|
Post by nastygirl on Aug 23, 2005 23:47:05 GMT -5
www.badastronomy.com/bablog/?p=111I thought this was pretty interesting and Ive been participating in this discussion. Whats your thoughts? Should Intelligent Design and Creationism be taught in teh same class or even teh same school as teh Big bang, Evolution or teh other theories out there?
|
|
|
Post by Wo0tusses on Aug 24, 2005 8:24:28 GMT -5
i don't think that they should be taught in teh same class room, and even if i don't belive in them, they should be taughtm though in a "Religion" class of some sorts. it could be taught right along side many eastern beliefs, and thought, at least in high school, they probly tend to be watered down versions of teh college versions, it could still be a great social studies course.
teh reason i don't think they should be taught along side teh other is that they aren't based on proven facts, evolution has scientific facts to back it up, while creationism, and intelligent design, have faith to back them up. and as i see it studing faith is most definitly a social science
|
|
|
Post by mizelle58 on Aug 24, 2005 9:08:10 GMT -5
If you're gonna teach creationism, who's will you teach? Christianity's? Hinduism's? Seminole's? Who's to say which one is more right than any other's? There's no more proof for one case than any other.
And ID...ID is everything that goes against science. It pisses me off so much. When it comes to science and explaining teh world around us, you can't just look at something and think "Wow, that's so complex. I have no idea how it got that way, so I'll just shrug it off and say some powerful being made it." No. Bullshit. teh purpose of science is to discover what kind of things are happening, how they are happening, and why they are happening. ID supporters are happy leaving it at one simple explanation. If we allow that kind of attitude to flourish, if we instill it in our children, then science will come to a standstill. Everything will just be credited to some being we can't comprehend.
Advocators of both theories are constantly pointing out how teh theory of evolution isn't foolproof, how it isn't totally right. No shit. Maybe more people would know that if they weren't trying to halt it in education. Scientists know it already, that's why they're still experimenting, and still researching, and still coming up with many various hypothesis. If evolution shouldn't be taught because it's not 100% accurate, then we might as well do away with science classes altogehter, because we're constantly discovering ways we're wrong about how we think teh world works. That's teh fucking POINT, is to teach what we believe is right, then send young minds out to either furthur prove or disprove us. Throwing your hands up in teh air, saying "I give up", and giving all teh credit and blame to some otherworldly being only stunts teh growth of our nation's figurative mind.
|
|
|
Post by porno librarian on Aug 24, 2005 15:05:23 GMT -5
Agreed with both Woot and Zel. My biggest arguments are that ID/Creationism is more of a social "science" than something such as biology, which is a natural science. There are no experiments or evidence for them, so they shouldn't be taught as a natural science..or really science at all. teh second point that they brought up was that ID/Creationism in this country ONLY caters to Christianity, and dammit, if they're forcing kids to learn about Creationism as a legitimate theory then they should be taught about ALL of teh major religions' creation "theories".
|
|
|
Post by nastygirl on Aug 24, 2005 16:11:35 GMT -5
My major argument is, What if they are all correct? What if Some being did create teh universe using evolution and teh big bang? I think it should be taught or atleast mentioned in school so that a child has all teh facts (as it stands to reason) to decide for him or herself what theorie to back. If we dont, isnt that forcing our own opinion on them instead of trusting them to. If we keep things from them, we arent providing them with sufficent information to make an intelligent and informed decision. Me, I dont know what "science" I follow. I DO believe in God, but there are numerous ways he could have created things.
I dunno. This is getting of to a good start though.
|
|
|
Post by mizelle58 on Aug 24, 2005 18:23:31 GMT -5
I dunno. If teh idea of "some being" making all these things happen aren't mentioned in school, teh child will no doubt have teh idea introduced to them through their religious experiences in society. And I believe it should stay that way. Religion and education (of teh science aspect anyway) are on two seperate realms when it comes to society. Trying to blend them would probably create more confusion for teh children if anything else. Hearing different theories from different social groups makes alot more sense than hearing many conflicting theories from one group.
|
|
|
Post by Doose of the Pink Panties on Aug 24, 2005 19:44:36 GMT -5
I think they should, nay, they MUST teach about teh Spaghetti Monster. May his noodles embrace all of you in his glorious light.
|
|
|
Post by that's so raven! on Aug 24, 2005 22:08:16 GMT -5
no, ID/creationism has no place in science classes, and teh reason for that is, simply put, it is teh antithesis of science. science collects data, studies it, and infers explanations for phenomena from that data. these explanations are then tested rigorously in attempt to disprove them. creationism takes a preformed or desired conclusion (teh world was created by a divine being), with no empirical evidence in its favor, and then looks for data to back it up. it's ass-backwards from a scientific perspective. this is not to say it cannot be teh truth, but it absolutely eliminates teh ideology from teh field of science. if it is not science, it should not be included in scientific curriculum. if there is no empirical evidence, no data, nothing but a collection of stories, no, it has no place in a science classroom or textbook. philosophy covers teh possibility of a supreme being in plenty of depth; now shall we start bringing existentialism/postmodernism to teh laboratory?
|
|
|
Post by Doose of the Pink Panties on Aug 25, 2005 19:30:33 GMT -5
creationism takes a preformed or desired conclusion (teh world was created by a divine being), with no empirical evidence in its favor, and then looks for data to back it up. it's ass-backwards from a scientific perspective. this is not to say it cannot be teh truth, but it absolutely eliminates teh ideology from teh field of science. if it is not science, it should not be included in scientific curriculum. if there is no empirical evidence, no data, nothing but a collection of stories, no, it has no place in a science classroom or textbook. philosophy covers teh possibility of a supreme being in plenty of depth; now shall we start bringing existentialism/postmodernism to teh laboratory? Actually I don't think that's a very good explanation of creationism. What you actually described isn't ass backward, it's a perversion of teh scientific theory. Scientists don't just do experiments and then say "oh this is what it is" after teh experiments are done. They form a hypothesis. Which isn't as strong as a conclusion, but they DO go into it with an idea in mind. They say "I think this is what happened." or "I think this is why this is." Then they do experiments to try and prove that hypothesis. If teh experiments prove that hypothesis then they're done. If they dont' they either do more experiments, or they abandon teh hypothesis. But in any event they have their own ideas going into it, and then try to prove those ideas. They don't just go blindly into it, and then accept what teh find.
|
|
|
Post by that's so raven! on Aug 26, 2005 2:14:15 GMT -5
Scientists don't just do experiments and then say "oh this is what it is" after teh experiments are done. They form a hypothesis. Which isn't as strong as a conclusion, but they DO go into it with an idea in mind. scientists FIRST observe data, THEN form a hypothesis. teh hypothesis is an attempt to explain that data. of course they don't take data and immediately go to conclusion; there must be an experimental step in between. yes, they go into an experiment with a hypothesis in mind, teh experiment's point being to test teh soundness of teh hypothesis. they do NOT go into collection of data with an idea in mind, ever.
|
|
|
Post by Doose of the Pink Panties on Aug 26, 2005 20:47:35 GMT -5
Scientists don't just do experiments and then say "oh this is what it is" after teh experiments are done. They form a hypothesis. Which isn't as strong as a conclusion, but they DO go into it with an idea in mind. scientists FIRST observe data, THEN form a hypothesis. teh hypothesis is an attempt to explain that data. of course they don't take data and immediately go to conclusion; there must be an experimental step in between. yes, they go into an experiment with a hypothesis in mind, teh experiment's point being to test teh soundness of teh hypothesis. they do NOT go into collection of data with an idea in mind, ever. In a perfect world they don't. But in reality they do it all teh time. Just look at drug companies. teh corporations want a certain result, and they'll get scientists who will get those results for them. While there are some scientists who go into things objectively to say that they don't go into collection of data with an idea in mind ever, is down right naive. Whether it's their ego, outside influences, boredom, teh spaghetti monster, or whatever, many scientists are gonna have an idea of what they think their results will yield before they collect a scrap of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by that's so raven! on Aug 26, 2005 22:05:03 GMT -5
scientists FIRST observe data, THEN form a hypothesis. teh hypothesis is an attempt to explain that data. of course they don't take data and immediately go to conclusion; there must be an experimental step in between. yes, they go into an experiment with a hypothesis in mind, teh experiment's point being to test teh soundness of teh hypothesis. they do NOT go into collection of data with an idea in mind, ever. In a perfect world they don't. But in reality they do it all teh time. Just look at drug companies. teh corporations want a certain result, and they'll get scientists who will get those results for them. While there are some scientists who go into things objectively to say that they don't go into collection of data with an idea in mind ever, is down right naive. Whether it's their ego, outside influences, boredom, teh spaghetti monster, or whatever, many scientists are gonna have an idea of what they think their results will yield before they collect a scrap of evidence.that isn't science either. teh corruption of human beings does not change teh intent of teh scientific method. you took issue with my description of teh scientific method, but I think what you're really taking issue with is teh fact that all "scientists" do not adhere to it rigorously. practice does not affect teh definition, in any way shape or form. I stand by my description of teh scientific method, and by teh fact that any perversion of it is not science and thusly has NO place in a science classroom.
|
|
|
Post by knightofbob on Aug 27, 2005 0:07:14 GMT -5
You're missing an obvious fallacy. Drug companies almost never achieve what they set out to. Most successful medications were originally developed looking to cure something other than what they do in teh end. Just look at Viagra.
|
|
|
Post by Doose of the Pink Panties on Aug 27, 2005 0:14:14 GMT -5
You're missing an obvious fallacy. Drug companies almost never achieve what they set out to. Most successful medications were originally developed looking to cure something other than what they do in teh end. Just look at Viagra. Actually I was more referring to teh drugs like Vioxx and Celebrex that were pushed onto teh market, and only later was it "discovered" that they had fatal side effects.
|
|
|
Post by that's so raven! on Aug 27, 2005 0:27:18 GMT -5
Actually I was more referring to teh drugs like Vioxx and Celebrex that were pushed onto teh market, and only later was it "discovered" that they had fatal side effects. but again, that doesn't really represent actual science, does it? not a very good model for scientific method.
|
|