lol america

[rakuenso]

yup.. some states are going to incorporate controversies of evolution into their courses now. In other words, intelligent design is coming to a school near you!

 

45% of Americans believe that God created the world along with creatures big and small in just six days, without reconciliatory faith with darwinism. 30% of teachers felt that they were pressured by parents to either omit evolution of evolution-related topics. 54% did not believe that humans had developed from an earlier species, (a rise of 9 percent since 1994).

 

Well, this canuck's going to Canada for post-secondary education

 

source: (TIME, aug 15, 2005)

 

So here's my rant:

 

The Downfall of Science Education

 

It is absolutely ridiculous as to what I have just read. The president of the United States, just quoted the following about evolution and intelligent design (which is simply an alias for creationism.)

"Both sides ought to be properly taught, so people can understand what the debate is about ... I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

 

I'm sorry Mr. President, but your argument does not hold when it comes to science. What you are saying is analogous to trying to argue that even though the "earth revolves around the sun", you still think that people should know about the old self centered religious dogma "that the earth is the center of the universe." An exposure to different schools of thought is apt for a philosophy or history class, but not in a science classroom.

 

As many other notable scientists have concluded, to teach creationism/I.D. as a science is an attempt by the religious fundamentalist to taint the sancity of scientific questioning. The theory of evolution underwent rigorous analyses ranging from genetics to biochemistry. PubMed alone, has published over 162,238 articles regarding evolution. That is 162,238 articles conducted by months of rigorous research and under constant scrutiny from the scientific community. The total # of articles well surpasses the millions. Now how many articles/books exist that support the teachings of intelligent design? Let's see.. well there's the bible... genesis I and II... umm... New and Old Testament.... ok that would be 5....so let's just assume that there are 500 for the sake of "argument", how's that? Not to mention, they are 500 articles who are simply accepted and brandished by the religious right without any form of organized intellectual scrutiny.

The "500" articles that support The Bible never underwent the same level of scientific inquiry or critical analysis. For you Mr. President to try and compare that there's actually even an argument between evolution and intelligent design is idiotic. The attempt to allow intelligent design into the curriculum of the United States education is a subtle sabotage to the progress of science.

 

As Professor Steven Pinker of Harvard Psychology department argues:

 

"The moral design of nature is as bungled as its engineering design. What twisted sadist would have invented a parasite that blinds millions of people or a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters? To adapt a Yiddish expression about God: 'If an intelligent designer lived on an Earth, people would break his windows.' In this case it almost seems that to accept God is to reject humanity. Which ironically is what the religious have always boasted as the pillars of their existence.

 

It is of obviously no surprise that countries like South Korea are rapidly advancing, and if not already superseding us in the area of Biotechnology. To those people who support intelligent design and actually wants to have an argument, please. All you can possibly ever do is try and manipulate words so that it sounds like science but actually lack any scientific evidence. You know why? That's because there was no scientific basis in the first place to the 500 articles that you so deeply embrace. Thus this leads to the logical deduction that there isn't, and can't ever be an argument when trying to incorporate Intelligent Design into science classes. Arguments require a basis, and frankly, IDer's lack a scientific basis where intellectual questioning was employed.

 

This farce has gone on long enough, the Scopes monkey trial is a thing of the past. We don't need in 2005, where we are on the verge of many biotechnological breakthroughs. Please stop trying to confuse the young public with spineless theories like intelligent design. It is an excuse shaped by the religious fundamentalists who try and undermine scientific inquiry.

 

People who try to muddle science with religion are a hindrance. I'd rather have you obsessively interpret the Bible word for word. This is an illustration that the religious fanatics are losing their control as the general populace is experiencing a second enlightenment. This is just another dirty tactic employed by the fanatics as they try to cling on to their power.

[H2SO4]

Watever dude, it was a matter of time before this happened. Idk, i know when i have kids i will tell them what I LEARNED about evolution.

[beautyundone]

i don't really see a problem... why not let the kids decide for themselves? if creationism is so obviously untrue, then what do you all have to worry about? i think kids are logical enough to figure out which is right and which is wrong.

[ydoaPs]

i don't really see a problem... why not let the kids decide for themselves? if creationism is so obviously untrue, then what do you all have to worry about? i think kids are logical enough to figure out which is right and which is wrong.

it is being exposed to them when their minds aren't fully developed. it is almost as bad as forcing kids to go to church.

[beautyundone]

kids are also taught not to murder when their minds aren't fully developed. i suppose we should wait until they're old enough to decide for themselves to introduce the idea.

[ydoaPs]

that is a strawman

[beautyundone]

actually, i think it's a perfectly logical response. same idea; same basic thing.

[ydoaPs]

i don't care what you think. opinions are not facts, get over it. the fact is: it is a strawman

[fuhrerkeebs]

i don't really see a problem... why not let the kids decide for themselves? if creationism is so obviously untrue, then what do you all have to worry about? i think kids are logical enough to figure out which is right and which is wrong.

 

It's not a problem of letting the kids decide what to believe, or anything of that sort. The problem is in the fact that ID is not science, and shouldn't be taught in a science classroom. I have no problem with the school systems teaching kids ID in non-science classrooms, but not in a science class.

[beautyundone]

i don't care what you think. opinions are not facts, get over it. the fact is: it is a strawman

 

 

and what scientific project proved my analogy to be invalid?

 

YOUR opinion is that it is a "strawman". practice what you preach.

even if it WERE untrue, i don't believe that a post on the internet in any way resembles a man made of straw. you seem to be so addicted to the literal and "factual" meaning of everything, after all.

[AzurePhoenix]

Same idea; same basic thing

Your comparison is most obviously not the same thing. Not in the tiniest sense. Evolution is not a moral dilemma. It's a scientific fact, ripe with evidence and support. If people prefer to seek out and adopt speculatory psuedoscience, they should do so on their own time, rather than be force-fed poorly camoflauged creationism in an environment in which they should be learning hard facts and sound science.

 

EDIT: hmmm, got left behind while responding

[beautyundone]

It's not a problem of letting the kids decide what to believe, or anything of that sort. The problem is in the fact that ID is not science, and shouldn't be taught in a science classroom. I have no problem with the school systems teaching kids ID in non-science classrooms, but not in a science class.

 

 

i will agree with you there. it isn't really a scientific subject. but that doesn't mean it cannot be taught as an alternate idea.

[beautyundone]

Your comparison is most obviously not the same thing. Not in the tiniest sense. Evolution is not a moral dilemma. It's a scientific fact, ripe with evidence and support. If people prefer to seek out and adopt speculatory psuedoscience, they should do so on their own time, rather than be force-fed poorly camoflauged creationism when they should be learning hard facts and sound science.

 

 

as i said, they do have the right to a choice. but i can see that i will get nowhere on this extremely "anti-creationist/christianity/anyone who contradicts your ideas" board.

[PhDP]

if creationism is so obviously untrue, then what do you all have to worry about?

 

Very simple. In science class, you teach science, not religion. Isn't it obvious ? Why not going into religion class saying the concept of a virgin birth is, from a scientific point of view, nonsense ?

 

And while it is obviously untrue to biologists, and other scientists, it isn't to people who are creationist even before knowing what an allele is (and that is the case of a lot of creationists). It's really incredible how many people, even here in this forum, are attacking evolution while they don't have a clue what evolutionary biology is.

[ydoaPs]

and what scientific project proved my analogy to be invalid?

science doesn't have anything to do with it. it is clearly a strawman and, as AP said, clearly not the same thing.

 

YOUR opinion is that it is a "strawman".

not an opinion, it is a fact. learn the difference

 

even if it WERE untrue, i don't believe that a post on the internet in any way resembles a man made of straw. you seem to be so addicted to the literal and "factual" meaning of everything, after all.

that is utter rubbish

[AzurePhoenix]

as i said, they do have the right to a choice. but i can see that i will get nowhere on this extremely "anti-creationist/christianity/anyone who contradicts your ideas" board.

There is nothing wrong with believing in some sort of guide to the universe. The problem is that intelligent design most simply isn't a science, and under no circumstances should be taught as such, especially not in a science class. If highschools and such offered theology and philosphy classes in which to teach it, there'd be no problem. As it stands, this whole ID war is a political ploy to soften up the populace to reintroduce us to good ol' fashioned Christianity.

[beautyundone]

i'm not attacking evolution at all. and i was unaware that the anger was directed towards the fact that ID would be taught in a science classroom. i was under the impression that it was directed towards the fact that it would be taught at all. ID is a large part of history, as history usually covers most of those religions and ideas as to how the world started. perhaps it would be better suited in that class? anyhow, i do agree that, while ID should be taught, it doesn't have a place in a science classroom.

[Urbansquid]

i will agree with you there. it isn't really a scientific subject. but that doesn't mean it cannot be taught as an alternate idea.

 

I've been browsing these boards for going on two weeks now and I feel compelled to break my silence because of your asinine comment.. If it is not science why should it be taught in a science class?

 

ID has no scientific merit.

 

None.

 

Zero.

[AzurePhoenix]

anyhow, i do agree that, while ID should be taught, it doesn't have a place in a science classroom.

Exactly. That is the primary issue. The government is pushing for it to be taught alongside evoltuion, as a science, in the science classroom. To be sciecne, we should be able to "see" or "sense" it in some way, and we simply must be able test the hypothesis. Faith is fine, but it has its place.

 

Although I do think that ID should only be taught alongside all other major religions from across the globe, in a class suitable for the subject-matter. Otherwise it's simply more Christian politics and favoritism.

[beautyundone]

I've been browsing these boards for going on two weeks now and I feel compelled to break my silence because of your asinine comment.. If it is not science why should it be taught in a science class?

 

ID has no scientific merit.

 

None.

 

Zero.

 

i KNOW that. did you not read the rest of my comments clarifying that i thought it should be taught but NOT within a science class?

[Urbansquid]

i'm not attacking evolution at all. and i was unaware that the anger was directed towards the fact that ID would be taught in a science classroom. i was under the impression that it was directed towards the fact that it would be taught at all. ID is a large part of history, as history usually covers most of those religions and ideas as to how the world started. perhaps it would be better suited in that class? anyhow, i do agree that, while ID should be taught, it doesn't have a place in a science classroom.

 

God no, not the bible as history now...

 

How about Philosophy?

 

Just refreshed to catch the backpedal by the way... So yeah, we're square.

[beautyundone]

well, i was taught about aztec, greek, and roman gods, as well as judaism and islam. i also learned about christianity in history. it is a part of culture. it's difficult to teach history without including religions. for instance, the catholic church plays a HUGE part in history, but it's difficult to understand if you have no idea what the catholic church is. see my point? it really basically is already taught in most history classes. world history classes, that is.

[Lance]

I must agree that it is damn naive to think that christianity has no part in history. It's like saying the holocaust never happened because it is too evil.

[Urbansquid]

well, i was taught about aztec, greek, and roman gods, as well as judaism and islam. i also learned about christianity in history. it is a part of culture. it's difficult to teach history without including religions. for instance, the catholic church plays a HUGE part in history, but it's difficult to understand if you have no idea what the catholic church is. see my point? it really basically is already taught in most history classes. world history classes, that is.

 

Feel free to take this with a grain of salt (and we are way ot at this point), but I think there is a rather large leap between using the teaching of world cultures as a jumping point for brief overviews of religion versus teaching ID. Especially in the the manner which Behe et al. would have us buy into the whole spiel... But that may just be me.

[beautyundone]

ID is the basis for many religions. if you are going to teach the religions and their relation to history, usually ID ends up getting mentioned somewhere. although i do agree that they should not spend massive ammounts of time preaching the gospel to the students. lol.