Education

[padisha emperor]

I will not speak of the level of the US college, but of the US school programs.
I've read that 17 states refused to teach the Darwin's theory of evolution, and then the scientific theories of the evolution.
I don't say that Drawin was totally right, other people, like Lamarck, had good ideas about evolution - adaptation to the environment - .

The problem is that these states don't teach darwin because it hurts the Bible.

What do you think about it ? about the fact that religion can stop the scientific learning in some states ?
because earth is not 6000 years old, the dinosaurus existed........and so many things like that...

It is all the earth story and the evolution of human being which is not teached here.

 

[5stringJeff]

I will not speak of the level of the US college, but of the US school programs.
I've read that 17 states refused to teach the Darwin's theory of evolution, and then the scientific theories of the evolution.
I don't say that Drawin was totally right, other people, like Lamarck, had good ideas about evolution - adaptation to the environment - .

The problem is that these states don't teach darwin because it hurts the Bible.

What do you think about it ? about the fact that religion can stop the scientific learning in some states ?
because earth is not 6000 years old, the dinosaurus existed........and so many things like that...

It is all the earth story and the evolution of human being which is not teached here.

Macroevolution is not a proven scientific theory. Therefore, it is responsible to present it as an unproven theory, and to present alternatives (i.e. Intellegent Design).

 

[nakedemperor]

Macroevolution is not a proven scientific theory. Therefore, it is responsible to present it as an unproven theory, and to present alternatives (i.e. Intellegent Design).

Intelligent design is an alternative, however its unerlying arguments are all conjectural. Macroevolution is a scientific theory grounded in the objective data accumulation of thousands of scientists. Intelligent design is conjectural armchair theorizing of theologans. Arguments such as "The universe is far too complex for human beings to understand, therefore intelligent design must have been at work" belies no scientific reasoning. At its core, it relies on an argument which holds no scientific water.

It would be responsible to provide data for Intelligent Design before it is presented as a viable alternative in science classrooms, havens of objective research.

 

[Gem]

Many schools teach both...Creationism and Evolution...and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of both arguments. It is possible to do this without delving into one specific religion, and there are many lesson plans that deal with how to approach Creationism without speaking about a God, or one specific God...

I think that since Evolution, specifically, macro-evolution is still a theory...this is an interesting way to teach the subject that leaves the "answer" up to the student and/or his family to discern...if you have parents who stress evolution as the answer, then they will teach that to their child, same with Creationism...and if the parents are not an influence, then the student will receive all the information you can give her/him...which is fair and what should be happening.

While I personally believe in Evolution in some form...I think that it is very important to convey to young people both why the theory makes sense...AS WELL AS the problems with it...I think a lot of people who consider themselves highly educated do not have a grasp on why other educated people have doubts about evolution...and rather than educate themselves, they simply call the people religious fanatics or idiots and leave it at that...

Schools that refuse to teach Evolution are, in my opinion, doing a great disservice to their students...however I think that the opposing viewpoint needs to be expressed in a non-mocking serious way as well.

 

[insein]

In all honesty, we know what people tell us. People tell us the earth is 4 billion years old. Do we understand the research that went into that theory? NO. People tell us that dinosaurs existed at a certain period in time and were wiped out. Yet many conflicting theories as to how they were wiped out exist.

Science is not an exact science . Theories are theories for a reason. It takes immense ammounts of scientific data and evidence before we can establish a scientific LAW. It is not responsible to project certain theories as laws as some teachers do in our school system. IT gives false impressions to very impressionable students.

 

[MissileMan]

In all honesty, we know what people tell us. People tell us the earth is 4 billion years old. Do we understand the research that went into that theory? NO. People tell us that dinosaurs existed at a certain period in time and were wiped out. Yet many conflicting theories as to how they were wiped out exist.

Science is not an exact science . Theories are theories for a reason. It takes immense ammounts of scientific data and evidence before we can establish a scientific LAW. It is not responsible to project certain theories as laws as some teachers do in our school system. IT gives false impressions to very impressionable students.

It's been many years since I went to high school, but I do recall that it was called "The Theory of Evolution" in my text books. It was not passed off as an absolute, but was rather portrayed as the most plausible explanation of the development of life on this planet based on the scientific evidence available.

The problem with the theory of creationism is that, so far, it is totally bereft of any scientific evidence. As such, it should be excluded from public school curriculum.

 

[insein]

It's been many years since I went to high school, but I do recall that it was called "The Theory of Evolution" in my text books. It was not passed off as an absolute, but was rather portrayed as the most plausible explanation of the development of life on this planet based on the scientific evidence available.

The problem with the theory of creationism is that, so far, it is totally bereft of any scientific evidence. As such, it should be excluded from public school curriculum.

Ah but in todays schools it isnt taught as a theory. It is meant for kids to think that htis is how it happened. Im not a holier than thou religious guy. Im just saying what we think we know, we dont.

 

[padisha emperor]

the Theory of Evolution is a theory, of course.
But there is not only the darwin's one.
2 years ago, when I was 17, my class and I studied the evolution of the Human being. With the observation of all the caracteristics between some animals (monkeys and animals like monkeys in pre-historic times) and us.
Really interesting.
These are theories, but but with a lot of documents, of kind of prooves,and for the mment nothing hurts these theories.

Insein said

In all honesty, we know what people tell us. People tell us the earth is 4 billion years old. Do we understand the research that went into that theory? NO. People tell us that dinosaurs existed at a certain period in time and were wiped out. Yet many conflicting theories as to how they were wiped out exist.

Science is not an exact science . Theories are theories for a reason. It takes immense ammounts of scientific data and evidence before we can establish a scientific LAW. It is not responsible to project certain theories as laws as some teachers do in our school system. IT gives false impressions to very impressionable students.

For the age of earth, it is an exact science, we've study it too, with the way of datation, comparativly, and with precision, with Carbon 14, the couples Potassium/Argon, and Rubidium/Strontium (chemical components). These SCIENTIFIC technics offer to date with precision some things, from the egyptian sarcophage to the old stone. The Rubidium /Strontium technic can even date a stone which would be 50 billions yeras old. So, for the earth which is 4.5 billions years old, it is really possible to date it.

The things that I find amazing and bad, is that some schools REFUSe to treach scientific things, because the teachers are agnostic, and so, they refuse to know what there is before, because for them the human beeing can not know some things.
But when some scientific of the XVth/XVIIth c. said their THEORY of the blood circulation in the human body, the Church burnt them. It was only a theory, but now nobody will say that it is wrong.


The scientific research do awesome progress, it research involve every days. Maybe in 50 years, things who are now not understable, would be so basic that pupils of elementary schools will learn it.
Wait and see.


And nevermind, teacher have to teach things to make involve the mind of their pupils. If they refuse to teach certain things, which are teached in all the schools of Europe, they will have an handicap.

 

[essayprovidersuk]

interesting post for the share.