| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Iain" |
| Date: |
13 Dec 2003 10:21:25 AM |
| Object: |
"Teaching evolution" not an issue |
Firstly I'm going to re-emphasise the importance of education not only
to the governments who want to erode the educational system in the
name of ideology yet still want to benfit from scientific research,
but to freedom and justice itself. For example, in a court case, the
courts turn to scientific experts in the relevant fields for data and
information. These people reach their position through the national
education system, and justice itself often relies on scientific truth.
Tony Blair said himself that "science counts", as if he realises this,
yet how can he and the government and future governments expect to get
the benefits of scientific research if he allows the abolishion of the
whole of biological science? By this I am refering not to any
creationist inclinations of Blair, but more to his complacency in
allowing wazface cardealer person in setting up schools where
creationism can be taught. In a response to complaints by various
scientists, Blair visited the first of their colleges but I think they
put they're best faces on and he failed to see and real threat to
science.
Creationism hasn't been taught in UK science classes at all until now
for the obvious reason that science teachers can see for themselves
the fantasy and not one in their right mind would put it on the
curriculum, but there is no strict law here that states that only
observable scientific findings can be taught, or that myth and
speculation is taught for what it is.
Note that in a sense creationism has always been taught in schools in
RME classes where pupils learn about various world religions, without
anybody saying if they are right or wrong(this is like half an hour a
week by the way, no big deal)
I remember doing biology at high school(UK) and don't ever remember
being "taught evolution" as such. Ie there was no chapter on it for
example, BUT everything else we learned about biology implied that it
was a logical truth, and in that sense we learned it.
By teaching creationism alongside or instead of evolution, one is
asking teachers to to do the impossible. The reason for this is that
if you are going to make evolution look like anything other than
logical fact, one would have to overturn completely everything else we
have learned about biology which indicates that evolution is logical
fact.
The facts that offspring are different from their parents, the fossil
record, how different species interrelate, genetics, brain structure
and so on. Everything is connected with evolution in some way.
One cannot teach biology without "teaching evolution" for two reasons:
1) Evolution is the backbone of biological science. I would be like
teaching someone astrology without the subject matter of hydrogen or
vaccum.
2) The whole of biological science implies with enourmous weight that
evolution is the process behind it all.
3) It is absurd that Emmanuel-College style creationism is one of an
infinite number of possible myths one could imagine about the creation
of the world, yet the best thing one can possibly do is attempt to
take measurements from the real world in an unbiased manner and deduce
the truth whatever that is.
--
Iain
.
|
|
| User: "Roadrunner" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
14 Dec 2003 04:42:47 PM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6feb9a89.0312130826.6dc39323@posting.google.com...
Firstly I'm going to re-emphasise the importance of education not only
to the governments who want to erode the educational system in the
name of ideology yet still want to benfit from scientific research,
but to freedom and justice itself. For example, in a court case, the
courts turn to scientific experts in the relevant fields for data and
information. These people reach their position through the national
education system, and justice itself often relies on scientific truth.
Tony Blair said himself that "science counts", as if he realises this,
yet how can he and the government and future governments expect to get
the benefits of scientific research if he allows the abolishion of the
whole of biological science? By this I am refering not to any
creationist inclinations of Blair, but more to his complacency in
allowing wazface cardealer person in setting up schools where
creationism can be taught. In a response to complaints by various
scientists, Blair visited the first of their colleges but I think they
put they're best faces on and he failed to see and real threat to
science.
Creationism hasn't been taught in UK science classes at all until now
for the obvious reason that science teachers can see for themselves
the fantasy and not one in their right mind would put it on the
curriculum, but there is no strict law here that states that only
observable scientific findings can be taught, or that myth and
speculation is taught for what it is.
Note that in a sense creationism has always been taught in schools in
RME classes where pupils learn about various world religions, without
anybody saying if they are right or wrong(this is like half an hour a
week by the way, no big deal)
I remember doing biology at high school(UK) and don't ever remember
being "taught evolution" as such. Ie there was no chapter on it for
example, BUT everything else we learned about biology implied that it
was a logical truth, and in that sense we learned it.
By teaching creationism alongside or instead of evolution, one is
asking teachers to to do the impossible. The reason for this is that
if you are going to make evolution look like anything other than
logical fact, one would have to overturn completely everything else we
have learned about biology which indicates that evolution is logical
fact.
The facts that offspring are different from their parents, the fossil
record, how different species interrelate, genetics, brain structure
and so on. Everything is connected with evolution in some way.
One cannot teach biology without "teaching evolution" for two reasons:
1) Evolution is the backbone of biological science. I would be like
teaching someone astrology without the subject matter of hydrogen or
vaccum.
2) The whole of biological science implies with enourmous weight that
evolution is the process behind it all.
3) It is absurd that Emmanuel-College style creationism is one of an
infinite number of possible myths one could imagine about the creation
of the world, yet the best thing one can possibly do is attempt to
take measurements from the real world in an unbiased manner and deduce
the truth whatever that is.
The ignorance in all this literally amazes me. How brainwashed can one get?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
17 Dec 2003 01:34:12 AM |
|
|
"Jim Hutton" <atheist1696@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:brnj85$1sq$1@nntp.msstate.edu:
1) Evolution is the backbone of biological science. I would be
like teaching someone astrology without the subject matter of
hydrogen or vaccum.
ASTROLOGY?!?!?!
I don't know of *any* astrology class that includes anything about
hydrogen.
There are a lot of people who don't understand the difference between
astrology (a superstitious belief that the positions of the sun, moon and
planets affect everything from the price of tea to what you'll choose for
breakfast cereal) and astronomy (the study of the objects observed in the
sky--which is, let's face it, where MOST stuff is!).
No offence to America, but for a country that still has a state
religion (Roman Catholic), we seem to be streets ahead when dealing
RC?!>!?!?!
Christianity, maybe, but the protties left the croppie-choppers on the
outside in the US a long time ago.
So....Americka is largely ruled by heretics. This does not make their
heterodoxy into orthodoxy. Of course, Protestantism, in its more
virulent forms MUST try to claim that the Church (in any of its orthodox
forms) is apostate. Otherwise they would have no reason for not being IN
it!
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morbert" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
16 Dec 2003 09:45:05 AM |
|
|
"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message news:<uM5Db.42093$dP1.163658@newsc.telia.net>...
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6feb9a89.0312130826.6dc39323@posting.google.com...
Firstly I'm going to re-emphasise the importance of education not only
to the governments who want to erode the educational system in the
name of ideology yet still want to benfit from scientific research,
but to freedom and justice itself. For example, in a court case, the
courts turn to scientific experts in the relevant fields for data and
information. These people reach their position through the national
education system, and justice itself often relies on scientific truth.
Tony Blair said himself that "science counts", as if he realises this,
yet how can he and the government and future governments expect to get
the benefits of scientific research if he allows the abolishion of the
whole of biological science? By this I am refering not to any
creationist inclinations of Blair, but more to his complacency in
allowing wazface cardealer person in setting up schools where
creationism can be taught. In a response to complaints by various
scientists, Blair visited the first of their colleges but I think they
put they're best faces on and he failed to see and real threat to
science.
Creationism hasn't been taught in UK science classes at all until now
for the obvious reason that science teachers can see for themselves
the fantasy and not one in their right mind would put it on the
curriculum, but there is no strict law here that states that only
observable scientific findings can be taught, or that myth and
speculation is taught for what it is.
Note that in a sense creationism has always been taught in schools in
RME classes where pupils learn about various world religions, without
anybody saying if they are right or wrong(this is like half an hour a
week by the way, no big deal)
I remember doing biology at high school(UK) and don't ever remember
being "taught evolution" as such. Ie there was no chapter on it for
example, BUT everything else we learned about biology implied that it
was a logical truth, and in that sense we learned it.
By teaching creationism alongside or instead of evolution, one is
asking teachers to to do the impossible. The reason for this is that
if you are going to make evolution look like anything other than
logical fact, one would have to overturn completely everything else we
have learned about biology which indicates that evolution is logical
fact.
The facts that offspring are different from their parents, the fossil
record, how different species interrelate, genetics, brain structure
and so on. Everything is connected with evolution in some way.
One cannot teach biology without "teaching evolution" for two reasons:
1) Evolution is the backbone of biological science. I would be like
teaching someone astrology without the subject matter of hydrogen or
vaccum.
2) The whole of biological science implies with enourmous weight that
evolution is the process behind it all.
3) It is absurd that Emmanuel-College style creationism is one of an
infinite number of possible myths one could imagine about the creation
of the world, yet the best thing one can possibly do is attempt to
take measurements from the real world in an unbiased manner and deduce
the truth whatever that is.
The ignorance in all this literally amazes me. How brainwashed can one get?
No offence to America, but for a country that still has a state
religion (Roman Catholic), we seem to be streets ahead when dealing
with religion and Education. Religion is taught IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT
over here, like a culture. We deal with Christianity, Judaism, and
Islam all within proper context. Creation myths from Adam and Eve to
the Elephants on a Giant turtle are taught as juts that; Creation
myths and metaphors. And once again, not to sound offensive, but the
science education in primary/secondary schools over here has a much
more solid foundation, so brainwashing aint.
Road Runner, please think before you post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MEC" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
16 Dec 2003 02:02:15 PM |
|
|
(Morbert) wrote in message news:<d7fe20a0.0312160750.57d801a6@posting.google.com>...
<snippety-do-dah>
No offence to America, but for a country that still has a state
religion (Roman Catholic), we seem to be streets ahead when dealing
with religion and Education. Religion is taught IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT
over here, like a culture. We deal with Christianity, Judaism, and
Islam all within proper context. Creation myths from Adam and Eve to
the Elephants on a Giant turtle are taught as juts that; Creation
myths and metaphors. And once again, not to sound offensive, but the
science education in primary/secondary schools over here has a much
more solid foundation, so brainwashing aint.
Road Runner, please think before you post.
<I JUST know I'm going to regret delurking on this. *sigh* But I do so
love flames>
Maybe you should as well, Morbert.
I am not sure, but my guess is that you hail from Ireland (ref the
original post in this thread, snipped above for brevity's sake). In as
much as I hear this argument from Europhiles (or USA-o-phobes, anyway)
ALL the time, I thought you should have a look at some of the evidence
in support or not of your claim that the education of youth "over
there" has a "much more solid foundation". You'd expect, wouldn't you,
that a much better educational foundation would result in better
performance among students "over there" than we ignormasus here in the
US of A are capable of obtaining, right?
Assuming that things haven't changed dramatically since 2001, the
following countries performed worse than the U.S. students in reading
literacy.
Denmark
Switzerland
Spain
Czech Republic
Italy
Germany
Liechtenstein
Hungry
Poland
Greece
Portugal
Latvia
Luxemburg
Unless Miss Lussenger was lying to me in the sixth grade, all of these
are European countries
I will point out, however, that the European country that did the 2nd
best in reading literacy (and considerably better than the U.S.)
was....Ireland! Doesn't surprise me, though it may to certain sneering
Continental types who see Ireland as barely emerging from the third
world). I personally don't think it is a coincidence that some of the
finest writers in the English language come from Ireland.
See here; http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/27/2675457.pdf
Mathematical skills and scientific skills can be found here;
http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/9603071E.PDF (it is a HUGE
document, so be careful)
In mathematical expertise (Ha! You should see the test. Still, it is
for 15 year olds) the following ostensibly European countries did
worse than the US;
Germany
Hungry
Spain
Poland
Latvia
Portugal
Italy
Greece
Luxemburg
Bulgaria
Albania
The top performing European country was Finland. Ireland lost it's top
spot, though it was marginally better than the U.S. The difference
between the top performing European country Finland (536) and the U.S.
(493) represents a range of 5% on performance skills (maximum score
was 750). The U.S. score was within the mean of scores (493-503) and
represented the lower boundary of the mean. Do you think 5% difference
in performance on this test is significant, Morbert? I don't mean in a
statistical sense. I mean it in the
"much-better-foundation-in-education" sense?
What about scientific literacy? Well, according to this report, the
following European countries did worse than U.S. students;
Hungry
Iceland
Belgium
Switzerland
Spain
Germany
Poland
Denmark
Germany
Italy
Lichtenstein
Greece
Latvia
Portugal
Bulgaria
Luxemburg
Albania
The top performing European country in this regard was again Finland.
Irish student performed significantly better than U.S. students by
slightly better
than 2% (513 vs. 499). Finnish student performed better again by about
5% (538 vs. 499).
So Morbert, do you regard an academic performance by one group that is
about 5% better than another indicative of significantly worse
education system? Again, please note my waffling above on the meaning
of "signficant". Ignore all the other European countries that did
worse than the U.S. students in these tests. Just address this.
Oh, and as for the coming flames; have at me. I'm wearing my asbestos
undies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morbert" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
18 Dec 2003 06:49:35 AM |
|
|
(MEC) wrote in message news:<c240c53.0312161207.69b7c700@posting.google.com>...
kelso3002@yahoo.com (Morbert) wrote in message news:<d7fe20a0.0312160750.57d801a6@posting.google.com>...
<snippety-do-dah>
No offence to America, but for a country that still has a state
religion (Roman Catholic), we seem to be streets ahead when dealing
with religion and Education. Religion is taught IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT
over here, like a culture. We deal with Christianity, Judaism, and
Islam all within proper context. Creation myths from Adam and Eve to
the Elephants on a Giant turtle are taught as juts that; Creation
myths and metaphors. And once again, not to sound offensive, but the
science education in primary/secondary schools over here has a much
more solid foundation, so brainwashing aint.
Road Runner, please think before you post.
<I JUST know I'm going to regret delurking on this. *sigh* But I do so
love flames>
Maybe you should as well, Morbert.
I am not sure, but my guess is that you hail from Ireland (ref the
original post in this thread, snipped above for brevity's sake). In as
much as I hear this argument from Europhiles (or USA-o-phobes, anyway)
ALL the time, I thought you should have a look at some of the evidence
in support or not of your claim that the education of youth "over
there" has a "much more solid foundation". You'd expect, wouldn't you,
that a much better educational foundation would result in better
performance among students "over there" than we ignormasus here in the
US of A are capable of obtaining, right?
Assuming that things haven't changed dramatically since 2001, the
following countries performed worse than the U.S. students in reading
literacy.
Denmark
Switzerland
Spain
Czech Republic
Italy
Germany
Liechtenstein
Hungry
Poland
Greece
Portugal
Latvia
Luxemburg
Unless Miss Lussenger was lying to me in the sixth grade, all of these
are European countries
I will point out, however, that the European country that did the 2nd
best in reading literacy (and considerably better than the U.S.)
was....Ireland! Doesn't surprise me, though it may to certain sneering
Continental types who see Ireland as barely emerging from the third
world). I personally don't think it is a coincidence that some of the
finest writers in the English language come from Ireland.
Don't remind me... My english exam in secondary school was 7 hours
long. My hand was dead, but I got a good 30 pages written. Never
again... Never again...
<snip statistics>
So Morbert, do you regard an academic performance by one group that is
about 5% better than another indicative of significantly worse
education system? Again, please note my waffling above on the meaning
of "signficant". Ignore all the other European countries that did
worse than the U.S. students in these tests. Just address this.
Oh, and as for the coming flames; have at me. I'm wearing my asbestos
undies.
This really wasn't necessary. You seem to have inferred from my post
that I am saying Irish students are "better" at science than the U.S.
You obviously went to a great length to retrieve and type up the
information and statistics, but none of it really had anything to do
with my post to roadrunner. I shall explain...
The way we address science over "here" gives students a better
'appreciation' for what science is. The methods science uses and why
it uses them are repeatedly drilled into us, and at the end of every
year, students sit exams (about 8 questions long) that can last up to
2 1/2 hours for each field of science (Phys, Chem, Bio), plotting
graphs, mapping procedures, drawing diagrams, deriving laws etc (With
no multiple choice questions at all). And when you come out of the
fray, your left with a feeling for what science is. In essence, our
faces are rubbed into science so often and for such long periods that
we never forget its smell. Couple this with the relatively high
emphasis on the annual "Young Scientist Competiton" and you have a
pretty good foundation. So any type of pseudo-science introduced (ie
Intelligent design) would fall apart at its seams before a single book
is open. And if anyone even DREAMED of putting disclaimers in Biology
books, they would be beaten over the head with hurley sticks no less
than 3 billion times.
That was my point. I am not a "USA-o-phobe" and CERTAINLY not a
Europhile. I was simply pointing out to why the consistency of
science "over here" results in no brainwashing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mujin" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
18 Dec 2003 10:30:55 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:49:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Morbert) wrote:
In essence, our
faces are rubbed into science so often and for such long periods that
we never forget its smell.
This quotation, coming soon to an Ed Conrad post near you!
--
K
John Wilkes, and English politician noted for his firm
opposition to George III, was a man of courageous liberal
principles, but who led a personal life of great dissipation.
At one time, an opponent of Wilkes, shaking with rage at some
quip the latter had made, said to him, "Sir, I predict you
will die either on the gallows or of some loathsome disease."
To which Wilkes replied, "Which it will be depends entirely
on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sven Silow" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
17 Dec 2003 08:56:20 PM |
|
|
Insait long talk.origins, (MEC) em i bin raitim
dispela tingting:
But I do so love flames
Heh ;-)
You'd expect, wouldn't you, that a much better educational foundation
would result in better performance among students "over there" than
we ignormasus here in the US of A are capable of obtaining, right?
The tables you related to doesn't tell much about the education
systems. They tell far more about the socio-economial conditions of
the countries. For instance, the first sentences of the conclusions of
Chapter 7 reads:
"Home background influences educational success, and
socio-economic status may reinforce its effect. Although PISA
shows that poor performance in school is not automatically
related to a disadvantaged socio-economic background, it appears
to be one of the most powerful factors influencing performance on
the PISA reading, mathematical and scientific literacy scales."
Thus it seems obvious that unless you compensate for those factors the
placings of the countries on the lists tells you little, if anything,
about the school systems. (What do you think is the *main* reason that
Brazil and Mexico occupy the last places on all three lists?)
From p 191 (194 in the pdf-file):
"A School's available physical and human resources are factors
most closely associated with the quality of learning opportunities
at school."
Isn't there a connection between available physical and human
resources and the economical conditions of a country?
Thus, what you actually are telling us is *not* that the US system is
better than the systems of several European countries, but that there
are relatively poor countries in Europe (which is no news!). Hence,
however the European and US systems actually relate to each other,
what you presented is of very little relevance and by mis-using
statistics you can "show" whatever you want.
Actually, what the tables say is that the US scores *average* among
the OECD countries. This fact isn't very flattering, I think, if one
considers that the US spends second most money per student - which is
twice as much as Ireland, BTW... (Appendix B1, table 3.3, p 287[289])
And also note that Morbert said: "No offence to America, but for a
COUNTRY that still has a state religion (Roman Catholic)" [emphasis
mine]. I read "a country" as meaning 'Ireland', not 'Europe'.
Especially note that several European countries have no state religion
(I live in one of those) and of those that have, not all are RC.
Thus, if you include Bulgaria (which I actually can't find in the
original tables - but it makes the list longer [just like including
Germany twice]) in your lists on the Ireland side, you should include
Mexico on the US side as well.
Finally, I have more than a gut feeling that you don't know how to
spell the name of one of the European countries. [And, no Wilkins, no
jokes about Turkey, please.]
Sven
.
|
|
|
| User: "MEC" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
18 Dec 2003 10:29:34 AM |
|
|
(Sven Silow) wrote in message news:<3fe0d67f.5426265@news.algonet.se>...
Insait long talk.origins, (MEC) em i bin raitim
dispela tingting:
But I do so love flames
Heh ;-)
You'd expect, wouldn't you, that a much better educational foundation
would result in better performance among students "over there" than
we ignormasus here in the US of A are capable of obtaining, right?
The tables you related to doesn't tell much about the education
systems. They tell far more about the socio-economial conditions of
the countries. For instance, the first sentences of the conclusions of
Chapter 7 reads:
"Home background influences educational success, and
socio-economic status may reinforce its effect. Although PISA
shows that poor performance in school is not automatically
related to a disadvantaged socio-economic background, it appears
to be one of the most powerful factors influencing performance on
the PISA reading, mathematical and scientific literacy scales."
Thus it seems obvious that unless you compensate for those factors the
placings of the countries on the lists tells you little, if anything,
about the school systems. (What do you think is the *main* reason that
Brazil and Mexico occupy the last places on all three lists?)
I don't disagree with what you (and the study) say. Still, we're left
with the fact that America 15 year olds did pretty much as well as
most European countries in this study. I don't think you will ever be
able to construct a perfect study that takes into account all the
variables that affect the performance of all educational systems.
Morbert made a blanket statement about US education system, this study
provides evidence, such as it is, that those claims are not accurate
and are, as is typical with these kinds of claims, nothing more than a
knee-jerk spouting of a common myth.
Also, I was using the study to compare European countries to the U.S.
Mexico and Brazil are on different continents.
From p 191 (194 in the pdf-file):
"A School's available physical and human resources are factors
most closely associated with the quality of learning opportunities
at school."
Isn't there a connection between available physical and human
resources and the economical conditions of a country?
Yep. Are you saying that European countries are substantially
different than the U.S. in this regard?
Thus, what you actually are telling us is *not* that the US system is
better than the systems of several European countries, but that there
are relatively poor countries in Europe (which is no news!).
Germany, Italy, Denmark, Iceland, Belgium, and Switzerland are
relatively poor countries?!?
Hence,
however the European and US systems actually relate to each other,
what you presented is of very little relevance and by mis-using
statistics you can "show" whatever you want.
Ah. So then you have the studies which contradict this and which show
that other countries have a "much more solid foundation" in education
than the U.S.
Goodie. I'm all ears.
Actually, what the tables say is that the US scores *average* among
the OECD countries. This fact isn't very flattering, I think, if one
considers that the US spends second most money per student - which is
twice as much as Ireland, BTW... (Appendix B1, table 3.3, p 287[289])
Hey, I did not say that the U.S. system is better or even optimal. I'm
a product of the system. I *know* it isn't good. The smegging point is
that the U.S. educational system Is. Not. Worse.
In fact, I would argue that, to the limits of this study, there is
essentially no difference between the performance of 15 year old
students in the U.S. than most of the countries in Europe. One of
which, I presumed, has amongst its citizens, one Morbert of T.O.
posting fame.
And also note that Morbert said: "No offence to America, but for a
COUNTRY that still has a state religion (Roman Catholic)" [emphasis
mine]. I read "a country" as meaning 'Ireland', not 'Europe'.
You didn't actually read my post, did you, Sven. I wasn't sure since
Morbert didn't state it explicitly whether or not he was Irish. I
assumed he was since the thread began that way. In the interest of
heading off the inevitably stupid "I'm not Irish, I'm <insert country
here>, so your whole argument is poo-poo" line of rebuttal, I decided
to look at other candidate European countries. Many of those on the
list (I listed only those that did *worse* than the U.S.) are arguably
Roman Catholic, though few claim it as a state religion.
Especially note that several European countries have no state religion
(I live in one of those) and of those that have, not all are RC.
Well, duh. Though I can see how you thought I'd be confused about
that. After all, I'm from the U.S. and everyone knows we don't have no
good edumacational schools here.
Thus, if you include Bulgaria (which I actually can't find in the
original tables - but it makes the list longer [just like including
Germany twice]) in your lists on the Ireland side, you should include
Mexico on the US side as well.
Huh? What ARE you talking about?
Finally, I have more than a gut feeling that you don't know how to
spell the name of one of the European countries.
Ah. Spelling flames. How original.
[And, no Wilkins, no
jokes about Turkey, please.]
Sven
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sven Silow" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
21 Dec 2003 10:37:46 PM |
|
|
Insait long talk.origins, (MEC) em i bin raitim
dispela tingting:
I don't disagree with what you (and the study) say. Still, we're left
with the fact that America 15 year olds did pretty much as well as
most European countries in this study. I don't think you will ever be
able to construct a perfect study that takes into account all the
variables that affect the performance of all educational systems.
Morbert made a blanket statement about US education system, this study
provides evidence, such as it is, that those claims are not accurate
and are, as is typical with these kinds of claims, nothing more than a
knee-jerk spouting of a common myth.
Also, I was using the study to compare European countries to the U.S.
Mexico and Brazil are on different continents.
But Morbert didn't compare *European* countries with the US. He
compared *one* European country, specifically a country *with* a state
religion. Your comparsion with Bulgaria was thus as irrelevant as it
would have been to include Mexico (since when does Mexico belong to
South America?).
From p 191 (194 in the pdf-file):
"A School's available physical and human resources are factors
most closely associated with the quality of learning opportunities
at school."
Isn't there a connection between available physical and human
resources and the economical conditions of a country?
Yep. Are you saying that European countries are substantially
different than the U.S. in this regard?
Huh? What made you assume that? I said *a* country. Doesn't this imply
*any* country? Including the US. No?
Thus, what you actually are telling us is *not* that the US system is
better than the systems of several European countries, but that there
are relatively poor countries in Europe (which is no news!).
Germany, Italy, Denmark, Iceland, Belgium, and Switzerland are
relatively poor countries?!?
No. But those were not the only European countries that ranked below
US on the list. Some of them did "better" than the US (Iceland and
Belgium was ahead of the US on two of the three lists [according to
your listings - I won't download the study again; I'm on a 56k modem,
paying per minute, and thus offline for most of the time]. But
Albania, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Portugal... are not.
Hence,
however the European and US systems actually relate to each other,
what you presented is of very little relevance and by mis-using
statistics you can "show" whatever you want.
Ah. So then you have the studies which contradict this and which show
that other countries have a "much more solid foundation" in education
than the U.S.
Huh? Where did I say that. I said "however the European and US systems
actually relate to each other" (I guess I should have used 'regardless
of how' instead of 'however' - but English isn't my first language) by
which I mean that I *don't* know whether the European education system
is "better" or "worse" than the US. What I say is that your "study"
doesn't show anything anything on the matter either. Either my English
is reallay bad, or you have problems with understanding what you read.
Goodie. I'm all ears.
Actually, what the tables say is that the US scores *average* among
the OECD countries. This fact isn't very flattering, I think, if one
considers that the US spends second most money per student - which is
twice as much as Ireland, BTW... (Appendix B1, table 3.3, p 287[289])
Hey, I did not say that the U.S. system is better or even optimal. I'm
a product of the system. I *know* it isn't good. The smegging point is
that the U.S. educational system Is. Not. Worse.
In fact, I would argue that, to the limits of this study, there is
essentially no difference between the performance of 15 year old
students in the U.S. than most of the countries in Europe. One of
which, I presumed, has amongst its citizens, one Morbert of T.O.
posting fame.
And also note that Morbert said: "No offence to America, but for a
COUNTRY that still has a state religion (Roman Catholic)" [emphasis
mine]. I read "a country" as meaning 'Ireland', not 'Europe'.
You didn't actually read my post, did you, Sven.
Yes I did. I read it and made a comment on your generalisation of
Europe as a unit on the level of the US. A generalisation that quite
many Americans do. But Europe (and Africa, Asia...) is divided in
several *INDEPENDENT* states. (Some has given up some, but far from
all, of their independance to the EU - but that is quite another story
and it is of very recent origin).
I wasn't sure since
Morbert didn't state it explicitly whether or not he was Irish.
He didn't write "I'm Irish". (I think I'll have to add that I'm
Swedish). If you had wanted to be certain on where he comes from you
could do a whois on:
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.157.244.121
Which resolves to:
descr: St. Patricks's College
descr: Computer Center
descr: Maynooth, County Kildare
descr: Ireland
I assumed he was since the thread began that way.
As I showed above, you don't always have to assume what you aren't
directly told.
(I listed only those that did *worse* than the U.S.)
That is *one* way to present results. You don't think that you ought
to at least tell how many there was that did better?
Especially note that several European countries have no state religion
(I live in one of those) and of those that have, not all are RC.
Well, duh. Though I can see how you thought I'd be confused about
that. After all, I'm from the U.S. and everyone knows we don't have no
good edumacational schools here.
Thus, if you include Bulgaria (which I actually can't find in the
original tables - but it makes the list longer [just like including
Germany twice]) in your lists on the Ireland side, you should include
Mexico on the US side as well.
Huh? What ARE you talking about?
(Answered above, but:...) Because the conditions of the school system
of Bulgaria has as much to do with Ireland as the conditions of the
Mexican school system has to do with the US. (Without doubt most
conditions in Mexico has more to do with the US than the same
conditions in Bulgaria has to do with Ireland. Actually I guess that
most conditions also in Bulgaria has to do more with the US than with
Ireland.) Bulgaria is an independent country that happens to be on the
continent of Europe. But WTF does it have to do with the Irish school
systems?
Finally, I have more than a gut feeling that you don't know how to
spell the name of one of the European countries.
Ah. Spelling flames. How original.
It was not a *spelling* flame. To write the name of one of the
countries of Europe as "Hungry" (written so 3 out of 3 times) is not a
sign just of bad spelling.
Sven
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
17 Dec 2003 09:50:13 PM |
|
|
Sven Silow <poisoned@sdd.dart.se> wrote:
And also note that Morbert said: "No offence to America, but for a
COUNTRY that still has a state religion (Roman Catholic)" [emphasis
mine]. I read "a country" as meaning 'Ireland', not 'Europe'.
Especially note that several European countries have no state religion
(I live in one of those) and of those that have, not all are RC.
Thus, if you include Bulgaria (which I actually can't find in the
original tables - but it makes the list longer [just like including
Germany twice]) in your lists on the Ireland side, you should include
Mexico on the US side as well.
Similar slides in levels occur when people say that we see no evolution
above the species level because the (say) fruit flies are still fruit
flies - there are probably hundreds of fruit fly species (not to mention
at least two genera).
Finally, I have more than a gut feeling that you don't know how to
spell the name of one of the European countries. [And, no Wilkins, no
jokes about Turkey, please.]
You can talk. You misspelled Eire...
--
John Not Austria Wilkins - wilkins.id.au
[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? ...
must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Hutton" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
16 Dec 2003 12:29:37 PM |
|
|
1) Evolution is the backbone of biological science. I would be like
teaching someone astrology without the subject matter of hydrogen or
vaccum.
ASTROLOGY?!?!?!
I don't know of *any* astrology class that includes anything about hydrogen.
No offence to America, but for a country that still has a state
religion (Roman Catholic), we seem to be streets ahead when dealing
RC?!>!?!?!
Christianity, maybe, but the protties left the croppie-choppers on the
outside in the US a long time ago.
JH #1696
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noelie S. Alito" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
18 Dec 2003 11:30:22 AM |
|
|
"Jim Hutton" <atheist1696@hotmail.com> tap-danced in Morse Code:
1) Evolution is the backbone of biological science. I would be like
teaching someone astrology without the subject matter of hydrogen or
vaccum.
ASTROLOGY?!?!?!
I don't know of *any* astrology class that includes anything about hydrogen.
Hydrogen is a Sun Element. Those born under that Element have a
great Spiritual Capacity and are less influenced by their Star Sign....
No offence to America, but for a country that still has a state
religion (Roman Catholic), we seem to be streets ahead when dealing
RC?!>!?!?!
Christianity, maybe, but the protties left the croppie-choppers on the
outside in the US a long time ago.
He was remarking on Ireland having a state religion, and parenthetically
added that this state religion was Roman Catholicism. It was not a
comment on the current religious makeup of the USofA.
Noelie
--
"Rhyming with 'goalie' for over 43 years."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
16 Dec 2003 10:23:31 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:45:05 +0000 (UTC) the ET form known as
Morbert<kelso3002@yahoo.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
No offence to America, but for a country that still has a state
religion (Roman Catholic), we seem to be streets ahead when dealing
with religion and Education. Religion is taught IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT
over here, like a culture. We deal with Christianity, Judaism, and
Islam all within proper context. Creation myths from Adam and Eve to
the Elephants on a Giant turtle are taught as juts that; Creation
myths and metaphors. And once again, not to sound offensive, but the
science education in primary/secondary schools over here has a much
more solid foundation, so brainwashing aint.
Road Runner, please think before you post.
Which country r u posting from?
--
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
20 Dec 2003 12:35:04 PM |
|
|
"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message news:<uM5Db.42093$dP1.163658@newsc.telia.net>...
[original article snipped]
The ignorance in all this literally amazes me. How brainwashed can one get?
Once again your impotence in actually refuting material is noted.
Evolution has 140 years of evdience supporting the Theory. How much
evidence do you have supporting the existence of Jesus Christ,
miracle-working son of God, as depicted in the New Testament? Do you
accept his existence? Why do you do so with so little evidence, yet
scorn evolution which has so much?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
20 Dec 2003 08:12:38 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:30:55 +0000 (UTC), Mujin <baka@hornedking.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:49:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Morbert) wrote:
In essence, our
faces are rubbed into science so often and for such long periods that
we never forget its smell.
This quotation, coming soon to an Ed Conrad post near you!
--
K
John Wilkes, and English politician noted for his firm
opposition to George III, was a man of courageous liberal
principles, but who led a personal life of great dissipation.
At one time, an opponent of Wilkes, shaking with rage at some
quip the latter had made, said to him, "Sir, I predict you
will die either on the gallows or of some loathsome disease."
To which Wilkes replied, "Which it will be depends entirely
on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
The original had "the pox" instead of "some loathsome disease".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mujin" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
21 Dec 2003 03:51:39 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:12:38 +0000 (UTC), "Christopher A. Lee"
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:30:55 +0000 (UTC), Mujin <baka@hornedking.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:49:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Morbert) wrote:
In essence, our
faces are rubbed into science so often and for such long periods that
we never forget its smell.
This quotation, coming soon to an Ed Conrad post near you!
--
K
John Wilkes, and English politician noted for his firm
opposition to George III, was a man of courageous liberal
principles, but who led a personal life of great dissipation.
At one time, an opponent of Wilkes, shaking with rage at some
quip the latter had made, said to him, "Sir, I predict you
will die either on the gallows or of some loathsome disease."
To which Wilkes replied, "Which it will be depends entirely
on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
The original had "the pox" instead of "some loathsome disease".
Thanks. That'll teach me to quote mine <g>
--
K
"Anybody who watches three games of football in a row should be declared brain dead."
-- Erma Bombeck
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
14 Dec 2003 05:34:35 PM |
|
|
Roadrunner wrote:
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6feb9a89.0312130826.6dc39323@posting.google.com...
Firstly I'm going to re-emphasise the importance of education not only
to the governments who want to erode the educational system in the
name of ideology yet still want to benfit from scientific research,
but to freedom and justice itself. For example, in a court case, the
courts turn to scientific experts in the relevant fields for data and
information. These people reach their position through the national
education system, and justice itself often relies on scientific truth.
Tony Blair said himself that "science counts", as if he realises this,
yet how can he and the government and future governments expect to get
the benefits of scientific research if he allows the abolishion of the
whole of biological science? By this I am refering not to any
creationist inclinations of Blair, but more to his complacency in
allowing wazface cardealer person in setting up schools where
creationism can be taught. In a response to complaints by various
scientists, Blair visited the first of their colleges but I think they
put they're best faces on and he failed to see and real threat to
science.
Creationism hasn't been taught in UK science classes at all until now
for the obvious reason that science teachers can see for themselves
the fantasy and not one in their right mind would put it on the
curriculum, but there is no strict law here that states that only
observable scientific findings can be taught, or that myth and
speculation is taught for what it is.
Note that in a sense creationism has always been taught in schools in
RME classes where pupils learn about various world religions, without
anybody saying if they are right or wrong(this is like half an hour a
week by the way, no big deal)
I remember doing biology at high school(UK) and don't ever remember
being "taught evolution" as such. Ie there was no chapter on it for
example, BUT everything else we learned about biology implied that it
was a logical truth, and in that sense we learned it.
By teaching creationism alongside or instead of evolution, one is
asking teachers to to do the impossible. The reason for this is that
if you are going to make evolution look like anything other than
logical fact, one would have to overturn completely everything else we
have learned about biology which indicates that evolution is logical
fact.
The facts that offspring are different from their parents, the fossil
record, how different species interrelate, genetics, brain structure
and so on. Everything is connected with evolution in some way.
One cannot teach biology without "teaching evolution" for two reasons:
1) Evolution is the backbone of biological science. I would be like
teaching someone astrology without the subject matter of hydrogen or
vaccum.
2) The whole of biological science implies with enourmous weight that
evolution is the process behind it all.
3) It is absurd that Emmanuel-College style creationism is one of an
infinite number of possible myths one could imagine about the creation
of the world, yet the best thing one can possibly do is attempt to
take measurements from the real world in an unbiased manner and deduce
the truth whatever that is.
The ignorance in all this literally amazes me. How brainwashed can one get?
Brainwashed enough to think that humans contain body-snatching space
aliens led by a Galactic Emperor named Xenu?
Brainwashed enough to pay $10,000 to $15,000 to be "cleared" by a plain
old ordinary blood pressure machine?
Brainwashed enough to think that a third-rate sci-fi writer would know
anything about. . . . well. . . anything?
Brainwashed enough to think that making a big expensive movie starring
some cult members based on one of the more silly books written by this
third-rate sci-fi author was actually a GOOD idea?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roadrunner" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
15 Dec 2003 05:57:08 AM |
|
|
"Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message
news:3fdcf4b4$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
Roadrunner wrote:
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6feb9a89.0312130826.6dc39323@posting.google.com...
Firstly I'm going to re-emphasise the importance of education not only
to the governments who want to erode the educational system in the
name of ideology yet still want to benfit from scientific research,
but to freedom and justice itself. For example, in a court case, the
courts turn to scientific experts in the relevant fields for data and
information. These people reach their position through the national
education system, and justice itself often relies on scientific truth.
Tony Blair said himself that "science counts", as if he realises this,
yet how can he and the government and future governments expect to get
the benefits of scientific research if he allows the abolishion of the
whole of biological science? By this I am refering not to any
creationist inclinations of Blair, but more to his complacency in
allowing wazface cardealer person in setting up schools where
creationism can be taught. In a response to complaints by various
scientists, Blair visited the first of their colleges but I think they
put they're best faces on and he failed to see and real threat to
science.
Creationism hasn't been taught in UK science classes at all until now
for the obvious reason that science teachers can see for themselves
the fantasy and not one in their right mind would put it on the
curriculum, but there is no strict law here that states that only
observable scientific findings can be taught, or that myth and
speculation is taught for what it is.
Note that in a sense creationism has always been taught in schools in
RME classes where pupils learn about various world religions, without
anybody saying if they are right or wrong(this is like half an hour a
week by the way, no big deal)
I remember doing biology at high school(UK) and don't ever remember
being "taught evolution" as such. Ie there was no chapter on it for
example, BUT everything else we learned about biology implied that it
was a logical truth, and in that sense we learned it.
By teaching creationism alongside or instead of evolution, one is
asking teachers to to do the impossible. The reason for this is that
if you are going to make evolution look like anything other than
logical fact, one would have to overturn completely everything else we
have learned about biology which indicates that evolution is logical
fact.
The facts that offspring are different from their parents, the fossil
record, how different species interrelate, genetics, brain structure
and so on. Everything is connected with evolution in some way.
One cannot teach biology without "teaching evolution" for two reasons:
1) Evolution is the backbone of biological science. I would be like
teaching someone astrology without the subject matter of hydrogen or
vaccum.
2) The whole of biological science implies with enourmous weight that
evolution is the process behind it all.
3) It is absurd that Emmanuel-College style creationism is one of an
infinite number of possible myths one could imagine about the creation
of the world, yet the best thing one can possibly do is attempt to
take measurements from the real world in an unbiased manner and deduce
the truth whatever that is.
The ignorance in all this literally amazes me. How brainwashed can one
get?
Brainwashed enough to think that humans contain body-snatching space
aliens led by a Galactic Emperor named Xenu?
Is not the issue, I take up the subject on my homepage actually. What about
placing us in the 1900's, what about thinking we will be walking on the
moon. What did people say about that if you expressed that idea.
KNOW your history and how people behave with it.
Brainwashed enough to pay $10,000 to $15,000 to be "cleared" by a plain
old ordinary blood pressure machine?
'Blood pressure machine'? Never heard that version before. Do you have
enough money to buy a book? Then basically this will suffice also.
Brainwashed enough to think that a third-rate sci-fi writer would know
anything about. . . . well. . . anything?
3rd rate? Says who? sci-fi writer? Only about 30% was actually SF, the
rest were detective, love, cowboy, adventure etc stories. Do you research
properly.
Brainwashed enough to think that making a big expensive movie starring
some cult members based on one of the more silly books written by this
third-rate sci-fi author was actually a GOOD idea?
I personally did not think that was a good movie, few do actually.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
16 Dec 2003 01:57:13 PM |
|
|
"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
Is not the issue, I take up the subject on my homepage actually. What about
placing us in the 1900's, what about thinking we will be walking on the
moon. What did people say about that if you expressed that idea.
Ignorant people defiantly brayed their scorn at the idea, but educated
people knew it was just a matter of time.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
15 Dec 2003 07:50:28 PM |
|
|
Roadrunner wrote:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message
news:3fdcf4b4$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
Roadrunner wrote:
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6feb9a89.0312130826.6dc39323@posting.google.com...
Firstly I'm going to re-emphasise the importance of education not only
to the governments who want to erode the educational system in the
name of ideology yet still want to benfit from scientific research,
but to freedom and justice itself. For example, in a court case, the
courts turn to scientific experts in the relevant fields for data and
information. These people reach their position through the national
education system, and justice itself often relies on scientific truth.
Tony Blair said himself that "science counts", as if he realises this,
yet how can he and the government and future governments expect to get
the benefits of scientific research if he allows the abolishion of the
whole of biological science? By this I am refering not to any
creationist inclinations of Blair, but more to his complacency in
allowing wazface cardealer person in setting up schools where
creationism can be taught. In a response to complaints by various
scientists, Blair visited the first of their colleges but I think they
put they're best faces on and he failed to see and real threat to
science.
Creationism hasn't been taught in UK science classes at all until now
for the obvious reason that science teachers can see for themselves
the fantasy and not one in their right mind would put it on the
curriculum, but there is no strict law here that states that only
observable scientific findings can be taught, or that myth and
speculation is taught for what it is.
Note that in a sense creationism has always been taught in schools in
RME classes where pupils learn about various world religions, without
anybody saying if they are right or wrong(this is like half an hour a
week by the way, no big deal)
I remember doing biology at high school(UK) and don't ever remember
being "taught evolution" as such. Ie there was no chapter on it for
example, BUT everything else we learned about biology implied that it
was a logical truth, and in that sense we learned it.
By teaching creationism alongside or instead of evolution, one is
asking teachers to to do the impossible. The reason for this is that
if you are going to make evolution look like anything other than
logical fact, one would have to overturn completely everything else we
have learned about biology which indicates that evolution is logical
fact.
The facts that offspring are different from their parents, the fossil
record, how different species interrelate, genetics, brain structure
and so on. Everything is connected with evolution in some way.
One cannot teach biology without "teaching evolution" for two reasons:
1) Evolution is the backbone of biological science. I would be like
teaching someone astrology without the subject matter of hydrogen or
vaccum.
2) The whole of biological science implies with enourmous weight that
evolution is the process behind it all.
3) It is absurd that Emmanuel-College style creationism is one of an
infinite number of possible myths one could imagine about the creation
of the world, yet the best thing one can possibly do is attempt to
take measurements from the real world in an unbiased manner and deduce
the truth whatever that is.
The ignorance in all this literally amazes me. How brainwashed can one
get?
Brainwashed enough to think that humans contain body-snatching space
aliens led by a Galactic Emperor named Xenu?
Is not the issue, I take up the subject on my homepage actually. What about
placing us in the 1900's, what about thinking we will be walking on the
moon. What did people say about that if you expressed that idea.
KNOW your history and how people behave with it.
Brainwashed enough to pay $10,000 to $15,000 to be "cleared" by a plain
old ordinary blood pressure machine?
'Blood pressure machine'? Never heard that version before. Do you have
enough money to buy a book? Then basically this will suffice also.
Thanks for showing everyone that you really ARE as nutty as I say you are.
Make sure you tell your new Christian friends Uncle and Doctor all about
how wonderful L Ron Hubbard and the Scientologists are . . . . . .
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Pepke" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
14 Dec 2003 10:34:53 PM |
|
|
(Iain) wrote in message news:<6feb9a89.0312130826.6dc39323@posting.google.com>...
By this I am refering not to any
creationist inclinations of Blair, but more to his complacency in
allowing wazface cardealer person in setting up schools where
creationism can be taught. In a response to complaints by various
scientists, Blair visited the first of their colleges but I think they
put they're best faces on and he failed to see and real threat to
science.
First I've heard of this. Do you have a reference?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
15 Dec 2003 04:47:22 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 04:34:53 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Pepke)
wrote:
iain_inkster@hotmail.com (Iain) wrote in message news:<6feb9a89.0312130826.6dc39323@posting.google.com>...
By this I am refering not to any
creationist inclinations of Blair, but more to his complacency in
allowing wazface cardealer person in setting up schools where
creationism can be taught. In a response to complaints by various
scientists, Blair visited the first of their colleges but I think they
put they're best faces on and he failed to see and real threat to
science.
First I've heard of this. Do you have a reference?
http://education.guardian.co.uk/ofsted/story/0,7348,721588,00.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Thomas Grisham" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
15 Dec 2003 09:06:26 AM |
|
|
(Iain) wrote in message news:<6feb9a89.0312130826.6dc39323@posting.google.com>...
Firstly I'm going to re-emphasise the importance of education not only
to the governments who want to erode the educational system in the
name of ideology yet still want to benfit from scientific research,
but to freedom and justice itself. For example, in a court case, the
courts turn to scientific experts in the relevant fields for data and
information. These people reach their position through the national
education system, and justice itself often relies on scientific truth.
Tony Blair said himself that "science counts", as if he realises this,
yet how can he and the government and future governments expect to get
the benefits of scientific research if he allows the abolishion of the
whole of biological science? By this I am refering not to any
creationist inclinations of Blair, but more to his complacency in
allowing wazface cardealer person in setting up schools where
creationism can be taught. In a response to complaints by various
scientists, Blair visited the first of their colleges but I think they
put they're best faces on and he failed to see and real threat to
science.
Creationism hasn't been taught in UK science classes at all until now
for the obvious reason that science teachers can see for themselves
the fantasy and not one in their right mind would put it on the
curriculum, but there is no strict law here that states that only
observable scientific findings can be taught, or that myth and
speculation is taught for what it is.
Note that in a sense creationism has always been taught in schools in
RME classes where pupils learn about various world religions, without
anybody saying if they are right or wrong(this is like half an hour a
week by the way, no big deal)
I remember doing biology at high school(UK) and don't ever remember
being "taught evolution" as such. Ie there was no chapter on it for
example, BUT everything else we learned about biology implied that it
was a logical truth, and in that sense we learned it.
By teaching creationism alongside or instead of evolution, one is
asking teachers to to do the impossible. The reason for this is that
if you are going to make evolution look like anything other than
logical fact, one would have to overturn completely everything else we
have learned about biology which indicates that evolution is logical
fact.
The facts that offspring are different from their parents, the fossil
record, how different species interrelate, genetics, brain structure
and so on. Everything is connected with evolution in some way.
One cannot teach biology without "teaching evolution" for two reasons:
1) Evolution is the backbone of biological science. I would be like
teaching someone astrology without the subject matter of hydrogen or
vaccum.
2) The whole of biological science implies with enourmous weight that
evolution is the process behind it all.
3) It is absurd that Emmanuel-College style creationism is one of an
infinite number of possible myths one could imagine about the creation
of the world, yet the best thing one can possibly do is attempt to
take measurements from the real world in an unbiased manner and deduce
the truth whatever that is.
Tony Blair is a politician. A politician is not a scientist. A
politician is not a theologian. A politician is not an educator. A
politician facilitates power between groups and individuals.
There are groups that see no conflict between religion and science or
between theology and technology. This is based on the experience of
the 20th century. For most of that century devout religious beliefs
went hand-in-hand with the developements in science. When some people
insist that relationship cannot continue to exist (in their mind), it
offends those who see no conflict and forces a reactionry response
(Creationism). If they failed to respond, their fear is that the
discipline of atheism will corrupt all spiritual enlightenment.
Therefore, they appeal for a political solution to deal with the
present trend in the loss of spiritual commitment.
To summarize, Creationism is a socio-political response to what is
perceived as atheism dictating the emphasis of science.
JTG 12/15/03
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
15 Dec 2003 05:42:41 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:06:26 +0000 (UTC), (John
Thomas Grisham) wrote:
There are groups that see no conflict between religion and science or
between theology and technology. This is based on the experience of
the 20th century. For most of that century devout religious beliefs
went hand-in-hand with the developements in science. When some people
insist that relationship cannot continue to exist (in their mind), it
offends those who see no conflict and forces a reactionry response
(Creationism). If they failed to respond, their fear is that the
discipline of atheism will corrupt all spiritual enlightenment.
Therefore, they appeal for a political solution to deal with the
present trend in the loss of spiritual commitment.
To summarize, Creationism is a socio-political response to what is
perceived as atheism dictating the emphasis of science.
Which is remarkably stupid of the people making that "socio-political
response" because (a) atheism is doing no such thing, and (b) science
and atheism have nothing to do with each other.
JTG 12/15/03
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
13 Dec 2003 06:26:36 PM |
|
|
Iain <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
Firstly I'm going to re-emphasise the importance of education not only
to the governments who want to erode the educational system in the
name of ideology yet still want to benfit from scientific research,
but to freedom and justice itself. For example, in a court case, the
courts turn to scientific experts in the relevant fields for data and
information. These people reach their position through the national
education system, and justice itself often relies on scientific truth.
Tony Blair said himself that "science counts", as if he realises this,
yet how can he and the government and future governments expect to get
the benefits of scientific research if he allows the abolishion of the
whole of biological science? By this I am refering not to any
creationist inclinations of Blair, but more to his complacency in
allowing wazface cardealer person in setting up schools where
creationism can be taught. In a response to complaints by various
scientists, Blair visited the first of their colleges but I think they
put they're best faces on and he failed to see and real threat to
science.
Creationism hasn't been taught in UK science classes at all until now
for the obvious reason that science teachers can see for themselves
the fantasy and not one in their right mind would put it on the
curriculum, but there is no strict law here that states that only
observable scientific findings can be taught, or that myth and
speculation is taught for what it is.
Note that in a sense creationism has always been taught in schools in
RME classes where pupils learn about various world religions, without
anybody saying if they are right or wrong(this is like half an hour a
week by the way, no big deal)
I remember doing biology at high school(UK) and don't ever remember
being "taught evolution" as such. Ie there was no chapter on it for
example, BUT everything else we learned about biology implied that it
was a logical truth, and in that sense we learned it.
By teaching creationism alongside or instead of evolution, one is
asking teachers to to do the impossible. The reason for this is that
if you are going to make evolution look like anything other than
logical fact, one would have to overturn completely everything else we
have learned about biology which indicates that evolution is logical
fact.
The facts that offspring are different from their parents, the fossil
record, how different species interrelate, genetics, brain structure
and so on. Everything is connected with evolution in some way.
One cannot teach biology without "teaching evolution" for two reasons:
1) Evolution is the backbone of biological science. I would be like
teaching someone astrology without the subject matter of hydrogen or
vaccum.
2) The whole of biological science implies with enourmous weight that
evolution is the process behind it all.
3) It is absurd that Emmanuel-College style creationism is one of an
infinite number of possible myths one could imagine about the creation
of the world, yet the best thing one can possibly do is attempt to
take measurements from the real world in an unbiased manner and deduce
the truth whatever that is.
--
Iain
I fully agree with you - the issue is not the teaching of a religiously
inspired view, so much as the loss of the scientific attitude in wider
education. Lose that, and you lose the foundation for the science and
disciplines that rely on it, such as engineering and computing, in your
nation, and hence will have to import science or try to catch up late in
the day. And doing that puts your nation at a disadvantage relative to
those nations that do teach it young. Eventually, it is going to cost
you.
But science is an international thing too - if a nation that was once a
scientific powerhouse such as the US, UK, Germany or Russia gives in to
special interest groups such as creationists or Greens or other
antiscience folk (yes, that was deliberate), then the whole of science
is lessened. Apart from the loss of infrastructure to the disciplines
concerned, there is a need to rebuild the training networks elsewhere to
replace the ones lost.
And different nations put different emphases on aspects of science -
some are hardworking primary researchers, some are conceptual (i.e.,
theoretical and mathematical), and some are synthetic, bringing together
what others have done. While every scientific nation has to include all
of science to be able to do it, different cultures offer different
strengths (such as the Chinese in paleontology right now). Lose one
nation to ignorance and we are all the worse for it.
So fight Blair's indifference and Bush's ignorance and both sorts of
pandering to lobbies of religion. Or else we can expect our
grandchildren to be comfortably ensconsed in state of the art late
medieval huts...
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
14 Dec 2003 03:21:09 AM |
|
|
In article <6feb9a89.0312130826.6dc39323@posting.google.com>,
(Iain) wrote:
Firstly I'm going to re-emphasise the importance of education not only
to the governments who want to erode the educational system in the
name of ideology yet still want to benfit from scientific research,
but to freedom and justice itself. For example, in a court case, the
courts turn to scientific experts in the relevant fields for data and
information. These people reach their position through the national
education system, and justice itself often relies on scientific truth.
Tony Blair said himself that "science counts", as if he realises this,
yet how can he and the government and future governments expect to get
the benefits of scientific research if he allows the abolishion of the
whole of biological science? By this I am refering not to any
creationist inclinations of Blair, but more to his complacency in
allowing wazface cardealer person in setting up schools where
creationism can be taught. In a response to complaints by various
scientists, Blair visited the first of their colleges but I think they
put they're best faces on and he failed to see and real threat to
science.
Creationism hasn't been taught in UK science classes at all until now
for the obvious reason that science teachers can see for themselves
the fantasy and not one in their right mind would put it on the
curriculum, but there is no strict law here that states that only
observable scientific findings can be taught, or that myth and
speculation is taught for what it is.
Note that in a sense creationism has always been taught in schools in
RME classes where pupils learn about various world religions, without
anybody saying if they are right or wrong(this is like half an hour a
week by the way, no big deal)
I remember doing biology at high school(UK) and don't ever remember
being "taught evolution" as such. Ie there was no chapter on it for
example, BUT everything else we learned about biology implied that it
was a logical truth, and in that sense we learned it.
By teaching creationism alongside or instead of evolution, one is
asking teachers to to do the impossible. The reason for this is that
if you are going to make evolution look like anything other than
logical fact, one would have to overturn completely everything else we
have learned about biology which indicates that evolution is logical
fact.
That would not only be impossible, but dishonest. Creationism is not
science. It is not based on observable fact. To present Creationsism,
or its offspring Intelligient Design, as science would be to lie.
The facts that offspring are different from their parents, the fossil
record, how different species interrelate, genetics, brain structure
and so on. Everything is connected with evolution in some way.
One cannot teach biology without "teaching evolution" for two reasons:
1) Evolution is the backbone of biological science. I would be like
teaching someone astrology without the subject matter of hydrogen or
vaccum.
I take it that you meant 'astronomy'.
2) The whole of biological science implies with enourmous weight that
evolution is the process behind it all.
3) It is absurd that Emmanuel-College style creationism is one of an
infinite number of possible myths one could imagine about the creation
of the world, yet the best thing one can possibly do is attempt to
take measurements from the real world in an unbiased manner and deduce
the truth whatever that is.
I agree with all of the above. Teach modern biological theory,
including evolution, in the science class and religion in the churches
or the theological seminaries.
--
Iain
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
- Question authority. Now more than ever. -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Xaonon" |
|
| Title: Re: "Teaching evolution" not an issue |
13 Dec 2003 08:05:17 PM |
|
|
Ned i bach <6feb9a89.0312130826.6dc39323@posting.google.com>, Iain
<iain_inkster@hotmail.com> teithant i thiw hin:
1) Evolution is the backbone of biological science. I would be like
teaching someone astrology without the subject matter of hydrogen or
vaccum.
A fortuitous typo---it occurs to me that the relationship between astrology
and real astronomy is a lot like that between creationism and real biology!
--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
http://xaonon.dyndns.org/ Guaranteed content-free since 1999. No refunds.
"If I ever get to Heaven and it's filled with happy dancing clam strips, I
will find that disturbing and ask to leave." -- James "Kibo" Parry
.
|
|
|
