Teach both theories. Let the kids decide.

is indistinguishable from magic... at the pace we are going simple things such as oh I don't know, why water rises when we get into the tub will be casued by the gods, and not physics...

And a population surrounded by demons and warlocks is gonna be far easier to control

This theory should also be taught as to why the sun rises each day. The sun sets for Druid purposes. Many GOP scientists have declared this to be the truth.

GOP aproved science tells us that are Dragons who try to kill the sun.

;-)

By the way, I am in stiches over this one... had an interesting day

It's been proven to scare the dragon away keeping our moon in the sky above us.

"Any sufficiently advanced form of science is indistinguishable from magic," correct?

*

...and they WILL decide. They'll pick the one that's right for them and...hopefully...live a happy, productive life.

:patriot:

Don't you have to draw the line somewhere?

Teach them to think critically. No need to teach them junk.

I really believe that.

Kids need to be aware of it ALL, so they know how to walk around land mines.

They will.

:patriot:

we don't teach our kids history, or for that matter how to think critically

be taught about racism and Nazism?

I absolutely agree children need to be taught to think critically but denying them knowledge about the "junk" will severely undermine that goal. How is someone supposed to discriminate between value and junk if they don't see the two compared to one another?

Ignorance is a dangerous thing. Children absolutely must be taught about racism and Nazism. You can teach about something without advocating it.

ID pushers want ID and evolution to be taught as *two competing theories*

The poster is comparing this to teaching racism and non-racism (?) as two competing theories. This is different from what you're suggesting, that children be taught about the existence and history of racism, and that it's wrong.

As a home educator I do have some luxuries. I can teach about intelligent design to let my children know the theory exists. But I can also tell them exactly what I think about it and head right on in to a politics discussion as well. Formally educated school children are not granted that distinction.

You are both correct. As "two competing theories" I find the suggestion ridiculous.

:toast:

They should not be taught racism and Nazism and be left on their own to decide, though. Nor should they be taught ID--which is deceitful junk--and be left on their own to decide. Nazism, as part of history, has a place as a subject in the classroom. As a an example of intellectual fraudulence, *maybe* ID has a place. But that's its only use in the classroom.

clarification. I had a hard time believing someone here wouldn't even want those subjects mentioned, but the post to which I was responding wasn't very clear...in my opinion.

Will they be taught this also. The snails have their own version.

(as far as science goes). No need to reinvent the wheel.

so it shouldn't be wasted with the presentation of frivolous ideas.

"frivolous ideas"...

If they KNOW they are "frivolous ideas," they won't "waste their time" on them.

They need to be MADE AWARE of EVERYTHING and make their own decisions. That's how they will achieve GREATNESS.

because there isn't enough time. Nobody is aware of everything.

If we're going to waste our kids time with ID, then why not set aside space in the curriculum to play a video of John Travolta discussing "silent birth" or make Rick Santorum's book required reading for 10th graders? I'd rather that time be spent teaching Spanish, calculus, or philosphy.

It depends on how it is taught and by whom. Kids are very susceptible during their school years. If it has to be taught, it should be put into the context that it is not proven and ideologically driven - its not science; it's an opinion. By the way, are you advocating that it be taught as an equal to science?

can say. It isn't a science. It's a notion. Books on ID can only be collections of statements, all repeating the "notion".

theory. It is fable.

People will embrace REALITY, or they will embrace FABLES.

You can't define EITHER of the two, and you can't dictate which will be embraced.

There are people in our country who consider George W. Bush to be:

1). Clean and Sober

2). A born-again Christian

3). A great leader

4). A man of courage and conviction

...SO..."Fairy Tales" got this asshole a second term (that and Diebold, of course).

I stand behind my original statement. Kids need to be taught EVERYTHING. If they ULTIMATELY will grow up to be Scott McClellan or Ken Mehlman, that's the result of them EXERCISING THEIR OWN FREE WILL...NOT the result of some adult separating what THEY define as "Science" and "Fairy Tales."

:patriot:

Should we teach them spontaneous generation theories that once were popular?

Science in grade school-highschool is there to teach the current theories that science advocates as well as the scientific method. It takes quite a bit of learning before a person is able to properly evaluate a scientific theory.

Simply put it doesn't matter how smart a kid is at age 12. They simply do not have the tools to discern the value of one theory over another. Throwing kids into this issue is nothing more than a political ploy and a shallow one at that.

Science teaches Science.

synonyms of "advocate" are "supporter, champion, backer, upholder, proponent" and as a verb "support, endorse, urge, preach, teach".

That word kinda takes away the neutrality of both the teacher and science. Also, what is "science" in the sense that it has a doctrine that it advocates. Who decides that? A textbook writer? An association? What happens if there are competing associations?

Perhaps, more importantly, what happens if there are not competing associations? Do you then have a scientific inquisition which can squash all competing theories and ideas, all dissent? Would this quashing be done based on evidence, or based on power?

My concern is the many ways in which teaching resembles preaching. The student 'learns', or more accurately 'memorizes' the dogma which they recite on a test, or more likely, darken an oval with a #2 pencil.

To teach science that way, seems a larger threat than a few paragraphs inserted into a textbook mentioning a crackpot theory. Even your last sentence seems to say "science teaches (scientific dogma)". Any variation from the dogma is heresy which will be punished by the gods, or the competetive global economy, or some environmental catastrophe, etc.

Science is deemed vital to our modern sense of education. Science is a method of discerning the truth of things. Its efficacy is being challenged by those that hold to religious views. Thus scientists that stand up for the process can readily be said to be avocates for the method.

As to how it is conveyed, would you think it valuable to give a series of competing mathematical formulas and let the students work out which ones are valid on their own? Should we include such theories as PI really equals 3.0?

Education and preaching necissarily bare simularities. They are both means of conveying information such that the mind will recall it. Preaching is just teaching religious doctrine.

You are not going to teach kids the scientific method by asking them which answer they like better. That is not science. Science is a specific method and it has been known to topple comfortable notions about the world around us.

As to who determines what is valid science that is called the Peer Review process. Its quite detailed and may be worth your time to investigate. Science is self checking and correcting. It thrives on challenging itself. But that comes once you are well vested in understanding its ways and have a great deal of research under your belt. Sorting out theories and dealing with such complexities is not the job of children that are just learning about sedimentary rocks and chromosomes. They have to learn to walk before they can dance.

I had a paper that was reviewed by my "peers" and found wanting. I was going to do a paper called "Kiss noise" which researched the fact that every piece in the journal seemed to suck up to the editor, but that seemed like alot of work to do for a paper which would not be well received.

Anyway, peer review is not that different from cardinal review. There are certain hoops to jump through and/or heinies to kiss to become a peer or a cardinal, one of which is to be well versed in the current doctrine.

As far as math goes, I do seem to remember being taught how to read these antiquated symbols way back in MCMLXXIV or maybe it was MCMLXIX. Do not quote me on that. Some of that mathematical stuff is really tautological, just like teaching language, and so there is room for rote memorization in some subjects.

However, I would also submit that Oparin's theory of the origin of life is no more scientific than ID. The biology book admits as much, saying "We cannot be sure how life did arise; we can only gather indirect evidence to show how it could have arisen" and then adds the unwarrented, unscientific "and how it probably arose."

Should this be taught as science, when way back at the beginning of the book, they claimed 'the hypothesis must be testable'? How is any hypothesis about the origin of life testable?

I also would like to see more teaching in the process of reasoning and logic. To be able to analyze statements, find their pre-suppositions, check them against available evidence, and learn not just a pile of facts and received dogma but to be inquisitive, analytical, and open to changing their mind.

Science does not have a definitive theory as yet to how life arose. That study is called abiogenesis. Completely different field of study than evolution. Evolution is a study of how species arose once life had started. Not the same thing. That bears repeating. Evolution is not the study of how or where life originiated.

Can we test evolution? Yes. Its even been observed in the wild and in the lab. Numerous times. Yes I am speaking of speciation. Mutations that lead to such diffentiation that two ancestors of a particular organism can no longer mate with each other. It happens. It has been recorded. It has been observed.

Evolution happens. It is a fact. Our theory of evolution attempts to understand all its twists and turns. We are unraveling its machinations. As we look out over the history of all the species we are trying to peace together the chain of life back to the initial arisal of life. And so far there is nothing to suggest that the chain of life is anywhere broken. Everything seems to link to something else as far back as we can peer.

Yes we should be teaching children logic and reasoning. But as with all ways of teaching you start small and work to grander forms. Thus science classes also teach logic and reasoning. But the level to which they are able to teach the children they are still illsuited to personally tackle the issues that advanced science contemplates. It would be like expecting the kids in the shop class to service the space shuttle. Not exactly something they are equipped to do just yet.

Education relies on both a presentation of knowledge we have accumulated and instruction of how we came by that knowledge. It is not just a pathological reading of facts and cramming of said facts into their brains. There needs to be structure and freedom to explore. But that exploration is guarded and supervised as there are many pitfalls and deadends. Supervision can allow for individuals to explore these avenues but should be there to right them should they become tangled in these pursuits.

In the end as pertaining to this discussion. Science is a class specifically set to teach Science. ID and Creationism are not science. ID is not a theory. Dressing it up and proclaiming it a theory does not make it so. Introducing it to science class is not only a disservice to science it is also a violation of Church/State seperation clause. If we were to introduce all religious notions (or even a conservative sampling) of creation there would be no time left over for the teaching of real science.

Teach religion in Church. Teach science in school.

so it is not a change of subject. Maybe that was not the focus of Scopes, or the current ID proselytizers, but if they focus there, I think they have a case.

Science is not so much taught in school as it is proselytized, and perhaps there are different types of science. Science, in American culture is merely a tool of the military and the corporate world. It is a means to make a weapon or make a profit. Not only that, but it is imbedded in, teaches, and advocates a particular philosophy, a meta science (or metaphysics - since physics is the ultimate science), which is opposed by many. I would say that is just as unscientific as any other philosophy or world view, and ultimately just as much of a religious belief as any other.

CS Lewis and EF Schumacher writes about this. Lewis, in "The Aboliton of Man" writes "The regenerate science which I have in mind would not do even to minerals and vegetables what modern science threatens to do to man himself. When it explained, it would not explain away. When it spoke of the parts, it would remember the whole. While studying the IT, it would not lose what Martin Buber calls the Thou-situation."

Science does not presume to teach origin of life. ID and any proposition that relies on an untestable claim is decidedly not science. Thus even as an explanation of abiogenesis it does not belong in a science class.

And I must strongly disagree with you on your estimation of science in the US. I will acknowledge that Corporations and the Military would love to completely own the process but We The People have too much a stake in it for them to completely have their way. We may need to speak up and take it fully back into our control. But science yet serves us.

As to how the education system works that sounds more like it is a personal issue you have. Education naturally conveys information from those who have it to those who do not. It is naturally going to take on qualities of preaching. The issue is in the end where by the information initially comes from. If it is a dogmatic doctrine incapable of being challenged then it is perhaps a religion. If it is from a method of collecting knowledge and is open to change and consideration then it is perhaps the best we can do.

What we do with science judges the morality of science. Science itself is just a tool. Like fire it can be used to help or harm.

Chapter 28 of Elements of Biological Science 1983 is titled "The Origin and early evolution of life". So in this high school biology text, they certainly presume to teach the origin of life. ID is at least as scientific as abiogenesis in the sense that it uses design theory and looks for evidence of design in life and the world. It can be more about examining and weighing evidence than it is about presuming conclusions.

Your statement that "education naturally conveys information from those who have it to those who do not" is both presumptive and dualistic. There are many ways to teach, not just one 'natural' way. Everything is not as clear cut as a bit of information in binary code which is either a one (having information) or a zero (not having it). A teacher with that attitude is too authoritarian for me.

Much of what is taught does fall into the positivist danger zone. It is below the radar where not only is it not allowed to be questioned, it is not even acknowledged to exist. For example, the three R's which are taken to be the core and so very important. They ignore the question of values as if those are not important or impossible to teach. Yet Schumacher writes "the task of education would be, first and foremost, the transmission of ideas of value, of what to do with our lives. There is no doubt the need to transmit know-how but this must take second place, for it is obviously somewhat foolhardy to put great powers into the hands of people without making sure they have a reasonable idea of what to do with them."

Am I jumping the subject? Maybe, but I feel it is a response to our discussion of what is taught and how it is taught as well as your assertion that science is 'the best we can do' irrespective of the meta-science it is framed in. In Schumacher's terms, the science of the forward stampede is not the science of the home comer's. Tools can create a radical monopoly or they can be tools for conviviality. Positivistic scientism does not lend itself to conviviality.

The idea of conveying the importance or value of education is critical. But it is meaningless if the structure that has come about in our society is not conveyed. The value comes from the structure.

As to the means of how to convey both knowledge and value it is curtailed by the limits of our resources. If we had an ideal setting every single student would have a gifted private teacher able to tailor their education to their deepest needs. Able to respond to their every iquiry. That is not the world we live in. The world we live in has to both convey the wonders of learning and do it in a relatively efficient and mass produced manner. It is a balance.

As to whether on not there is a positivist bent to the system I suspect you are going to find such a thing within the philosophy of science. It goes with the territory. And again the subject is deemed necissary for a complete education. If you wish to offer courses courses in metaphysical spheres of thought they are not going to be catalogged in the science departments.

Science as a method of advancing knowledge is nearly unchallenged in its efficacy. The softer philosophies have lost ground compared to their young upstart. While a monopoly of thought is indeed a perilous thing the inverse is true as well. If we do not cut away the things which lead nowhere we can make no progress. Fortunately science has a built in mechanism to keep itself in check. It constantly keeps itself open to challenges. If you feel it has overreached a claim simply refute it. If it offers no chance of refutation then its not science. Which returns us back to ID which offers no method of refuting its claims and thus fails to rise to the level required by science.

any ideas to change the course, slow it down or find a better purpose are not grounded in reality. The reality is only run, run, run, and alternatives are just dismissed as impractical. Anyway the stampede has been a smashing success at producing peace, prosperity, and happiness, right? Rumours of a cliff ahead are just rumours, Cassandras.

In that larger sense, science has not "produced the desired result" nor can it, since there is not agreement as to what that desired result is. Questions of the definitions of 'progress' and 'advance' are not scientific questions, and whether the ability to answer those questions, or even consider them, is 'deemed necessary for a complete education' an education without that foundation is likely to be worse than useless.

Also, to quote Rush 'if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice'. The metaphysical questions about what the desired result is and definitions of progress and advance will be answered whether they are studied or not. I happen to think that study will produce better answers. Insofar as science education is promoting a metaphysics of positivism, materialism, and the values of the forward stampede or takers, then it is part of indoctrination to a religion, a religion which places supremacy on the 'level required by science'.

But this is getting very far afield, and I have probably over-reached the limits of my intellect since I am not quoting Schumacher, Tawney, Illich, or Ellul.

So do we agree on this? If Chapter 28 on the origin of life is included, then ID should be as well. If ID cannot be included, then Chapter 28 should be taken out as well.

The Chapter 28 you refer to is from a old text book. No longer in use. So your Chapter 28 is already gone.

Let me give you an example of how I was taught about evolution in school. It was much more along the lines of how you seem to think things should be.

I walked into my advanced chem class one day to find all the chairs arrainged in a circle. Further more the students from the other chem class that met that hour were present in the class room as well. On the chalk board were written the words Origin of Life.

Turns out this was my schools way of dealing with the thorny subject. We were told that we the students would discuss how we thought life arose on the planet. I was nearly the only one to speak up for evolution. The teachers made little effort to defend my feeble attempt to defend science. The rest of the class was for the most part mute. The few that spoke up made it quite clear that I was bad for not trusting the bible. Later that day I found a note tucked in my Chem book stating "God is real, believe or else."

So you will forgive me if I remain skeptical of inquiring minds finding their way through to critical thought unguided by knowledgable instructors. I have already had my fill of such nonsense and am quite aware that it turns to mob dominance instead of reasoned consideration.

And I am terribly sorry that science is not discovering the things you wish it to. Unfortunately science can only uncover what is not what we want it to be.

However, I do not believe I ever advocated unguided student inquiry. A knowledgeable guide is much different than a drill sergeant barking out his commands and forcing everyone to march in lockstep. "I am the one with the knowledge, maggots, when I want your opinion, I will give it to you. Drop and give me fifty pages without any of your own ideas in it!"

Also, I do not believe there is a conflict between reality and the way I think things ought to be. Values questions are not the province of science anyway. The problem is where science is not just science, but rather SCIENCE, a false religion promising to provide the answers to all of humanities problems and needs. Even in the sense that you seem to say that "only the forward stampede is scientific". It is reality, because Western society is engaged in it, but not all of Western society - some of us oppose it. Yet SCIENCE is an enabler of it.

I appreciate the anecdote, but in it you said: "We were told that we the students would discuss how we thought life arose on the planet. I was nearly the only one to speak up for evolution."

Yet earlier you said: "Science does not have a definitive theory as yet to how life arose. That study is called abiogenesis. Completely different field of study than evolution."

Either a problem of terms or the first event happened before you learned the 2nd.

They're learning how to take tests.

some of whom couldn't think critically if their life depended on it. They believe science is about memorizing facts and have no idea that it is a process -- a way of knowing about the world, coming to an agreement about facts as a group.

The very fact that my college students entertain the idea of Intelligent Design indicates to me that they should memorize fewer science facts in K-12 (which they will forget) and should spend more time doing science, debating what constitutes good 'evidence' and/or a good 'theory.'

I would be all for dedicating time (especially in Junior High and High School) to critical thinking exercises -- phrenology vs. neuroscience; intelligent design vs. evolution; alchemy vs. chemistry.

I agree 100% that kids need to learn how to use reason and critical thought. But I am wary of using the teaching of critical thought as the means of introducing the social storm that is creationism vs evolution into the classroom.

and let them choose the answer?

It is not a "side" to the issue. It is a fraud.

That's bullshit.

Schhool isn't for teaching every viewpoint. In fact there's not even enough time or other resources to teach the minimum of information.

...in the first place.

They will ask:

If you had no basis in science for the idea of "Intelligent Design", then why on God's green Earth did you teach it to us in "Science" class and not "Philosophy" class? Were you guys smoking dope?

If you had told me in 2000 that we would be where we are today on ID, stem cell research, and the morning after pill, I would never have believed it.

How can we go so far in reverse?


------
TERROR ALERT!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/

Puts it all in a four-panel nutshell.

Don't you think that would be a better fit than science class?

I have no problem with both sides being presented. In fact, I think it's a good idea. I'm all for teaching all the students about society, and what the battles used to be, as well as what they are now.

It's not really social studies. It's social studies test studies. This seems to be the future of American eduication. It's all becoming meta-education.

I lived in TX when Shrub became Governor. He started that crap there. EVERYONE I knew was complaining that the teachers were no longer teaching the subjects, but teaching to the test!

...in running the testing racket. It's a win/win situation for his fascist government; shrub gets to line his buddy's pockets and cow those godless, communist, NEA-loving teachers at the same time.

I don't know for a fact, because I have only one daughter and don't know how classes were taught before NCLB was enacted. Bloomberg is partly to blame as well, I think. I do know that half of my daughter's fourth grade year was essentially Kaplan test prep for the citywide 4th grade tests. It's no wonder the scores went up. But did the children actually learn anything besides multiple choice strategies? :eyes:

just for good measure. We should be letting kids experiment and learn for themselves which theory is really true.

I'm sure I actually saw a bird carrying a baby to it's new parents. It was a boy with a blue diaper. I remember it vividly now that I think about it. We need to teach this theory.

in which the number of storks in certain areas was very closely correlated with the birth rates. I find that a very persuasive piece of evidence. It at least suggests that we should be open to some alternative explanations for the phenomenon of new people appearing in the world.

It's been taught for generations. It stands the test of time. It must be true. We just need to find the connecting link.

;) :silly:

My mother told me babies were found under cabbage leaves in the garden. Her mother told her the same thing -- as have thousands of mothers throughout the years. Obviously, that makes it a standard answer. I demand equal time for cabbage-patchists!

No reason to limit it to only two theories. Welcome to DU by the way.:hi:

Alas, whimsical notion, we hardly knew ye. :cry:

If it should get fixed, the This Modern World cartoon is here.

Like Sputnik won!

Satanism as well as the Good Book?

Think that would fly? I'd love to have a good lawyer at my back - I'd make such a stink :)

That's some good TV watchin' there. :sarcasm:

Vote #6 for greatest!

Let them learn ID or whatever the soothing new name is in Sunday school or in their church bible classes. Let them learn scientific theory in public school science classes.

If the religious fanatics want their children to learn fables, why don't they just send them to private religious schools? Why do they feel the need to cram this shit down the throats of public school students? Why do I need to pay for their religious mumbo-jumbo with *my* tax dollars? These extremists push this crap in the public forum constantly and then whine about being 'persecuted'. Stunning.

Let us all know when they have their theory developed... :eyes:

When we covered astronomy in a basic science class, the teacher started out talking about the roots of astronomy. He started with the need for people to tell what season it was to time planting and harvest, and went on to explain about how various cultures developed the idea that the stars and planets determined their destiny and so began to learn more about how the stars and planets "moved" for astrological purposes. The nonscientific reasons for studying the stars were taught to us as part of the development of the science.

Similarly, in my chemistry class, we learned a little bit about various early ideas about the composition of matter, and about the early ideas of "elements" in different cultures - some had fire, water, earth, and air, some had (if I remember correctly) wood, metal, water, and stone. We learned about alchemy, about the search for a means of transforming base metals into gold (no mention, though, of that Great Work as being connected to the transformation of a base human spirit to an elevated one) and how alchemy was to chemistry what astrology was to astronomy.

Even in biology we learned about other theories. We learned about humors and chi. My teacher showed particular sensitivity when she explained that the theory of chi flowing through the body is still used, and that although it conflicts with the Western medical understanding, enough people are satisfied with its results that it can't be dismissed out of hand and ought to be studied scientifically to a greater extent. I think she was using that as an example of how a scientist should approach a phenomenon - that science starts with "hmm, that's interesting, I wonder how that works?"

Although nobody ever said it in so many words, what I got out of that was that people's need to understand their lives and their world takes many forms, and that the scientific method is a means of understanding how things work that can operate independently of any particular religious or spiritual belief. It taught me humility as a wannabe scientist, reminding me that what I understand as the truth now may seem terribly primitive and silly to someone a few hundred years from now, but that it is nonetheless vitally important to examine it, question it, and add what I can to it. All in all, I don't think it's a terrible idea to teach about nonscientific methods of understanding alongside science. The contrast helps to show what science really is.

This cartoon is so funny, so insightful, that I had to comment again on it. I do say people should not teach their children creation or ID, although I don't agree with those notions. They're free to teach them not to walk under ladders, not to step on a crack lest one break one's mother's back, not to eat before swimming, not to see the bride the day of the wedding until the ceremony, or whatever myth, legend, or tale they wish.

AT HOME.

School is for education of generally accepted principles, and that doesn't include believing ancient texts and their borrowed stories of creation. Ironically, many of the stories used in the Hebrew Bible were taken from Mesopotamian cultures where the Hebrew were underclasses or slaves. Probably the way Africans enslaved in the Americas adopted the religion of their oppressors.

-----------------------
today I shout out to DU mods and posters
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/

:rofl:

In a religion class.

Science class is for science!