Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rusting Car Bumper · 10-27-2002, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zzang:


The problem is that you have to completely uproot their religious upbringing for any education to work.

This sort of charicature treats all creationists and/or theists with a broad brush that is too simplistic.

Many theists believe in evolution. The question that should be asked is how do these people reconcile their faith with evolution.

DC

10-27-2002, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ps418:


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 ]

No it isn't, just because I'm skeptical about something doesn't mean I'm completely against it. Being skeptical means to question things, it doesn't mean to outright reject them.

10-27-2002, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
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

I'm not changing any argument. I don't care if people believe in evolution and I do think that you cannot teach people who don't want to learn about evolution about evolution.

10-27-2002, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TerryTryon:
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about stem cell research" or views his decision "in terms of good science vs. bad science," relying instead on his "outdated religious beliefs."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?

I can't argue with that, though about Bush going to Yale and not learning science it only further confirms my point that those who don't want to learn won't (maybe he did learn but his personal beliefs override any benefits of stem cell research).

10-27-2002, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Camaban:


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?

Nope, I'm saying that teaching it isn't a solution when people aren't interested in learning it. I'm not saying not to teach it, but I'm not surprised when people don't learn it despite having a good teacher.

Quote:

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.

No, I wouldn't like to see that but we've already seen that (the OJ Simpson case). But all the education in the world isn't going to force people to learn the material if they aren't interested in learning.

10-27-2002, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DigitalChicken:


This sort of charicature treats all creationists and/or theists with a broad brush that is too simplistic.

Many theists believe in evolution. The question that should be asked is how do these people reconcile their faith with evolution.

DC

Well frankly, I don't care if they "see the light" or not.

Doubting Didymus · 10-27-2002, 05:55 PM

It seems obvious to me, zzang, that you simply do not personally care about the subject. So what are you doing here? What is your point?

Certainly, those who do care about science education will do everything in their power to see science maintained. If you don't care, that's fine with me, but what is your suggestion for the rest of us? Is there something you think we should change about our positions? Are you suggesting that we should stop caring just because you do not? Are you simply petulant?

lpetrich · 10-27-2002, 06:54 PM

I think that zzang wants to tease us and pose as morally superior to us.

Albion · 10-27-2002, 07:42 PM

Is it just evolution that kids shouldn't be taught if they aren't interested, or can they be excused from attending classes on any subject they don't feel motivated to learn about?

DigitalDruid · 10-27-2002, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion:
Is it just evolution that kids shouldn't be taught if they aren't interested, or can they be excused from attending classes on any subject they don't feel motivated to learn about?

Good point. There goes calculas and trigonometry out the window!

I am not sure that students are not motivated to learn evolution or anything. I think a major factor is how it is taught - how it connects with what they already know, what they see in their environment, and their natural curiosity.

Talking about elementary school kids, they first need some background to aprreciate evolution. But fortunately they have a natural curiosity for this needed background - fossils, rock-strata, and the diversity of life. Even more fortunately, all of these are exciting collectible items for kids.

At my neighborhood elementary school, last year volunteers from a local Fossil Club came and showed them how they collect fossils and what fossils tell us. Each kid even got a real bit of fossil as gift! Many of them joined the club's junior wing. This year a geologist and a naturalist showed them their collections and the kids had lively question-answer sessions with them too. Again the kids gratefully received free specimen. This is as per the report of my excited neice - a fourth grader.

I am struck by the fact that their bottom-up journey towards an apprciation of evolution kind of mimics that of Darwin. When the time comes for my neice to learn evolution she sure would marvel at the connectedness of her collectibles- bits of rock, fossils of shark tooth, and a butterfly specimen. I think Mr. Darwin would think his voyage was worth it.

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

10-27-2002, 05:55 PM	#97
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	It seems obvious to me, zzang, that you simply do not personally care about the subject. So what are you doing here? What is your point? Certainly, those who do care about science education will do everything in their power to see science maintained. If you don't care, that's fine with me, but what is your suggestion for the rest of us? Is there something you think we should change about our positions? Are you suggesting that we should stop caring just because you do not? Are you simply petulant?

10-27-2002, 06:54 PM	#98
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I think that zzang wants to tease us and pose as morally superior to us.

10-27-2002, 07:42 PM	#99
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Is it just evolution that kids shouldn't be taught if they aren't interested, or can they be excused from attending classes on any subject they don't feel motivated to learn about?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.