Jump to content


Photo

Public school systems


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
62 replies to this topic

#41 Geezer

Geezer

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Judaism Orthodox
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • 3rd Rock from the Sun

Posted 17 March 2005 - 03:34 PM

Incorrect, many private Christian schools are accredited and would accept the vouchers.
And they would teach the problems with evolution and the science of creation.

View Post


Pleas re-read what I said. Nothing about accredidation. My point was the perceived view of private schools is they are not secular - most are. I think people are against vouchers because they are against religion.

#42 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2005 - 07:04 PM

Admin3
first reply to me

Fact, or science's preception of what fact is? Science has to redefine the word for it to even fit. And now they want the original definition to be put back as what fact is? Fact is truth. And for truth to be actual truth it also has to be absolute. Has evolution made it to being absolute that no other evidence found would ever change it again? No?


As far as any scientific theory can be said to be a truth, evolution is the best theory based on observed facts. E.g. it is a fact that fossils are observed in geologic sediments in some recognisable order, evolution uses this fact, but if you wish to say that evolution is a fact like 1+1=2, then that’s not quite the same thing. To be absolutely accurate one must use the word fact and theory in context.

And it's been 150 years and it still has not done so? How long do we wait for it to become absolute, or will it ever make it to that point?


I would submit that evolution is in a stronger scientific position now than it ever was.

How long has creation and God's word been around? How did it slipped through the so called cracks you speak of for so long?


Christian faith - Old testament about 3000, new a little under 2000 years. Faith does not require material proofs for it to exist, nor can it be tested against an opposing faith (there are after all more religions than just one), science does not have that luxury, there is only one type of it and it either works or it fails.

I think your building a strawman here. For even science has no step or process in which a theory becomes absolute. Because there whole step by step process is based on that there are no absolutes. A fact requires truth, and truth requires absolutes. And science cannot work in absolutes, or is this changing?


no your more or less correct in the scientific method science is not static, the process is however static, the theories produced from the method can change.

Second post to me

Science not a democracy? Yep, that's one statement I would have to agree with. Science itself controls all that is within itself which makes it a communist run organization.


Science controls nothing it a process, with various organisation across various fields of speciality. Individual scientist may head these organisations like any other administrative organisation, same a school, political party, church. But with science there is no vote at any level to reorganise the ‘scientific method’ for without it science can’t function.

Everyone that is involved, or allowed to be involved, has to have one way thinking (believe in all their theories). All decisions are controlled by those who believe the samething. All decisions and peer review is done by those who think the same way. No voting is done by two different groups with two different views. All just one view. The only view allowed.


Science is littered with new ideas that were rejected, then accepted. To think that there is this great single mind of rigid thought, does not stand up to the advances in knowledge brought about by thinking scientifically.

Example: What if a government were run with one sided thinking? Either democrats, or republicans or one faction. Would it be called a democracy if a government has only one view and is not open to any other? And all decision are based on this view, and the people have no say so. And all decisions were based on these views. And what if some views of those in this government went against the main view, and those people were removed? Would not that be considered bias? But yet if someone abandons the theories of science, or at least the main ones, what does science do to this person? They are removed, and their creditials are now questioned


Some ‘governments’ are run this way, e.g. Dictatorships or Monarchies, and there is ample examples throughout history to show that ultimately you get a bad leader and the system breaks down. But politics is not science, politics is largely an opinion based system, and science is a fact based system. E.g. In politics I could say “democracy is better than communism”, but in science I could not say “the sun revolves about the Earth”.

.Name one scientist that is involved in any decision making that has a different view of things from all the rest and has been allowed to stay in his status and allowed to think for himself? Anyone?


I would like to think that if confronted with contrary evidence the scientist in question would change his point of view. But in the area of cosmology there is varied views on the big bang, steady state. During WW2 the British science advisor held a differing opinion on rocketry. But in the end a personal opinion and reputation counts for nothing in science, it’s the data and theories that remain.

So this type of one way teaching has to be applied to schools as well? Because if the truth were known, there are alot of people that would choose to teach their kids something else.


But this is exactly the reason they should not be allowed to, what if (to take a ridiculous example) one wishes to have there children instructed in the geocentric and not sun centred system taught as fact! Would that be right? This was the reason for me stating Science is not a democracy, it must never ever be a democracy, that data, facts, evidence, experimentation, observation do all the talking that is required.

#43 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2005 - 07:09 PM

It has been elevated to being called a fact even though unsubstantiated or proven because creation teaching is on the rise.

This imagined made up lie(evolution), would surely vanish if they still called it what it is, a "theory", In my opinion, its not even that, its still a hypothesis.

As I stated before, education of the problems of evolution is the key to killing it.
And education in the biblical accounts of creation is the key to sealing it.
Louie Buren

View Post


And the proper place to challenge the current theories is in the arena of science where research is performed, not education system (primary secondary etc), where no research is performed.

#44 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2005 - 07:14 PM

So in other words a theory is a guess, until proven a fact.
This would technicaly place evolution as nothing more than a guess.
If a theory has no absolutes, its simply not worth speaking of.

In that I mean if It can't be proven a fact, its not science.
Science is a method tool used in the means of testing, observing,etc.

You can't test evolution because you can't test the past regardless of what it was, you can't observe evolution taking place in any way shape or form.
ThanX,
Louie Buren <><

View Post


How do you conclude that from my statements? Fact, theory, and proven do not mean the same things when talking in scientific terms. In common speech, ‘theory’ means an idea, in science it means ‘the best explanation that explains the observations’. It just a quirk of the English language that there are several meanings inn different contexts.

#45 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2005 - 07:23 PM

Because of materialistic bias.

View Post


Agreed. Science is a materialistic approach to understanding the universe.

Materialism has been man's method of escaping God, under the guise of science.  This has been in the works for hundreds of years, and started most recently with Adam Weishaput:


I think a new topic is in order if we wish to discuss materialism/religion, and keep this one for discussing the merits of the education system and what it should teach.

Scientific ingorance allowed evolution to be adopted as a self-serving dogma that will be very hard to shake, but,....., we'll do our best..... :D

:D indeed.

#46 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 March 2005 - 07:44 PM

Agreed. Science is a materialistic approach to understanding the universe.


Since we know that materialism is not sufficient to explain the universe, e.g. information exists that cannot be reduced to materialisic explanations, then aren't we just promoting materialistic philosophy, a.k.a religion, in public schools when we teach human origins on the principle of materialism alone?

Terry

#47 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 19 March 2005 - 04:16 PM

Since we know that materialism is not sufficient to explain the universe, e.g. information exists that cannot be reduced to materialisic explanations, then aren't we just promoting materialistic philosophy, a.k.a religion, in public schools when we teach human origins on the principle of materialism alone?

Terry

View Post


1) We don't "know" that materialism is insufficient to explain the universe. That is your view, and one that is not shared by the overwhelming majority of scientists.

Materialism has done pretty well in explaining/understanding the world. The alternative (scientific interpretations based on the bible) has not done so well (remember Galileio?).

2) Materialism is not a religion. Many religious jews, christians, buddhists, muslims, etc. see no conflict between materialism and their religions.

#48 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 March 2005 - 04:31 PM

Because Science is not a democracy, individuals ‘beliefs’ are of no concern.  The process is:


Neither should it be consensus based, but it often is.

I put it to you, devise a better system starting with:

Parents decide what science should be taught to students,


That is a bit of a red herring. As far as I am aware there is only one thing in dispute: evolution. Which, because it is neither testable nor observable (don't bother telling me about minor adaptations) is not even a theory, it is mere supposition.

#49 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 March 2005 - 05:19 PM

We don't "know" that materialism is insufficient to explain the universe.  That is your view, and one that is not shared by the overwhelming majority of scientists.


Sure we do. Its obvious to the casual observer that information is not dependent on matter, and cannot be reduced to it. It doesn't matter if the majority of scientists believe it or not. The reason that the majority of them hold on to their materialism is because they don't want to accept God in any shape form or fashion.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,.... Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’


http://www.answersin...3/admission.asp

Materialism has done pretty well in explaining/understanding the world.  The alternative (scientific interpretations based on the bible) has not done so well (remember Galileio?).


I didn't say we had to teach the Bible. But we are just brainwashing our kids when we tell them that materialism is capable of explaing everything, when a simple example is enough to disprove that idea. Information science is science as well, and there is no reason to keep it out of the class room when discussing genetics in biology.

Materialism is not a religion


Well, evolution is a religion, and the 2 are essentially inseperable.

It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8


http://www.icr.org/p...imp/imp-332.htm

Many religious jews, christians, buddhists, muslims, etc. see no conflict between materialism and their religions


Most people haven't thought about it, but I'm working on it....:)

Terry

#50 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 March 2005 - 06:28 PM

As far as I am aware there is only one thing in dispute: evolution.

View Post

Evolutionary theory cannot be so easily isolated from the rest of science. Geology is another field whose findings contradict creationism (of the YE variety at least).

#51 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 March 2005 - 01:45 PM

chance> Agreed. Science is a materialistic approach to understanding the universe.

92g> Since we know that materialism is not sufficient to explain the universe, e.g. information exists that cannot be reduced to materialisic explanations, then aren't we just promoting materialistic philosophy, a.k.a religion, in public schools when we teach human origins on the principle of materialism alone?

View Post


I would dispute that science is not sufficient, given enough time I see no real obstacle to understanding how the universe works (eventually).

Non materialistic explanations have historically been found to have a materialistic explanation, again I see no reason why that trend should not continue.

By teaching science in a public school you are deliberately not promoting any philosophy or religion, because science is an evidence based system totally independent of opinion, faith or philosophy e.g. there is no ‘Muslim science’, ‘democratic science’, ‘communist science’, ‘anarchist science’, etc.

#52 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 March 2005 - 02:03 PM

chance> I put it to you, devise a better system starting with:

Parents decide what science should be taught to students,

The Deacon> That is a bit of a red herring. As far as I am aware there is only one thing in dispute: evolution. Which, because it is neither testable nor observable (don't bother telling me about minor adaptations) is not even a theory, it is mere supposition.

View Post


Unfortunately evolution is linked to many other sciences, geology, cosmology, astronomy, particle physics, and while it may seem that evolution cannot be tested but it fits in to the other areas of science like one big jigsaw. But no matter, this topic is about the method of teaching such things, the details can be disputed in specific topics.

The main point I wish to make is that the science curriculum should never be subject to popular opinion, because that is not science, e.g. what if we were to vote on a flat earth? It’s basically the same argument (in principle) displaced a few centuries.

#53 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 20 March 2005 - 04:55 PM


  Unfortunately evolution is linked to many other sciences, geology, cosmology, astronomy, particle physics, and while it may seem that evolution cannot be tested but it fits in to the other areas of science like one big jigsaw.  But no matter, this topic is about the method of teaching such things, the details can be disputed in specific topics.


  The main point I wish to make is that the science curriculum should never be subject to popular opinion, because that is not science, e.g. what if we were to vote on a flat earth? It’s basically the same argument (in principle) displaced a few centuries.

View Post


Science shouldn't be subject to popular opinion, it should subject to proven facts that have been proven with impiracle proof.
This has not happened, and can't happen because something that isn't so, can never be proven.

The argument of the Earth being flat should have never taken place if people were reading their bibles they would have known the Earth was round over 2000 years ago by simply reading: Isa 40:22 - God is enthroned above the circle of the earth;
its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like thin cloth
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.


Just another example of the bible being the infallible word of God. <><

Louie Buren

Edited by admin3: Reason: Fixed quotes so they now work.

#54 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 20 March 2005 - 05:06 PM

Pleas re-read what I said. Nothing about accredidation. My point was the perceived view of private schools is they are not secular - most are. I think people are against vouchers because they are against religion.

View Post


Saying that people are against the vouchers is sheer speculation or your own personal opinion being asserted as everyones, The reason they were not passed is because some of the more liberal politicians voted against it, America for the most part is Christian so its an ignorant as well as uninformed statement to say people are against religion.

I'm not a betting man but if I were I'de bet my last dollar that if the vouchers were voted on, they would be voted a YES with no question.
Just like George W. Bush won the election by a land slide.
But something like the vouchers poses a grave threat to evolution and its advocates, as freedom to leave evolution contaminated schools could lead to evolution not having a say in origins.

That would be a blessing <><

#55 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 20 March 2005 - 05:37 PM

lionheart209 said:

I'm not a betting man but if I were I'de bet my last dollar that if the vouchers were voted on, they would be voted a YES with no question.

Wally said:
Still wouldn’t make them constitutional or advisable.

lionheart said:
Just like George W. Bush won the election by a land slide.

wally said:
The smallest margin for an incumbent president in history. Two percent is not a landslide.

lionheart said:
But something like the vouchers poses a grave threat to evolution and its advocates, as freedom to leave evolution contaminated schools could lead to evolution not having a say in origins.


That would be a blessing <>

Wally said:
Possibly creating an unfortunate subclass of people undereducated in hard science.

Edited by admin3.
Reason: Sometimes quotes don't work. I think it's a bug in the forum program. Or one in the new skin. But I edited it for better reading as best I could. None of the other codes work either in this post (bold, underline etc..)

#56 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 20 March 2005 - 06:48 PM

The argument of the Earth being flat should have never taken place if people were reading their bibles they would have known the Earth was round over 2000 years ago by simply reading:  Isa 40:22 -  God is enthroned above the circle of the earth;
its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like thin cloth
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.


Just another example of the bible being the infallible word of God. <><


A circle is not a sphere. And a tent is something that covers flat ground, not something that goes around a sphere.

A literal reading of the bible does seem to imply that the earth is flat:

"Again, the Devil taketh him [Jesus] up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world..." Mathew, 4:8

This is impossible, unless the earth is flat. (There are other passages like this too, as I am sure you already know).

And I won't even go into Joshua and the bit about "the sun standing still".

#57 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 March 2005 - 07:56 PM

The argument of the Earth being flat should have never taken place if people were reading their bibles they would have known the Earth was round over 2000 years ago by simply reading:  [b] Isa 40:22

View Post

I only used that example to make a point about the process of voting for a school curriculum based on popularity. Do you think parents voting for the curriculum they feel good about is better than one devised by experts? (need not be specific to evolution).

#58 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 20 March 2005 - 11:14 PM

A circle is not a sphere.  And a tent is something that covers flat ground, not something that goes around a sphere.

A literal reading of the bible does seem to imply that the earth is flat:

"Again, the Devil taketh him [Jesus] up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world..."  Mathew, 4:8

This is impossible, unless the earth is flat.  (There are other passages like this too, as I am sure you already know).

And I won't even go into Joshua and the bit about "the sun standing still".

View Post


The tent statement was an obvious parable, and a sphere is indeed a circle, you trying to say because the earth is round as a ball and not a 2 demensional circle that its not a circle? Thats just stupid my friend. No insult to you, but that implication is just retarded.

The physical world at its largest extent includes the whole universe, the cosmos (John 1:9; Acts 17:24) or the creation (Rom 8:20). When biblical writers refer to the world, however, they usually mean the earth itself, not including sun, moon, and stars. No clear Old Testament references appear to the world as a planet, although Isaiah 40:22, "the circle of the earth, " is suggestive to some. Many Old Testament uses of world or earth (eres, in poetry sometimes tebel [lebeT]) could refer equally to the planet or the ground. When Old Testament writers wanted to refer to the universe, they used an expression like "the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1) or an expansion of that expression (Exod 20:11; Neh 9:6).

In Mathew 4:8, it simply means that Satan took him up a high mountain and showed him the vast view of everything and offered it to him. Don't tell me you still think the world is flat? eh?


ThanX <><
Louie Buren

#59 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 March 2005 - 11:20 PM

I only used that example to make a point about the process of voting for a school curriculum based on popularity.  Do you think parents voting for the curriculum they feel good about is better than one devised by experts? (need not be specific to evolution).

View Post


That example of flat earth, is a prime example of something commonly used to mock creationists. Shall I list links to sites that do this?

Anymore mention of flat earth in this thread and I'll delete all posts that have those words in it. This is because it has nothing to do with the O.P. And I believe it was listed for another reason.

#60 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 March 2005 - 02:14 PM

That example of flat earth, is a prime example of something commonly used to mock creationists. Shall I list links to sites that do this?

Anymore mention of flat earth in this thread and I'll delete all posts that have those words in it. This is because it has nothing to do with the O.P. And I believe it was listed for another reason.

View Post


Fair enough, A better and more recent example.

In the latter part of the 1800’s reputable scientist(s) claimed that you could not travel faster than X MPH (I think it was approx 50 MPH), and that if you stuck your head out of the window of a moving train you would suffocate. If this was a popular view at the time (not saying it was) and we could include this teaching as part of the science curriculum, a generation of children would have likely never given it a second thought.

The implications are that any wrong turn in science leads to time wasted going down that wrong turn until someone dares to put the premise to the test. Popular thought (i.e. voting on its correctness) is incompatible with science.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users