Dover trial on evolution in schools

[SpidermanTuba]

I said "unprovable". One more time: If schools choose to teach unprovable theories on the origin of life, the door is open to other unprovable theories. Oy vey.

Ok. Fine. I'm fine with them only teaching testable theories like evolution. That's my whole point, in fact.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

This type of discussion belongs in a Science class so that people will understand the process of science. Why something doesn't fit in science even when some scientific process is used would be helpful to a great many people. That somebody can find evidence of stuff outside of the scientific process would be helpful for people to know as well.

That the discussion is actually about the scientific process itself brings it into a place that it actually does belong in a classroom of science.

Too often people misunderstand the scientific process, the limitations of it as well as the strengths. All knowledge does not come from science.

Teaching someone a non-scientific theory will not help them to understand science. It will only confuse them and poorly prepare them for college science.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I disagree. I could expand on your argument and say that I want to talk about geopolitics in math class because they're not mathematical, and I want people to understand that geopolitics isn't math. Class is about teaching the subject material, not teaching non-subject material.

Such a simple truth - yet it eludes a large number of people.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

if one actually boils down what science is...It is the study to prove or disprove theories...so Id can be studied to prove or disprove this theory...IMO

ID isn't provable or disprovable. THat's the point.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

While I suppose I might be able to agree with your overall point, I disagree that it should be put into practice. I don't believe you'll sell the injection of ID into science classes merely to prove that it's not scientific to many people who support ID. And I think if you're trying to teach about what science is and is not, you shouldn't use something as controversial and hot-button as this issue, because it can be entirely too easily bastardized by a teacher with an agenda. In short, I don't think that discussion of ID is the be-all and end-all to the understanding of the scientific process, and I think it can be accomplished without touching that issue.

I also take issue with your claim thatI think there is a slippery slope argument that can easily be made. I think that they very easily will be trying to redefine the scientific process so that ID fits. This particular statement, in contrast to the rest of your argument, I feel to be quite naive.

I disagree. Bringing up ID for the sole purpose of telling the students why it isn't taught in science would be akin to bringing up any other religious idea for the sole purpose of shooting it down. This is almost just as bad - as it forces teachers to take an anti-religion stance. They should be forced to take no stance on religion at all - to be completely neutral. The only way, as far as ID goes, would be to completley exclude it. If a student asks "why don't you teach us ID?" - sure, the teacher should explain why. But the teacher shouldn't make it a part of the curriculum to bring up ID for the sole purpose of shooting it down.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Mentioning ID is not bringing religion into public education.

Its a religious theory. Mentioning it would be bringing religion into public school. Duh.

Besides, the "seperation" clause simply isnt there as the libs proclaim.

Besides, so what. The Constitution doesn't mention anything about you getting a fair trial, either - yet your right to a fair trial is constitutionally protected.

The government may not reflect an establishment of religion. The intent of that phrase is clear to all but those who seek to make it meaningless.

Why do you assume Im not willing to allow other hypotheses?
I would allow others, but they have to have some litmus test to pass.
Certainly a belief that over one billion world wide believe in isnt of no consequence.

Let the scientists write the science books - not the masses.

Would you trust a book on autorepair that was written by democratic process of random people pulled off the street?


You could find 5 billion people to claim that ID is a testable scientific theory - unless they can come up with a way of actually testing it or potentially falsifying it - it doesn't matter.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

U are missing her point. It is if you dont want ID mentioned, then your basis for that should also lead you to keep evolution from being taught.

OK, I'm going to speak slowly here, so perhaps you can understand.


Intelligent Design is a NON-SCIENTIFIC THEORY


Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.


Do you see the difference between the two?


Now, my basis for not wanting ID taught in a SCIENCE class is that ID is NOT A SCIENCE.



You cannot use the same reasoning to argue that evolution shouldn't be taught - because evolution IS A TESTABLE SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And you called me not tooo bright?

Its simple.

You asked where would those people whom the ACLU has supported, turn to if there was no ACLU.

I stated that these cases were handled by someone before the ACLU came into existence.

Right - and WHO IS THIS SOMEONE?

When I ask you "who?" can you not see that "someone" doesn't really answer my question ?!?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

sure, why not. Subjects often overlap each other. If the teacher can use such a thing to make the class more interesting. My math teacher use to use sculpture and intertwine it with math.

So science class isn't actually about teaching science, its about making class interesting?

Wow. I guess we just have different teaching philosophies. Mine is that we should teach subject matter - yours is that we should entertain the students.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

just as using couterfeit bills to teach bank employees how to see the difference between real and phoney bill, similiar concept.

It would be more like using Monopoly money.

 

[MissileMan]

Why do you assume Im not willing to allow other hypotheses?
I would allow others, but they have to have some litmus test to pass.
Certainly a belief that over one billion world wide believe in isnt of no consequence.

It isn't of consequence from a scientific standpoint.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

OK, I'm going to speak slowly here, so perhaps you can understand.


Intelligent Design is a NON-SCIENTIFIC THEORY


Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.


Do you see the difference between the two?


Now, my basis for not wanting ID taught in a SCIENCE class is that ID is NOT A SCIENCE.



You cannot use the same reasoning to argue that evolution shouldn't be taught - because evolution IS A TESTABLE SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

You should try READING SLOWER.

We already know your basis, and our posistion

ISNT FUCKING BASED ON THE IDEA THAT IT IS SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!

GET IT????

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Right - and WHO IS THIS SOMEONE?

When I ask you "who?" can you not see that "someone" doesn't really answer my question ?!?

It doesnt answer it specificallly, but unless you want to claim that NOBODY was representing people in court to defend civil rights, then it doesnt matter. YOU go find out who that someone is. THEY EXIST because it has occured. If you dont think so, then you are simply whacked out.

Someone is flying over the pacific ocean right now, how do I know? Cuz planes leave hourly for asia. Do I have any specific names ? NO

DOes that mean nobody is flying over the pacific right now? NO

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So science class isn't actually about teaching science, its about making class interesting?

Wow. I guess we just have different teaching philosophies. Mine is that we should teach subject matter - yours is that we should entertain the students.

Yet just another case where you prove your inability to put information together in a choherent way.

WHo ever said science class isnt about teaching science?
WHO?
WHO?
WHO?
Please copy and paste. I will eat my socks if you can show where anyone said that.

Dont you think that by making a class more interesting AT TIMES, that students are more apt to learn the SUBJECT matter? Even if that means at times of bringing in off topics for a bit?

Look, theres little johhny in the corner. Johnnies parents are very religious. They teach him the idea of evolution is bonkers, and dont listen to the teacher, so johnny pretty much closes his mind to what the teacher has to say. So now one day, the teacher mentions ID, a creator, oh, Johhny suddenly perks up, and starts asking questions, the teacher alarmed at this unusual behavior from an otherwise lackluster student, gets into a discussion for a few minutes and lets Johny know where he can find some material to compare the two ideas.

Now johny becomes fascinated with science and goes on to earn a noble prize in physics.

Other scenario

Little Jimmy is shy and withdrawn in science class. The teacher "mentions" another concept for the creation of life (since NOTHING has been PROVEN as the actual answer) and jimmy grasps the idea of religion suddenly.

Now Jimmy suddenly goes on a world wide revival as soon as he turns 18 and gathers millions of supporters who all go to a huge field in INNER MONGOLIA and commit mass suicide. All because poor jimmys teacher mentioned for one brief moment the idea of ID.

So, WHICH IS MORE PLAUSABLE??? HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Yet just another case where you prove your inability to put information together in a choherent way.

WHo ever said science class isnt about teaching science?
WHO?
WHO?
WHO?
Please copy and paste. I will eat my socks if you can show where anyone said that.

Dont you think that by making a class more interesting AT TIMES, that students are more apt to learn the SUBJECT matter? Even if that means at times of bringing in off topics for a bit?

Look, theres little johhny in the corner. Johnnies parents are very religious. They teach him the idea of evolution is bonkers, and dont listen to the teacher, so johnny pretty much closes his mind to what the teacher has to say. So now one day, the teacher mentions ID, a creator, oh, Johhny suddenly perks up, and starts asking questions, the teacher alarmed at this unusual behavior from an otherwise lackluster student, gets into a discussion for a few minutes and lets Johny know where he can find some material to compare the two ideas.

Now johny becomes fascinated with science and goes on to earn a noble prize in physics.

Other scenario

Little Jimmy is shy and withdrawn in science class. The teacher "mentions" another concept for the creation of life (since NOTHING has been PROVEN as the actual answer) and jimmy grasps the idea of religion suddenly.

Now Jimmy suddenly goes on a world wide revival as soon as he turns 18 and gathers millions of supporters who all go to a huge field in INNER MONGOLIA and commit mass suicide. All because poor jimmys teacher mentioned for one brief moment the idea of ID.

So, WHICH IS MORE PLAUSABLE??? HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH

Sometimes I wonder if you nasally take a line of wasabi right as your post ends...

If ID is non-scientific as you've claimed before, how, then, would you incorporate it into the curriculum. The only feasible way I could see it happening is through no1tovote4's idea, but I have a hard time believing you would be happy with having ID in school just to shoot it's scientific validity down. So, spell out your plan for how to include ID in the science curriculum. Here's your chance to make history.

 

[archangel]

Right - and WHO IS THIS SOMEONE?

When I ask you "who?" can you not see that "someone" doesn't really answer my question ?!?

luvR did make a valid point...there are numerous past and present Contitutional attorneys providing this service...some are even Christians!

 

[5stringJeff]

Sometimes I wonder if you nasally take a line of wasabi right as your post ends...

:rotflmao:

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Sometimes I wonder if you nasally take a line of wasabi right as your post ends...

If ID is non-scientific as you've claimed before, how, then, would you incorporate it into the curriculum. The only feasible way I could see it happening is through no1tovote4's idea, but I have a hard time believing you would be happy with having ID in school just to shoot it's scientific validity down. So, spell out your plan for how to include ID in the science curriculum. Here's your chance to make history.

Its been done repeatedly.

sniff sniff

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Its been done repeatedly.

sniff sniff

Humor me, as I've yet to stumble across your idea. Do you even agree with no1tovote4's idea as to how ID should be incorporated into science classes?

 

[no1tovote4]

Ok. Fine. I'm fine with them only teaching testable theories like evolution. That's my whole point, in fact.

As we get more adept at cutting and pasting DNA into other forms of life it will become evident that such work had been done. If the ID worked in that framework one could be able to see such intentional changes if they existed and it could become provable or disprovable that such manipulation was done. It would therefore be at least partially disproved or proved depending on what types of manipulation were used in changing the DNA.

We can already prove that DNA changes can be implemented by intelligent design, we do it ourselves.

Of course it couldn't be totally disproven or proved through science, but testable portions do remain available to scientific edifices and can be proven or disproven.