How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism - Page 33

brownjenkins · 08-23-2005, 03:17 PM

Quote:

It is reasonable to expect that this viewpoint discrimination will necessarily have the effect of causing students to reach an uninformed, but “reasoned” decision that they, and all other human beings, are merely natural occurrences, accidents of nature that lack intrinsic purpose.

i find this statement from his proposed changes interesting too... whether we are "accidents of nature" or "intelligently designed" has absolutely nothing to do with whether we have "intrinsic purpose"... even if we assume their is an "intelligent designer", this does not mean that we were designed for a purpose... and it certainly does not automatically give us "intrinsic" purpose

those who prefer intelligent design would like to think we were designed for a purpose (preferable a good one

) ... but this is just as much an individual decision as is my own to just take purpose out of existance itself... it's "bad science" implying such a purpose without proof (or even a guess) at what this purpose is

brownjenkins · 08-23-2005, 03:17 PM

Quote:

It is reasonable to expect that this viewpoint discrimination will necessarily have the effect of causing students to reach an uninformed, but “reasoned” decision that they, and all other human beings, are merely natural occurrences, accidents of nature that lack intrinsic purpose.

i find this statement from his proposed changes interesting too... whether we are "accidents of nature" or "intelligently designed" has absolutely nothing to do with whether we have "intrinsic purpose"... even if we assume their is an "intelligent designer", this does not mean that we were designed for a purpose... and it certainly does not automatically give us "intrinsic" purpose

those who prefer intelligent design would like to think we were designed for a purpose (preferable a good one

) ... but this is just as much an individual decision as is my own to just take purpose out of existance itself... it's "bad science" implying such a purpose without proof (or even a guess) at what this purpose is

08-23-2005, 03:17 PM

I'd be more than willing to discuss/debate the finer scientific points, but it'd probably make boring reading for most...Suggest new thread?

08-23-2005, 03:17 PM

I'd be more than willing to discuss/debate the finer scientific points, but it'd probably make boring reading for most...Suggest new thread?

Spock · 08-23-2005, 03:22 PM

Actually since you're talking evolution and how it's taught-whether in Kansas or Oz, it wouldn't necessarily be a new thread. Try keeping it here for now.

Spock · 08-23-2005, 03:22 PM

Actually since you're talking evolution and how it's taught-whether in Kansas or Oz, it wouldn't necessarily be a new thread. Try keeping it here for now.

08-23-2005, 03:27 PM

I was just trying to give respect to Rian who started the thread to discuss a specific issue, but ok...

08-23-2005, 03:27 PM

I was just trying to give respect to Rian who started the thread to discuss a specific issue, but ok...

Insidious Rex · 08-23-2005, 03:45 PM

Heres the problem:

The religious folk dont want to approach this in the same way as any other scientific subject is approached when we dont have all the data or when something new is discovered. They simply want to poke holes in it at all costs from everything Ive seen. You already CAN propose scientific issues/problems/questions/apparent inconsistencies about ANY scientific topic. Thats how it works. This is nothing new. But the anti-evolution folks only focus on evolution. And they ONLY focus on teaching that horrible ungodly theory to our innocent children!! The horror! So the agenda becomes clear. Why not be consistent then and just use the same routes to change as everyone else. Yes you may get some serious lumps at first but if your data and evidence is good youll win in the end. You don’t need trickery or lies or political strong arming to do it. Just good quality reproducible data. Why take over school boards to force teaching "mistakes" of evolution to kiddies?

So far we have had:

TACTIC I
Creationist: Evolution is wrong! We propose Creationism.
Scientist: Well Wheres yer evidence?
Creationist: Um well there is none. Its just evolution seems so ridiculous to us so IT MUST BE WRONG! Which means it must be god that created everything.
Scientist: Sorry youll need evidence to propose a new theory.

TACTIC II
Creationist: Evolution is wrong! We propose Intelligent Design
Scientist: Well wheres yer evidence...
Creationist: Well weve found some problems and inconsistencies with evolution.
Scientist: Many of those have been debunked when you presented them for creationism. And anyway they dont amount to evidence FOR anything. Do you have anything else?
Creationist: Well no... But evolution still seems too ridiculous to us so IT STILL MUST BE WRONG! Which means it must be that a *ahem* unnamed creator made everything...
Scientist: Sorry youll need EVIDENCE to propose a new theory.

TACTIC III
Creationist: Ok Im not here to propose anything just want to teach your kids how evolution is all wrong.
Scientist: You know Im beginning to smell a rat here… Why pick solely on evolution? We don’t do this for any other science. We teach what we currently know. We ALSO ALREADY teach inconsistencies and point out what we DON’T know about evolution in the classroom. Science never claimed to have 100% of the answers in this field. So what is it you want to add to this exactly… What REALLY is your agenda here…

Insidious Rex · 08-23-2005, 03:45 PM

Heres the problem:

The religious folk dont want to approach this in the same way as any other scientific subject is approached when we dont have all the data or when something new is discovered. They simply want to poke holes in it at all costs from everything Ive seen. You already CAN propose scientific issues/problems/questions/apparent inconsistencies about ANY scientific topic. Thats how it works. This is nothing new. But the anti-evolution folks only focus on evolution. And they ONLY focus on teaching that horrible ungodly theory to our innocent children!! The horror! So the agenda becomes clear. Why not be consistent then and just use the same routes to change as everyone else. Yes you may get some serious lumps at first but if your data and evidence is good youll win in the end. You don’t need trickery or lies or political strong arming to do it. Just good quality reproducible data. Why take over school boards to force teaching "mistakes" of evolution to kiddies?

So far we have had:

TACTIC I
Creationist: Evolution is wrong! We propose Creationism.
Scientist: Well Wheres yer evidence?
Creationist: Um well there is none. Its just evolution seems so ridiculous to us so IT MUST BE WRONG! Which means it must be god that created everything.
Scientist: Sorry youll need evidence to propose a new theory.

TACTIC II
Creationist: Evolution is wrong! We propose Intelligent Design
Scientist: Well wheres yer evidence...
Creationist: Well weve found some problems and inconsistencies with evolution.
Scientist: Many of those have been debunked when you presented them for creationism. And anyway they dont amount to evidence FOR anything. Do you have anything else?
Creationist: Well no... But evolution still seems too ridiculous to us so IT STILL MUST BE WRONG! Which means it must be that a *ahem* unnamed creator made everything...
Scientist: Sorry youll need EVIDENCE to propose a new theory.

TACTIC III
Creationist: Ok Im not here to propose anything just want to teach your kids how evolution is all wrong.
Scientist: You know Im beginning to smell a rat here… Why pick solely on evolution? We don’t do this for any other science. We teach what we currently know. We ALSO ALREADY teach inconsistencies and point out what we DON’T know about evolution in the classroom. Science never claimed to have 100% of the answers in this field. So what is it you want to add to this exactly… What REALLY is your agenda here…

08-23-2005, 03:49 PM

Your analysis of creationist thinking is amusing if nothing else. As I previously posted, I am more than willing to discuss the finer scientific points. If, however, you feel I'm just going to poke holes in your theory (and we can't have that), go ahead and try to poke holes in mine

08-23-2005, 03:49 PM

Your analysis of creationist thinking is amusing if nothing else. As I previously posted, I am more than willing to discuss the finer scientific points. If, however, you feel I'm just going to poke holes in your theory (and we can't have that), go ahead and try to poke holes in mine

Insidious Rex · 08-23-2005, 03:51 PM

Im all for learning the finer "scientific" points of creationism. Theres a thread around called EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM or some such. You could have a go at it in there if you like.

Insidious Rex · 08-23-2005, 03:51 PM

Im all for learning the finer "scientific" points of creationism. Theres a thread around called EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM or some such. You could have a go at it in there if you like.

08-23-2005, 03:55 PM

Just opening up discussion again since this topic came up on the Kansas Debate Thread. Fire away

08-23-2005, 03:57 PM

*chuckle* I'd prefer a more neutral thread but that's fine too.

08-23-2005, 03:57 PM

*chuckle* I'd prefer a more neutral thread but that's fine too.

Spock · 08-23-2005, 04:04 PM

yep, I could merge the two if you think that would help or if you prefer to keep them separate thats ok too.

Spock · 08-23-2005, 04:04 PM

I see you found the other thread. Now we decide whether to merge or not.

Spock · 08-23-2005, 04:04 PM

I see you found the other thread. Now we decide whether to merge or not.

08-23-2005, 03:22 PM	#645
Spock An enigma in a conundrum Join Date: Oct 1999 Posts: 6,476	Actually since you're talking evolution and how it's taught-whether in Kansas or Oz, it wouldn't necessarily be a new thread. Try keeping it here for now. __________________ Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

08-23-2005, 03:22 PM	#646
Spock An enigma in a conundrum Join Date: Oct 1999 Posts: 6,476	Actually since you're talking evolution and how it's taught-whether in Kansas or Oz, it wouldn't necessarily be a new thread. Try keeping it here for now. __________________ Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

08-23-2005, 03:45 PM	#649
Insidious Rex Quasi Evil Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Maryland, US Posts: 4,634	Heres the problem: The religious folk dont want to approach this in the same way as any other scientific subject is approached when we dont have all the data or when something new is discovered. They simply want to poke holes in it at all costs from everything Ive seen. You already CAN propose scientific issues/problems/questions/apparent inconsistencies about ANY scientific topic. Thats how it works. This is nothing new. But the anti-evolution folks only focus on evolution. And they ONLY focus on teaching that horrible ungodly theory to our innocent children!! The horror! So the agenda becomes clear. Why not be consistent then and just use the same routes to change as everyone else. Yes you may get some serious lumps at first but if your data and evidence is good youll win in the end. You don’t need trickery or lies or political strong arming to do it. Just good quality reproducible data. Why take over school boards to force teaching "mistakes" of evolution to kiddies? So far we have had: TACTIC I Creationist: Evolution is wrong! We propose Creationism. Scientist: Well Wheres yer evidence? Creationist: Um well there is none. Its just evolution seems so ridiculous to us so IT MUST BE WRONG! Which means it must be god that created everything. Scientist: Sorry youll need evidence to propose a new theory. TACTIC II Creationist: Evolution is wrong! We propose Intelligent Design Scientist: Well wheres yer evidence... Creationist: Well weve found some problems and inconsistencies with evolution. Scientist: Many of those have been debunked when you presented them for creationism. And anyway they dont amount to evidence FOR anything. Do you have anything else? Creationist: Well no... But evolution still seems too ridiculous to us so IT STILL MUST BE WRONG! Which means it must be that a ahem unnamed creator made everything... Scientist: Sorry youll need EVIDENCE to propose a new theory. TACTIC III Creationist: Ok Im not here to propose anything just want to teach your kids how evolution is all wrong. Scientist: You know Im beginning to smell a rat here… Why pick solely on evolution? We don’t do this for any other science. We teach what we currently know. We ALSO ALREADY teach inconsistencies and point out what we DON’T know about evolution in the classroom. Science never claimed to have 100% of the answers in this field. So what is it you want to add to this exactly… What REALLY is your agenda here… __________________ "People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

08-23-2005, 03:45 PM	#650
Insidious Rex Quasi Evil Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Maryland, US Posts: 4,634	Heres the problem: The religious folk dont want to approach this in the same way as any other scientific subject is approached when we dont have all the data or when something new is discovered. They simply want to poke holes in it at all costs from everything Ive seen. You already CAN propose scientific issues/problems/questions/apparent inconsistencies about ANY scientific topic. Thats how it works. This is nothing new. But the anti-evolution folks only focus on evolution. And they ONLY focus on teaching that horrible ungodly theory to our innocent children!! The horror! So the agenda becomes clear. Why not be consistent then and just use the same routes to change as everyone else. Yes you may get some serious lumps at first but if your data and evidence is good youll win in the end. You don’t need trickery or lies or political strong arming to do it. Just good quality reproducible data. Why take over school boards to force teaching "mistakes" of evolution to kiddies? So far we have had: TACTIC I Creationist: Evolution is wrong! We propose Creationism. Scientist: Well Wheres yer evidence? Creationist: Um well there is none. Its just evolution seems so ridiculous to us so IT MUST BE WRONG! Which means it must be god that created everything. Scientist: Sorry youll need evidence to propose a new theory. TACTIC II Creationist: Evolution is wrong! We propose Intelligent Design Scientist: Well wheres yer evidence... Creationist: Well weve found some problems and inconsistencies with evolution. Scientist: Many of those have been debunked when you presented them for creationism. And anyway they dont amount to evidence FOR anything. Do you have anything else? Creationist: Well no... But evolution still seems too ridiculous to us so IT STILL MUST BE WRONG! Which means it must be that a ahem unnamed creator made everything... Scientist: Sorry youll need EVIDENCE to propose a new theory. TACTIC III Creationist: Ok Im not here to propose anything just want to teach your kids how evolution is all wrong. Scientist: You know Im beginning to smell a rat here… Why pick solely on evolution? We don’t do this for any other science. We teach what we currently know. We ALSO ALREADY teach inconsistencies and point out what we DON’T know about evolution in the classroom. Science never claimed to have 100% of the answers in this field. So what is it you want to add to this exactly… What REALLY is your agenda here… __________________ "People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

08-23-2005, 03:51 PM	#653
Insidious Rex Quasi Evil Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Maryland, US Posts: 4,634	Im all for learning the finer "scientific" points of creationism. Theres a thread around called EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM or some such. You could have a go at it in there if you like. __________________ "People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

08-23-2005, 03:17 PM	#643
Acran Mern Guest Posts: n/a	I'd be more than willing to discuss/debate the finer scientific points, but it'd probably make boring reading for most...Suggest new thread?

08-23-2005, 03:17 PM	#644
Acran Mern Guest Posts: n/a	I'd be more than willing to discuss/debate the finer scientific points, but it'd probably make boring reading for most...Suggest new thread?

08-23-2005, 03:27 PM	#647
Acran Mern Guest Posts: n/a	I was just trying to give respect to Rian who started the thread to discuss a specific issue, but ok...

08-23-2005, 03:27 PM	#648
Acran Mern Guest Posts: n/a	I was just trying to give respect to Rian who started the thread to discuss a specific issue, but ok...

08-23-2005, 03:49 PM	#651
Acran Mern Guest Posts: n/a	Your analysis of creationist thinking is amusing if nothing else. As I previously posted, I am more than willing to discuss the finer scientific points. If, however, you feel I'm just going to poke holes in your theory (and we can't have that), go ahead and try to poke holes in mine

08-23-2005, 03:49 PM	#652
Acran Mern Guest Posts: n/a	Your analysis of creationist thinking is amusing if nothing else. As I previously posted, I am more than willing to discuss the finer scientific points. If, however, you feel I'm just going to poke holes in your theory (and we can't have that), go ahead and try to poke holes in mine

08-23-2005, 03:51 PM	#654
Insidious Rex Quasi Evil Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Maryland, US Posts: 4,634	Im all for learning the finer "scientific" points of creationism. Theres a thread around called EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM or some such. You could have a go at it in there if you like. __________________ "People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

08-23-2005, 03:55 PM	#655
Acran Mern Guest Posts: n/a	This thread, IR? Just opening up discussion again since this topic came up on the Kansas Debate Thread. Fire away

08-23-2005, 03:57 PM	#656
Acran Mern Guest Posts: n/a	chuckle I'd prefer a more neutral thread but that's fine too.

08-23-2005, 03:57 PM	#657
Acran Mern Guest Posts: n/a	chuckle I'd prefer a more neutral thread but that's fine too.

08-23-2005, 04:04 PM	#658
Spock An enigma in a conundrum Join Date: Oct 1999 Posts: 6,476	yep, I could merge the two if you think that would help or if you prefer to keep them separate thats ok too. __________________ Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

08-23-2005, 04:04 PM	#659
Spock An enigma in a conundrum Join Date: Oct 1999 Posts: 6,476	I see you found the other thread. Now we decide whether to merge or not. __________________ Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

08-23-2005, 04:04 PM	#660
Spock An enigma in a conundrum Join Date: Oct 1999 Posts: 6,476	I see you found the other thread. Now we decide whether to merge or not. __________________ Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Evidence for Evolution	jerseydevil	General Messages	599	05-18-2008 02:43 PM
How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II	Nurvingiel	General Messages	528	08-05-2006 03:50 AM
Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution	Rían	General Messages	1149	08-16-2004 06:07 PM