PDA

View Full Version : Score one for critical thought.



Doodler
2005-May-24, 07:17 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7963494/

Cobb County is scraping the evolution disclaimer stickers off. The parents who sued on the grounds of separation of church and state violations won this round.

:)

Russ
2005-May-24, 08:08 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7963494/

Cobb County is scraping the evolution disclaimer stickers off. The parents who sued on the grounds of separation of church and state violations won this round.

:)

They may have won this round but you can never over estimate the influence of stupidity. :(

Glom
2005-May-25, 03:30 PM
I suggest a new sticker program:

"This book contains material on creationism. Creationism is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

We should stick them on Bibles. That would make a true compromise.

Candy
2005-May-25, 05:43 PM
My mind is so caught in the middle. I'm sorry. :-?

Swift
2005-May-25, 06:25 PM
I suggest a new sticker program:

"This book contains material on creationism. Creationism is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

We should stick them on Bibles. That would make a true compromise.
I'm pretty sure you are making a joke. But if I want to wordsmith, I would say that creationism is not a theory.

Theory - A hypothesis that has withstood extensive testing by a variety of methods, and in which a higher degree of certainty may be placed. A theory is NEVER a fact, but instead is an attempt to explain one or more facts.
LINK (http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookglossT.html)
What testing has creationism withstood? The only high degree of certainty is in the minds of its Believers.

Glom
2005-May-25, 06:27 PM
Well my idea is more diplomatic.

mutant
2005-May-25, 06:30 PM
We must be politically correct which means we can offend no one. Which basically means the ignorant people win.

Moose
2005-May-25, 06:43 PM
I suggest a new sticker program:

"This book contains material on creationism. Creationism is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

We should stick them on Bibles. That would make a true compromise.

This would be more accurate: "This book contains material on creationism. Creationism is a hypothesis, not a theory, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, tested rigorously, and critically considered."

The Supreme Canuck
2005-May-25, 06:52 PM
Heck, why not: "This book contains theories and hypothesises. They should be examined carefully and judged upon their merits alone."

Crazieman
2005-May-25, 07:41 PM
Evolution IS a theory.

Whats wrong with a sticker?

To say otherwise is completely silly.

The rampant christophobia is what compells people to go insane and demand that evolution be treated as the gospel truth rather than a well supported theory.

Gullible Jones
2005-May-25, 07:45 PM
I think the problem isn't the "theory" in "only a theory", but the "only". People confuse well-founded theories and barely supported hypotheses way to often.

Musashi
2005-May-25, 07:49 PM
The problem is the intent and implications of the sticker. The sticker itself seems to be pretty good at sticking (heh) to the truth while implying something else entirely.

The real problem is, who benefits from the sticker? Shouldn't everything be read critically? So, why point it out?

Look, my feeling is, if someone wants to learn about ID or Creationism or Christ or Allah or Shiva, it is simple. Go to a church/temple/mosque/monastery, etc. It does not need to be taught in public school. There is no room for religion in the cirriculum. I mean, what classes do you replace in order to make room for the compartive religion class(es)? Should we get rid of chemistry? Biology? Physics? Math? So, my feeling is, there is already places to learn about religion. They are free and easily accessible. Why does it need to be in public schools?

publiusr
2005-May-25, 07:55 PM
The sticker is a compromise. With that gone something drastically worse could be in the maker.

No one will read the sticker like no one reads the acknowledgements

Glom
2005-May-25, 08:07 PM
Why does it need to be in public schools?

Because it is important to learn about other cultures.

Musashi
2005-May-25, 08:24 PM
Learning other cultures is fine, that is what history classes are for. Learning other religions instead of learning history/math/science/literature is silly.

mwill
2005-May-25, 08:26 PM
Not in a biology class it isn't. Anyhow, the creatinist standpoint has nothing to do with any culture. It's a non-empirical standpoint, which does not belong in a empircal field. [-X

And like has been said it's the "only" part of the only a theory that's so irritating. For crying out loud existance, conciousness, and reality are "only a theory" because you cannot deduce them deductively.

Van Rijn
2005-May-25, 08:43 PM
Evolution IS a theory.

Whats wrong with a sticker?

To say otherwise is completely silly.


The label statement is:


“This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

The problem is definitions. The terms as used in the label are not defined, and you can spend days arguing the definition of the word "fact." If you are going to say that evolution is a theory BUT NOT a fact, I want to see how you define the terms. At the same time, it should be noted that essentially all the technology that supports our society is based on one theory or another. Our lives are based on theory, and all scientific material - not just evolution - should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.




The rampant christophobia is what compells people to go insane and demand that evolution be treated as the gospel truth rather than a well supported theory.

That's just it: Science doesn't deal with "gospel truth." It is based on logic and objective evidence. But I'm quite willing to forego the whole "fact" argument. I see that as a waste of time. Rather, let's provide the students with some real information on the scientific method, not just a page of definitions. Then we should point out that evolution is an extremely well supported theory literally based on mountains of evidence and there are no credible scientific alternatives.

JohnW
2005-May-25, 08:50 PM
Evolution IS a theory.

Whats wrong with a sticker?

To say otherwise is completely silly.

The rampant christophobia is what compells people to go insane and demand that evolution be treated as the gospel truth rather than a well supported theory.
What's wrong with a sticker? Nothing, as long as EVERY school textbook comes with a similar sticker. Singling out evolution for special treatment implies that evolution is less "true" and less "scientific" than all the other subjects taught in science class. Do you think this is the case?

Swift
2005-May-25, 10:16 PM
Why does it need to be in public schools?

Because it is important to learn about other cultures.
Actually, I would have no problem if comparative religion was taught in public schools, as maybe part of the social studies program.
(I don't know if they have "social studies" in Europe. It includes history, economics, what used to be called "civics").
It doesn't even need to "compare" them, in the sense "mine is better". Have reps from various religious and cultural groups talk about what things are like for them. Make sure you hit all the big ones and throw in Shinto and Greek Mythology and whatever to round it out. I think it would be a great class.

But IMHO it is wrong to teach one particular religion's (or even a subset of that religion, depending on how you define christian) creation beliefs in science class.

The Supreme Canuck
2005-May-25, 10:21 PM
Actually, I would have no problem if comparative religion was taught in public schools, as maybe part of the social studies program.
(I don't know if they have "social studies" in Europe. It includes history, economics, what used to be called "civics").
It doesn't even need to "compare" them, in the sense "mine is better". Have reps from various religious and cultural groups talk about what things are like for them. Make sure you hit all the big ones and throw in Shinto and Greek Mythology and whatever to round it out. I think it would be a great class.

But IMHO it is wrong to teach one particular religion's (or even a subset of that religion, depending on how you define christian) creation beliefs in science class.

Well, we have a World Religions class at my school (mandatory for all grade elevens), and I go to a Catholic school. Science classes also teach science; creationism is never brought up. Evolution is actually specifically taught. Even in Catholic religion classes, we are taught that the creation stories in the Bible are just myths. Not fact, myths.

Public schools here don't touch on religion at all.

Why is it so hard to get schools to teach like this in the States?

Swift
2005-May-25, 10:34 PM
Actually, I would have no problem if comparative religion was taught in public schools, as maybe part of the social studies program.
(I don't know if they have "social studies" in Europe. It includes history, economics, what used to be called "civics").
It doesn't even need to "compare" them, in the sense "mine is better". Have reps from various religious and cultural groups talk about what things are like for them. Make sure you hit all the big ones and throw in Shinto and Greek Mythology and whatever to round it out. I think it would be a great class.

But IMHO it is wrong to teach one particular religion's (or even a subset of that religion, depending on how you define christian) creation beliefs in science class.

Well, we have a World Religions class at my school (mandatory for all grade elevens), and I go to a Catholic school. Science classes also teach science; creationism is never brought up. Evolution is actually specifically taught. Even in Catholic religion classes, we are taught that the creation stories in the Bible are just myths. Not fact, myths.

Public schools here don't touch on religion at all.

Why is it so hard to get schools to teach like this in the States?
I wish I knew. I've only lived here for 46.5 years and I still haven't figured it out. :wink:

The Supreme Canuck
2005-May-25, 10:46 PM
I suppose people are just stubborn.

Gillianren
2005-May-25, 11:35 PM
Evolution is actually specifically taught. Even in Catholic religion classes, we are taught that the creation stories in the Bible are just myths. Not fact, myths.

well, naturally. the Catholic church acknowledged evolution as the way the world works fifty-three years ago. sure, it's a bit belated, but it's so much better than their record on geocentrism.

captain swoop
2005-May-26, 09:04 AM
Evolution IS a theory.

Whats wrong with a sticker?

To say otherwise is completely silly.

The rampant christophobia is what compells people to go insane and demand that evolution be treated as the gospel truth rather than a well supported theory.

Evolution is a FACT, it is observed, the Theory explains the facts

read Evolution Fact and Theory FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html) at Talkorigins

Sticks
2005-May-26, 11:07 AM
So did these text books teach Darwinian Gradualism or Punctuated Equilibrium?

With these two competing ideas, let us ignore creationism here for the moment, Evolution has been granted the status of fact, not theory even though the mechanism is debated in the evolutionary community.

This idea of promoting things as fact, when they are actually educated guesswork can be completely dishonest. For example in the UK the BBC did a series called Walking With Dinosaurs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dinosaurs/). Now some of the research into how the creatures moved was done with evidence from skeletons and painstaking research. Nothing wrong here, but then they ascribed colours to them and behaviour patterns to them, based on modern animals. If they had said why they believed the creatures would have behaved in a certain and why they would have been coloured in a certain way, that would have been fine.

But no

Only if you had access to the website would you find the reasons for why they presented them as they did. The programme was put out as if it was a standard wildlife programme, effectively saying this is how it was, fact. Yet a lot of it was based on informed speculation.

Totally dishonest, especially as some in the evolutionary community disputed their ideas on how these creatures behaved.

My understanding of facts, is that they can not be disputed.

The boiling point of pure water at normal atmospheric pressure, with sufficient nucleating sites is a fixed temperature.

That is a fact that can not be disputed, although the value of the temperature can be quoted differently according to which temparature scale you use. (C/F/K)

The article quoted on TO gives a definition then violates it by saying


It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.

It would be more correct to say:



We have remains of living forms who no longer live today
We have various lving forms today.


The Creationis would dispute the statement

It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.

but can not dispute:



We have remains of living forms who no longer live today
We have various lving forms today.


Evolution is disputed and debated amongst evolutionists, as to which variant best descibes the available data.

Sounds like Evolution is still a theory in development , rather than a cold hard, indisputable fact.

What am I missing here? :-?

Fram
2005-May-26, 11:27 AM
[SNIP]
The article quoted on TO gives a definition then violates it by saying


It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.

It would be more correct to say:



We have remains of living forms who no longer live today
We have various lving forms today.


The Creationis would dispute the statement

It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.

but can not dispute:



We have remains of living forms who no longer live today
We have various lving forms today.


Evolution is disputed and debated amongst evolutionists, as to which variant best descibes the available data.

Sounds like Evolution is still a theory in development , rather than a cold hard, indisputable fact.

What am I missing here? :-?

Well, the statement you suggest has nothing to do with evolution, it only acknowledges that there once were even more (or other) living forms. You have to be a very very strange creationist to deny that (even YEC acknowledge that). It's not even remotely equivalent to the sentence you claim it replaces though.
Apart from that: the basis of Evolution is a fact, but what actually happened is still a theory and in a lot of cases a hypothesis. This isn't strange, and it's the same in many theories / fields of science. Compare it to history: the major outlines are facts, like that there was a Roman Empire, or that Columbus landed in America in 1492, or whatever. Does that mean that there are no more missing links, gaps, hypotheses, ... in history? No, but still, history is a fact.

I propose a new sticker: 'Parental Guidance: explicit science'.

papageno
2005-May-26, 12:12 PM
What am I missing here? :-?
The fact that man has practiced selective breeding on animals and plants, artificially selecting features to pass on their off-spring.
The fact that hospitals have problems with bacteria that change and become immune to antibiotics.
These are examples of living forms coming from other living forms having different characteristics, species evolving generation after generation.

farmerjumperdon
2005-May-26, 06:46 PM
[Why is it so hard to get schools to teach like this in the States?[/quote]

Because here religion is marketed as a commodity. Lots of money involved. Everything from the all-with-good-intentions passing of the collection plate in church to the televangelist sharks that prey on the ignorant masses.

Any threat to the existence of god or criticism of their chosen practices and beliefs is a threat to their wallets. Critical and/or objective education about religion is their primary enemy.

SciFi Chick
2005-May-26, 06:57 PM
Those of you suggesting comparative religion courses really are missing the point. The people seeking to put these stickers on books are not the least bit interested in comparing their religion to others, because they already believe they have the one, true religion. They also believe that evolution IS a religion and that it is somehow competing with theirs. Their goal is to win the competition.

It won't do us any good to pretend we don't understand their goals and offer alternatives like comparative religion classes.

Disinfo Agent
2005-May-27, 11:55 AM
I suggest a new sticker program:

"This book contains material on creationism. Creationism is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

We should stick them on Bibles. That would make a true compromise.
This would be more accurate: "This book contains material on creationism. Creationism is a hypothesis, not a theory, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, tested rigorously, and critically considered."
Or how about this?

"This book contains material on creationism. Creationism is a belief, not a fact or a well established scientific theory, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

Swift
2005-May-27, 12:39 PM
Those of you suggesting comparative religion courses really are missing the point. The people seeking to put these stickers on books are not the least bit interested in comparing their religion to others, because they already believe they have the one, true religion. They also believe that evolution IS a religion and that it is somehow competing with theirs. Their goal is to win the competition.

It won't do us any good to pretend we don't understand their goals and offer alternatives like comparative religion classes.
I realize that and I agree with you. I was just making a semi-joke to Glom's comment/joke. The people pushing this know "THE TRUTH" and believe they must spread it any way they can. I don't think comparative religion classes would appease them. But, as an aside, I have studied various religions a little myself, and even as an agnostic leaning towards atheism I find the comparisions and learning about other people interesting.

SciFi Chick
2005-May-27, 12:41 PM
But, as an aside, I have studied various religions a little myself, and even as an agnostic leaning towards atheism I find the comparisions and learning about other people interesting.

I do too. I wasn't making a statement against comparative religion classes any more than I was saying we should get rid of shop. :D

Disinfo Agent
2005-May-27, 12:54 PM
Those of you suggesting comparative religion courses really are missing the point. The people seeking to put these stickers on books are not the least bit interested in comparing their religion to others, because they already believe they have the one, true religion.
It's still a good question to ask those people.

SciFi Chick
2005-May-27, 01:00 PM
Those of you suggesting comparative religion courses really are missing the point. The people seeking to put these stickers on books are not the least bit interested in comparing their religion to others, because they already believe they have the one, true religion.
It's still a good question to ask those people.

Why? Do you like this: ](*,)

;)

Disinfo Agent
2005-May-27, 01:02 PM
Sometimes I do wonder. :D

Melusine
2005-May-27, 01:07 PM
Those of you suggesting comparative religion courses really are missing the point. The people seeking to put these stickers on books are not the least bit interested in comparing their religion to others, because they already believe they have the one, true religion. They also believe that evolution IS a religion and that it is somehow competing with theirs. Their goal is to win the competition.

It won't do us any good to pretend we don't understand their goals and offer alternatives like comparative religion classes.
I completely agree with this statement, and no, Comparative Religion classes won't appease these sticker-sticking kind of folks; I like Comparative Religion courses, too, but Science Class is not where they belong. Yeah, many of these people, those on the Boards of Ed have "winning" in mind, and get themselves in a furor over it, at times so unnecessarily so. Politics as baseball. I see too many people jump on bandwagons who don't even consider evidence. It's just way too emotional :roll:

Swift
2005-May-27, 03:42 PM
But, as an aside, I have studied various religions a little myself, and even as an agnostic leaning towards atheism I find the comparisions and learning about other people interesting.

I do too. I wasn't making a statement against comparative religion classes any more than I was saying we should get rid of shop. :D
Get rid of shop! :o :evil: How could you even think such a thing? Where would we get our ashtrays and our decorative wall ducks from!?!
:lol:

Maksutov
2005-May-28, 12:07 AM
But, as an aside, I have studied various religions a little myself, and even as an agnostic leaning towards atheism I find the comparisions and learning about other people interesting.

I do too. I wasn't making a statement against comparative religion classes any more than I was saying we should get rid of shop. :D
Get rid of shop! :o :evil: How could you even think such a thing? Where would we get our ashtrays and our decorative wall ducks from!?!
:lol:
Yeah, how would we be able to identify the genius of the class if he didn't have the opportunity to point out, "If you put a bullet in the furnace, it'll explode!" :wink: