|
On August 17 2009 16:53 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 16:42 Aegraen wrote:
I think the hot topic button on this is still evolution. There are still many pervasive holes, and contradictions with evolution; see sharks in the devonian period which contradicts the theory of evolution. If you study evolution from the perspective of common/modern biology, then you realize it's way too complicated for us to avoid finding any holes or counter-evidence that won't immediately be disproven. Nothing wrong with making evolution prove itself... but when it fails to have a defense to some apparent loophole, don't consider it an anti-evolution victory. Show nested quote + I am all for teaching it as a theory, but I can attest the school system teaches it as though it is fact. Many of the things taught in public school (things that are not at all controversial) are much less verifiable/verified theories than evolution despite the fact that they are also taught as 'fact' as you say. People don't complain about them because they don't oppose the beliefs of some religious groups.
I would disagree and say they aren't controversial (such as say; string theory), because they aren't trying to propose a system or set of rules that describes how human beings came to be. When it comes to this, you want to be as skeptical and scientific as you can be.
In labs, trying to run the scientific method on Evolution has been proven to be fruitless. Take for example the fruit fly. Due to their extremely low life spans and fast birth rates it is the best species to conduct these tests on. You can run through thousands of generations quickly. So far, in these tests in precise scientific studies fruit flies are still fruit flies and share all the same characteristics that make them fruit flies.
I do not propose to know how we got here, nor do I fully believe in evolution and I certainly do not believe in creationism, I feel that acting as if we have the knowledge and to teach it as if we know for certain betrays science itself. I am all for teaching Evolution because it is the best theory we have, but that is just it; a theory. We do not know for certain how we came to be. Many people who aren't religious like myself, are also extremely skeptical because the holes aren't just minute as your purtend, but they are gaping and when you are talking about how humans came into existence of course its going to be controversial religion or no religion.
Anyways, thats my position.
|
On August 17 2009 16:42 Aegraen wrote:
As long as Education remains a Government run system, I am opposed to the introduction of any religious and secular classes, courses, and bias. If, however you allow secular bias, course, and other such of that nature, therefore you must then also allow religious.
What exactly is wrong with education as a government institution? There is no way the world would have developed as quickly as it has without public education. I realize you are a hardcore free market advocate, and I respect that. But how is the son of a poor farm worker going to compete for the best possible education when private institutions demand payment for their services. If the free market works as it should, the better private schools would be able to charge more, as their services are of better quality and higher demand, thus leaving poor, intelligent students to fend for themselves. Granted scholarships would help some break from the lower rungs in society, but shouldn't everybody have equal opportunity to accrue the education needed to compete in a free market society?
|
United States24723 Posts
On August 17 2009 17:04 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 16:53 micronesia wrote:On August 17 2009 16:42 Aegraen wrote:
I think the hot topic button on this is still evolution. There are still many pervasive holes, and contradictions with evolution; see sharks in the devonian period which contradicts the theory of evolution. If you study evolution from the perspective of common/modern biology, then you realize it's way too complicated for us to avoid finding any holes or counter-evidence that won't immediately be disproven. Nothing wrong with making evolution prove itself... but when it fails to have a defense to some apparent loophole, don't consider it an anti-evolution victory. I am all for teaching it as a theory, but I can attest the school system teaches it as though it is fact. Many of the things taught in public school (things that are not at all controversial) are much less verifiable/verified theories than evolution despite the fact that they are also taught as 'fact' as you say. People don't complain about them because they don't oppose the beliefs of some religious groups. I would disagree and say they aren't controversial (such as say; string theory), because they aren't trying to propose a system or set of rules that describes how human beings came to be. When it comes to this, you want to be as skeptical and scientific as you can be.
I don't think you understood what I said. I'm saying there are many things taught in school which are much more 'theoretical' than evolution and yet are presented as fact, but nobody complains about those.
|
Hungary11304 Posts
I don't really get why anyone should be opposed to this, based on their outspoken intentions: The act above (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB01287F.htm) clearly states what everyone would like. They want to teach the teachers "understanding of how to present the Bible in an objective, academic manner that neither promotes nor disparages religion, nor is taught from a particular sectarian point of view;"
Now it appears to me that most counter arguments focus on:
a) omg, they gonna teach creationism again (which is wrong)
b) teachers will abuse it and try to indoctrinate children (which is possible, but a void assumption)
Frankly, a) and b) are only pessimistic views of what could happen that are unrelated to the actual bill passed.
|
United States24723 Posts
On August 17 2009 17:08 Aesop wrote:
I don't really get why anyone should be opposed to this, based on their outspoken intentions: The act above (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB01287F.htm) clearly states what everyone would like. They want to teach the teachers "understanding of how to present the Bible in an objective, academic manner that neither promotes nor disparages religion, nor is taught from a particular sectarian point of view;"
Now it appears to me that most counter arguments focus on:
a) omg, they gonna teach creationism again (which is wrong)
b) teachers will abuse it and try to indoctrinate children (which is possible, but a void assumption)
Frankly, a) and b) are only pessimistic views of what could happen that are unrelated to the actual bill passed.
This should be integrated into the state curriculum... not preemptively made into a law before it's challenged.
|
United States43187 Posts
Aegraen, the modern cow is a completely artificial animal. As is the modern chicken. Or the modern horse. Take chickens, it's a flightless meal on its period all the time. Modern chickens didn't exist in the wild before mankind, they were artifically created through microevolution in which the ones which produced less eggs were eaten. Same with cows, it's a big placid hunk of beef which produces vast amounts of milk. Never existed in the wild. Bred from Aurochs (now extinct) but the modern cow is very different from the auroch. Again, evolution. Or horses, they used to be about four foot tall and too weak to bear a mans weight. Ever wonder why the Egyptians and Assyrians used chariots rather than cavalry? It's not because they didn't think of sitting on horses, it's because horses were tiny. Now they're far larger. Evolution through selective breeding.
And contrary to your position, fruitflies have been used to prove evolution. I honestly don't get how you can be so wrong on every subject. Do you really imagine wild chickens frolicking in the woods laying six eggs a week and evading predators thirty thousand years ago? Or do you think the invention of farming might have something to do with it.
|
On August 17 2009 17:07 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 17:04 Aegraen wrote:On August 17 2009 16:53 micronesia wrote:On August 17 2009 16:42 Aegraen wrote:
I think the hot topic button on this is still evolution. There are still many pervasive holes, and contradictions with evolution; see sharks in the devonian period which contradicts the theory of evolution. If you study evolution from the perspective of common/modern biology, then you realize it's way too complicated for us to avoid finding any holes or counter-evidence that won't immediately be disproven. Nothing wrong with making evolution prove itself... but when it fails to have a defense to some apparent loophole, don't consider it an anti-evolution victory. I am all for teaching it as a theory, but I can attest the school system teaches it as though it is fact. Many of the things taught in public school (things that are not at all controversial) are much less verifiable/verified theories than evolution despite the fact that they are also taught as 'fact' as you say. People don't complain about them because they don't oppose the beliefs of some religious groups. I would disagree and say they aren't controversial (such as say; string theory), because they aren't trying to propose a system or set of rules that describes how human beings came to be. When it comes to this, you want to be as skeptical and scientific as you can be. I don't think you understood what I said. I'm saying there are many things taught in school which are much more 'theoretical' than evolution and yet are presented as fact, but nobody complains about those.
I understand what you said. I said they aren't controversial because they don't propose a system or set of rules to describe how we came to be. If string theory tried to explain how we came to be, and there was the competing theory of evolution (Just imagine a moment two sets of theories equally viable to explain our existence), it would still be a controversial subject over which to teach, whether to teach or not the various theories; religion or no religion. Religion is not what makes this controversial. Our coming into existence is what makes it a controversial topic.
In any case, I agree also that at least for me, anything that isn't at least viably able to run through the scientific method and corrabated shouldn't be taught as fact. In fact, there are hardly any facts because most of what we know we base on theories. It's a lot more complicated than that, but I don't want to diverge the topic to something else.
Continue on this is my last post in the topic 
|
i thought such a law would be unconstitutional?
|
United States24723 Posts
On August 17 2009 17:14 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 17:07 micronesia wrote:On August 17 2009 17:04 Aegraen wrote:On August 17 2009 16:53 micronesia wrote:On August 17 2009 16:42 Aegraen wrote:
I think the hot topic button on this is still evolution. There are still many pervasive holes, and contradictions with evolution; see sharks in the devonian period which contradicts the theory of evolution. If you study evolution from the perspective of common/modern biology, then you realize it's way too complicated for us to avoid finding any holes or counter-evidence that won't immediately be disproven. Nothing wrong with making evolution prove itself... but when it fails to have a defense to some apparent loophole, don't consider it an anti-evolution victory. I am all for teaching it as a theory, but I can attest the school system teaches it as though it is fact. Many of the things taught in public school (things that are not at all controversial) are much less verifiable/verified theories than evolution despite the fact that they are also taught as 'fact' as you say. People don't complain about them because they don't oppose the beliefs of some religious groups. I would disagree and say they aren't controversial (such as say; string theory), because they aren't trying to propose a system or set of rules that describes how human beings came to be. When it comes to this, you want to be as skeptical and scientific as you can be. I don't think you understood what I said. I'm saying there are many things taught in school which are much more 'theoretical' than evolution and yet are presented as fact, but nobody complains about those. I understand what you said. I said they aren't controversial because they don't propose a system or set of rules to describe how we came to be. If string theory tried to explain how we came to be, and there was the competing theory of evolution (Just imagine a moment two sets of theories equally viable to explain our existence), it would still be a controversial subject over which to teach, whether to teach or not the various theories; religion or no religion. Religion is not what makes this controversial. Our coming into existence is what makes it a controversial topic. In any case, I agree also that at least for me, anything that isn't at least viably able to run through the scientific method and corrabated shouldn't be taught as fact. In fact, there are hardly any facts because most of what we know we base on theories. It's a lot more complicated than that, but I don't want to diverge the topic to something else. Continue on this is my last post in the topic
Oh I think I understand what you meant. You assumed that I accredited them with not being controversial because they were not being complained about by religious people. If so, the assumption was incorrect and not backed by what I said.
|
Is it just me is Texas the main capital of religious extremists?
|
If parents want their kids to have a religious education, they should take them to church or do it at home. Teaching it in school is a terrible idea, especially since different people have different religious views. Even among christians there is a variety of beliefs. Whose will be taught, or whose beliefs will affect a more secular reading?
When we lived in England my little sister went to a local english school (rest of us went to schools on the US Air Force base) and she got taught about the doctrine of the Church of England. My mother objected, but was told that was the only way kids would get an exposure to religion. Maybe there it's true, but over here there are still a lot of religious people, and they often go to church. If they don't, and don't believe, they shouldn't have religion forced on them. If they do believe, they shouldn't have another sect's viewpoint forced on them.
Obviously the Bible can be studied from a literary, historical or archaeological perspective, but who really believes that's going to be how it is in Texas? I'm betting this is a terrible idea.
|
aegraen is the poster i look forward to most on these forums
also i think this is a great idea, i had so much fun in high school reading hilarious stories like how god smited/smote onan for pulling out LOL
|
United States43187 Posts
On August 17 2009 17:38 MamiyaOtaru wrote:
If parents want their kids to have a religious education, they should take them to church or do it at home. Teaching it in school is a terrible idea, especially since different people have different religious views. Even among christians there is a variety of beliefs. Whose will be taught, or whose beliefs will affect a more secular reading?
When we lived in England my little sister went to a local english school (rest of us went to schools on the US Air Force base) and she got taught about the doctrine of the Church of England. My mother objected, but was told that was the only way kids would get an exposure to religion. Maybe there it's true, but over here there are still a lot of religious people, and they often go to church. If they don't, and don't believe, they shouldn't have religion forced on them. If they do believe, they shouldn't have another sect's viewpoint forced on them.
Obviously the Bible can be studied from a literary, historical or archaeological perspective, but who really believes that's going to be how it is in Texas? I'm betting this is a terrible idea.
You're right that we have Church of England schools which do teach Anglicanism but equally, even the schools don't take it seriously. It's more of a cultural thing than a religious thing. Nobody is going to get indoctrinated from it because nobody believes in it, even the guy leading the sermons wouldn't dream of forcing it down someones throat. I wouldn't advocate our system in America because you still have evangelists but that kind of furvent believer no longer really exists in this country so it's pretty much harmless.
|
On August 17 2009 17:44 JohnColtrane wrote:
aegraen is the poster i look forward to most on these forums
also i think this is a great idea, i had so much fun in high school reading hilarious stories like how god smited/smote onan for pulling out LOL
I loved how moses accidentally discovered weed! ^_^
then thought that he was talking to God. Damn, that shit is strong!
|
you guys are so naive if you don't think this is based in spreading christianity
|
its a gud idea,
maybe it will stop all you heathens from going to hell.
u shud b thankful..
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On August 17 2009 17:53 travis wrote:
you guys are so naive if you don't think this is based in spreading christianity
That may be the ulterior motive, but trust me when I say that these types of courses are interesting, helpful, and generally harmless in a country like America which is basically inundated with Christianity.
|
On August 17 2009 17:49 Licmyobelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 17:44 JohnColtrane wrote:
aegraen is the poster i look forward to most on these forums
also i think this is a great idea, i had so much fun in high school reading hilarious stories like how god smited/smote onan for pulling out LOL I loved how moses accidentally discovered weed! ^_^ then thought that he was talking to God. Damn, that shit is strong!
Onan had sex with Tamar, but performed coitus interruptus each time, spilling his "seed" (semen) on the ground, so that there would not be any offspring which he could not claim as his own.[3] The passage states that this displeased God, who killed him.[4]
Lol
|
On August 17 2009 16:38 Lz wrote:
if schools can teach ppl about things as stupid as evolution then they can surely teach people about the Bible from a historical point of view.. you know the stuff our country was buildt on..
Evolution is an integral part of biology, if biology is to be taught then evolution has to be taught along with it. The bible pertains to creationism which is not another subject on it's own. Also the founders of America paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity, and believed above all, in a secular Government. It's absolutely pathetic that i, a non-American should be informing you about this. Please hang your head in shame good sir.
|
god bless america
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
