• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

psionl0

Skeptical about skeptics
psionl0
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
22,062
Location
31°57'S 115°57'E
Stacyhs said:
"Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

Because GOD and mah Bible are just as scientificy as evolution. If we're descended from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys? and Climate Change is just a hoax. I mean, look at how much snow we got this past winter!
Click to expand...
This part just negated your entire post. It shows that like the Republicans, you are not interested in the free exchange of ideas but only in indoctrination.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
New data isn't being produced that challenges the theories though. Beliefs like creationism and intelligent design are religious in origin rather than data-based.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean that contemporary theories must be regarded as sacrosanct. All theories should be subject to change if or when new data is discovered.

Otherwise, science is just another religion (Science be praised).
 
psionl0 said:
That doesn't mean that contemporary theories must be regarded as sacrosanct. All theories should be subject to change if or when new data is discovered.

Otherwise, science is just another religion (Science be praised).
Click to expand...

Let's not pretend that the GQP talking about challenging contemporary scientific theories is anything other than a blatant attempt to shoehorn in 'Teach the controversy'.
 
KDLarsen said:
Let's not pretend that the GQP talking about challenging contemporary scientific theories is anything other than a blatant attempt to shoehorn in 'Teach the controversy'.
Click to expand...
The wording in the article was "Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

Regardless of the GOP agenda, if you or anybody else has a problem with these words then you are just being as zealotous as the GOP.
 
psionl0 said:
The wording in the article was "Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

Regardless of the GOP agenda, if you or anybody else has a problem with these words then you are just being as zealotous as the GOP.
Click to expand...

No teacher should not be able to "openly discuss" GOD DID IT WITH MAGIC AND SCIENCE IS BAD! and saying so does make one any level of zealous, let alone as much as the Death Cult that is the GOP.

You are multiply wrong, yet again.
 
psionl0 said:
The wording in the article was "Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

Regardless of the GOP agenda, if you or anybody else has a problem with these words then you are just being as zealotous as the GOP.
Click to expand...

Are we back to pretending that school classrooms are some kind of nebulous debate society rather than a teacher lead instructional space? Keeping students on topic and focused on coursework is like 99% of the job of being a teacher.
 
"Science is all wrong because maybe God did it with magic" - Honest debate that must be in our schools!
"The United States has some racism in its past" - EVIL LEFTIST PROPOGANDA THAT HAS NO PLACE IN OUR SCHOOLS!

How does being this stupid not hurt people?
 
JoeMorgue said:
No teacher should not be able to "openly discuss" GOD DID IT WITH MAGIC AND SCIENCE IS BAD! and saying so does make one any level of zealous, let alone as much as the Death Cult that is the GOP.

You are multiply wrong, yet again.
Click to expand...
You should take a few deep breaths before you post. I can't make head nor tail out of that word salad.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Are we back to pretending that school classrooms are some kind of nebulous debate society rather than a teacher lead instructional space? Keeping students on topic and focused on coursework is like 99% of the job of being a teacher.
Click to expand...
So like the GOP, you are against teaching critical thinking, which has "the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." ?

Should we just be giving them instructions and not allowing any questions?
 
psionl0 said:
So like the GOP, you are against teaching critical thinking, which has "the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." ?

Should we just be giving them instructions and not allowing any questions?
Click to expand...

Students should ask questions, but I don't see the value in permitting teachers to answer earnestly asked questions about science with fairy tales and easily disproven pseudo-science.

Teaching creationism is an objectively poor science education. it would be like paying money to go to a sovereign citizen law school or psychology program that takes seriously people's star signs. Imagine a health class that permitted the gym teacher to teach doubt about whether or not cigarettes are harmful to health. A tremendous disservice to the students in the school's care.

Creating a science education standard that ultimately boils down to the totally arbitrary "well, if your science teacher is a religious crank you won't get taught evolution" is abandoning the very concept of a course standard.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
The wording in the article was "Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

Regardless of the GOP agenda, if you or anybody else has a problem with these words then you are just being as zealotous as the GOP.
Click to expand...

People who look back fondly on Jim Crow don't get the benefit of the doubt.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Students should ask questions, but I don't see the value in permitting teachers to answer earnestly asked questions about science with fairy tales and easily disproven pseudo-science.
Click to expand...
I don't see the value either. Indoctrination - whether it be religious instruction or teaching that only the official theory of evolution is true - is the antithesis of critical thinking.
 
The Don said:
Would you advocate a similar approach to geography with equal weight being given to flat-Earthism ?

How about teaching maths where equal weight being given to a variety of values of pi ?

How about medical institutions "teaching the controversy" of the humours ?
Click to expand...
What sort of rubbish is this?

In a maths/science class students should be encouraged to demand proof that a given teaching is true (or at least better than any other explanation) and why alternative theories fail.

Nobody advocates teaching "flat earthism" / "multiple values of pi" / "the humours" along with regular teachings.

Worst strawman ever.
 
sackett said:
wish that people would abandon that word. They never, but never, use it right.*

There is no official theory of evolution. There is no official theory of tectonics, or stellar origins, or market forces. There is no official theory of any ******* thing. There are only theories that best explain facts as they are currently understood.

And if new evidence emerges that requires modification of ANY theory, you'll see scientists shoving and elbowing to publish it. Eventually, it will appear in textbooks. And in the mad denunciations of the religion industry.

* Come to that, does "official" ever mean much of anything? Which officials? How do they make something official? Must they all concur? Are there degrees of officiality? Suppose somebody (not me!) decides that something isn't official enough for him. What do we do then? psion, tell us what to do!
Click to expand...
You might be able to see the different nuances in evolution or other scientific theories but I suspect that you are in the minority here.

The general consensus seems to be that there is only one fixed, never-changing theory of evolution and students must learn it by rote and never question it or the underlying assumptions.

"Critical thinking" has become a dirty word in this forum. :boggled:
 
psionl0 said:
You might be able to see the different nuances in evolution or other scientific theories but I suspect that you are in the minority here.

The general consensus seems to be that there is only one fixed, never-changing theory of evolution and students must learn it by rote and never question it or the underlying assumptions.
"Critical thinking" has become a dirty word in this forum. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Who said that? I haven't read that anywhere in this thread.
 
psionl0 said:
The only comment I have for this irrelevant post is that it reinforces the notion that indoctrination must replace critical thinking always.
Click to expand...

The story of Yakub seems more scientifically plausible than Young Earth Creationism.
 
psionl0 said:
Wow. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I posted!

The GOP would be so proud of your anti critical thinking stance.
Click to expand...

Oh save it. You think the giant invisible sky wizard making the world with magic is a "valid alternative" that schools next to "teach the controversy" and let kids "debate" about. It's a goddamn joke right out of the Creationism Handbook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom