MERGED -> Bush endorses 'intelligent design' + Politicized Scholars... - Page 17 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-23-2005, 01:38 PM   #241
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
u2bonogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back on the blue crack after a long break
Posts: 6,726
Local Time: 08:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR


If you know how hypocritical it is than why did you say it?

Evolution should be taught in schools, said schools should make it clear that it is a theory with a hell of a lot of scientific evidence behind but not neccessarily fact, and that there are other theories that won't be discussed or taught in public schools. Religion should be taught in religious schools and nowhere else. Keep it out of the public schools.
I didnt think it was hypocritical. I was considering the majority perception of christians to be narrowminded in FYM
__________________

__________________
u2bonogirl is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 01:39 PM   #242
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
u2bonogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back on the blue crack after a long break
Posts: 6,726
Local Time: 08:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


That's because microevolution is what happened. I deleted my reference to this in my previous post because I thought perhaps you'd just made a typo (ie you meant macroevolution not microevolution) and I didn't want to seem like a know-it-all. The fact is that microevolution does occur and there is observable scientific evidence of this, for example the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
that WAS a typo. Im tired from work. Excuse me
Yes, I meant macro. the monkey business
__________________

__________________
u2bonogirl is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 01:43 PM   #243
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail
what happens when a student asks, what caused the big bang? Should the teacher pretend the question was never asked or have the student removed from school and sent off to a religious school for inquiring minds?


then a good teacher would stop the class and have a good 10 minute philosophical discussion that is student led -- this would be a great opportunity to let students theorize and philosophize, and then the teacher should conclude by saying that no one actually knows, but what science develops are theories, and some are better than others, and then stress the differences between scientific theories and philosophy and theology and perhaps students might want to start a theology club that could meet after school, and then proceed with the lesson.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 01:58 PM   #244
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2bonogirl
that WAS a typo. Im tired from work. Excuse me
Yes, I meant macro. the monkey business
Okay, what would you say to those scientists who argue that the processes of microevolution and macroevolution are actually the same but with differences in the time over which evolution occurs and in the scale of the evolutionary change? It's not just "monkey business" y'know.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 02:08 PM   #245
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:41 PM
I love a good debate in my classroom. I think students get drawn into the subject more when they are given opportunities to take sides and have at it.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 02:33 PM   #246
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
u2bonogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back on the blue crack after a long break
Posts: 6,726
Local Time: 08:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


Okay, what would you say to those scientists who argue that the processes of microevolution and macroevolution are actually the same but with differences in the time over which evolution occurs and in the scale of the evolutionary change? It's not just "monkey business" y'know.
I totally believe in microevolution, and the evolution of traits to suit an envronment.
But I dont believe that random mutation, and widescale evolution can account for so many species. Theres too much intricate details and complicated bits even down to portions of atoms.
It all seems too perfectly harmonious down to every last piece to be random and an adaptation to an envronment.
Really, I am nooooo scientist. I suck at math and science.
I just know what I believe and dont believe and thats about it
__________________
u2bonogirl is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 02:36 PM   #247
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I love a good debate in my classroom. I think students get drawn into the subject more when they are given opportunities to take sides and have at it.


how does one take sides in science?

especially with evolution, it's not like there are equal sides, or really even sides to begin with.

if you wanted to let the science class be a jumping off point to a smaller, but related, philosophical discussion, cool, but do you really think that a debate over evolution has any place at all in a science classroom? you can't even debate these things in the same terms because one is science, and the other is theology. why not have one side of the class speak French and the other Farsi?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 02:37 PM   #248
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2bonogirl

I totally believe in microevolution, and the evolution of traits to suit an envronment.
But I dont believe that random mutation, and widescale evolution can account for so many species. Theres too much intricate details and complicated bits even down to portions of atoms.
It all seems too perfectly harmonious down to every last piece to be random and an adaptation to an envronment.
Really, I am nooooo scientist. I suck at math and science.
I just know what I believe and dont believe and thats about it


see, i think this is totally cool -- in a theology/philosophy class. absolutely. in some ways, while i remain a passionate agnostic, it seems to make sense that there is sort of a guiding hand in the evolution of life on earth, that it can't all be pure accident, that something set it in motion, and i love the poetic idea of a love and logic in the design of things.

but i can't test that! it is neither verifiable nor falsifiable! thus, not science.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 02:58 PM   #249
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2bonogirl
Really, I am nooooo scientist. I suck at math and science.
I just know what I believe and dont believe and thats about it
I'm honestly not trying to pick on you and my comments here aren't directed specifically at you, but this is exactly why this debate frustrates me. We have people who by their own admission are not well-informed about science, but who are trying to impose their beliefs on public schools. So far not one of the advocates of 'intelligent design' or 'creationism' have been able to explain why they feel their beliefs deserve to be given consideration in a science classroom. Not one of them has been able to explain why 'intelligent design' is a scientific theory which should be considered as valid as evolution. Very few of them seem to be able to express opposition to evolution beyond dismissing it as monkey business or repeating the oft-cited and rarely justified claim that "there's no evidence for evolution."

I'm not claiming I'm an expert on this subject, I don't have a single qualification in science, but I do have an interest in science and I find it incredibly frustrating to see people who probably couldn't even pass a college biology class attempting to dictate what science teachers should be able to teach in their classes. It's the same when subjects like genetically-modified crops or stem-cell research are discussed -- the media is suddenly full of people whose level of scientific knowledge is that of a twelve-year-old but who still presume that they have the right to dictate to scientists.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 03:03 PM   #250
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
u2bonogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back on the blue crack after a long break
Posts: 6,726
Local Time: 08:41 PM
Im going to repeat myself here and say that Im not saying creationism should be taught in the classroom. What would there be to teach? Religion. Yes. Which isnt science.
Im just saying that I think we should make sure to be clear on what is fact, and what is theory
Thats all.
I would have appreciated that in school instead of being branded weird and wrong by the teacher and other students. And when I did try to make the point that its not proven fact my beliefs were just attacked.
I believe in evolution. Just not all sorts of it
__________________
u2bonogirl is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 03:12 PM   #251
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2bonogirl
Im just saying that I think we should make sure to be clear on what is fact, and what is theory [/B]
It's called the theory of evolution. I remember learning very early on the differences between hypotheses, theories, observations, etc. What more would you want?
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 08-23-2005, 03:30 PM   #252
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
u2bonogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back on the blue crack after a long break
Posts: 6,726
Local Time: 08:41 PM
Never mind. Either you're deliberately misunderstanding me, or you're just not getting it.
I'm talking about how it's presented.
The way Ive seen it taught was not as theory but as THE way it happened. Not what we think could have happened
__________________
u2bonogirl is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 03:34 PM   #253
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 07:41 PM
No, I think I'm understanding you just fine.

Which is why I made the point - if you understand the concept of what a scientific theory is (and anybody really should very early on in high school, forget college), then you are automatically aware of its implications and limitations. If you know what a "theory" is, then I don't see why it needs to be re-established on a constant basis that it is not necessarily fact. Maybe I'm dense, but I've taken a whole lot of science classes, probably more than 95% of the people on this board and I was always perfectly aware of what the definition of "theory" was.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com