Ashamed to be a Pennslyvanian, ID in courts

Originally posted by KneverKnight
That explains the Hindu's many-gods theory then.
Not many Hindus here, mostly Shinto-Catholics, very fluid.

there once like a guy , Hindu Stan
who talk like a big preacher man
while preaching one day
he found he was gay
and flew off just like Peter Pan

Originally posted by frogstomp
there once like a guy , Hindu Stan
who talk like a big preacher man
while preaching one day
he found he was gay
and flew off just like Peter Pan

I blame Charles Atlas
For what I am today
I wanted great big muscles
Didn't know that they were gay

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I blame Charles Atlas
For what I am today
I wanted great big muscles
Didn't know that they were gay

Worse still the best ladies go for the 98 lb weaklings

Originally posted by frogstomp
Worse still the best ladies go for the 98 lb weaklings

Like Bo Derek and er the piano-playing comic? Dudley Moore! That's the guy ...
Well, depends on what you mean by "best", I mean, no doubt old Bo was a knockout, a poet could spend many happy hours praising her body-parts, but at the end what do you have besides a big smile on your face ?

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Like Bo Derek and er the piano-playing comic? Dudley Moore! That's the guy ...
Well, depends on what you mean by "best", I mean, no doubt old Bo was a knockout, a poet could spend many happy hours praising her body-parts, but at the end what do you have besides a big smile on your face ?

🙂

Maybe we should not be teaching either in schools, and let these young people make up their own damn minds.

The fact of the matter is most of these kids will still be attached to whatever belief if held in their household (or lack of, to be PC), if there is any sort of opinion in their house. Invariably, presenting either notions as a fact in a classroom serves only two purposes.

1) To further the agenda of those adhering to that opinion.

2) To piss off anyone with an alternative view.

The notion is asinine. Present them with the ideas, give them resources to learn about them of their own accord and free will, and then leave them alone to make up their own damn minds. Then again, that would mean taking zealot parents, special interests, and political agendas out of our education. Not something we are very good at these days. 😛

Originally posted by Omnislash
Maybe we should not be teaching either in schools, and let these young people make up their own damn minds.

The fact of the matter is most of these kids will still be attached to whatever belief if held in their household (or lack of, to be PC), if there is any sort of opinion in their house. Invariably, presenting either notions as a fact in a classro ...[text shortened]... ts, and political agendas out of our education. Not something we are very good at these days. 😛

Would you say the same thing about teaching flat-earth geology, or geocentrism? If not, why not?

Originally posted by bbarr
Would you say the same thing about teaching flat-earth geology, or geocentrism? If not, why not?

Of course not. Two (primary) reasons.

1) To the absolute best of my understanding, there exists no signifigant populace that is offended by the teaching of heliocentric cosmology nor spherical earth. For that matter, I have never actually met anyone who would be offended by these. While I am sure such people exist, their very existence is theory to me.

2) I am of firm understanding that there is signifigantly more empirical evidence for heliocentric cosmology and the earth's sphericity than for ID and other notions of origin.

But you know this. What are you getting at my friend? 😉

Originally posted by Omnislash
Of course not. Two (primary) reasons.

1) To the absolute best of my understanding, there exists no signifigant populace that is offended by the teaching of heliocentric cosmology nor spherical earth. For that matter, I have never actually met anyone who would be offended by these. While I am sure such people exist, their very existence is theory to me. ...[text shortened]... for ID and other notions of origin.

But you know this. What are you getting at my friend? 😉

Regarding (1): Are you claiming that curricular content ought be determined by something like a poll (i.e., "25% of the population is offended by the teaching of X, therefore we ought to search around for alternatives to X, even if those alternatives have no empirical support). If so, then whether or not to teach geocentrism has nothing to do with evidence or truth, but merely with demographics. I'm not saying that there are no arguments for this view. A strict federalist regarding curricula could mount a defense, I think.

Regarding (2): You are correct that there is more evidence for helicentrism etc. than for ID. In fact, there is no empirical support for ID. Then again, there is more empirical support for heliocentrism than for relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Working scientists will tell you, however, that evolutionary theory is even better supported by the available evidence than relativity theory and quantum mechanics. By any measure of scientific theory confirmation (e.g., consistency with observation, elegance, explanatory depth, predictive power, fecundity, etc.) evolutionary theory passes muster. As an experiment, try to find a working secular scientist with a doctorate in a biological science that disagrees with evolutionary theory. Doesn't this tell you anything?

Originally posted by bbarr
Regarding (1): Are you claiming that curricular content ought be determined by something like a poll (i.e., "25% of the population is offended by the teaching of X, therefore we ought to search around for alternatives to X, even if those alternatives have no empirical support). If so, then whether or not to teach geocentrism has nothing to do with evidence ...[text shortened]... a biological science that disagrees with evolutionary theory. Doesn't this tell you anything?

No, such are not my intended claims. I do not believe knowledge needs to be censored according to popular opinion nor have empirical requirements.

Rather, my intention is to claim that the predisposition of the audience is worth considering when constructing the method of conveying the information. The dysfunction of current methods lay with the instructing body as much as with the families and role models of the students. To expound, it is my belief through personal experience that concepts such as evolutional theory and intelligent design are frequently presented with an agenda and/or are received with an intolerant disposition. I have seen both the instructor who purposefully presents the idea with malice towards its common converse and the parent/etc. who likewise endeavors to slant the syllabus of their child/etc. Since it has been proven (in my honest opinion) that the educational system and/or the populace overseeing the students outside of the school are incapable of presenting such ideas in an unbiased manner and permitting independent evaluation of the data on the students part, they should not touch upon them as a taught subject. I believe it is important to introduce the concepts to young people and present them with materials for independent study, but it seems to me that as soon as we inject an individual with personal perceptions on the matter, the process becomes flawed. I do not believe this is the preferable situation, nor do I believe that my notion is the preferable solution. However, I would rather see young people be given less “education” on the subjects if in turn that will allow them to formulate their own idea about the matter.

Also towards this end (and to further expound) I believe that the relevance of the subject should also be examined. By that, I mean the relevance of understanding the concept in regards to the well being of the student. Unless an individual is going into a field in which the concept is relative, what is the purpose of pushing the concept if it causes such contention? If a student plans to work towards a degree in the biological sciences, then naturally it would make sense for them to familiarize themselves with the evolutionary theory. Alternatively, if a student plans to work towards a degree in the theological, it would make sense for them to familiarize themselves with intelligent design theory. For most other students the concepts are highly irrelevant towards their academic pursuits.

At the risk of sounding like Thoreau, I feel that independent judgment and nonconformity are paramount with concepts such as these. Regardless of the empirical evidence and the social norm, it is imperative that these students be permitted to evaluate the concepts and reach their own conclusions, free of agenda and propaganda.

Best Regards,
Omnislash 🙂

Originally posted by Omnislash
No, such are not my intended claims. I do not believe knowledge needs to be censored according to popular opinion nor have empirical requirements.

Rather, my intention is to claim that the predisposition of the audience is worth considering when constructing the method of conveying the information. The dysfunction of current methods lay with the instru ...[text shortened]... and reach their own conclusions, free of agenda and propaganda.

Best Regards,
Omnislash 🙂

O.K., so your claims are essentially these:

(1) Those who teach evolution often (sometimes, usually[?]) present the view in a manner meant to offend.

(2) For a bunch of students, evolutionary theory is irrelevant to their ends.

As for (1), this doesn't seem like a reason not to teach evolution, or to teach ID, but rather a reason to get better science teachers.

As for (2), couldn't this also serve as a reason to exclude the study of poetry from the curriculum, or history, or any mathematics more complex than algebra, or...? The point I think you're missing is that education is not merely skills training.

Further, I take issue with your following claim:

regardless of the empirical evidence and the social norm, it is imperative that these students be permitted to evaluate the concepts and reach their own conclusions..."

There is no empirical evidence that the Earth was created by a flying spaghetti monster [http://www.venganza.org/], and no social norm in favor of this view. Your claim above seems to indicate, however, that you think this view ought to have a place in the curriculum, so that students can "reach their own conclusions". Of course, this is absurd. The absurdity results from your divorcing the content of the curriculum from the empirical evidence. Incidentally, this is also why it is absurd to teach ID in a science class (unless ID is included merely as a humorous aside).

I hope you're well,

Bennett

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K., so your claims are essentially these:

(1) Those who teach evolution often (sometimes, usually[?]) present the view in a manner meant to offend.

(2) For a bunch of students, evolutionary theory is irrelevant to their ends.

As for (1), this doesn't seem like a reason not to teach evolution, or to teach ID, but rather a reason to get better sci ...[text shortened]... nce class (unless ID is included merely as a humorous aside).

I hope you're well,

Bennett

As for (1): This would, of course, be preferable. I would not even say that they are not good science teachers, but rather that they have not had the proper training/instruction to present the theories without bias. I believe this is highly due to special interest, political agendas, etc. influence on our public education system.

As for (2): The logic could be applied as you have said. They key difference is the contention with the subject in the social arena. As I have said, I believe it is important that the concepts be presented. Perhaps just not in the core curriculum. As electives, the problems are far less relevant as the courses teaching the controversial concepts are optional. Further, the problems are likewise most relevant in regards to general education.

In regards to my claim: I do not understand what you are taking issue with. My assertion is that personal opinion on the validity of the theories need not and should not be communicable via the presentation of the theories. Naturally, it would be absurd to teach ID in a science class, simply for the fact that it has nothing (little?) to do with science. The same is true with evolution in a theology class. This has nothing to do with a professional and unbiased respectful presentation of subject. Whether I go to a science class or a theology class, I do not expect sermonic propaganda eschewing alternative views. Such is not only unnecessary, but does not facilitate the learning process.

Example: A student raised in an atheist household attends a class in theology, world culture, etc. in which the instructor adamantly professes the validity of a theological belief and presents it as undisputable truth. If the students perception is swayed in this manner to believe in the theology, this will assuredly facilitate contention in the home. On the other side, if the student is not swayed as the instructor had intended, this can easily alienate the student causing contention between them and their instructor (directly or indirectly) and feelings of the classroom being a hostile environment.

The theories are debatable and should be presented as such, especially with consideration that the subject is integral with the identity of the individual.

I further do not understand when you state that there is no social norm for opinion of these matters. I do indeed believe that theology should have a place in the curriculum, just not in the core curriculum of general education. Same is true with anything else that teaches debatable subject specifically relevant to personal identity (philosophy for example). If this is absurd, I still fail to understand why. Alternatively, perhaps I did not express myself clearly earlier.

Best Regards in Wellness,
Omnislash

Originally posted by frogstomp
Worse still the best ladies go for the 98 lb weaklings

Yeah, they know if they get out of line the ladies can knock the
snot out of them!

Originally posted by Omnislash
As for (1): This would, of course, be preferable. I would not even say that they are not good science teachers, but rather that they have not had the proper training/instruction to present the theories without bias. I believe this is highly due to special interest, political agendas, etc. influence on our public education system.

As for (2): The logic ...[text shortened]... ely, perhaps I did not express myself clearly earlier.

Best Regards in Wellness,
Omnislash

Gets my rec. Point well taken, teachers who have no agenda will
engender better thinking skills than those with an ax to grind.
After all, the bottom line of education is to leave the student with
thinking skills which is more valuable than mere facts. Facts are
becoming the realm of google and dogpile so the ability to think
clearly is much more important. You can have a collection of facts
which may help the immediate problem but without true thinking
skills you will have difficulties with problems that do not dissolve under
a collection of facts.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Gets my rec. Point well taken, teachers who have no agenda will
engender better thinking skills than those with an ax to grind.
After all, the bottom line of education is to leave the student with
thinking skills which is more valuable than mere facts. Facts are
becoming the realm of google and dogpile so the ability to think
clearly is much more impor ...[text shortened]... ills you will have difficulties with problems that do not dissolve under
a collection of facts.

That's an interesting and not entirely invalid point of view. The problem, inevitably, is its intersection with reality. In fact, the PA school district in question had determined that prior to discussion of evolution in class, an assistant superintendent (of the school district) would come to the class and read a prepared statement to the effect that "evolution is only a theory, not a fact" and that the students might find it worthwhile to read Of Pandas and People for an alternative view. The purpose of this policy is ostensibly to foster awareness of "controversy in the scientific community."

The main effect of the specific rule would be to establish that the school board is entirely ignorant of what a "theory" is and is just plain lying about whether there is "controversy in the scientific community." In fact, there is no controversy in the scientific community about whether evolution has occurred and continues to occur. The controversy is between those who accept science and those who place their interpretation of the Bible above science, not within science. The most obvious evidence that the school board does not have a clue is the phrase "only a theory." A theory is the top of the heap, not a candidate for being an "only."

This case is clearly nothing but another instance of an ignorant sector of the population trying to foist its religious view onto the population as a whole. The students in those biology classes are not being required to believe in evolution, but they should certainly be required to understand it or else we will continue to produce a population of dj2beckers who strongly oppose biology but don't have a clue about what this major branch of science actually says.

Best Regards,
Paul