Texas voting on science textbooks for public schools - evolution vs. creation

[chiguirre]

ETA: Stay out of the comments. I wish I had been able to find a clearer link somewhere else, but . . . That place is hate-central, as I would have expected, honestly. :(

Wow! You weren't kidding, that place is a cesspit!

[Parrothead]

But, why? It's a science class in a public school, the discussion of religion doesn't belong there.

This is ultimately why I think teaching creation in science class is wrong. It doesn't matter what religious beliefs a family has and would like to see in schools. The fact remains that teaching of religion in public school, and teaching creationism is teaching religion, is prohibited by the Establishment clause.

[Parrothead]

I believe there is bias in the science community and many times good science get's shoved under the rug because it doesn't follow the world view or politics of the science community.

 

Now, I've been on this earth long enough to know neither side is being truly honest. There is always an agenda and 9 times out of 10 if one follows the agenda far enough it will lead to the money. This happens with the religious creationist side just as often as it does the die-hard evolutionist side. It happens with the YEC and the OEC. It happens within the scientific community every day. If one doesn't think scientists won't stab each other in the back over funding, I've a bridge to sell you.

 

This is one reason I don't get too involved in these debates. Things are not as black and white as either side believes. Maybe everyone is wrong and it was the aliens.

 

I do wish this debate could be put to bed. I wish that minute piece of missing information could be found that takes ToE to the status of scientific law. So much time and emotion is spent over something so silly. I do think it is silly to put so much of ourselves into how we go here instead of what we are doing while we are here. There is so much wrong with the world, stop arguing a point that simply can't be proved and do something nice for someone else with your time.

 

Pax,

[Wheres Toto]

What, precisely, do you think kids were taught about pimps and mobsters? Have you read the worksheet?

 

Here's a link where I read it. 

 

http://www.infowars.com/fourth-graders-taught-about-pimps-and-mobstaz-in-louisiana/

 

Wow, talk about overreaction! 

 

And, what would I do if my kids asked me what pimps and mobsters were? I'd say, "They're criminals." And we'd follow up with discussing how not all songs, books, movies etc. are guides for how to live life.

 

Then, we'd talk about the Twist! :)  Can you identify the theme of this worksheet?

 

That wasn't so hard.

 

ETA: Stay out of the comments. I wish I had been able to find a clearer link somewhere else, but . . . That place is hate-central, as I would have expected, honestly. :(

 

Ugh.  I really wished I had finished reading your post before clicking on the link.  The comments are awful.   I'm really hoping that much of it was just trolls stirring up the pot, and they don't really feel that way.  :crying:

 

[SKL]

I haven't read any of this thread, but this is my opinion.  I will start caring about whether they teach evolution vs. creationism vs. intelligent design in schools AFTER the majority of public high school students are able to spell the following words:

 

evolution

creationism

intelligent

design

scientific

theory

 

Since that will probably never happen in my lifetime, I refuse to lose sleep over how much my neighbors' kids know about Darwin's theory.

[Parrothead]

I have a dumb question. Please feel free to pm me so as not derail the conversation.

 

Why is it so important to have Creationism viewed and taught as science? Would it lend greater validity to one's faith? Are there other faiths that seek to have their creation story treated as science?

 

 

If evolution "wins" then the Bible is wrong. If the Bible is wrong then God doesn't exist. We puny humans like to put limitations on God. This is my own personal problem with literalist bible believers.

 

Another aspect is that so many people have made this issue a huge part of who they are. I'm no longer a person looking for answers. I'm a person who has found the answer and every aspect of my life reflects this answer. All my friends believe my answer. The answer is reinforced within my social and religious circles, and perhaps even my work environment. I've vehemently defended my answer and if I'm wrong I will be seen as a fool at best.

 

The big three religions (Christianity, Muslim, Jewish) all share the same creation story.

[sunnyday]

I accidentally resurrected a thread while on an evolution rabbit trail.  I think it's worth reposting here: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/345246-the-unscientific-american-watches-a-mammal-walk-into-the-water-and-grow-fins/

 

That was an excellent link, I read the whole thing when lewelma linked it earlier in this thread. :)

[Parrothead]

Here's the most important thing to remember in this discussion.

 

For one side, the science is essentially meaningless. Even if every scientist in the world accepted evolution, True Believers would not. It's likely SaddleMama and Nancy Ann would still believe in "Biblical Young Earth Creationism" even if every Christian scientist on the planet. abandoned YEC (many have already done so, of course, but that's beside the point). Really, it's pointless to discuss the science. For the believer, science is merely a nice little tack-on (and why it's often so poor) to the belief.

 

If we had no evolutionary evidence at all, the Believer would believe in Creationism.

If we had piles of evolutionary evidence accepted by scholars of myriad science fields from all over the world, the Believer would believe in Creationism.

Nothing can affect the Belief--because it is "already True"

 

The science is completely moot. What's real is the Bible, and whatever runs contrary to the belief system is spiritual deception, misunderstanding, darkness or unwillingness of sinful people to believe. Therefore, the overwhelming science (and, yes, evolutionary science completely overwhelms the YEC pseudoscience in every field from genetics to immunology to virology to molecular biology, geobiology, and they all point to evolution) doesn't matter.

 

The fact that Believers even employ what they see as science is still meaningless. What matters is Genesis.

 

Why science is even brought up at all by YEC is misdirection.

Ummm.. For some believers. A very vocal subsection of believers.

[Parrothead]

Some people would say that America was made successful by western willingness to trample on the values, laws, culture, and religious beliefs of indigenous peoples.

 

Will you teach your children about the societal impact of culture that puts religion above compassion for humanity?

I think it was greed, not religion that trampled the rights of the indigenous people's.

[Onceuponatime]

I think it was greed, not religion that trampled the rights of the indigenous people's.

 

I agree, but religion was used as an excuse and  justification for much of what was done.

[Jane in NC]

 

 I'll also ask them to think about the societal impact of a culture that believes in evolution but not religion.

This statement troubles me.

 

Science is not about belief.  It is not about picking a canon with which one feels comfortable.

 

I think that all of us as parent educators need to consider the societal impact of a culture that fails to understand how science operates.

[Parrothead]

I agree, but religion was used as an excuse and justification for much of what was done.

That doesn't ultimately mean the religion was bad. That particular group used religion in a way it wasn't meant to be used. Throughout history, and even today in parts of the world, religion was twisted to man's greed and power. It wasn't meant to be that way. (Yes, Alberto, I know. No need to rehash it.) and we hardly ever hear of the good that comes from religion.

 

When was the last time a video or blog post went viral about Sr. Mary Margaret and her lifetime of service or Rabbi Goldblume's service project.

 

It is always the scandal. Always the bad stuff that makes the religion out to be the bad guy.

 

But I digress, and don't want to be chastised the way others were in this thread for derailing it.

 

Moving on.

[StaceyinLA]

I'm just gonna throw my 2 cents in and say that whether or not Texas is making a mistake is up for argument, but I applaud them for not buying into the "common core." I would prefer to NOT have children indoctrinated into the government's way of thinking. 

 

 

[Jen in NY]

Science is not about belief.  It is not about picking a canon with which one feels comfortable.

 

I think that all of us as parent educators need to consider the societal impact of a culture that fails to understand how science operates.

This. A million times this.

[nmoira]

I'm just gonna throw my 2 cents in and say that whether or not Texas is making a mistake is up for argument, but I applaud them for not buying into the "common core." I would prefer to NOT have children indoctrinated into the government's way of thinking. 

 

Would you mind going off to start your own thread about the Common Core instead of repeatedly posting about it here? 

[SKL]

This statement troubles me.

 

Science is not about belief.  It is not about picking a canon with which one feels comfortable.

 

I think that all of us as parent educators need to consider the societal impact of a culture that fails to understand how science operates.

 

Unfortunately "science" (or what I'll call the "science industry") is very politicized, responds depending on where the money is coming from, and very often (if not nearly always) has an agenda.

 

It would be terribly naive to believe everything the science industry produces.  Because it's very far from pure science.  I'm not actually sure that pure science has ever existed.

[nmoira]

Unfortunately "science" (or what I'll call the "science industry") is very politicized, responds depending on where the money is coming from, and very often (if not nearly always) has an agenda.

 

It would be terribly naive to believe everything the science industry produces.  Because it's very far from pure science.  I'm not actually sure that pure science has ever existed.

 

Do you think there is a body of established science?

 

Could you give some examples of "things the science industry produces" because that is "where the money comes from" that are taught in schools?

[justasque]

From a different perspective, I'm proud of Texas for re-opening the question of how public schools should handle teaching material that is controversial.  ...

 

Mrs Mungo - I don't have the pleasure of being as widely traveled as I would like, but I've certainly lived and worked in numerous melting pots for various cultures.  I'm not suggesting so much that the fix for public schools is a solid injection of religion, as much as that we as a society have lost our way and part of the reason has been due to the insistence of creating religious free, culture free, value free, and controversy free environments within our schools and public settings. ...

 

That said, I'll teach my kids evolution in detail at home...but I'll also tell them that it might not be complete and is just one theory and doesn't necessarily conflict with other beliefs.  I'll also ask them to think about the societal impact of a culture that believes in evolution but not religion.

 

 

~ Evolution is *socially* controversial, but not *scientifically* controversial.  The vast, vast majority of scientists agree with evolution.  

 

~ Evolution is not anti-religion in general.  It conflicts with the teachings of *some* Christian denominations.

 

~ I do not expect the public schools to teach values.  It's simply not what they are there for.  Families who want values, specifically religious values, mixed with their children's education should choose faith-based educational settings.  Rather than arguing for inserting faith into public schools, I think the better approach would be to encourage support for private schools.  As an example, in my state, students in private schools can get state-funded busing (within 10 miles) and state funds can be obtained by private schools to be used to purchase certain books and educational materials (not including religious texts) for their students.  This approach helps lower the cost of private schools while not getting the state involved with teaching religion.  Finding more opportunities for public and private support for private schools is an excellent way to encourage faith-based education.

 

~ The choice is not evolution vs. religion in general.  However, teaching evolution may indeed lead a student (or adult) to question the truth of a literal interpretation of the Bible, thus it is true that evolution is in conflict with this specific religious belief.  If families are concerned about this, the answer is not to try to get government-funded teachers to teach religion.  Rather, those families should seriously consider choosing a faith-based educational setting, including homeschooling (obviously) but also faith-based private schools.

[Jane in NC]

Unfortunately "science" (or what I'll call the "science industry") is very politicized, responds depending on where the money is coming from, and very often (if not nearly always) has an agenda.

 

It would be terribly naive to believe everything the science industry produces.  Because it's very far from pure science.  I'm not actually sure that pure science has ever existed.

Again, science is not about belief.  I fear derailing the thread but allow me to give an off topic example.

 

It was assumed for centuries that disease was transmitted by miasma, i.e. poisonous vapors.  The invention of the microscope led to the new theory of germs. Clearly technology helped moved science forward in the relatively new science of microbiology--as it does today with DNA sequencing.

 

Was the theory of miasma a belief or an explanation (however misplaced)? 

 

It is true that the theory of heliocentrism rocked the religious work, but religion survived Copernicus who himself was a religious man. It surprises me that you might think Copernicus had some outside agenda other than science.

 

I hope that this is not considered derailing the thread.  That was not my intention.

[nmoira]

I hope that this is not considered derailing the thread. That was not my intention.

It's relevant because the idea of "faith" or "belief" (in other than a very general sense) in science is one that has repeatedly come up.

[albeto.]

Now, I've been on this earth long enough to know neither side is being truly honest. There is always an agenda and 9 times out of 10 if one follows the agenda far enough it will lead to the money. This happens with the religious creationist side just as often as it does the die-hard evolutionist side. It happens with the YEC and the OEC. It happens within the scientific community every day. If one doesn't think scientists won't stab each other in the back over funding, I've a bridge to sell you.

The pressure to find funding is not insignificant in the scientific community. However, the scientific method itself is by far the best method we have of knowing the natural world, and how it works. That's what ought to be in the public school science classes. Issues like cell division are not dependent upon funding (any more ;)). Issues like GMOs are good for class discussion because it utilizes the scientific method to guide the discussion.

 

This is one reason I don't get too involved in these debates. Things are not as black and white as either side believes. Maybe everyone is wrong and it was the aliens.

 

If it was the aliens, evidence will show that. That's one o f the compelling reasons for continued scientific research - what unexpected, interesting fact will we find? However, I would argue that a debate between science and religion in public school science class rooms is very much a black and white issue.

 

I do wish this debate could be put to bed. I wish that minute piece of missing information could be found that takes ToE to the status of scientific law. So much time and emotion is spent over something so silly. I do think it is silly to put so much of ourselves into how we go here instead of what we are doing while we are here. There is so much wrong with the world, stop arguing a point that simply can't be proved and do something nice for someone else with your time.

 

Pax,

 

I disagree that this is silly. How we understand the natural world affects how we respond to various challenges. Knowing how science works means knowing that vaccines can prevent an outbreak of potentially deadly diseases (Texas Measles Outbreak Begun by Faith Healing Church). If this next generation is going to be competitive in the world market, they need to be familiar with facts, not beliefs (‘God Gave Me The Wisdom To Use Science As A Scientist To Prove Gay Marriage Wrong’ Says Student).

[redsquirrel]

I think it was greed, not religion that trampled the rights of the indigenous people's.

Well, there is justification for anything you like in the bible. Religion was certainly used as the reason and proof given from scripture for everything from clear cutting forests to slavery. I am quite sure some people felt it their god given duty.

And there are just as many people arguing the opposite using the same text. So, I understand your point, but you can't claim that it wasn't religion that was used to trample people's rights. It is used to trample and used to protect depending on who has the bible and the power. It saves and it burns.

 

I do wish this debate could be put to bed. I wish that minute piece of missing information could be found that takes ToE to the status of scientific law. So much time and emotion is spent over something so sill. I do think it is silly to put so much of ourselves into how we go here instead of what we are doing while we are here. There is so much wrong with the world, stop arguing a point that simply can't be proved and do something nice for someone else with your time.

 

Pax,

 

Right there, is your error. That isn't how it works. It isn't like how a bill becomes a law. It's not like some scientific congress has signed off on a theory of evolution and now we are waiting for a science president to sign it into law.

 

Facts are laws. How things work are theories. Scientific laws are often represented as mathematical statements. Theories are wordy and addresses a body of evidence. That is very simplified and I hope someone with more time can speak up, but a theory doesn't become law. There aren't any 'missing pieces' to The Germ Theory of Illness are there? Are you still waiting for more evidence? What about the Theory of Gravity? Are you holding out on that one? They aren't 'laws' and won't become laws. There is also a law of gravity, but that is the mathematical equation and is used in the theory.

 

 

 

 

I haven't read any of this thread, but this is my opinion.  I will start caring about whether they teach evolution vs. creationism vs. intelligent design in schools AFTER the majority of public high school students are able to spell the following words:

 

evolution

creationism

intelligent

design

scientific

theory

 

Since that will probably never happen in my lifetime, I refuse to lose sleep over how much my neighbors' kids know about Darwin's theory.

 

I think it is much more important that they understand the big ideas of how the world works than worry about spelling. I see no need to withhold scientific education based on how well someone navigates phonics. I've heard Einstein wasn't so great with spelling, but he managed.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I haven't read any of this thread, but this is my opinion.  I will start caring about whether they teach evolution vs. creationism vs. intelligent design in schools AFTER the majority of public high school students are able to spell the following words:

 

evolution

creationism

intelligent

design

scientific

theory

 

Since that will probably never happen in my lifetime, I refuse to lose sleep over how much my neighbors' kids know about Darwin's theory.

 

So you claim the majority of public high school students cannot spell those words?

 

Mmmhhhmmmm.

 

[sunnyday]

I do wish this debate could be put to bed. I wish that minute piece of missing information could be found that takes ToE to the status of scientific law.

 

Discussion threads like this will go on as long as there is factual inaccuracy to correct. We can agree to disagree on beliefs, but misunderstanding a scientific theory as "not quite a law" is just fundamentally *wrong*. And although this has been explained many times in this thread, I will try one more time.

 

A law is to a theory as an axiom is to a theorem.

 

The triangle inequality theorem will never be an axiom. It isn't basic enough. It isn't definite enough. It must be proven. It HAS been proven. But it's based on axioms. If the axioms are flawed, the proof could be called into question. But the axioms are as solid as anyone can expect. For example, there is a straight line between any two points. Period.

 

The electromagnetic theory will never be a law. It's based on observable laws of the physical world. It's been repeatedly tested and has held up to scrutiny for over one hundred and fifty years. Electrodynamics tweaked it, but did not throw it out. Electromagnetic theory is fundamentally solid, verifiable and repeatedly upheld by observation. Yet it will NEVER be a law. That's not how it works.

 

Biology is squishier. But it's still science. And its theories are still firmly grounded, verifiable, well-tested, based on observable law and the accepted rules of logical induction. They will never *be* law. They are *based* on laws, such as the Laws of Inheritance. But theories don't aspire to be laws. They don't evolve into laws or go extinct. ;) They simply exist within the body of knowledge that could conceivably find a counterexample that would blow them out of the water, but in fact that body of knowledge has not and presumably never will find such a fundamental flaw in the Theory of Evolution. That is as good as it gets, in science.

[albeto.]

Sure, but to acknowledge that we can be conditioned doesn't change the fact that we still possess the ability to *choose*, i.e. that we possess free will.

 

Acknowledgement that we have free will doesn't mean that it's unfettered, without any limitations whatsoever, etc. I'd certainly agree that we can be impacted by both external and internal stimulii in ways that we are often unaware. But the conclusion does not follow that we cannot make up our own mind. The fact that we can persuade and be persuaded indicates -- ironically -- that we are free to choose between one idea and another.

 

Perhaps, but studies show that the brain prepares for actions before a conscious decision is made, and that was just the beginning of the science that started to explore this time-honored assumption. In any case, in an attempt to keep this in line with the topic of this thread, the potential philosophical consequences of any scientific discovery should not be a factor in teaching scientific facts to students. If free will is indeed an illusion (and the topic is really in its infancy, there will be no great amount of evidence from which to draw conclusions for a long time, I'm sure), that shouldn't be a determining factor in whether or not science is supplemented with religious beliefs. Just as a reminder for others reading, the free will topic came up in response to the comment saddlemomma shared, "...if Nagel’s doubts about materialism hold up (and few laymen really accept materialism in the first place, because it denies free will and we know that consciousness is real), then the idea that there never was much to support Darwinism may one day be accepted. It was extrapolated from the observed facts of variation; it was assumed but has never been demonstrated."

[Parrothead]

The pressure to find funding is not insignificant in the scientific community. However, the scientific method itself is by far the best method we have of knowing the natural world, and how it works. That's what ought to be in the public school science classes. Issues like cell division are not dependent upon funding (any more ;)). Issues like GMOs are good for class discussion because it utilizes the scientific method to guide the discussion.

 

 

If it was the aliens, evidence will show that. That's one o f the compelling reasons for continued scientific research - what unexpected, interesting fact will we find? However, I would argue that a debate between science and religion in public school science class rooms is very much a black and white issue.

 

 

I disagree that this is silly. How we understand the natural world affects how we respond to various challenges. Knowing how science works means knowing that vaccines can prevent an outbreak of potentially deadly diseases (Texas Measles Outbreak Begun by Faith Healing Church). If this next generation is going to be competitive in the world market, they need to be familiar with facts, not beliefs (‘God Gave Me The Wisdom To Use Science As A Scientist To Prove Gay Marriage Wrong’ Says Student).

I'm going to try to hit all your points. My PC is otherwise occupied. If I miss something I'll proof and come back.

 

Yes, I agree with you on point one. It is one of the reasons I use a secular text for science in my homeschool. I believe public schools should always use secular texts. Period. I don't live in Texas, and I don't believe religious texts should be used in public schools. My comment about funding was in reference to someone seeming to imply that science does not have a agenda, and that funding is tied to that agenda. Any mainstream scientist will tell you the same. Funding depends on relative research. It is the rare scientist who can afford to work on pet projects with his own money. You can google that yourself if you need a citation.

 

Point 2 I agree with both of your points. I didn't state otherwise. I do not believe religion has a place in public school. I never argued for it.

 

You've misinterpreted my third point. I don't think it is silly to know how our world works and I believe we do need excellent secular science in our schools. What I find silly is the continued vehement emotion on both sides of this Texas school book debate. As we have shown time and again in our own discussions neither side will change the others mind. All the emotion invested does nothing. Except maybe give one ulcers.

 

Ultimately what will happen is one side will win. The other side will still teach their side to their children at home. Nothing changes other than maybe the other side does the home teaching and for sure the textbook company is going to make a lot of money.

 

Why waste the emotion? I think it would be better spent elsewhere. I understand that you may not. And that is okay too. But we won't change each other's minds.

[albeto.]

You've misinterpreted my third point. I don't think it is silly to know how our world works and I believe we do need excellent secular science in our schools. What I find silly is the continued vehement emotion on both sides of this Texas school book debate. As we have shown time and again in our own discussions neither side will change the others mind. All the emotion invested does nothing. Except maybe give one ulcers.

 

Discussions of this nature don't affect everyone that way. Tracy has explained how she decided to look into the facts herself due to the introduction of what the theory of evolution really means because of conversations like this. That's but one person. Multiply this a million fold and you'll see why these conversations are of vital importance for a nation with access to modern day technology and a bronze-aged understanding of how the world works.

 

Ultimately what will happen is one side will win. The other side will still teach their side to their children at home. Nothing changes other than maybe the other side does the home teaching and for sure the textbook company is going to make a lot of money.

 

I disagree that nothing changes. Take a poke at the links in my last post to see what happens when people don't understand science, and yet make decisions that affect others.

 

Why waste the emotion? I think it would be better spent elsewhere. I understand that you may not. And that is okay too. But we won't change each other's minds.

 

Well, I don't think it's a waste, but if I can completely understand why some people are emotionally invested in this issue. I'm emotionally invested in other issues that don't raise as much as a blip on others' radar, but that doesn't mean it's a waste. It means only that it's important to some, and not to others, and the consequences affect all.

[Parrothead]

Well, there is justification for anything you like in the bible. Religion was certainly used as the reason and proof given from scripture for everything from clear cutting forests to slavery. I am quite sure some people felt it their god given duty.

And there are just as many people arguing the opposite using the same text. So, I understand your point, but you can't claim that it wasn't religion that was used to trample people's rights. It is used to trample and used to protect depending on who has the bible and the power. It saves and it burns.

 

 

Right there, is your error. That isn't how it works. It isn't like how a bill becomes a law. It's not like some scientific congress has signed off on a theory of evolution and now we are waiting for a science president to sign it into law.

 

Facts are laws. How things work are theories. Scientific laws are often represented as mathematical statements. Theories are wordy and addresses a body of evidence. That is very simplified and I hope someone with more time can speak up, but a theory doesn't become law. There aren't any 'missing pieces' to The Germ Theory of Illness are there? Are you still waiting for more evidence? What about the Theory of Gravity? Are you holding out on that one? They aren't 'laws' and won't become laws. There is also a law of gravity, but that is the mathematical equation and is used in the theory.

 

 

 

 

 

I think it is much more important that they understand the big ideas of how the world works than worry about spelling. I see no need to withhold scientific education based on how well someone navigates phonics. I've heard Einstein wasn't so great with spelling, but he managed.

Your point one- huh? You took what I said and twisted and pulled until I don't even understand what you said.

 

Point two- then high school science education isn't all it is cracked up to be. Sadly, the way it was presented in my high school science classes was just that. Perhaps others in this thread that don't "get" it were taught similarly. And that is why it is brought up again and again. For those of us who think it is a theory and therefore subject to change in the future, I'm willing to bet that is what we were taught.

 

Point three I thin the poster was being facetious. But I may be wrong, which is often the case.

[redsquirrel]

 

Why waste the emotion? I think it would be better spent elsewhere. I understand that you may not. And that is okay too. But we won't change each other's minds.

 

Because there is a whole lot at stake. I am not expecting to change anyone's mind about creation or evolution. That isn't the point. But teaching science in science class is important. Good science education is important.  Good public education is important and it is worth fighting for. Teaching people to think critically is important. The very freedom of this nation depends upon it. People who don't understand basic science or who think it is confusing or not worth the bother are easily tricked and led. I am amazed at how these discussions uncover people's basic lack of understanding about what we know about the world.

 

Understanding the difference between faith and science is important. Understanding the limitations of science is important and can only happen if you are educated about science to begin with.

 

Having a population that is scientifically educated and intellectually curious about the world is important. The more you know, the more you want to know. The more you know about what isn't known the better you know what to ask and where to look. The more you know, the more you wonder and the world is richer for it.

 

So, I think solid science education, solid public education in general, is important for us as individuals and as a country and as a world. I think it is something worth fighting for.

[Parrothead]

Discussions of this nature don't affect everyone that way. Tracy has explained how she decided to look into the facts herself due to the introduction of what the theory of evolution really means because of conversations like this. That's but one person. Multiply this a million fold and you'll see why these conversations are of vital importance for a nation with access to modern day technology and a bronze-aged understanding of how the world works.

 

 

I disagree that nothing changes. Take a poke at the links in my last post to see what happens when people don't understand science, and yet make decisions that affect others.

 

 

Well, I don't think it's a waste, but if I can completely understand why some people are emotionally invested in this issue. I'm emotionally invested in other issues that don't raise as much as a blip on others' radar, but that doesn't mean it's a waste. It means only that it's important to some, and not to others, and the consequences affect all.

I believe statistically Tracy is an anomaly. I may be wrong as I've not heard of any studies, just informal polls. Again, I don't think the conversations are not important. They do need to happen. I've already made my position clear on the emotional aspect of the conversations. I don't need to restate a third time. We won't agree. And no one else may agree with me, but that doesn't change how I feel on the matter.

 

I was not speaking of science in particular. Just these instances in general. If side A, no matter the topic, doesn't like what side B wins, said A will continue on elsewhere.

 

Again we see things differently. Nothing wrong with that. But I'm free to state my opinion, just as you are.

[Ipsey]

Ummm.. For some believers. A very vocal subsection of believers.

 

I meant YEC-Believers. Sorry to not make that clearer.

[Parrothead]

Because there is a whole lot at stake. I am not expecting to change anyone's mind about creation or evolution. That isn't the point. But teaching science in science class is important. Good science education is important. Good public education is important and it is worth fighting for. Teaching people to think critically is important. The very freedom of this nation depends upon it. People who don't understand basic science or who think it is confusing or not worth the bother are easily tricked and led. I am amazed at how these discussions uncover people's basic lack of understanding about what we know about the world.

 

Understanding the difference between faith and science is important. Understanding the limitations of science is important and can only happen if you are educated about science to begin with.

 

Having a population that is scientifically educated and intellectually curious about the world is important. The more you know, the more you want to know. The more you know about what isn't known the better you know what to ask and where to look. The more you know, the more you wonder and the world is richer for it.

 

So, I think solid science education, solid public education in general, is important for us as individuals and as a country and as a world. I think it is something worth fighting for.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree these are important issues. 100%. Otherwise I wouldn't be homeschooling. And I'm not saying I've not learned something from this particular discussion. It just takes a whole lot more for me to get emotional. And as I'm getting older it is taking even more. Maybe emotion is a commodity of the young. Maybe deep down inside I truly don't care enough about what others do because I'm too busy caring about what I'm doing. I don't know.

[albeto.]

Again we see things differently. Nothing wrong with that. But I'm free to state my opinion, just as you are.

 

Well, I should think that goes without saying, but discussions like this serve a purpose. If that purpose is not of interest to you, I'm not sure why you would participate. To imply it affects everyone similarly is an odd idea, and one worth addressing.

[nmoira]

Because there is a whole lot at stake. I am not expecting to change anyone's mind about creation or evolution. That isn't the point. But teaching science in science class is important. Good science education is important.  Good public education is important and it is worth fighting for. Teaching people to think critically is important. The very freedom of this nation depends upon it. People who don't understand basic science or who think it is confusing or not worth the bother are easily tricked and led. I am amazed at how these discussions uncover people's basic lack of understanding about what we know about the world.

 

Absolutely. In a nutshell, my goal in a science education is to produce scientifically (and statistically) literate kids who have the confidence and the ability to evaluate information about current issues with a skeptical eye. 

 

I have a side question related to this. Where does everybody get their science news (e.g. newspapers, TV news, TV science shows, BBC or other Internet news sites, blogs, etc.) and how good do you think your sources are? If there's enough interest, I'll start another thread. 

[Parrothead]

Well, I should think that goes without saying, but discussions like this serve a purpose. If that purpose is not of interest to you, I'm not sure why you would participate. To imply it affects everyone similarly is an odd idea, and one worth addressing.

You are putting words in my mouth, my friend. I didn't say I wasn't interested. I said I didn't see the need in being emotional. One can have a purposeful discussion without a lit of emotion.

 

 

(Okay would you hate me forever if I add, "Vulcans do it all the time," to the end up there? )

[Truscifi]

You are putting words in my mouth, my friend. I didn't say I wasn't interested. I said I didn't see the need in being emotional. One can have a purposeful discussion without a lit of emotion.

 

 

(Okay would you hate me forever if I add, "Vulcans do it all the time," to the end up there? )

 

I understand what you are saying, Chucki. I have been following this thread closely and with great interest, but have posted very little because I don't have the energy to deal with this level of emotion about what should (IMO) be a calmly and rationally discussed topic. People getting all worked up - on either side - only distract from the points they are trying to make anyway.

 

I don't want to engage in finger pointing about who is getting worked up or anything, I'm just saying I agree with the general point that being interested in the topic and considering it important is not the same as being emotionally involved in the discussion.

 

ETA - Also, my hand hurts from where I sliced it open a few days ago, so it is taking me longer to type stuff and requires a lot more motivation to respond in the first place.

 

 

[redsquirrel]

You are putting words in my mouth, my friend. I didn't say I wasn't interested. I said I didn't see the need in being emotional. One can have a purposeful discussion without a lit of emotion.

 

 

(Okay would you hate me forever if I add, "Vulcans do it all the time," to the end up there? )

 

You say you wonder why people get 'emotional' about the subject and that is your conundrum? Individual people's emotional response or lack thereof? You are wondering why they can't respond to the subject like you?  Well, the simplest answer is they are not you. Some find that fact exhilarating while others find it frustrating.

 

Other people are separate entities from you and have their own wants, needs and desires. They also have their own responses based on their life experiences. Each person is going to have their own individual response to stimuli and it can be difficult to predict what that will be without knowing more about each individual person.

 

Perhaps there have been times in your life when you had an emotional response to a stimuli and others did not? I am sure you had your reasons. This topic, and many others, is like that situation you experienced. Take that information about yourself and apply it to other people. 

 

And I know it can be challenging to deal with an emotional response from individuals when you yourself do not have one, but that is part of the human experience. Other people are not you. Telling them not to, or telling them they are being silly for having one isn't going to help the discussion to move forward. Sometimes it is best to just let them have their experience, and sometimes it is worthwhile to determine the source of their emotional response. But, generally, an emotional response cannot be argued out of happening.

 

[albeto.]

You are putting words in my mouth, my friend. I didn't say I wasn't interested. I said I didn't see the need in being emotional. One can have a purposeful discussion without a lit of emotion.

 

 

(Okay would you hate me forever if I add, "Vulcans do it all the time," to the end up there? )

 

You mentioned that you don't get too involved in these debates, and you wished this debate could be put to bed. You suggested that so much time and emotion is spent over something so silly. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth to suggest you weren't interested, I thought that was implied. Thanks for the correction. For what it's worth, I don't think I'm the only one participating in this conversation without emotional stress. 

[Parrothead]

You say you wonder why people get 'emotional' about the subject and that is your conundrum? Individual people's emotional response or lack thereof? You are wondering why they can't respond to the subject like you? Well, the simplest answer is they are not you. Some find that fact exhilarating while others find it frustrating.

 

Other people are separate entities from you and have their own wants, needs and desires. They also have their own responses based on their life experiences. Each person is going to have their own individual response to stimuli and it can be difficult to predict what that will be without knowing more about each individual person.

 

Perhaps there have been times in your life when you had an emotional response to a stimuli and others did not? I am sure you had your reasons. This topic, and many others, is like that situation you experienced. Take that information about yourself and apply it to other people.

 

And I know it can be challenging to deal with an emotional response from individuals when you yourself do not have one, but that is part of the human experience. Other people are not you. Telling them not to, or telling them they are being silly for having one isn't going to help the discussion to move forward. Sometimes it is best to just let them have their experience, and sometimes it is worthwhile to determine the source of their emotional response. But, generally, an emotional response cannot be argued out of happening.

Ah, no. You are reading a lot into what I posted. I'm entitled to express my opinion, same as anyone else. I did not say I found any particular person silly or that I wanted everyone to be just like me. I did not tell anyone not to be emotional.

 

My comment is no different than saying, "I find reality TV ridiculous," or that "I feel the color red to be overly used." My thoughts and comments do not reflect badly on anyone. If they do I'm sure the moderator will remove them.

 

Just as I'm entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to yours. I've not asked or otherwise indicated that I want anyone to conform to my way of thinking. I'm not sure where you are getting that. Actually, I believe you've read an awful lot into one comment.

 

Have I ever responded emotionally to a topic, sure. Did I learn anything by that experience? Yes. And as such I tend to keep my emotions in check now when discussion various controversial topics.

 

I've not tried to argue anyone out of a response to the topic at hand. I've simply stated what my thoughts were on one particular aspect of it. I'm sorry my opinion brought you grief, but I can't take them back and wouldn't if I could. That would mean my opinion wasn't as valid as the next person's opinion.

[Parrothead]

You mentioned that you don't get too involved in these debates, and you wished this debate could be put to bed. You suggested that so much time and emotion is spent over something so silly. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth to suggest you weren't interested, I thought that was implied. Thanks for the correction. For what it's worth, I don't think I'm the only one participating in this conversation without emotional stress.

No, I don't get overly involved. And yes I do wish the evolution/creation debate were a done deal. I don't see where that is a problem. I'm sure there are others who would like to see it finally played out.

 

I wasn't referring to anyone persons emotional status when I made the comment. In all actuality it was a general statement about people both here on the board and the general public. This topic has been years, YEARS, in the making. After listening to snippets, reading long articles, listening to debate after debate, I see nothing wrong with being of the opinion it is time to come to a conclusion.

[Jane in NC]

Absolutely. In a nutshell, my goal in a science education is to produce scientifically (and statistically) literate kids who have the confidence and the ability to evaluate information about current issues with a skeptical eye. 

 

I have a side question related to this. Where does everybody get their science news (e.g. newspapers, TV news, TV science shows, BBC or other Internet news sites, blogs, etc.) and how good do you think your sources are? If there's enough interest, I'll start another thread. 

 

Over on the high school board we seem to have regular conversations on sources for science news and general supplementation to text books.  I think it would be a good idea to start your suggested thread here on the Chat board where parents of youngers may be more inclined to see it.

[LibraryLover]

The bible doesn't have to be wrong for evolution to make scientific sense. At least not according to the Roman Catholic Church:

 

"Since the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859, the attitude of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has slowly been refined. For about 100 years, there was no authoritative pronouncement on the subject. In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.^[1] Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation:^[2]

According to Eugenie Scott, Director of the US National Center for Science Education: [Theistic evolutionism] is the official position of the Catholic church. In 1996, Pope John Paul II reiterated the Catholic TE position, according to which God created, evolution occurred, human beings may indeed have been descended from more primitive forms, and the Hand of God was required for the production of the human soul"^[3]

Statements from the Church in recent decades hold that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins. Moreover, the Church teaches that the process of evolution is a planned and purpose-driven natural process, guided by God.^[4][5][6]

Though there is no obligation for Catholics to believe any part of scientific evolutionary theory, Catholic schools in the United States and other countries teach evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains why evolution occurs. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach. Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo of Richmond, chair of the Committee on Science and Human Values in a December 2004 letter sent to all U.S. bishops: "... Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence. At the same time, Catholic parents whose children are in public schools should ensure that their children are also receiving appropriate catechesis at home and in the parish on God as Creator. Students should be able to leave their biology classes, and their courses in religious instruction, with an integrated understanding of the means God chose to make us who we."

 

PS It's from Wiki

[swimmermom3]

Now, I've been on this earth long enough to know neither side is being truly honest. There is always an agenda and 9 times out of 10 if one follows the agenda far enough it will lead to the money. This happens with the religious creationist side just as often as it does the die-hard evolutionist side. It happens with the YEC and the OEC. It happens within the scientific community every day. If one doesn't think scientists won't stab each other in the back over funding, I've a bridge to sell you.

 

This is one reason I don't get too involved in these debates. Things are not as black and white as either side believes. Maybe everyone is wrong and it was the aliens.

 

I do wish this debate could be put to bed. I wish that minute piece of missing information could be found that takes ToE to the status of scientific law. So much time and emotion is spent over something so silly. I do think it is silly to put so much of ourselves into how we go here instead of what we are doing while we are here. There is so much wrong with the world, stop arguing a point that simply can't be proved and do something nice for someone else with your time.

 

Pax,

 

The money part could be applied to the current state of education too.

 

Chucki, awesome post!

 

ETA: But I do like debate and I have probably left evidence of that all over this board the last two days.Ack!

 

[nmoira]

Over on the high school board we seem to have regular conversations on sources for science news and general supplementation to text books.  I think it would be a good idea to start your suggested thread here on the Chat board where parents of youngers may be more inclined to see it.

 

I was more curious where people actually get their science "news" as opposed to looking for resources. But thanks for the tip about the high school board. I don't spend enough time there (probably denial :D  ).

[livetoread]

I think these conversations do change what people think. Not immediately, but maybe someone reads something that makes them ponder a bit. Then they research a bit more. Then they discuss it with someone in real life. And so on. Remember there are hundreds of people "listening in" to this conversation, and who knows what they are thinking!

 

In the heat of discussion, no one suddenly sees the light and flips. But given enough time, and enough discussions, I do think people end up thinking differently. I went from a YEC, to an OEC, to an evolutionary creationist, to a non-believing acceptor of evolution, and Internet discussions played a not-so-minor part in that. Some I participated in, and some I just observed. There were plenty of other reasons and sources too, but the discussions over the years exposed me to things I had never thought of before.

[redsquirrel]

 

I've not tried to argue anyone out of a response to the topic at hand. I've simply stated what my thoughts were on one particular aspect of it. I'm sorry my opinion brought you grief, but I can't take them back and wouldn't if I could. That would mean my opinion wasn't as valid as the next person's opinion.

 

Your opinions or lack thereof brings me neither grief nor joy. So, maybe it is you who is misreading people's response? I don't know.

 

And just because someone engages in vigorous debate doesn't mean that it is coming from an emotional place. People are capable of holding tremendous intellectual debates on a wide range of topics without feeling emotionally distressed.

 

But, where are you being told you are not 'entitled to an opinion'? I did point out a factual error you made, confusion about what a law is in science vs a theory, but I never questioned your entitlement to opinions. We are all entitled to our own opinion, but not to our own facts. If you are basing your opinion is based upon an incorrect fact then logic dictates we adjust. I will question an opinion if the facts are wrong. If I told you my opinion is that we can breath water I would hope you would question me about my facts. My MIL thought the salmon she was purchasing was wild caught. I pointed out the sticker on the package that read "farm raised in Chile." Her opinion was based on an incorrect fact. I don't think she appreciated my pointing it out though.

 

Sometimes we adjust by holding two competing and contradictory opinions at the same time, again, that is part of the human condition. But, it is important that we acknowledge that is what we are doing and why we are doing it. I am not saying that is what you are doing, not at all. I am just pointing out one of the ways we adjust our opinions to new facts.

 

But where are you being told you may not hold an opinion? Challenging your opinion, asking questions about how you came to it or just commenting on how your opinion is different from mine isn't the same as questioning your right to hold it. Again, that is part and parcel of taking part in an intellectual debate. You say things and people comment on it or argue with it or ask questions about why you hold that opinion. It isn't being emotional or questioning your right to an opinion, it is having a conversation.

 

And again, where is your right to hold an opinion being questioned?

[Parrothead]

Your opinions or lack thereof brings me neither grief nor joy. So, maybe it is you who is misreading people's response? I don't know.

 

And just because someone engages in vigorous debate doesn't mean that it is coming from an emotional place. People are capable of holding tremendous intellectual debates on a wide range of topics without feeling emotionally distressed.

 

But, where are you being told you are not 'entitled to an opinion'? I did point out a factual error you made, confusion about what a law is in science vs a theory, but I never questioned your entitlement to opinions. We are all entitled to our own opinion, but not to our own facts. If you are basing your opinion is based upon an incorrect fact then logic dictates we adjust. I will question an opinion if the facts are wrong. If I told you my opinion is that we can breath water I would hope you would question me about my facts. My MIL thought the salmon she was purchasing was wild caught. I pointed out the sticker on the package that read "farm raised in Chile." Her opinion was based on an incorrect fact. I don't think she appreciated my pointing it out though.

 

Sometimes we adjust by holding two competing and contradictory opinions at the same time, again, that is part of the human condition. But, it is important that we acknowledge that is what we are doing and why we are doing it. I am not saying that is what you are doing, not at all. I am just pointing out one of the ways we adjust our opinions to new facts.

 

But where are you being told you may not hold an opinion? Challenging your opinion, asking questions about how you came to it or just commenting on how your opinion is different from mine isn't the same as questioning your right to hold it. Again, that is part and parcel of taking part in an intellectual debate. You say things and people comment on it or argue with it or ask questions about why you hold that opinion. It isn't being emotional or questioning your right to an opinion, it is having a conversation.

 

And again, where is your right to hold an opinion being questioned?

Well, back on post 396 you pretty much handed me my ass for stating my opinion that all the emotion in the textbook debate (both here and in the world in general) is getting silly.

 

If you just want to use forum space to argue with me over my opinion or lack thereof or whatever, go for it. But I reserve the right to bow out because I'm finding it tiresome to answer the same question posed by a variety of posters. I feel I've thoroughly explained my comment numerous times prior to your questioning it a gain in post 396.

 

If you just want the last word so your position is superior, say so. I'll bow out and you can have it.

[[email protected]]

Parrothead, Redsquirrel,

 

Take it to PM. Or else.

 

Moderator