Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 10-25-2002, 11:53 AM

zzang,

One more thing. Forget evolution for a minute. Since science does play a big role in the criminal justice system, of which anyone could become a potential juror (yes even Kent Hovind), wouldn't it be nice to at least know that everyone had a basic understanding of DNA evidence, or basic physics needed to understand forensics? Or...the kids we teach today will be making decisions in the Senate or House about things like stem cell research, or about what to do with the DNA data we generate. Irregardless of whether they took biology (it ins't a requirement for the house or senate, and obviously not for the presidency!)

I for one would like our kids educated - correctly - about science so they can at least have 1/2 a clue.

scigirl

10-25-2002, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:

But but but...not everyone has the privelege (or desire) to attend college and take science courses. Even many college-goers still don't understand or believe in evolution.

I posted my reasons for why I fight creationism but they got lost in the quick nazi fray. I'll recap:

The creationist movement is a symbol, for me, of a much larger problem - and that is lack of science education and understanding in our society. Biology is going to play a more increasing role in our lives - with the advances in stem cell research, functional genomics (using our DNA and RNA profiles to make disease predictions) and so on. Social problems such as obesity, addiction, and violence are now being discovered to have biological, and thus evolutionary, explanations. But we have a long way to go: How can we progress as a society if over half the population doesn't buy one of the fundamental tenets of biology?

Do you think we would have had the space-age exploration advances (and would we have computers right now?) if, say, the christians decided that calculus was against God? I don't think so. Think of all the advances we could be making in areas such as mental illness, violence, addiction, medicine, and so on - if everyone at least bought into the "calculus" or basics of biology!

scigirl

The problem is that you have to completely uproot their religious upbringing for any education to work. And seeing as how they've been taught one thing since they were born, I doubt that a year of biology (even if taught right, evolution wouldn't be a major portion of the subject matter) is enough to change most people.

10-25-2002, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
zzang,

One more thing. Forget evolution for a minute. Since science does play a big role in the criminal justice system, of which anyone could become a potential juror (yes even Kent Hovind), wouldn't it be nice to at least know that everyone had a basic understanding of DNA evidence, or basic physics needed to understand forensics?

Yes it would be nice, but think back to your high school days. How many people cheated on their exams? How many people crammed the night or hours before the test and forgot it all afterward. How many people didn't care at all and just failed or managed to guess their way to a low grade. In my experience it was a majority of the students. In an ideal society people would be interested in learning but you first need an interest in the subject matter. Many people, for whatever reason aren't interested in science, and many people aren't interested in learning, they just want to get good grades. Thats the world we deal with, you can have the best science program and educators but when the students don't want to learn they won't. So, yeah it'd be nice if everyone had a basic understanding of those things but when you have so many people that can't read or do basic arithmetic, how do you expect them to learn basic science (and thats assuming they want to learn in the first place, too many people do not want to).

Quote:

Or...the kids we teach today will be making decisions in the Senate or House about things like stem cell research, or about what to do with the DNA data we generate. Irregardless of whether they took biology (it ins't a requirement for the house or senate, and obviously not for the presidency!)

I for one would like our kids educated - correctly - about science so they can at least have 1/2 a clue.

scigirl

I would rather have kids that want to be educated. You can have the best tools available but their useless if you don't want to use them.

ps418 · 10-25-2002, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Ps418: But let me be more specific. Why did you repeatedly deny in that thread that the past intensity of the geomagnetic field could be deduced from geologic data, even after I presented data very early in thread showing that it could be?

Quote:

Zzang: My main gripe was with the fact that we have never experienced a reversal in our lifetime and haven't done direct measurements on the fields strength after the reversal to determine whether or not it correlates with the oscillating claim. As for deducing from geologic data, I think I made it clear that I'm skeptical about historical data.

Right, which is why it was such an obvious and gratuitous contradiction for you to appeal to just such historical data (the Tarduno et al Science paper), at the end of the thread, as evidence of higher field intensity in the past, after you had just finished saying that you didnt accept such data! I also gave several arguments for the reliability of paleointensity measurements, which you never adressed. So as far as I can determine, you skepticism is based on nothing.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

scigirl · 10-25-2002, 01:46 PM

So zzang, you appear to be changing your argument from "who cares if people don't believe in evolution it doesn't hurt anyone" to "we can't teach people about evolution"?

Doesn't this new conclusion warrant an even stronger effort on the part of scientists and educators to teach people, and get people, excited about science and evolution?

scigirl

Albion · 10-25-2002, 02:15 PM

Well, as long as kids are arriving in schools primed since they were toddlers by their churches to be suspicious of secular teaching in general and science in particular and evolution above all, the teachers have an uphill task. Science teachers in this society are real heros.

Answerer · 10-26-2002, 12:00 AM

The topic is meaningless in its very beginning. Things will still remain the same way as it is now, no matter what different opinion people have of evolution.

TerryTryon · 10-26-2002, 05:28 AM

zzang:

Let me see if I understand your position correctly.

The present teaching of "elementary and high school science is a joke," and this level of teaching has "almost no bearing on science being overturned." "Universities assume that you didn't learn science in high school," but this doesn't matter because "science courses are part of the core requirements"

Yet, Bush, educated at the second most prestigious university in the United States, "probably doesn't know anything about stem cell research" or views his decision "in terms of good science vs. bad science," relying instead on his "outdated religious beliefs."

Perhaps, this sad state of affairs in the White House is because "the problem is that you have to completely uproot [the students'] religious upbringing for any education to work."

"If taught right evolution wouldn't be a major portion of the subject matter" because "a belief in evolution isn't vital to much of anything outside of scientific circles." Besides, "when you have so many people who can't read or do basic arithmetic, how do you expect them to learn basic science."

You "may not believe [evolution] but it�s still the best explanation for the diversity of life." Yet you admit that you "have no idea how new species originate." In contrast, I "seem too attached and emotional about [my] belief in evolution" and if I "have a problem with someone not believing in evolution then [you] believe that [I] have problems."

Is that your where you stand?

Camaban · 10-27-2002, 12:51 AM

Quote:

In any case, this is pretty off topic. You should probably start a thread on your thoughts. I guarantee you'd get some good discussion going.

Combination rant and pointing out they don't deserve to be called the next Hitler

Stalin is a closer match(Yes, I know Stalin was an Athiest, but as far as I've seen, communism is often treated with the same mindset as any religion (right down to Marx must be right, any data which goes against that perfect system is wrong, etc. my amateur psycholigist interpretation is that Communism is, as far as the mindset of those that follow it go, just another religion (I know, no god, etc, but I'm talking about related mindset here.)

Camaban · 10-27-2002, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Yes it would be nice, but think back to your high school days. How many people cheated on their exams? How many people crammed the night or hours before the test and forgot it all afterward. How many people didn't care at all and just failed or managed to guess their way to a low grade. In my experience it was a majority of the students. In an ideal society people would be interested in learning but you first need an interest in the subject matter. Many people, for whatever reason aren't interested in science, and many people aren't interested in learning, they just want to get good grades. Thats the world we deal with, you can have the best science program and educators but when the students don't want to learn they won't. So, yeah it'd be nice if everyone had a basic understanding of those things but when you have so many people that can't read or do basic arithmetic, how do you expect them to learn basic science (and thats assuming they want to learn in the first place, too many people do not want to).

So what you're saying here is because some people aren't interested, or even most people aren't interested, there's no point teaching it in the hopes that interested or not, the basic things will get through?

What these are are, like it or not, life skills that are nessecary. I know that on the surface an understanding of science doesn't seem to be a nessecary life skill, but I'll put it this way: If you were accused or a murder you didn't do (or seeing a murderer prosecuted for the murder of someone close to you) would you want to be convicted/see that person get off because of the jury's total distruct/ignorance of science?

Just as an extreme example.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-25-2002, 11:53 AM	#81
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	zzang, One more thing. Forget evolution for a minute. Since science does play a big role in the criminal justice system, of which anyone could become a potential juror (yes even Kent Hovind), wouldn't it be nice to at least know that everyone had a basic understanding of DNA evidence, or basic physics needed to understand forensics? Or...the kids we teach today will be making decisions in the Senate or House about things like stem cell research, or about what to do with the DNA data we generate. Irregardless of whether they took biology (it ins't a requirement for the house or senate, and obviously not for the presidency!) I for one would like our kids educated - correctly - about science so they can at least have 1/2 a clue. scigirl

10-25-2002, 01:46 PM	#85
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	So zzang, you appear to be changing your argument from "who cares if people don't believe in evolution it doesn't hurt anyone" to "we can't teach people about evolution"? Doesn't this new conclusion warrant an even stronger effort on the part of scientists and educators to teach people, and get people, excited about science and evolution? scigirl

10-25-2002, 02:15 PM	#86
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Well, as long as kids are arriving in schools primed since they were toddlers by their churches to be suspicious of secular teaching in general and science in particular and evolution above all, the teachers have an uphill task. Science teachers in this society are real heros.

10-26-2002, 12:00 AM	#87
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	The topic is meaningless in its very beginning. Things will still remain the same way as it is now, no matter what different opinion people have of evolution.

10-26-2002, 05:28 AM	#88
TerryTryon Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Glendale, Arizona, USA Posts: 184	zzang: Let me see if I understand your position correctly. The present teaching of "elementary and high school science is a joke," and this level of teaching has "almost no bearing on science being overturned." "Universities assume that you didn't learn science in high school," but this doesn't matter because "science courses are part of the core requirements" Yet, Bush, educated at the second most prestigious university in the United States, "probably doesn't know anything about stem cell research" or views his decision "in terms of good science vs. bad science," relying instead on his "outdated religious beliefs." Perhaps, this sad state of affairs in the White House is because "the problem is that you have to completely uproot [the students'] religious upbringing for any education to work." "If taught right evolution wouldn't be a major portion of the subject matter" because "a belief in evolution isn't vital to much of anything outside of scientific circles." Besides, "when you have so many people who can't read or do basic arithmetic, how do you expect them to learn basic science." You "may not believe [evolution] but it�s still the best explanation for the diversity of life." Yet you admit that you "have no idea how new species originate." In contrast, I "seem too attached and emotional about [my] belief in evolution" and if I "have a problem with someone not believing in evolution then [you] believe that [I] have problems." Is that your where you stand?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.