Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hope for the future...

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 6:02:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I ran across this site today and was delighted to see young people getting involved. It may be a small group but who knows. It's good to see that there are young people resisting the mix of ideology and science, and trying to stop it's teaching in the schools.

http://youngearthscientist.com...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 6:10:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:02:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I ran across this site today and was delighted to see young people getting involved. It may be a small group but who knows. It's good to see that there are young people resisting the mix of ideology and science, and trying to stop it's teaching in the schools.

http://youngearthscientist.com...

What? They're just "resisting" the mix of ideology and science inasmuch as they are rejecting one particular combination of it and trying to replace it with their own.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 6:12:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:10:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:02:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I ran across this site today and was delighted to see young people getting involved. It may be a small group but who knows. It's good to see that there are young people resisting the mix of ideology and science, and trying to stop it's teaching in the schools.

http://youngearthscientist.com...

What? They're just "resisting" the mix of ideology and science inasmuch as they are rejecting one particular combination of it and trying to replace it with their own.

Resisting the mix of ideology and of science and replacing it with ideology.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 6:16:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We are students and teachers who recognize the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the history of a Young Earth

Wrong; the overwhelming scientific evidence indicates the earth is billions of years old.

verses the old earth atheistic Theory of Evolution.

Wrong: Evolution is not Atheistic.

We do not recognize the validity of the atheistic, prejudicial and socially destructive

Wrong. Evolution is not atheistic, prejudicial or socially destructive.

macro-evolutionary theories presented in the Charles Darwin book, The Origin of Species By Means Of Natural Selection; or, The Preservation of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life

Wrong. Macro-evolutionary theories presented in Charles Darwins book is not what is taught in schools. It is more commonly referred to as Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

nor appreciate the forced indoctrination of atheistic evolution in public schools.

Wrong. Teaching science is not "forced indoctrination", nor is Evolution Atheistic.

We meet in after-school clubs for the purpose of sharing scientific evidence that supports a Young Earth.

I'm assuming this bit is actually true.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 6:21:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Teaching there was a worldwide flood is just about as nuts as it gets. You'd have to ascribe to some form of "super evolution" where all the genetic and phenotypic diversity we see today came from a bottleneck of Noah's ark within 6,000 years of natural selection and mutation. All the diversity "between kinds" as you would put it.

Let's just say, for charity, that Noah brought plants/seedlings onto the ark to plant later. The common ancestors of all current genetic diversity in vegetation would have to originate in less than six thousand years.

More charitable, assume the common ancestors of all current insects somehow got on board.

There are currently 400,000 known species of beetles. Each speciation event would have to happen within six thousand years.

That's around 67 speciation events PER YEAR for BEETLES.

Furthermore, the "super evolution" problems gets exponentially worse when you consider that a vast majority of species-specific viruses and bacteria could not survive the flood without a host. Even the common cold would need some host. Dogs would have to have the common ancestors of every type of virus or bacteria which is specific to infecting dogs.

And just where do you think the common ancestors of AIDs, herpes, and every other STD came from if they needed a host to pass through the flood?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 6:28:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:10:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:02:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I ran across this site today and was delighted to see young people getting involved. It may be a small group but who knows. It's good to see that there are young people resisting the mix of ideology and science, and trying to stop it's teaching in the schools.

http://youngearthscientist.com...

What? They're just "resisting" the mix of ideology and science inasmuch as they are rejecting one particular combination of it and trying to replace it with their own.

I think their stance is just to get the ideology out of science, and teach good, hard, testable, provable science, instead of so much theoretical junk science.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 6:28:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I find it odd people calling evolution "atheistic" when most people who believe in evolution in the U.S. are Christians.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 6:32:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:28:01 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:10:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:02:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I ran across this site today and was delighted to see young people getting involved. It may be a small group but who knows. It's good to see that there are young people resisting the mix of ideology and science, and trying to stop it's teaching in the schools.

http://youngearthscientist.com...

What? They're just "resisting" the mix of ideology and science inasmuch as they are rejecting one particular combination of it and trying to replace it with their own.

I think their stance is just to get the ideology out of science, and teach good, hard, testable, provable science, instead of so much theoretical junk science.

Not a religion
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Not Atheistic
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Doesn't require faith
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Is Proven
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Can be Falsified
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Makes Predicitions
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Has masses of evidence
http://www.talkorigins.org...

So can you please stop repeating the same fallacious arguments and stick to, you know, the facts.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 6:32:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:12:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:10:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:02:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I ran across this site today and was delighted to see young people getting involved. It may be a small group but who knows. It's good to see that there are young people resisting the mix of ideology and science, and trying to stop it's teaching in the schools.

http://youngearthscientist.com...

What? They're just "resisting" the mix of ideology and science inasmuch as they are rejecting one particular combination of it and trying to replace it with their own.

Resisting the mix of ideology and of science and replacing it with ideology.

Teach science and let the parents worry about the ideologies that kids are brought up with.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 6:38:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:28:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
I find it odd people calling evolution "atheistic" when most people who believe in evolution in the U.S. are Christians.

I guess it depends on your perspective, but because some Christians believe in it doesn't make it non-atheistic.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 6:38:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:32:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:12:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:10:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:02:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I ran across this site today and was delighted to see young people getting involved. It may be a small group but who knows. It's good to see that there are young people resisting the mix of ideology and science, and trying to stop it's teaching in the schools.

http://youngearthscientist.com...

What? They're just "resisting" the mix of ideology and science inasmuch as they are rejecting one particular combination of it and trying to replace it with their own.

Resisting the mix of ideology and of science and replacing it with ideology.

Teach science and let the parents worry about the ideologies that kids are brought up with.

I Agree. That's why Creationism should not be taught, and Evolution should. Evolution is most obviously science in any definition of the world, with Creationism being ideology in any definitionthe word.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 6:41:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think that teachers should be required to give disclaimers for ALL CLASSES on the first day of class. Warning: This is just interpretation of History/Science/whatever. You will be tested on your knowledge of this interpretation.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 6:44:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:38:09 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:28:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
I find it odd people calling evolution "atheistic" when most people who believe in evolution in the U.S. are Christians.

I guess it depends on your perspective, but because some Christians believe in it doesn't make it non-atheistic.

Actually it does. The very fact that you can understand science and still be a Christian shows that they aren't incompatible. It's incompatible perhaps with a strict, literalist interpretation but comparing that to Christianity (or religion) as a whole is myopic. Evolution doesn't posit that God didn't create the world or that Jesus wasn't magic (Sarah Silverman FTW, I kid of course).
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 6:46:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:41:17 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I think that teachers should be required to give disclaimers for ALL CLASSES on the first day of class. Warning: This is just interpretation of History/Science/whatever. You will be tested on your knowledge of this interpretation.

The obvious reductio is applying that to Flat-Earth theory. It isn't an interpretation inasmuch as any other scientific theory isn't an interpretation. Denigrating evolution to that status flies in the face of its scientific acceptance/justification.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 6:50:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:46:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:41:17 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I think that teachers should be required to give disclaimers for ALL CLASSES on the first day of class. Warning: This is just interpretation of History/Science/whatever. You will be tested on your knowledge of this interpretation.

The obvious reductio is applying that to Flat-Earth theory. It isn't an interpretation inasmuch as any other scientific theory isn't an interpretation. Denigrating evolution to that status flies in the face of its scientific acceptance/justification.

Such a method would take all theories off a pedestal, and would leave it up to the students to decide which theory is the most plausible. Primary and secondary schools attempt to think for students when they make value judgments about certain theories, when they should be encouraging critical thinking, so that students can develop the skills to think for themselves. If evolution is the most logical theory, then we have nothing to worry about: people will accept its validity on their own.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 6:54:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:50:52 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:46:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:41:17 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I think that teachers should be required to give disclaimers for ALL CLASSES on the first day of class. Warning: This is just interpretation of History/Science/whatever. You will be tested on your knowledge of this interpretation.

The obvious reductio is applying that to Flat-Earth theory. It isn't an interpretation inasmuch as any other scientific theory isn't an interpretation. Denigrating evolution to that status flies in the face of its scientific acceptance/justification.

Such a method would take all theories off a pedestal, and would leave it up to the students to decide which theory is the most plausible. Primary and secondary schools attempt to think for students when they make value judgments about certain theories, when they should be encouraging critical thinking, so that students can develop the skills to think for themselves. If evolution is the most logical theory, then we have nothing to worry about: people will accept its validity on their own.

I would be happy for this; but the same would have to be applied and preixed to any mention of God, in any other classes or in school in general; so that the students can make value judgements about certain religions.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 7:09:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:38:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:32:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:12:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:10:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:02:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I ran across this site today and was delighted to see young people getting involved. It may be a small group but who knows. It's good to see that there are young people resisting the mix of ideology and science, and trying to stop it's teaching in the schools.

http://youngearthscientist.com...

What? They're just "resisting" the mix of ideology and science inasmuch as they are rejecting one particular combination of it and trying to replace it with their own.

Resisting the mix of ideology and of science and replacing it with ideology.

Teach science and let the parents worry about the ideologies that kids are brought up with.

I Agree. That's why Creationism should not be taught, and Evolution should. Evolution is most obviously science in any definition of the world, with Creationism being ideology in any definitionthe word.

I agree that creationism shouldn't be taught either. Teach the parts of evolution that are factually supported, and don't require interpretations to be placed on factual findings. In other words, leave common descent out. In fact the issue of origins doesn't even need to be taught before college. That's the part that lets the ideology sneak in, and the science is incomplete and arguable, it cannot be proven accurate.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 7:12:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:41:17 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I think that teachers should be required to give disclaimers for ALL CLASSES on the first day of class. Warning: This is just interpretation of History/Science/whatever. You will be tested on your knowledge of this interpretation.

That would be a good start, but it begs the question...Since we know it's an interpretation, why is it in science class instead of philosophy??
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 7:15:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:50:52 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:46:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:41:17 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I think that teachers should be required to give disclaimers for ALL CLASSES on the first day of class. Warning: This is just interpretation of History/Science/whatever. You will be tested on your knowledge of this interpretation.

The obvious reductio is applying that to Flat-Earth theory. It isn't an interpretation inasmuch as any other scientific theory isn't an interpretation. Denigrating evolution to that status flies in the face of its scientific acceptance/justification.

Such a method would take all theories off a pedestal, and would leave it up to the students to decide which theory is the most plausible. Primary and secondary schools attempt to think for students when they make value judgments about certain theories, when they should be encouraging critical thinking, so that students can develop the skills to think for themselves. If evolution is the most logical theory, then we have nothing to worry about: people will accept its validity on their own.

There's a difference between saying "This is just an interpretation" and telling students to make decisions for themselves.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 7:18:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:44:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:38:09 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:28:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
I find it odd people calling evolution "atheistic" when most people who believe in evolution in the U.S. are Christians.

I guess it depends on your perspective, but because some Christians believe in it doesn't make it non-atheistic.

Actually it does. The very fact that you can understand science and still be a Christian shows that they aren't incompatible. It's incompatible perhaps with a strict, literalist interpretation but comparing that to Christianity (or religion) as a whole is myopic. Evolution doesn't posit that God didn't create the world or that Jesus wasn't magic (Sarah Silverman FTW, I kid of course).

It does indeed help paint that picture. Evolution, abiogenesis, cosmic origins, etc., it's a package deal to sell the humanist agenda which has the effect of teaching kids that everything can be explained by science. The effect of that is that God doesn't exist, He isn't necessary for us to explain the world around us. We are our own Gods.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 7:20:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:32:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:12:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:10:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:02:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I ran across this site today and was delighted to see young people getting involved. It may be a small group but who knows. It's good to see that there are young people resisting the mix of ideology and science, and trying to stop it's teaching in the schools.

http://youngearthscientist.com...

What? They're just "resisting" the mix of ideology and science inasmuch as they are rejecting one particular combination of it and trying to replace it with their own.

Resisting the mix of ideology and of science and replacing it with ideology.

Teach science and let the parents worry about the ideologies that kids are brought up with.

If only you can prove your bald assertions, and if only you were doing better in the discussions you are already apart of.

But you are aware that whether evolution is scientific or not, is not up to the public, its up to the scientific community, right? That the only way to debate and argue whether evolution is science, is through the scientific community and as a member of the scientific community, right?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 7:23:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 7:18:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:44:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:38:09 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:28:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
I find it odd people calling evolution "atheistic" when most people who believe in evolution in the U.S. are Christians.

I guess it depends on your perspective, but because some Christians believe in it doesn't make it non-atheistic.

Actually it does. The very fact that you can understand science and still be a Christian shows that they aren't incompatible. It's incompatible perhaps with a strict, literalist interpretation but comparing that to Christianity (or religion) as a whole is myopic. Evolution doesn't posit that God didn't create the world or that Jesus wasn't magic (Sarah Silverman FTW, I kid of course).

It does indeed help paint that picture. Evolution, abiogenesis, cosmic origins, etc., it's a package deal to sell the humanist agenda

Agenda lol.

which has the effect of teaching kids that everything can be explained by science. The effect of that is that God doesn't exist, He isn't necessary for us to explain the world around us. We are our own Gods.

I didn't see a refutation of what I said. Like I said, accepting one doesn't necessitate the others.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 7:32:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 7:18:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:44:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:38:09 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:28:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
I find it odd people calling evolution "atheistic" when most people who believe in evolution in the U.S. are Christians.

I guess it depends on your perspective, but because some Christians believe in it doesn't make it non-atheistic.

Actually it does. The very fact that you can understand science and still be a Christian shows that they aren't incompatible. It's incompatible perhaps with a strict, literalist interpretation but comparing that to Christianity (or religion) as a whole is myopic. Evolution doesn't posit that God didn't create the world or that Jesus wasn't magic (Sarah Silverman FTW, I kid of course).

It does indeed help paint that picture. Evolution, abiogenesis, cosmic origins, etc., it's a package deal to sell the humanist agenda which has the effect of teaching kids that everything can be explained by science. The effect of that is that God doesn't exist, He isn't necessary for us to explain the world around us. We are our own Gods.

I thought it was the secularist agenda?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 7:36:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 7:18:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:44:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:38:09 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:28:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
I find it odd people calling evolution "atheistic" when most people who believe in evolution in the U.S. are Christians.

I guess it depends on your perspective, but because some Christians believe in it doesn't make it non-atheistic.

Actually it does. The very fact that you can understand science and still be a Christian shows that they aren't incompatible. It's incompatible perhaps with a strict, literalist interpretation but comparing that to Christianity (or religion) as a whole is myopic. Evolution doesn't posit that God didn't create the world or that Jesus wasn't magic (Sarah Silverman FTW, I kid of course).

It does indeed help paint that picture. Evolution, abiogenesis, cosmic origins, etc., it's a package deal to sell the humanist agenda which has the effect of teaching kids that everything can be explained by science. The effect of that is that God doesn't exist, He isn't necessary for us to explain the world around us. We are our own Gods.

False.

Please see previous links.

With the additional
http://www.talkorigins.org...
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 7:56:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's a difference between saying "This is just an interpretation" and telling students to make decisions for themselves.

The latter requires the former.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 7:57:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And I've actually been saying for a long time that we should be teaching philosophy in primary and secondary school. Logic should be taught in primary, and ethics should be taught in secondary.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 8:05:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 7:56:20 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
There's a difference between saying "This is just an interpretation" and telling students to make decisions for themselves.

The latter requires the former.

There's also a difference between saying "This is just an interpretation", and "This is the currently accepted scientific explanation based on all the wealth of observed evidence covering geology, physics, biology and paleontology, which has been repeatedly tested, and has been regularly modifed as new information has been discovered, and may change again should new evidence arises.

The problem with tagging on caveats, is that if the caveats are not 100% accurate, they are misleading. Arguably, saying that it is is a fact, is less of a deviation from the truth than "it is just a theory" or "interpretation".
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 8:06:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 6:28:01 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:10:45 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/18/2013 6:02:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I ran across this site today and was delighted to see young people getting involved. It may be a small group but who knows. It's good to see that there are young people resisting the mix of ideology and science, and trying to stop it's teaching in the schools.

http://youngearthscientist.com...

What? They're just "resisting" the mix of ideology and science inasmuch as they are rejecting one particular combination of it and trying to replace it with their own.

I think their stance is just to get the ideology out of science, and teach good, hard, testable, provable science, instead of so much theoretical junk science.

That's a bit hard to believe considering they're committed to a young earth which is coming from a "fundamental Christian perspective".
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 8:15:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 8:05:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/18/2013 7:56:20 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
There's a difference between saying "This is just an interpretation" and telling students to make decisions for themselves.

The latter requires the former.

There's also a difference between saying "This is just an interpretation", and "This is the currently accepted scientific explanation based on all the wealth of observed evidence covering geology, physics, biology and paleontology, which has been repeatedly tested, and has been regularly modifed as new information has been discovered, and may change again should new evidence arises.

The problem with tagging on caveats, is that if the caveats are not 100% accurate, they are misleading. Arguably, saying that it is is a fact, is less of a deviation from the truth than "it is just a theory" or "interpretation".

You can label it any way you want, but the point I made still stands. The teacher ought to give the disclaimer, so that the children know there are alternative view points, then the teacher can make his arguments in favor of his preferred theory. If he wants to devote part of the class to telling his students how widely accepted the theory is, then that's fine. Although I feel that there should be at least one day devoted to alternative view points, especially in the social sciences.

Even if you do not accept a theory to be true in a certain field, there is still value in having knowledge of it. Children can only benefit from learning more than one perspective, and from being told that there are multiple perspectives. Schools are too focused on dumping as many "facts" (whatever the government approved facts may be,) into the heads of their students, and do not take enough time to teach perspectives. Facts are meaningless out of context.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 9:10:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"evidence supporting the history of a Young Earth, verses the old earth atheistic Theory of Evolution."

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution or the age of the earth. That's not very knowledgeable IMO.

Oh here we go again. "not theory, racism, or the atheistic Religion of Evolution"

Why do they associate evolution as atheistic religion? It has nothing to do with religion and is completely compatible with belief in god(s).
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)