GOP may have Rush, Hannity and Levin moderate debates...

[arnisador]

Right god gave kids a brain also. And totally ignoring a belief held by millions of people and pretending it doesn't exist is silly. I got no problem teaching eveloution as the main topic but I also have no problem with then talking about other beliefs on the topic. thats the real ignorance

Full agreement! But there are more alternatives than Christian creationism, and lots of "belief held by millions of people". I absolutely endorse teaching them all in a comparative religions or mythology class--you're not educated unless you know this.

 

[arnisador]

Your already teaching the subject in that class. So now the teacher says I'm teaching you one part of this but next semester in a totally different class you can learn other beliefs on the topic. Its easier to go over it all at once while they are teaching the topic.

We may disagree about what the topic is. If it's a science class, the methodology of science as much as the facts are the subject, and nonscientific approaches are off-topic. It's a Shinto belief that the islands of Japan were formed by a god and goddess dragging a giant sword through the sea (if memory serves)--would you want that taught in a geology class?

 

[arnisador]

So no unproven theory is ever taught in science class?

At the high school level? Not likely. But if so it would be addressed from a scientific perspective.

 

[Flying Crane]

Ok if sxience is correct then where did we come from? Prove we were not created by God. Prove that evolution is not slight tweeks made by God to keep up with an ever changing universe.

it's certainly possible, but utterly unprovable.

Evolution has reams and reams of evidence, all pointing to evolution as a viable description of what happens in the world. Evidence that is observable and measurable. Whether or not god or odin or quetzocoatl put the gears in motion for evolution to happen, is not observable, not measurable, and had no concrete evidence to support it. It only has a book, the components of which were written a few thousand years ago, not by scientists, not by people who measured or observed anything that can be stacked up as solid evidence.

So if you challenge us to "prove" that god did not initiate evolution, I challenge you to prove that god did.

For schools it has nothing to do with scientific method and everything to do what whats PC.

no, this is a statement of someone who does not understand the issue, and is steadfastly clinging tight to a sinking ship.

I agree with Steve in that there is nothing wrong with teaching religion in schools, as long as it is taught separately and honestly, as religion. Not as science, or as a viable alternative "theory" to science. That is being dishonest.

 

[ballen0351]

Full agreement! But there are more alternatives than Christian creationism, and lots of "belief held by millions of people". I absolutely endorse teaching them all in a comparative religions or mythology class--you're not educated unless you know this.

I just think that's too complicated and confusing it have different teachers teaching the same topic. If your already on the topic in one class then it is just easier to teach the topic completely in that class at that time.
I don't care if they teach 4 days of eveloution and on Friday say here are a few other versions of the story. I wouldn't get too extream on beliefs but 2 or 3 most popular is OK with me.

 

[arnisador]

Difference is you can prove 2+2=4.

Dude. This is my area and you do not know what you're talking about. If you mean via the Peano axioms or ZFC, plausibly, though of course incompletely; but:

"From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1+1=2." —Volume I, 1st edition, page 379

It took them over 300 pages to not quite prove that 1+1=2...and there are errors as early as pg.2. And this was Bertrand Russell (and Alfred North Whitehead).

Can you Prove there is no God? You don't believe that's fine I don't care but thereare hundreds of millions of people that do. I don't believe in God I know for a fact he exists. I don't see what's it hurts giving two sides to something that you can't prove and letting the kids decide.

Again, there are many more sides than two. Do you know anything about Native American origin myths?

 

[arnisador]

Did he teach it as fact or did he teach it as alternative popular belief shared by billions around the world but not scientifically excepted.

Where do we draw the line on teaching non-science in science classes? If he was teaching Shakespeare in science I'd be unhappy too...not enough time is given to science as is, I'd say.

I got no problem teaching both.

There's more than two. Are you excluding Hinduism?

 

[arnisador]

I tried to answer both your post in one. I'm on my phone so its hard to respond to long posts on my phone. I disagree with teaching the same topic in two different classes. If your talking about where did man come from then you teach evolution and then you teach other widly excepted theory. Preface it with whatever disclaimer makes the oh my God g word in school crowd thinks is appropriate. But teaching the same topic in two different classes is a waist of time and energy and confusing to kids. Yes Mr jones I know what you taught but Mrs Murphy said this in social studies.

It's been said that nothing in science makes sense except in light of evolution. What you see as a natural tie-in, I'd say is a failure to tie together evolution with all the rest of bio. with which it connects. That's the thread you'd lose with this seque.

Ok if sxience is correct then where did we come from? Prove we were not created by God.

Whose god? There are too many. But it doesn't matter if science is correct,a s you put it--it matters that we teach students the methods of any given approach. Would you want a biologist lecturing on evolution in your church?

 

[ballen0351]

it's certainly possible, but utterly unprovable.

Evolution has reams and reams of evidence, all pointing to evolution as a viable description of what happens in the world. Evidence that is observable and measurable. Whether or not god or odin or quetzocoatl put the gears in motion for evolution to happen, is not observable, not measurable, and no concrete evidence to support it. It only has a book, the components of which were written a few thousand years ago, not by scientists, not by people who measured or observed anything that can be stacked up as solid evidence.

So if you challenge us to "prove" that god did not initiate evolution, I challenge you to prove that god did.

Your very existence is proof. The sun rise is proof. Love is proof. The perfect combination of temp air water is proof. What is more reasonable. That version or yeah well two blobs of goo in a puddle 1000000000 years ago figured out how if one blob formed a lenses and one formed a retina they can transform light into sight. Oh and then more blobs decided to become a lung and figures out how to transfer air into oxygen in your blood. Oh and then the bloob of goo decided skin would be cool oh and hair is neat. Even Darwin had trouble coming up with why or how the eye was "evolved". To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
His answer was well I have no proof it evolved but it just did. So just as you claim we have "faith". So do you in your faith that all these bloobs of goo formed just the right combination to where we are now

no, this is a statement of someone who does not understand the issue, and is steadfastly clinging tight to a sinking ship.

I agree with Steve in that there is nothing wrong with teaching religion in schools, as long as it is taught separately and honestly, as religion. Not as science, or as a viable alternative "theory" to science. That is being dishonest.

And I disagree it is what it is

 

[ballen0351]

It's been said that nothing in science makes sense except in light of evolution. What you see as a natural tie-in, I'd say is a failure to tie together evolution with all the rest of bio. with which it connects. That's the thread you'd lose with this seque.



Whose god? There are too many. But it doesn't matter if science is correct,a s you put it--it matters that we teach students the methods of any given approach. Would you want a biologist lecturing on evolution in your church?

Why would a biologist lecture in church? That's not his place. A school however is a place to learn and be taught.

 

[billc]

Then teach the theory of intelligent design...that doesn't have to be religious in nature.

 

[ballen0351]

Dude. This is my area and you do not know what you're talking about. If you mean via the Peano axioms or ZFC, plausibly, though of course incompletely; but:



It took them over 300 pages to not quite prove that 1+1=2...and there are errors as early as pg.2. And this was Bertrand Russell (and Alfred North Whitehead).



Again, there are many more sides than two. Do you know anything about Native American origin myths?

Do I need too? I believe there is only one God. I believe its the same God for all we just call him by different names and worship him different ways. So the native american God is the same as the Christian God which is the same as the Muslim God. Where the difference happened is when people got involved in the mix and messed up the message

 

[Steve]

I tried to answer both your post in one. I'm on my phone so its hard to respond to long posts on my phone. I disagree with teaching the same topic in two different classes. If your talking about where did man come from then you teach evolution and then you teach other widly excepted theory. Preface it with whatever disclaimer makes the oh my God g word in school crowd thinks is appropriate. But teaching the same topic in two different classes is a waist of time and energy and confusing to kids. Yes Mr jones I know what you taught but Mrs Murphy said this in social studies.

There's the disconnect, ballen. They're not the same subject. One is a scientific theory, and the other is a religious belief. One belongs in a classroom and the other belongs in a church, or at the very least, one in a science class and the other in a religion class.

Ok if sxience is correct then where did we come from? Prove we were not created by God. Prove that evolution is not slight tweeks made by God to keep up with an ever changing universe.

"Science" isn't correct or incorrect. Science is a method of inquiry in which we study and we test and form educated guesses which are further tested, which lead to conclusions which are then tested and built upon. The scientific method gave us every single advancement we currently enjoy, including the phone you are posting your messages on. Science classes are about the things we know and the things we think we know, and the strength (not weakness) of science is that everything is subject to change if new evidence is discovered. That's the difference. Religion is about believing and having faith. Science is about questioning and being convinced.

For schools it has nothing to do with scientific method and everything to do what whats PC.

I'm sorry your kids go to ****** schools like that, ballen. That sucks. But, I don't agree that it's PC to distinguish between science and religion. Science is an appropriate topic for a science class. Religion is an appropriate topic for a religion class. Multiple choice question:

Politics would be appropriate in which class?
A: Biology class
B: Introduction to Theism class
C: Political Science class

Good for you guys glad you get to spend time with your son

Ha. I presume you are missing the point intentionally. But, thanks. Are you unable to spend time with your son? You make it sound like you don't, and if so, I genuinely am sorry for that.

 

[Flying Crane]

Your very existence is proof. The sun rise is proof. Love is proof. The perfect combination of temp air water is proof. What is more reasonable. That version or yeah well two blobs of goo in a puddle 1000000000 years ago figured out how if one blob formed a lenses and one formed a retina they can transform light into sight. Oh and then more blobs decided to become a lung and figures out how to transfer air into oxygen in your blood. Oh and then the bloob of goo decided skin would be cool oh and hair is neat. Even Darwin had trouble coming up with why or how the eye was "evolved". To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
His answer was well I have no proof it evolved but it just did. So just as you claim we have "faith". So do you in your faith that all these bloobs of goo formed just the right combination to where we are now

this is only proof that we exist. Nothing connects it to a supreme creator/god/odin/zeus/ etc. That is your leap of faith, which is not proof, nor even evidence.

 

[Flying Crane]

Why would a biologist lecture in church? That's not his place. A school however is a place to learn and be taught.

why would someone teach religion in a science class? that's not his place. A science class is a place to study and learn about science and the scientific method. Not a place to learn about religion.

 

[Flying Crane]

Then teach the theory of intelligent design...that doesn't have to be religious in nature.

it's very nature IS religious. Again, it's not science. Teach it in religion class. It has no place in a science class.

 

[ballen0351]

this is only proof that we exist. Nothing connects it to a supreme creator/god/odin/zeus/ etc. That is your leap of faith, which is not proof, nor even evidence.

So what about your leap of faith that a bloob of goo in a pond "evolved" into humans

 

[billc]

Teach the aspects of intelligent design that show the problems with the "theory," of evolution...the human eye example is very popular...and you don't have to mention a deity...teaching evolution as gospel...that is a problem...

 

[ballen0351]

why would someone teach religion in a science class? that's not his place. A science class is a place to study and learn about science and the scientific method. Not a place to learn about religion.

Well again we disagree and now we are going round and round so ...............

 

[ballen0351]

Ha. I presume you are missing the point intentionally. But, thanks. Are you unable to spend time with your son? You make it sound like you don't, and if so, I genuinely am sorry for that.

Didn't know you were trying to make a point. I spend plenty of time with my family. I'm watching my sons football practice right now. He's the starting running back this year and he is running people over. I'm pretty impressed