AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → ignorance, and the man who wants to put it into schools.

62 18491
Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,487 posts
Blacksmith

In order for you to understand this one, you need to watch this episode of the colbert report. you only need to watch the final segment with the interview, but by all means watch the whole thing.

this guy is trying something that not even william jennings bryan was able to do in his battle in the supreme court. he is trying to put creationism back into biology classes, and history classes. he is trying to take a dump on the so called "left-wing liberalists" (scientific knowledge) and believes that his cause is just.

in my opinion, this is something that I as an educated atheist texan (a very small minority, mind you) cannot stand for. he is trying to force religious belief when we have in effect some form of church and state separation that prevents such an act of fundamental idiocy.

now, my better question is, should we allow people like this any say in how our educational system is run? what is your take on this guy's quest?

-Blade

  • 62 Replies
Blkasp
offline
Blkasp
1,304 posts
Nomad

You become more informed about religion, but how does this go for the relevant course content? You become less informed about Biological theories, what the course is required of the curriculum, and you can become less inclined to open your critical thinking skills towards the subject.


How do you become less informed about Biological theories? Surely they would not replace the Biological theories with the Creation theories, they would just provide the Creation theory as something extra alongside the existing theories taught in Biology.

The issue is not whether adding religion into education is the same as indoctrination

I got sidetracked into explaining how being told about a religion is not the same as being forced into believing it, I just needed to reinforce that point.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

How do you become less informed about Biological theories?


Same amount of time for the course + new material = less focus.
Blkasp
offline
Blkasp
1,304 posts
Nomad

Same amount of time for the course + new material = less focus.

Add in more homework, that should make up for it. (unless you need a teacher for every part of biology as you cannot teach yourself a few parts out of a text book).
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

Add in more homework, that should make up for it.


Homework is basically only review or pre-learning, it is not used for general teaching (although it should be).

Also, this isn't relevant. Creationism is not science. It does not belong in a science course. As others have said, it would go under a theology elective in which it, and other beliefs, would be learned about.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

How do you become less informed about Biological theories? Surely they would not replace the Biological theories with the Creation theories, they would just provide the Creation theory as something extra alongside the existing theories taught in Biology.


As I already explain creationism is not a theory. It meets non of the criteria for one. It is however a part of theology. This means we would have religion shoe horned in where it does not belong taking up time for that subject.

Add in more homework, that should make up for it. (unless you need a teacher for every part of biology as you cannot teach yourself a few parts out of a text book).


No it won't make up for it, the class itself still has to provide the material. Many need to have things explained to them. Nor should it have to make up for the time wasted on junk.

Religious creation stories belong in a theology class, not a science class. They meet no criteria to be science, as such should not be treated as such.
Blkasp
offline
Blkasp
1,304 posts
Nomad

No it won't make up for it, the class itself still has to provide the material. Many need to have things explained to them. Nor should it have to make up for the time wasted on junk.


Creation is a theory! Click here for the reasoning based on a site I have found.

Religion is not junk mate, although I don't think it belongs in the Biology class (I am just debating for the heck of it in this case :P). Religion has provided the basis for many "just" and good morals that are found today in society and thus it should not be discarded and thrown to the dogs.

They meet no criteria to be science, as such should not be treated as such.

Hmm... What do you mean by this?
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

Let's pick this apart slowly, shall we?

Where to begin where to begin...

1) Creationism has no standardized explanation. How can you teach what everyone believes happened differently in some way? Most religions preach some sort of creation. Christians like to say "Evolution is wrong so creation is true!" Well great, even if that were possible (evolution has been proven fyi...) that doesn't prove that creation occurred or that it was even your version of it.

So yes, by the logic of putting in creationism as a counter to evolution in schools, you would need to include all creation stories from all religions across the world.

2) Their proposed "theory of creation" is quite frankly pitiful.

"As with all manâs endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past"

That's nice...but wait, we have over 40,000 different sects of Christianity which can't agree on 99.9% of the Bible. Who's version do we use? Literal? Metaphorical? Protestant? Catholic? Mormon? The list goes on and on and on.

You know what? I was going to write more about this, but the site is really just a bunch of nonsense anyways and I don't much feel like it. They appear to think that "evolution" means "theory on disproving God" or something. Several times they talk about how evolution is against God and how the theory involves the creation of the universe...which it doesn't. Clearly they don't even understand what evolution entails and instead just rant on and on and on about how closeminded "evolutionists" are while never providing an actual theory of creation, just a few points which I can only respond to with facepalms. They also make some claims such as the fossil record has been empirically falsified (which it hasn't, isn't, and won't be, because it is empirically supported which is why we still have it...)

Yeah. So they rant about willful ignorance a ton, but haven't deigned to educate themselves on what evolution actually is. Great job, hypocrites...

Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

Religion has provided the basis for many "just" and good morals that are found today in society


You mean religion claimed those morals that are really significantly older and stem from long ago when humans or human ancestors were nomadic groups.


As for that website, on top of what Kasic said, it has this in its guidelines "Understand that abusive, inflammatory, and willfully dishonest statements, as well as cowardly anonymity (e.g., bogus email addresses), lend no credibility to oneâs position. "
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Religion is not junk mate, although I don't think it belongs in the Biology class (I am just debating for the heck of it in this case :P). Religion has provided the basis for many "just" and good morals that are found today in society and thus it should not be discarded and thrown to the dogs.


Then why persist in arguing?

"Theory; A scientific explanation of related observations or events based on hypotheses and verified multiple times by different independent researchers."


High time for you to understand that Creationism is not a theory. It is not backed by observations, it is not based by any clear cut data that we can analyse today, apart from a dusty collection of old texts riddled with errors. A bit like saying you can create a theory based on Lord of the Rings that ME existed once, just because a book says it.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Creation is a theory! Click here for the reasoning based on a site I have found.


Your site is lying out heir *****.

Let' take a look at their table ont eh creation side.

Creation
Hypothesis

Primary approach to scientific methodology: Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.

Predominant religious/philosophical
belief system: Biblical Christianity

Primary means of demonstrating systemâs
positive empirical support: Citation of empirical data

Primary means of criticizing
counterpart system: Citation of empirical data


Point 1: Creation offers no empirical evidence. It makes accretion and the proponents of creation will quite often try and disprove evolution as if that somehow demonstrates their position to be correct. The observations made of creation require a bias slant. In short it tries o make the evidence fit the conclusion and not the conclusion fit the evidence.

Point 2: Should be completely irrelevant, though for creation it's the entire basis. The belief system of the person is not a factor in making something a theory. Considering creation requires their personal belief system to be added only further supports the fact that creation is not a theory.

Point 3: You need to have empirical data to site. What they site is usually their own bias or quote mines. I've demonstrated this numerous times in the evolution thread.

Point 4: Bull**** it uses empirical data. As noted in point 1 it does not do this. Since on the flip side it says that "A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences" again I would like to note point 2 on how this does not factor in to something being a theory. Through this into the ring as if it should have an effect only demonstrates the dishonesty. Further more it's more often then not the other way around, with creation dismissing the empirical evidence supporting evolution based on a belief system. So here we just have them lying out of there ***.

Just to be fare so everyone can see the other side of this chart they made.

Evolution
Hypothesis

Primary approach to scientific methodology: Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.

Predominant religious/philosophical
belief system: Humanistic Naturalism

Primary means of demonstrating systemâs
positive empirical support: Citation of empirical data

Primary means of criticizing
counterpart system: A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences


Also to note since they claim that both sides are using empirical data then both should have the same conclusions.
Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,487 posts
Blacksmith

So somehow by talking about your religion you are forcing them to believe it?


yup, believe it or not. you could simply say "I'm christian" and leave it at that, but nope you have to add "and my beliefs are correct!"

face it, creation should never be taught in school. it isn't theory, it's emotional rhetoric that is riddled with (sometimes subtle) logical fallacies. in other words, it has no basis in order to argue for itself being correct, except from another logical fallacy (argument from antiquity fallacy to be exact. it means that we should give something credibility because of how old it is. sound familiar?)

By this means, by Neo-Nazi's telling ordianary innocent civilians their twisted ways, they are forced to believe it? No. They have a choice to reject it, just like religion! Just because you get taught about Christianity doesn't mean you are forced to believe it? You have every right to reject the belief!


true, but there are always repercussions when you openly disagree with another person, that means that you have to either shut up and let it get shoveled into you, or disagreeing, and facing the possible wrath of a overly christian teacher. that would give the education system a religious bias, which clearly violates SoCaS.

Ignorance: Lack of knowledge or information. Some by learning about religion, you have become Ignorant? Sir, what are you on about? You have become informed about the religion thus you are no longer ignorant towards the subject!


again, if you don't believe in the religion, then that doesn't matter, while at the same time you are losing the opportunity to learn real science, which eliminates ignorance. this means that unless you seek outside sources, you will become increasingly ignorant as time goes on.

Add in more homework, that should make up for it. (unless you need a teacher for every part of biology as you cannot teach yourself a few parts out of a text book).


or I can just sue, and no more religious bias.

Creation is a theory! Click here for the reasoning based on a site I have found.


goody, a website! I guess I can't argue with the intenet, because all websites are always informed and correct. Get real!

Religion has provided the basis for many "just" and good morals that are found today in society and thus it should not be discarded and thrown to the dogs.


we've said this before, society made the morals, religion just decided to capitalize off of it. bible isn't proof that morals came from religion, because it is literally a story book filled with emotional rhetoric.

Hmm... What do you mean by this?


he means that science and religion don't mix at all, and anyone who tries to force a mixture is a fool.

-Blade
crazzyperson54
offline
crazzyperson54
4 posts
Nomad

Creationism should stay in Catholic schools. He doesn't have a right to force God on kids.

balerion07
offline
balerion07
2,837 posts
Peasant

Ever hear of the book Pilgrim's Progress? Over 200 translations and the book has never been out of print. Let's just say it sells fairly well and note how long it has been used for education. Published in 1678 it has been used to teach children 111 years longer than the United States have had presidents. Washington took office April 30, 1789.

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Ever hear of the book Pilgrim's Progress? Over 200 translations and the book has never been out of print. Let's just say it sells fairly well and note how long it has been used for education. Published in 1678 it has been used to teach children 111 years longer than the United States have had presidents. Washington took office April 30, 1789.


What does that have to do with anything? It was used as a literary piece if anything, like Dante's Inferno or Huckleberry Fin, not as an actual scientific document. It isn't like Dante's Inferno is saying that it is scientific fact that there is a hell formed like Dante's fever dream, it is just a book. What does it have to do with this thread?
KhaoticSniper
offline
KhaoticSniper
210 posts
Nomad

Creationism should stay in Catholic schools. He doesn't have a right to force God on kids.


Well isn't he their Dad????
Correct me if I'm wrong
Showing 46-60 of 62