Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:34:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1128 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > This attitude is, unfortunately, exactly at the heart of the problem. It is
> > abhorrent that anyone suggests that the mythology of Creationism (under
> > whatever label) should be taught alongside a scientific theory so thoroughly
> > confirmed that no actual scientist has reason to doubt it.
>
> Eh, I think the counterargument goes that 1) what *you* call an "actual"
> scientist doesn't necessarily match what others might call an "actual" scientist
You're attempting to repaint the issue along purely semantic rather than
functional or philosophical lines, and thereby you're casting your vote in favor
of creationism.
An actual scientist is someone who practices actual science, as opposed to
pseudoscience like astrology, phrenology, or creationism.
At this point you might ask me what qualifies as "actual" science, but of course
we've been down that road before.
> 2) why should this be classified as "science"? Calling it "history" might be
> what creationists would deem it, rather than "science".
History depends on empirical methods in a manner very similar to scientific
investigation (which, by the way, is why Luke does not qualify as a historian
and his Gospel can't be taken as credible historical documentation of miraculous
events).
Young Earth Creationism nullifies all non-doctrinal history. Do you propose
this as a viable alternative to the current methods of historical teaching and
research?
> But even so, creationism *does* have "proof".
Frankly, that's either an outright lie (which I doubt you intend) or a reckless
misstatement (which I suspect). Creationism, as it pertains to the Christian
God, can by definition have no proof. Beyond that, any creationist mythology
that espouses an incomprehensibly powerful creator can likewise have no proof.
> Just not nearly as much as evolution has. And not enough to convince me or
> you.
The bible is not proof. Revealed wisdom is not proof. The fact that every
"missing link" has not been "found" is not proof. Please give me an example of
this proof that you describe.
> Lots of [evolution] stuff to fill up a couple weeks for a class.
I admit that that would be a vast improvement over the current curricula, most
of which, due to reactionary pressure from regressive fundamentalists, have been
pared down so severely that evolution (the foundation for all modern biology,
zoology, and comparative anatomy) is mentioned only briefly if at all. A few
weeks of serious, factual discussion would be of immense value.
> Creationism? Maybe a day worth of material?
> I guess you could stretch it further, but I'd advocate some proportionally lower
> amount of time for teaching it.
Teach in in a World Cultures class or a Mythology class or Comparative Religion.
If it is mentioned at all in a Science class, it should only be as an example of
pseudoscience. Better still, it could be discussed as an example of how a
powerful and organized fundamentalist sect has attempted to impose its doctrine
on the public education system.
> I'm all for giving people a choice.
> Teach kids creationism, and they can see firsthand why it's not as good of a
> theory as evolution. If they see all the proof and STILL go for creationism,
> then that's their decision.
Does the educational system, in your view, have no obligation to instruct
children in ways of thinking that are more consistent with reality? Why not
teach that Jesus personally stopped Stalin from dropping the A-Bomb on Tokyo,
and then let kids decide? Why not teach that it's safe to mix chlorine and
ammonia in a poorly-ventilated closet and let the kids decide?
It seems clear to me that the theory that most strongly coincides with observed
reality should be heavily favored in school curricula. You're advocating that
creationism be taught as a weaker theory; why teach it at all? How do you
exclude any crackpot theory from the lesson plan if you're already willing to
allow an entirely non-scientific myth?
> Are you advocating that they should believe evolution just because you
> believe it's correct?
Of course not. And I don't "believe" it's correct, either. Instead, I
**accept** that the theory of natural selection most accurately explains the
broadest range of observed data and phenomena. That's why I advocate the
teaching of evolution as opposed to a non-verifiable and pseudoscientic
religious doctrine.
> IE that they shouldn't get a choice in what to think? Are you worried that
> kids won't judge the theories accurately, or are you worried because there's
> an option you think is invalid? Or perhaps because there's an option, period?
I am confident that children will not judge the competing theories accurately as
long as a motivated and organized religious group seeks to promote its views in
the classroom to the exclusion of actual science.
The majority of the population of the United States currently lacks the tools
needed to judge accurately in this regard. This is evident from the
overwhelming popularity of speakers-to-the-dead, UFO-belief, and the willingness
to believe that Saddam destroyed the WTC with his weapons of mass destruction.
Children who have not even been exposed to the methods of critical thought can't
be expected to make an informed decision regarding the creationist propaganda of
a well-marketed and politically organized religious fringe.
If school children could first be educated in the practice of logical, critical
thought, then I would even be willing to accept that creationism **could** be
presented as an alternative to evolution This would enable them to identify
creationism (along with astrology, faith healing, and most "alternative"
"medicine") as garbage.
Since critical thought is not only absent from education but in fact is actively
resisted, I suggest that children are simply not qualified to make decisions of
this sort.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
