Did I wake up in 1920?

[TimH]

Who turned on the Way-Back machine?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05...eut/index.html

#-o

[Lurker]

Who turned on the Way-Back machine?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05...eut/index.html

#-o

Nope... you've just been under the mistaken impression that humanity becomes wiser with the passage of time. There is in fact no connection between the two.

Come on TimH, this has been shown time and time again!! [-(


:wink:

[frogesque]

I just hope they teach the true story of evolution.

Edit: Removed link per EMPs post.

[electromagneticpulse]

Nope... you've just been under the mistaken impression that humanity becomes wiser with the passage of time. There is in fact no connection between the two.

I disagree; I believe wisdom is like affluence. The richer get richer and the poorer get poorer so keeping with that the unwise get wiserless (My new word for the day 8-[ ) and the wise get short and green and speak backwards.

[Maksutov]

Who turned on the Way-Back machine?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05...eut/index.html

#-o

Semi-ToSeeked!

[Gullible Jones]

AARRGH!!! I cannot believe it... Once is stupid, twice is absolutely bloody ridiculous!

(Frogesque: that animation is funny, but it's also rather offensive. Not all men are like that, you know, although a fair number certainly are.)

[Disinfo Agent]

And not all women are like that one, either. :P :wink:

[SeanF]

. . . which opponents say are part of a larger nationwide effort by religious interests to gain control over government.

Interesting that wanting control over what your children are taught has become synonymous with wanting "control over government."

But this thread is destined to get political, isn't it?

[Disinfo Agent]

Interesting that wanting control over what your children are taught has become synonymous with wanting "control over government."

I think what people don't like is the bit about controlling what other people's children are taught.
Not to mention that one's children are not one's property. They have the right to a good education, regardless of the religious convictions of their parents, or at least they should have that right.

[Frog march]

Its the same with wind turbines in the UK.
Wanting to have their cake and eat it too.(edit- I mean the protesters against)

If the creationists want creationisum or ID taught in school then they should also have to go live in a draughty log cabin in the woods with no electricity or running water and walk behind a plow pulled by an ox.
Then they can believe and teach what they like.

[SeanF]

Interesting that wanting control over what your children are taught has become synonymous with wanting "control over government."

I think what people don't like is the bit about controlling what other people's children are taught.

Are you suggesting that in this case one side is trying to do that and the other side isn't?

Not to mention that one's children are not one's property. They have the right to a good education, regardless of the religious convictions of their parents, or at least they should have that right.

That's scary. Who determines what's a "good education" and what isn't?

[Lurker]

. . . which opponents say are part of a larger nationwide effort by religious interests to gain control over government.

Interesting that wanting control over what your children are taught has become synonymous with wanting "control over government."

But this thread is destined to get political, isn't it?

Actually, a parent is welcome to teach philosophy, religious beliefs, morals, and other values to their children. In fact they have a lot of control over this territory. The question is what should be taught in school. That's why I have so much trouble with this whole controversery. Evolution is a legitimate scientific model while creationism and intelligent design are not.

It's not like the school is threatening to require students to study philosophies or religions that that their parents disagree with. They want to make evolution a required part of a science curriculum . Where do we go from here? What if people decide that calculus is the devil's tool?? Or that one must not study organic chemistry because it might lead to an understanding DNA which is forbidden by some religion?? Are we back to religion controlling what is or is not orthodox knowledge??

Do we have to go back to the idea that the planets orbit the sun in perfect circles? Do we have to go back to an earth centered solar system??

[Disinfo Agent]

Interesting that wanting control over what your children are taught has become synonymous with wanting "control over government."

I think what people don't like is the bit about controlling what other people's children are taught.

Are you suggesting that in this case one side is trying to do that and the other side isn't?

Trying to censor a scientific topic from a science curriculum does meet my definition of "controlling".

Not to mention that one's children are not one's property. They have the right to a good education, regardless of the religious convictions of their parents, or at least they should have that right.

That's scary. Who determines what's a "good education" and what isn't?

How about the Kansas Board of Education? They seem to be in charge of it already.

[SeanF]

How about the Kansas Board of Education? They're in charge of it already.

Great. So what's the problem with what's going on down there?

[Frog march]

bring on Ganesh,




that should scare the fundies.

[Disinfo Agent]

How about the Kansas Board of Education? They're in charge of it already.

Great. So what's the problem with what's going on down there?

You said it yourself: it's scary. :P

[Gullible Jones]

Argh... Big ugly elephant... no shirt... stretch marks... nooooo!

[SeanF]

How about the Kansas Board of Education? They're in charge of it already.

Great. So what's the problem with what's going on down there?

You said it yourself: it's scary. :P

:P That's not what I said was scary!

Why is it scary that the KBoE is doing exactly what you said they should do, deciding what's a good education?

I'm assuming that if the KBoE were to decide that creationism is part of a "good education," that you would then conclude that they shouldn't be in charge of that decision - am I right?

[Doodler]

. . . which opponents say are part of a larger nationwide effort by religious interests to gain control over government.

Interesting that wanting control over what your children are taught has become synonymous with wanting "control over government."

But this thread is destined to get political, isn't it?

Nothing like conquering the future when the present is too stubborn to cooperate. Impressionable minds are easy territory to cover. Too many doubts, still not quite sure of the line between fantasy and reality, and not enough information to adequately sort fact from fable.

[Inferno]

I can't believe the US has this insane evolution v creationism debate. Here in Australia there really is no such issue. We're not so obssessed about the separation of church and state. At my public school I went to scripture classes once a week (If you weren't Chrisitan you could get a note from your parents excusing from it). But most of us went. It was just another class, except we cared even less.

Mind you, the politicans here seem to want to bring up the whole Abortion thing, and are considering lowering funding for IVF treatment. Maybe creationism is next.

[Gillianren]

What if people decide that calculus is the devil's tool??

you mean it's not?

[Disinfo Agent]

Why is it scary that the KBoE is doing exactly what you said they should do, deciding what's a good education?

What's scary is that they're considering changing the science part of the curriculum because of religion/populism.

I'm assuming that if the KBoE were to decide that creationism is part of a "good education," that you would then conclude that they shouldn't be in charge of that decision - am I right?

When I learned biology in high school, creationism was discussed. Is it different in Kansas?

[Frog march]

If the creationists want to change science lessons into religious classes, perhaps they should let them but they would have to learn about all different types of creationism from all the major religions and then when the students can't get places at college perhaps the parents will think better of it. Although perhaps just Kansas could be an experiment in this.

[electromagneticpulse]

I say put god in science lessons. Then just have the teachers explain god can't possibly exist because he refuses to prove he exists but he created the universe and mankind so hasn't he proven he exists already so logically he can't exist.

IMO god and politics should never go together because you can't have faith in politicians and so if god let them get there then we shouldn't have faith in him. Heck if they let creationism then he's going to be creating more poverty in a rich country because they're never going to get into university and even if they do they won't have degrees respected in other countries.

To be honest I can't remember mention of creationism in school. Biology never mentioned religion and religion only covered it in the first 2 years and then they tried to brainwash us for 3 years but it did the exact opposite.

[Frog march]

It seems that the creationists want to nail down god so they know where he is, they want to contol him. Plus they have so little belief that they want the government to tell them that god exists.

[Nicolas]

To be honest I can't remember mention of creationism in school. Biology never mentioned religion and religion only covered it in the first 2 years and then they tried to brainwash us for 3 years but it did the exact opposite.

About religion lessons in school:

I don't remember any religion lessons trying to convince me of creationism as a fact. I was learned the story of creation (the 7 days thing) as a fictive story, not as fact.

Religion lessons were more about the practical parts of religion, often illustrated with a story, clearly indicated as such. I've followed both Christian and atheist lessons, and I must say that the only difference was that the atheist lessons used other stories to make the point clear, but that was about it.

Maybe I just had a healthy way of being taught religion? 8-[

[Lurker]

What if people decide that calculus is the devil's tool??

you mean it's not?

Have a care!!! The math gods have great power!!! [-(


:wink:

[Doodler]

What if people decide that calculus is the devil's tool??

you mean it's not?

Have a care!!! The math gods have great power!!! [-(


:wink:

Indeed they do, sir, most of those powers are indescribably evil. :wink:

[beskeptical]

Best article on this debate I have seen in a long time, from MSNBC on line:

Einstein and Darwin: A tale of two theories
Q&A with ‘Origins’ astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson

His discussion of theories vs laws and you can't work in genetics fields if you don't get it are just superb. I hope a copy goes to each member of the Kansas school board.

[Kristophe]

*Sigh*
I'll never understand this debate. Ok, yes, Darwinian evolution is a theory. Theories can't be proven to be absolutely correct. Therefore, a theory is not, nor is it ever destined to be, fact. If education boards don't understand this, maybe they need a better education...

The part I don't get is how demonstrating that Evolution is a theory automatically puts Intelligent Design or Creation Science on equal footing. Neither are testable, therefore neither are theories. Does that mean, to some people, they're fact? 'Cause to me, they're issues of blind faith, and I don't believe that is something that should be or can be taught.