.
The first time that I heard the word Creationism was in this forum, actually. Because at school talking about Creation was considered inappropriate and irrational.
By the way, I still think that children are supposed to receive a secular education, also because religion should be a personal private choice, and not something other people inculcated in you.

Fair enough......
As a Deist, I agree with you that subjects like religion etc etc should be extra-curricula unless the subject is 'religious education', but in Arkansas where the population is circa 4/5 Christian and a % of that believing strongly in Genesis, and faced with a Bill that seeks to combine Genesis with Evolution both as theories I don't think that a hard-mouthed attitude from the Lesson-Plan writers and the teaching deliverers is going to be helpful, if the Bill is passed.
.

That's exactly the point. I think that a general prohibition of teaching Creationism at the federal level is hardly something doable, because states in America are huge, and are so different than one another as for population, religious groups, traditions, customs.
So, as you said, if this Bill reflects the will of the scientific community of that particular state, I don't think it's fair that the Federal Governments interfere.
I remember that in 2008 the Pope was supposed to give a speech before the assembly of Rome University La Sapienza, but the Council of professors and students forced the Pope to cancel his visit, since a speech from a religious authority was considered inappropriate and against the secular values of Italian education. Just to give you an idea of how anti-religious the scientific community of my country is.