Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Court case may determine how evolution is taught in US

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Court case may determine how evolution is taught in US
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

billybrobby

Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:59 pm Post subject:

Bulsajo wrote:

Good god, man!

If you're going to troll, at least try to do it with a modicum of wit, perhaps even a smattering of panache. Some elan wouldn't hurt but that's probably asking too much.

As things stand right now you're simply just an embarrassment to the art
(although I will grant you that that is not an easy feat in itself, so I suppose you might give yourself a very brief self-congratulatory pat on your butt).

heeheehee. i love people who respond to a troll, take the time to write a post to the troll, and still think they didn't fall for the troll.

it's like the 'silent game' where a group of kids try keep silent for the longest. after somebody talks, there's always some dumbass who opens his mouth and says, "hey, you talked!"

you're that dumbass. give yourself a pat.

unless you weren't responding to my post, in which case, hey, i always liked you bulsaljo.

Moldy Rutabaga

Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:20 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Check out the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It's true-- public schools shouldn't be in the business of enforcing faith. But the amendment also protects 'the free exercise thereof'. I am not sure how discussing such theological issues 'establishes' religion; it merely presents another viewpoint. I don't think the amendment is relevant to this issue.

Quote:

Please show me where there have been SCIENTIFIC EFFORTS
to dispute evolution. It is only done by religious factions for their own proselytizing reasons.

Then you have not read widely. Darwin himself was at least nominally a Christian until very late in his life, and saw no inherent contradiction between faith and evolution. There most certainly have been scientific efforts to discuss or test evolution, and simply saying that anyone who does is just a part of some pushy church movement is a circular argument. Some biological researchers have claimed problems with certain species evolving; and some non-biological sciences produce theories which also don't fit evolution. For example, a mathematician who studies entropy or chaos theory likely would find problems with evolutionary complexity.

Quote:

See what you are saying is that the public school system should be tolerant and inclusive of Christian values and teachings....But in reality, it is much more complex than that. I have Children of Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddist, Native North American and Hindu families - just in my class, not to mention those with no affiliation.... Why should there be a specific teaching of Christian ideologies of Creation?

To play devil's advocate, isn't atheism also an affiliation? Isn't saying there is no God and creating curricula on that basis an affiliation? Shouldn't agnosticism-- not making decisions at all about God-- a better way to go for a public system? Easier said than done. It's not easy to purge religion from school. How would we teach medieval history?

This is a difficult matter to get one's head around. I feel like I'm running out of room to argue because I've already conceded that ID probably shouldn't be a science class topic-- not because it's false (not all non-science subjects are "unfactual"-- is English or History class "unfactual"?), but because it inevitably leads to religious discussions which aren't the province of a biology class. What I don't concede is that discussions or researchers of ID don't deserve intellectual respect--they do. And mocking creationists in that way plays into the hands of those southern Baptists who (slightly rightly) feel like Galileos in their own way, being shut down for asking questions.

Ken:>

Red

Joined: 05 Jul 2004

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:53 am Post subject:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

Quote:

Please show me where there have been SCIENTIFIC EFFORTS
to dispute evolution. It is only done by religious factions for their own proselytizing reasons.

None of this answers the request for scientific efforts to dispute the evidence. It is purely anecdotal.

Moldy Rutabaga

Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 2:20 am Post subject:

Quote:

None of this answers the request for scientific efforts to dispute the evidence. It is purely anecdotal.

Yes, but I'm lazy. And I'm an English prof, not a biology prof. This is the extent of my knowledge, such as it is. Cool

There's lots in search engines on "intelligent design". Or check out http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/.

Ken:>

khyber

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 3:59 am Post subject:

As an Xtian...this topic PISSES ME OFF to no end. Xtian dudes...listen here guys....i know we like our creationism...i'm a fan of it, to an extent. It's great and all. But there is this thing see called science. The best thing creationist science has ever done is made attempts to discredit (and created some interesting discussions re:) evolution. It never ever ever ever ever can prove itself. Scientifically speaking anyways. So christian dudes...just relax. In biology class, you get taught biology. ID theory is a theory, true. But it isn't a SCIENTIFIC theory....it's a sociological theological existential one...a feely one. so dammit...get outt my biology 30 teachin' face!!!

Alias

Joined: 24 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:03 am Post subject:

Quote:

There most certainly have been scientific efforts to discuss or test evolution,

Of course there is "testing" done on a constant basis. The difference is using scientific means to come up with an alternate theory. This has not been done. Of course this has been mentioned numerous times already.

It should also be pointed out that there is NO DEBATE in the science community over evolition being a fact. There is debate over how it works but that is entirely different. The only place where this debate is taking place is on talk radio and in school districts heavily influenced by religious fundamentalists.

cionanian-cro

Joined: 21 Sep 2005

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 6:11 am Post subject:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

Quote:

Yeah, but in a science class??

[quote]

Quote:

Please show me where there have been SCIENTIFIC EFFORTS
to dispute evolution. It is only done by religious factions for their own proselytizing reasons.

Quote:

Then you have not read widely. Darwin himself was at least nominally a Christian until very late in his life, and saw no inherent contradiction between faith and evolution.

That's beautiful, but I'm sure he wouldn't claim that his faith was scientific. And if he did? Wouldn't matter. Faith has no place in science. That is not to say that they can't exist side-by-side in the same person, that a scientist can't have a belief in God, but a true scienitst, a good scientist, NEVER lets those two sides of his being blur into one another.

Religious faith requires no proof, no hypotheses validated by experiments. If it did require such things, it wouldn't be faith. It would be doubt.

Likewise, faith is inimical to science. Never take anything for granted. Each dot in the hypothesis must be connected through verifiable and repeatable results.

Quote:

There most certainly have been scientific efforts to discuss or test evolution, and simply saying that anyone who does is just a part of some pushy church movement is a circular argument.

It is something of an ad hominem attack. Unfortunately, it's also true. Virtually all ID advocates are proseltyzing Christians as well. ID really is a strategic new face to replace evolution with Biblical Creationism, taking a abck door route.

Quote:

Some biological researchers have claimed problems with certain species evolving; and some non-biological sciences produce theories which also don't fit evolution. For example, a mathematician who studies entropy or chaos theory likely would find problems with evolutionary complexity.

I think the "holes" in evolution theory are overblown, myself. Many of the "holes" such as irreducible complexity, have been addressed pretty well.

But let's go with your premise here. Maybe there are gaps. After all, we don't understand the process inside-and-out. There is heated debate within the field on a number of issues.

So...because the thoery is a work in progress, we toss it out with last night's garbage and put our blind faith in a Creator for which there is not the slightest shred of evidence?

Bottom line--yes, there are holes in our knowledge. What the ID proponents won't acknowledge is the mountain of evidence supporting the theory, and fact, of evolution. And the complete and utter lack of any evidence supporting ID, or even research looking into it. As a "theory" ID is a joke. There is no "controversy" tot each--not scientifically speaking anyway. There's a social controversy, to be sure, and it's ridiculous and I'm sick of it.

***
Sorry to cut this short--gotta go!

Red

Joined: 05 Jul 2004

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:08 am Post subject:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

Quote:

None of this answers the request for scientific efforts to dispute the evidence. It is purely anecdotal.

Yes, but I'm lazy. And I'm an English prof, not a biology prof. This is the extent of my knowledge, such as it is. Cool

There's lots in search engines on "intelligent design". Or check out http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/.

Ken:>

But these claims that there are gaps in evidence does not disprove the evolutionary theory. Nor does it act as proof of intelligent design.

All intelligent design arguments are based on a false premise, and they simply cannot be tested, nor can evidence be found for them.

They do not belong in a science class. Only in a religious studies class.

guangho

Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Location: a spot full of deception, stupidity, and public micturation and thus unfit for longterm residency

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:01 am Post subject:

You don't have to treat both sides as equal when one side is full of c*ap. I believe Bill Maher said that. Wise man. Listen, people will believe whatever they want to but having Darwin and ID be taught side by side as if they were scientific equals is kind of like teaching Christian Science in medical school.

cionanian-cro

Joined: 21 Sep 2005

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:27 am Post subject:

More on Moldy's post:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

Quote:

One thing I've stressed repeatedly (I think) in this thread, and frankly, get tired of repeating, is this: EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISTIC. IT IS AGNOSTIC. That's right. Evolution theory is not based on the premise that God does not exist. Evolution theory does not address God or the lack thereof in any way shape or form. Why? Because there is no evidence for God. Therefore, God's existence cannot be assumed, and certainly can not be assigned as a cause for anything--not scientifically speaking anyway.

Suppose I had a theory on the construction of the pyramids in Egypt that was based on extraterrestial beings doing all the work for the pharaohs, using the tractor beams in thier flying saucers instead of human slave power. And my entire view of Egyptology was based on this interaction with the aliens, and I just took it for granted that they existed and hobnobbed with the pharaohs. My basis for this belief? Well, we don't know all the details on how the pyramids were built by slave power. It seems improbable that mere humans could do it. Therefore, it had to be aliens.

Wouldn't you think I was a crackpot? Wouldn't you want me to provide some shred of evidence for the aliens?

Quote:

This is a difficult matter to get one's head around. I feel like I'm running out of room to argue because I've already conceded that ID probably shouldn't be a science class topic-- not because it's false (not all non-science subjects are "unfactual"-- is English or History class "unfactual"?), but because it inevitably leads to religious discussions which aren't the province of a biology class.

Well, I'm with you on this. I'm glad you acknowledge that ID does not belong in science class. THAT is what this whole issue is about. Not should kids be exposed to religion, but should creation myth dressed up in a white lab coat be passed off as science? You don't hear ID advocates suggesting that ID be taught in comparative religion class or philosophy class. They want it taught alongside evolution theory, in science class.

Quote:

What I don't concede is that discussions or researchers of ID don't deserve intellectual respect--they do. And mocking creationists in that way plays into the hands of those southern Baptists who (slightly rightly) feel like Galileos in their own way, being shut down for asking questions.

First of all--there are no researchers of ID.

Second of all--ID proponents ask some valid questions, some good questions. Some of them are obviously very bright individuals. I don't believe they are all entirely intellectually honest. But that said, sure, there may be some intellectual merit in their questions. I'll be happy to respect them as intellectuals so long as they are honest intellectuals. But I won't respect them as scientists any more than I'd respect Steven Hawking as a poet, until they 1) engage in some research and 2) produce some evidence.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:54 am Post subject:

billybrobby wrote:

heeheehee. i love people who respond to a troll, take the time to write a post to the troll, and still think they didn't fall for the troll.

Oh, I always fall for the troll. Knowingly, and with glee. It's often fun, plus I can't help myself, plus I think there 'definately' is a bit of an art to being a successful and entertaining troll on this board.

Magicwolfman could- with just a tiny bit of effort- actually be entertaining. But he's not.
This is what pisses me off: If you're going to troll, put some effort into it because if you don't and you're just being annoying then the only thing you're doing is gratifying yourself.

In other words it's the internet version of masturbating in public.

Now, Don't get me wrong- I'm not at all shocked that Magicwolfman likes to masturbate in public, but eventually that can grow tiresome for all but the most mundane of simpletons.

tomato

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:06 pm Post subject:

Here is a news item which should be posted in the funny paper: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9995578/

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe