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

should evolution be taught in schools

Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 1:55:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree with these wonderful women and we should also teach the other beliefs of why objects fall and not just gravityism. And why do just teach just Chemistry, what happened to Alchemy?
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 2:15:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This isn't a made up video either. I would have been curious if anyone of them if asked could answer "If man came from monkeys - why are there still monkeys?"
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 2:36:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
When the technology is available, we should kill these women and transplant the brains of intelligent people into their bodies. Then they might be hot.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 2:40:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 1:55:31 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
I agree with these wonderful women and we should also teach the other beliefs of why objects fall and not just gravityism. And why do just teach just Chemistry, what happened to Alchemy?



Question: Why were you Pro in the debate:
"The current evolutionary synthetics is not a scientific theory" when you clearly believe in evolution?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 2:43:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'd rather have people who are intellectually honest enough to say that they think only creationism should be taught in schools rather all of those air heads sitting on the fence.

They don't seem to realize there is barely enough time to cover the subjects and concepts taught in school, much less two completely contradictory ones.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 2:44:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 2:40:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/25/2011 1:55:31 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
I agree with these wonderful women and we should also teach the other beliefs of why objects fall and not just gravityism. And why do just teach just Chemistry, what happened to Alchemy?


Question: Why were you Pro in the debate:
"The current evolutionary synthetics is not a scientific theory" when you clearly believe in evolution?

I was Pro in a debate that the USSR was justified in sending arms to Castro during the Cuban Missile Crises, doesn't mean I believe it so.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 2:53:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 1:55:31 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
I agree with these wonderful women and we should also teach the other beliefs of why objects fall and not just gravityism. And why do just teach just Chemistry, what happened to Alchemy?



I agree with you cliff.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 5:12:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 1:55:31 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
I agree with these wonderful women and we should also teach the other beliefs of why objects fall and not just gravityism.
Even through I do know that you're probably joking, I agree that topics such as alchemy, or pseudoscience, may be taught in either: studies of culture and history (anthropology and social studies) or as a way, in a textbook, of how-not-to-does in science, in particular.

And why do just teach just Chemistry, what happened to Alchemy?
Well, alchemy was displaced [its failure to turn base metals into gold helped it be displaced by modern chemistry] and now it remains in studies of the medieval or Renaissance age/s.

Alchemy is perhaps a pseudoscience itself, and is based on presumptions now proven as false.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 7:01:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 5:12:15 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/25/2011 1:55:31 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
I agree with these wonderful women and we should also teach the other beliefs of why objects fall and not just gravityism.
Even through I do know that you're probably joking, I agree that topics such as alchemy, or pseudoscience, may be taught in either: studies of culture and history (anthropology and social studies) or as a way, in a textbook, of how-not-to-does in science, in particular.

And why do just teach just Chemistry, what happened to Alchemy?
Well, alchemy was displaced [its failure to turn base metals into gold helped it be displaced by modern chemistry] and now it remains in studies of the medieval or Renaissance age/s.

Alchemy is perhaps a pseudoscience itself, and is based on presumptions now proven as false.

The true teachings of alchemy was completely distorted. Humans do this to almost everything. If you know anything about alchemy, almost everything it teaches is actually true. Not the fairytails that people turned it into, but the real teachings of alchemy. Alchemy has it's roots in hermetic philosophy and even before that, teachings that go back thousands of years.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 7:03:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 2:43:08 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
I'd rather have people who are intellectually honest enough to say that they think only creationism should be taught in schools rather all of those air heads sitting on the fence.

They don't seem to realize there is barely enough time to cover the subjects and concepts taught in school, much less two completely contradictory ones.

All theories of how life began should be taught in general public schools. If the parents want specific education taught to their children, then there are private schools for that.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 8:51:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 2:36:20 PM, Kinesis wrote:
When the technology is available, we should kill these women and transplant the brains of intelligent people into their bodies. Then they might be hot.

Imagine if there are aliens and this is what they see as representatives of our species.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 8:53:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 2:40:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Question: Why were you Pro in the debate:
"The current evolutionary synthetics is not a scientific theory" when you clearly believe in evolution?

It isn't a scientific theory. This debate was about the current statement which isn't a theory as it isn't predictive and can not be falsified. I wish more people have read it as I thought the argument was fairly clear but the votes indicated otherwise.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 8:57:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 5:12:15 PM, Man-is-good wrote:

Even through I do know that you're probably joking, I agree that topics such as alchemy, or pseudoscience, may be taught in either: studies of culture and history (anthropology and social studies) or as a way, in a textbook, of how-not-to-does in science, in particular.

There is a place for almost everything, but you are heavily constrained for time and thus concessions have to be made. I would have loved for example when I introduced quantum theory to talk about how the interpretations are not unique asserted and there is no present indication that any of them are in fact true. But you barely have enough time to teach how to apply the copenhagen interpretation and discuss ave function collapse.


And why do just teach just Chemistry, what happened to Alchemy?
Well, alchemy was displaced [its failure to turn base metals into gold helped it be displaced by modern chemistry] and now it remains in studies of the medieval or Renaissance age/s.

And so creationism -> evolutionism.

Alchemy is perhaps a pseudoscience itself, and is based on presumptions now proven as false.

Yes, would argue though we very trivially ignore the work of the past. Without things that we now regard as very false we would never have moved to that which we now regard as very true.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 9:00:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 7:03:55 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:

All theories of how life began should be taught in general public schools. If the parents want specific education taught to their children, then there are private schools for that.

There are more theories of creation than there are hours in a year if by theory you want to extend the concept to "any idea proposed to explain something". The question is also where should it be taught as it certainly can not be taught in the science classroom, but obviously should be in religious studies.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 9:08:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 9:00:54 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/25/2011 7:03:55 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:

All theories of how life began should be taught in general public schools. If the parents want specific education taught to their children, then there are private schools for that.

There are more theories of creation than there are hours in a year if by theory you want to extend the concept to "any idea proposed to explain something". The question is also where should it be taught as it certainly can not be taught in the science classroom, but obviously should be in religious studies.

I think the three versions that should be taught is general creationism, evolutionary creationism, and materialist evolution.

At least this gives the mind of the child the basic mental clay to start fashioning the mold.

What do you think Cliff?
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 9:08:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 8:51:09 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/25/2011 2:36:20 PM, Kinesis wrote:
When the technology is available, we should kill these women and transplant the brains of intelligent people into their bodies. Then they might be hot.

Imagine if there are aliens and this is what they see as representatives of our species.

Thinking about that actually made me laugh out loud in my office.... LMAO.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 9:11:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 9:08:11 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/25/2011 9:00:54 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/25/2011 7:03:55 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:

All theories of how life began should be taught in general public schools. If the parents want specific education taught to their children, then there are private schools for that.

There are more theories of creation than there are hours in a year if by theory you want to extend the concept to "any idea proposed to explain something". The question is also where should it be taught as it certainly can not be taught in the science classroom, but obviously should be in religious studies.

I think the three versions that should be taught is deity creationism, evolutionary creationism, and materialist evolution.

At least this gives the mind of the child the basic mental clay to start fashioning the mold.

What do you think Cliff?

fixed.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 9:27:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 9:08:11 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:

I think the three versions that should be taught is general creationism, evolutionary creationism, and materialist evolution.

Which creationism is the point. When most people argue for creationism they speak of their religion but why that one. Why teach christian creationism vs hindu creationism which are very different. Or why not teach pagan creation? The list can grow until you could teach a course on this alone. This is what Dennet argues should be taught but he is approaching is from teaching it not to understand the way things are but to understand ourselves as all of these things can not themselves each be true.

There is also the meta point that these things are very different in justification. If you simply tell a child that A and B are two possibilities isn't the child going to believe that this is a balanced choice? This is also very inconsistent because it is not like we teach children that if you were to get leprosy then you have two options, seek medical treatment or kill one bird and using another sprinkle the blood of the former on yourself to drive out that which is unclean. But should this be taught as well in biology when medicine is introduced?

I do believe what is lacking is that children are not taught how to think and it is implied that truth .iff. science, i.e., logical positivism. But that is not a widely held position in philosophy any more and has not been for some time. There should be at a minimum an introduction as to why you should pay attention to what science reveals and further what does it even mean to say we "know" something is true because of science. Or even what exactly is science because as PCP keeps pointing out, the demarcation problem is not resolved by any means.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 11:10:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 8:57:46 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/25/2011 5:12:15 PM, Man-is-good wrote:

Even through I do know that you're probably joking, I agree that topics such as alchemy, or pseudoscience, may be taught in either: studies of culture and history (anthropology and social studies) or as a way, in a textbook, of how-not-to-does in science, in particular.

There is a place for almost everything, but you are heavily constrained for time and thus concessions have to be made. I would have loved for example when I introduced quantum theory to talk about how the interpretations are not unique asserted and there is no present indication that any of them are in fact true. But you barely have enough time to teach how to apply the Copenhagen interpretation and discuss ave function collapse.

And to think about it, a detailed review in alchemy would prove useless since it is considered a pseudoscience. Perhaps, only a fleeting mention in historical studies or global history class would suffice, in regard to the explanation of the beliefs and practices of the medieval age.



And why do just teach just Chemistry, what happened to Alchemy?
Well, alchemy was displaced [its failure to turn base metals into gold helped it be displaced by modern chemistry] and now it remains in studies of the medieval or Renaissance age/s.

And so creationism -> evolutionism.

Creationism has, to be honest, backings in pseudoscience, flood geology being one of them. Evolutionism is at least based on evidence, such as the use of a fossil record, similarities in embryology, development in structure, and in sequences of DNA. Of course the prospect of a creator deity, all-loving and powerful is tempting, but in light of science, may not exist. Immanuel Kant once stated that it was more necessary for a "belief" in God to exist to account for our morality. So, to all those atheists, a belief in God does not always equate to the actual existence of the Deity.



Alchemy is perhaps a pseudoscience itself, and is based on presumptions now proven as false.

Yes, would argue though we very trivially ignore the work of the past. Without things that we now regard as very false we would never have moved to that which we now regard as very true.

Well, alchemy, despite being based on "presumptions now proven as false", has probably accounted for the development of chemistry through the constant manipulation and use of substances. So, to sum it all up, the mistakes of our fathers have at least helped us to uncover the "truth". But even in this age, it is not generally agreed upon if there is an "absolute truth" for everything.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 11:19:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 7:03:55 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/25/2011 2:43:08 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
I'd rather have people who are intellectually honest enough to say that they think only creationism should be taught in schools rather all of those air heads sitting on the fence.

They don't seem to realize there is barely enough time to cover the subjects and concepts taught in school, much less two completely contradictory ones.

All theories of how life began should be taught in general public schools. If the parents want specific education taught to their children, then there are private schools for that.

That would take years. Children shouldn't be subjected to abject nonsense especially when there is a clear and scientifically sound theorey of how life began.

When nearly every single biologist worth his salt agrees that evolution is the most credible explanation for the beginning of life on Earth then there is no reason to waste time, money, and other resources to teach other theories with no scientific backing or support whatsoever.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 11:37:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 11:10:23 PM, Man-is-good wrote:

And to think about it, a detailed review in alchemy would prove useless since it is considered a pseudoscience. Perhaps, only a fleeting mention in historical studies or global history class would suffice, in regard to the explanation of the beliefs and practices of the medieval age.

It is not as if there are a lot of alchemists now so yes, that would be similar as to how I approached it as an introduction to chemistry.

Creationism has, to be honest, backings in pseudoscience, flood geology being one of them. Evolutionism is at least based on evidence, such as the use of a fossil record, similarities in embryology, development in structure, and in sequences of DNA. Of course the prospect of a creator deity, all-loving and powerful is tempting, but in light of science, may not exist. Immanuel Kant once stated that it was more necessary for a "belief" in God to exist to account for our morality. So, to all those atheists, a belief in God does not always equate to the actual existence of the Deity.

An important point here is that empiricism + reason will lead to evolution that is true, but can you argue that all knowledge is what comes from science and that which is not science should not be taught? For example just consider as you have mentioned morality. The view of morality from evolution is quite simple, as is the view of the mind/brain connection - but does that mean we should only teach the material perspectives of both?

But even in this age, it is not generally agreed upon if there is an "absolute truth" for everything.

Decartes discovered about the only absolute truth that one can claim.
think_fact
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 8:49:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 11:19:47 PM, quarterexchange wrote:

When nearly every single biologist worth his salt agrees that evolution is the most credible explanation for the beginning of life on Earth then there is no reason to waste time, money, and other resources to teach other theories with no scientific backing or support whatsoever.

Except that absolutely no biologist worth his salt thinks that evolution is an explanation for the existence of life on earth - because it isn't. Evolution does not include abiogenesis. Evolution explains how life changed - adapted to environment and resulted in the incredible diversity of species on planet Earth today and in the past.

Abiogenesis is a different field of study - with its own scientific pursuit and evidence.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 11:38:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/27/2011 8:49:37 AM, think_fact wrote:

Except that absolutely no biologist worth his salt thinks that evolution is an explanation for the existence of life on earth - because it isn't. Evolution does not include abiogenesis.

The lines between both of these have blurred to the point where they can not be separated as it is becoming obvious that the same processes direct both. How a strand of RNA develops to a proto-cell and how that proto-cell develops to what we would recognize as a single celled organism are identical in process.
think_fact
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 11:42:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Of course the same processes affect both once you have a self-replicating system.

Abiogenesis addresses the origins of self-replicating systems, though, while evolution does not. Evolution deals with how self-replicating systems propagate and change due to environmental pressures. Abiogenesis deals with how complex biopolymers were first formed and became self-replicating systems.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 11:45:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/27/2011 11:42:57 AM, think_fact wrote:

Abiogenesis deals with how complex biopolymers were first formed and became self-replicating systems.

I don't think it is so rigidly defined, it usually is spoke of as including up to the first cell. However the definitions are changing rapidly on both. Do you have a reference for the rna-world hypothesis now being included into evolutionary theory.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 11:58:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At least from what I saw in the video, certainly not all the answers were uninformed. They only had a limited amount of time for their responses, and we can only expect so much people are being asked random questions on the spot. Secondly, some of them mentioned that they grew up in the deep south where evolution wasn't even taught so their views shouldn't be surprising to say the least. Lastly, the responses seem to be their own individual way of filling their social role, and in that sense maybe a less than completely informed answer could be optimal.

Still some funny moments though.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 12:16:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/27/2011 11:58:25 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

At least from what I saw in the video, certainly not all the answers were uninformed.

Justin, I think we have different definitions of informed. There were a few decent answers towards the end, but aside from them it is just sad. Of course I don't think this really reflects knowledge as much as it is PC.