While I support outing religious instructions from compulsory part of basic schooling curriculum, it might be fair to do same for evolution. It creates a bias toward evolution as is.

TroGunn: While I support outing religious instructions from compulsory part of basic schooling curriculum, it might be fair to do same for evolution. It creates a bias toward evolution as is.

The first half makes sense.


The part about evolution is nonsense. Evolution is science. Better sharaap.

TroGunn: While I support outing religious instructions from compulsory part of basic schooling curriculum, it might be fair to do same for evolution. It creates a bias toward evolution as is.

I don't agree, of course

For a science classroom, the aim is to support facts, or the scientific method. Evolution is built around facts, mutations, natural selection etc etc are all established facts. If you add time into the mix, evolution is inevitable. ID, on the other hand, seems like pure speculation to me, there's no smoking gun there.

You let in speculation, then anything goes. For instance, one might as well say zeus was an alien, and he flew down here and did the tinkering. He took a trip back home but he'll be back and due to time dilation he'll have aged just a few years. These are more plausible than judeo-xtian god as ID actually, as theoretically all this is possible. But despite quite a few people having produced all sorts of arguments, albeit tenuous, to support the case ancient aliens visited us, it's far from a fact. It certainly shouldn't be in a classroom. The same for any ID actually.

Anyways, we should just present the facts, and one of those facts is that there are still gaps in our knowledge. We should stress we do not know some things, science is still working on them, and in fact maybe they could someday settle the issue conclusively. So how the students fill in the blanks should be left to them


edit: ah yeah, I agree on religious studies. I'll add I'd rather it be religious studies, not crs or irs. They should study various religions and the basics of how they work, spirituality, the lowest common denominators etc. As adults they can then go on to make their own informed decisions about faith, spirituality, religion, etc

What was this thread about sef?

wiegraf:

I don't agree, of course

For a science classroom, the aim is to support facts, or the scientific method. Evolution is built around facts, mutations, natural selection etc etc are all established facts. If you add time into the mix, evolution is inevitable. ID, on the other hand, seems like pure speculation to me, there's no smoking gun there.

You let in speculation, then anything goes. For instance, one might as well say zeus was an alien, and he flew down here and did the tinkering. He took a trip back home but he'll be back and due to time dilation he'll have aged just a few years. These are more plausible than judeo-xtian god as ID actually, as theoretically all this is possible. But despite quite a few people having produced all sorts of arguments, albeit tenuous, to support the case ancient aliens visited us, it's far from a fact. It certainly shouldn't be in a classroom. The same for any ID actually.

Anyways, we should just present the facts, and one of those facts is that there are still gaps in our knowledge. We should stress we do not know some things, science is still working on them, and in fact maybe they could someday settle the issue conclusively. So how the students fill in the blanks should be left to them


edit: ah yeah, I agree on religious studies. I'll add I'd rather it be religious studies, not crs or irs. They should study various religions and the basics of how they work, spirituality, the lowest common denominators etc. As adults they can then go on to make their own informed decisions about faith, spirituality, religion, etc

What was this thread about sef?

Fair points.

True, Religious studies could be ok if presented as general information about major religions.

Same should be done with evolution. What irks me a bit is how the knowledge gaps in evolution is not highlighted. The theories should be presented. The scietific facts should be taught - mutation, adaptability,etc.

That these facts have not irrefutably proven macro evolution should be taught. That the fossils generally show species appearing and disappearing suddenly and mostly unchanged over time should be taught. The fantastic time-reliant conjecture on origin of life or speciation based on little evidential backing should be presented as it really is - conjecture. No bias.

As u rightly pointed out, as adults we'll dig further and find our way.

TroGunn:

Fair points.

True, Religious studies could be ok if presented as general information about major religions.

Same should be done with evolution. What irks me a bit is how the knowledge gaps in evolution is not highlighted. The theories should be presented. The scietific facts should be taught - mutation, adaptability,etc.

That these facts have not irrefutably proven macro evolution should be taught. That the fossils generally show species appearing and disappearing suddenly and mostly unchanged over time should be taught. The fantastic time-reliant conjecture on origin of life or speciation based on little evidential backing should be presented as it really is - conjecture. No bias.

As u rightly pointed out, as adults we'll dig further and find our way.

I'm sort of cool with this. I don't think it conjecture, I think it more of shall we say a mathematical result. In that when you stir all this things together the inevitable result after the millions of years would be different species. But yes, there are gaps that could use some work on, and they should be highlighted. Hmmmm, how effective theories work in general should be well explained, as this isn't the only situation where we don't have all the answers yet. Crucially, critical thinking, but I'm not even sure if it's possible to teach that

On another note, I'm just curious. Do you reject evolution outrightly, or do you think it is being guided? If guided, in what manner, spiritually? Or do you think ID landed alien style and did some modifications then took off? etc. Note I'm asking for your opinion, I won't to attack it etc.

wiegraf:

I'm sort of cool with this. I don't think it conjecture, I think it more of shall we say a mathematical result. In that when you stir all this things together the inevitable result after the millions of years would be different species. But yes, there are gaps that could use some work on, and they should be highlighted. Hmmmm, how effective theories work in general should be well explained, as this isn't the only situation where we don't have all the answers yet. Crucially, critical thinking, but I'm not even sure if it's possible to teach that

On another note, I'm just curious. Do you reject evolution outrightly, or do you think it is being guided? If guided, in what manner, spiritually? Or do you think ID landed alien style and did some modifications then took off? etc. Note I'm asking for your opinion, I won't to attack it etc.

I believe the Genesis biblical account, which tallies with the evidence so far. That different "kinds" of life forms - plants, different land animals, sea animals, birds, man were created "male and female" (with ability to reproduce) and they grew their numbers from there - did not evolve one to the other, but appeared relatively suddenly. This does not necessarily go against having variations, adaptability within each "kind"- e.g dogs in different areas or group having different physical characteristics and with new characteristics coming up through mutation or cross breeding, but they remain dogs. I don't believe that big evolution leaps occurred, from reptiles to birds for example happened- each group created differently.

TroGunn:

I believe the Genesis biblical account, which tallies with the evidence so far. That different "kinds" of life forms - plants, different land animals, sea animals, birds, man were created "male and female" (with ability to reproduce) and they grew their numbers from there - did not evolve one to the other, but appeared relatively suddenly. This does not necessarily go against having variations, adaptability within each "kind"- e.g dogs in different areas or group having different physical characteristics and with new characteristics coming up through mutation or cross breeding, but they remain dogs. I don't believe that big evolution leaps occurred, from reptiles to birds for example happened- each group created differently.

Thanks!