How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Rían]

if you don't mind rejoining the slime, then it's ok for you to murder and eat kids, then?

I see the grinning smilie, but do you agree that scientific info led to his behavior? ANd do you agree that in general, scientific info has a great deal to do with what we would call moral decisions? Again, case in point right here is IRex's example with partial-birth abortion - his decision on this issue is ENTIRELY based on what "science" comes up with.

I know you like to kid around, but will you be serious for a moment and agree that scientific info has a great deal to do with people's moral choices?

[Rían]

if you don't mind rejoining the slime, then it's ok for you to murder and eat kids, then?

I see the grinning smilie, but do you agree that scientific info led to his behavior? ANd do you agree that in general, scientific info has a great deal to do with what we would call moral decisions? Again, case in point right here is IRex's example with partial-birth abortion - his decision on this issue is ENTIRELY based on what "science" comes up with.

I know you like to kid around, but will you be serious for a moment and agree that scientific info has a great deal to do with people's moral choices?

[Insidious Rex]

Why do you keep dragging my name into this? Are you saying that jeffrey dahmer thought it was ok to eat people because of science? Are you saying most scientists support this concept? Why would you reference someone who is completely insane to knock science anyway? Is that really a good source to use? Can i use David Corech for christianity? Or Reverand Fred Phelps who says gays should all be killed? And neither of them are (nearly as) insane as Dahmer.

[Insidious Rex]

Why do you keep dragging my name into this? Are you saying that jeffrey dahmer thought it was ok to eat people because of science? Are you saying most scientists support this concept? Why would you reference someone who is completely insane to knock science anyway? Is that really a good source to use? Can i use David Corech for christianity? Or Reverand Fred Phelps who says gays should all be killed? And neither of them are (nearly as) insane as Dahmer.

[Rían]

I'm not "dragging your name into this"! I'm referencing a statement you made, that's all!

I'm showing how people take scientific info and base decisions on it. Do you deny they do that? How can you, since you yourself do that? I"m not even saying it's wrong! I'm only pointing out that it happens! In fact, I think it's right, given a correct view of science.

I'm NOT knocking science in any way, shape or form!

[Rían]

I'm not "dragging your name into this"! I'm referencing a statement you made, that's all!

I'm showing how people take scientific info and base decisions on it. Do you deny they do that? How can you, since you yourself do that? I"m not even saying it's wrong! I'm only pointing out that it happens! In fact, I think it's right, given a correct view of science.

I'm NOT knocking science in any way, shape or form!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Are you saying that jeffrey dahmer thought it was ok to eat people because of science?

Yes; wouldn't you agree? I"m not saying he's right; I"m just saying that he took what he considered to be scientific info (evolution) and made a decision based on it.

Are you saying most scientists support this concept?

Murdering/eating kids? No.

Why would you reference someone who is completely insane to knock science anyway?

Again, I"m not knocking science. And what is illogical about his argument, anyway?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Are you saying that jeffrey dahmer thought it was ok to eat people because of science?

Yes; wouldn't you agree? I"m not saying he's right; I"m just saying that he took what he considered to be scientific info (evolution) and made a decision based on it.

Are you saying most scientists support this concept?

Murdering/eating kids? No.

Why would you reference someone who is completely insane to knock science anyway?

Again, I"m not knocking science. And what is illogical about his argument, anyway?

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

some salt on the iceberg

your confusing me with stuff like this

Gentry (1970, 1974), himself, notes a number of aspects about concentric haloes which cannot be explained by the alpha decay hypothesis. Dwarf and giant haloes cannot be reconciled with any known alpha decay energies. Gentry postulates that these anomalous size haloes represent new elements or new forms of alpha decay. Neither explanation seems likely given the current state of knowledge of radioactive elements (ICRP, 1983; Parrington, et al., 1996). Other haloes show "ghost" rings which don't correspond to any measured alpha decay energy, and which remain unexplained. Finally, there are "reversed coloration" haloes, supposed uranium haloes in which the gradation of color intensity in the circular band is opposite to, and the ring diameters offset from, those in a "normal" uranium pattern. Other exceptions to Gentry's energy vs. ring diameter model have been noted by Odom and Rink (1989) and Moazed et al. (1973). Gentry speculates on the cause(s) of some of these anomalous features, but provides no empirical data to support any explanation. Indeed, Gentry appears to be more willing to question the evidence provided by the physical samples than to question the validity of his model.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And do you agree that in general, scientific info has a great deal to do with what we would call moral decisions? [...]I know you like to kid around, but will you be serious for a moment and agree that scientific info has a great deal to do with people's moral choices?

I don't think about whether or not I'm from the primordeal goo or God's special little girl with every moral decision I make. Frankly, it hardly comes up in my day to day thinking. Whether I'm a product of evolution or creation does not influence my moral decisions to foster Icholta, donate to cancer research or support gay marriage.

But in some borderline issues like abortion, I think it is better to include some scientific data instead of making far-going decisions on purely subjective data like fetus' feelings and thoughts.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And do you agree that in general, scientific info has a great deal to do with what we would call moral decisions? [...]I know you like to kid around, but will you be serious for a moment and agree that scientific info has a great deal to do with people's moral choices?

I don't think about whether or not I'm from the primordeal goo or God's special little girl with every moral decision I make. Frankly, it hardly comes up in my day to day thinking. Whether I'm a product of evolution or creation does not influence my moral decisions to foster Icholta, donate to cancer research or support gay marriage.

But in some borderline issues like abortion, I think it is better to include some scientific data instead of making far-going decisions on purely subjective data like fetus' feelings and thoughts.

[Rían]

Here's an example from someone else on how scientific info (whether right or wrong) affects moral-type decisions:

by Charles Darwin
With savages, the weak in body and mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who, from a weak constitution, would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilised society propagate their kind.

No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the manner previously indicated more tender and more widely diffused. Nor can we check our sympathy, even without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature ... We must, therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.

(Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd Ed., pp. 133–134, 1887)

[Rían]

Here's an example from someone else on how scientific info (whether right or wrong) affects moral-type decisions:

by Charles Darwin
With savages, the weak in body and mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who, from a weak constitution, would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilised society propagate their kind.

No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the manner previously indicated more tender and more widely diffused. Nor can we check our sympathy, even without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature ... We must, therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.

(Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd Ed., pp. 133–134, 1887)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I don't think about whether or not I'm from the primordeal goo or God's special little girl with every moral decision I make. Frankly, it hardly comes up in my day to day thinking.

same here - we've already thought about it.

But in some borderline issues like abortion, I think it is better to include some scientific data instead of making far-going decisions on purely subjective data like fetus' feelings and thoughts.

Who goes on the supposed thoughts and feelings of a fetus? Do you know of anyone doing that?

Your statement just enforces my point that we need to be careful about scientific info, because people use it to make decisions. And my example about the bill on fetal anasthesia (which does not require anesthesia to be given; it just requires the doctor to inform the woman, before the abortion, that medical studies show that the fetus can feel pain, and then give her the OPTION of administering anesthesia to the fetus) shows the importance of scientific info, and how a personal bias can affect the presentation of the data to others. If the majority of scientific studies concluded that, say, a 35-week-old fetus felt pain, would you support the passage of that bill if it covered giving this info to women who wanted to abort after the 35th week?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I don't think about whether or not I'm from the primordeal goo or God's special little girl with every moral decision I make. Frankly, it hardly comes up in my day to day thinking.

same here - we've already thought about it.

But in some borderline issues like abortion, I think it is better to include some scientific data instead of making far-going decisions on purely subjective data like fetus' feelings and thoughts.

Who goes on the supposed thoughts and feelings of a fetus? Do you know of anyone doing that?

Your statement just enforces my point that we need to be careful about scientific info, because people use it to make decisions. And my example about the bill on fetal anasthesia (which does not require anesthesia to be given; it just requires the doctor to inform the woman, before the abortion, that medical studies show that the fetus can feel pain, and then give her the OPTION of administering anesthesia to the fetus) shows the importance of scientific info, and how a personal bias can affect the presentation of the data to others. If the majority of scientific studies concluded that, say, a 35-week-old fetus felt pain, would you support the passage of that bill if it covered giving this info to women who wanted to abort after the 35th week?

[Rían]

Here's the first proposed change - from page 2 of the doc linked to in my first post in this thread - they are adding "informed and" to the mission statement:

1. Proposed changes to the Introduction

a. Introduction - Mission of science education

Mission Statement

Kansas science education contributes to the preparation of all students as lifelong learners who can use science to make informed and reasoned decisions that contribute to their local, state, national and international communities.

Explanation: This two-word change perhaps reflects the core of the controversy between Proponents and Opponents. Opponents seek to significantly limit the amount of scientific information provided to students about the most fundamental question humanity may address – What is the origin of life and its diversity? Where do we come from? They would narrow the scope of information to that which will not contradict the naturalistic claim that life is adequately explained by chance interactions of matter according to the laws of physics and chemistry. This philosophy allows only “natural� or mechanistic material causes for the origin and diversity of
life. It requires that evidence and criticisms that challenge Darwinian evolution (the primary theory that supports the philosophy of Naturalism) not be permitted. 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. The
proponents do not believe that this is a correct deduction to draw from current science evidence. For reasons explained elsewhere, we believe that limiting the mix of information not only does violence to good science, but it will tend to indoctrinate rather than to inform and educate.

3
Further, an indoctrination in the philosophy of Naturalism would seem to offend Constitutional principles. It causes the State of Kansas to take sides in a debate that unavoidably impacts both theistic and non-theistic religious beliefs. The antidote to all of these scientific and Constitutional problems is to present additional relevant scientific information regarding origins,
evidence that tends to support and refute the competing claims, so that origins science is presented objectively and without religious or naturalistic bias and assumption. This will reflect the best of science while also putting the State in a position of Constitutional neutrality rather than that of an advocate for Naturalism, a philosophy key to non-theistic belief systems.
Absent complete information, reason is hobbled. For example, those who purchased Enron stock made “reasoned� decisions regarding the financial state of the company that turned out to be quite faulty due to incomplete information regarding off-balance sheet liabilities. The primary function of education is to inform – to impart knowledge. According to the National Science Standards we are to become a scientifically literate society where “scientific information and scientific ways of thinking� will influence “informed decision making� in practically all areas of
one’s life.

3
The guiding rationale for these Proposals is to achieve this educational objective so that students will be better equipped to make reasoned decisions that are “informed.�

So they're changing from "reasoned decisions" to "informed and reasoned decisions" because they want to give the students more information.

Interesting (and I think right) point about the Constitution, too.

[Rían]

Here's the first proposed change - from page 2 of the doc linked to in my first post in this thread - they are adding "informed and" to the mission statement:

1. Proposed changes to the Introduction

a. Introduction - Mission of science education

Mission Statement

Kansas science education contributes to the preparation of all students as lifelong learners who can use science to make informed and reasoned decisions that contribute to their local, state, national and international communities.

Explanation: This two-word change perhaps reflects the core of the controversy between Proponents and Opponents. Opponents seek to significantly limit the amount of scientific information provided to students about the most fundamental question humanity may address – What is the origin of life and its diversity? Where do we come from? They would narrow the scope of information to that which will not contradict the naturalistic claim that life is adequately explained by chance interactions of matter according to the laws of physics and chemistry. This philosophy allows only “natural� or mechanistic material causes for the origin and diversity of
life. It requires that evidence and criticisms that challenge Darwinian evolution (the primary theory that supports the philosophy of Naturalism) not be permitted. 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. The
proponents do not believe that this is a correct deduction to draw from current science evidence. For reasons explained elsewhere, we believe that limiting the mix of information not only does violence to good science, but it will tend to indoctrinate rather than to inform and educate.

3
Further, an indoctrination in the philosophy of Naturalism would seem to offend Constitutional principles. It causes the State of Kansas to take sides in a debate that unavoidably impacts both theistic and non-theistic religious beliefs. The antidote to all of these scientific and Constitutional problems is to present additional relevant scientific information regarding origins,
evidence that tends to support and refute the competing claims, so that origins science is presented objectively and without religious or naturalistic bias and assumption. This will reflect the best of science while also putting the State in a position of Constitutional neutrality rather than that of an advocate for Naturalism, a philosophy key to non-theistic belief systems.
Absent complete information, reason is hobbled. For example, those who purchased Enron stock made “reasoned� decisions regarding the financial state of the company that turned out to be quite faulty due to incomplete information regarding off-balance sheet liabilities. The primary function of education is to inform – to impart knowledge. According to the National Science Standards we are to become a scientifically literate society where “scientific information and scientific ways of thinking� will influence “informed decision making� in practically all areas of
one’s life.

3
The guiding rationale for these Proposals is to achieve this educational objective so that students will be better equipped to make reasoned decisions that are “informed.�

So they're changing from "reasoned decisions" to "informed and reasoned decisions" because they want to give the students more information.

Interesting (and I think right) point about the Constitution, too.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Those are some really old creationist tracks that have been debunked several times even on this message board nevermind in scientific circles. I mean the mud one has been abondoned by creationists because its such a poor argument. Same is true for the salt one.

could you please give me details on the qoute unquoute "debunked myths"
I am interested to see what you have

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Those are some really old creationist tracks that have been debunked several times even on this message board nevermind in scientific circles. I mean the mud one has been abondoned by creationists because its such a poor argument. Same is true for the salt one.

could you please give me details on the qoute unquoute "debunked myths"
I am interested to see what you have

[HOBBIT]

*shoots self* (no, not really)