|
Post by miaim on Oct 8, 2007 9:10:44 GMT -5
oh dear, getting desperate, eh? 1. Reiss' estimates and claims are very vague: we don't know if he teaches at a church-run school, nor do we know whether the teachers who stopped teaching evolution work for church-run or state schools....and we don't know how and why they stopped teaching evolution, if they did at all.... and even if they did, the circumstances that made them stop teaching evolution is unknown too.... Michael Reiss says some teachers, fearful of entering the debate, avoid the subject totally, which isn't the same thing as the religious forcing their ideas on them....as the teachers refused to enter the debate in the first place.... which would seem, imo, to be a very irresponsible position for an educator to take...great, a teacher who can't handle being challenged....hardly inspires confidence in their teaching skills, does it? in other words, for all we know, these teachers may have been prone to caving in to the slightest pressure.....*maybe*, *maybe not*: we just don't know.... of course, it's your choice to take him on his word - i'm reserving judgment until i know more....but feel free to take a leap of faith and believe him.... 2. an opinion poll or a report by OFSTED would include a much larger sample - which, according to the scientific, rational and logical method, would decrease substantially the margin of error, including the possibility of lying.... it's plain silly to assert one single professor's unsubstantiated claims are the same as an opinion poll or a report by OFSTED....but i think you know this, no? it's your right to trip out over Reiss' unsubstantiated claims...but the more rational and logical amongst us would like to see more evidence before jumping to conclusions..... and find it rather funny that someone who claims the religious are irrational (which would include Reiss) is so quick to believe unsubstantiated claims (made by someone you have already described as irrational) himself..... and yeah, if even one single case (even though you know nothing of the details/circumstance) is enough to trip you out.....maybe you just need to chill out? i'd agree with you if, for example, there were credible death threats or something, but that does not appear to be the case, does it? and handling challenges/questions about a subject is part of a teacher's job, is it not? unless you think children should be unquestioning, obedient drones..... peace
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 8, 2007 9:45:21 GMT -5
they have a right to express themselves: i don't indulge in selective freedom of expression...people are free to express themselves, short of credible death threats....and i have no problem with kids challenging teachers, as long as no violence is involved.... btw, why isn't anyone worried by the Pope's support of ID? do you know how many schools the Catholic Church runs? peace
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 8, 2007 18:02:59 GMT -5
you seem to have a problem accepting that in a democracy, people have a right to freedom of speech..... i don't have a problem with students, or even their parents, questioning the theory of evolution...they are merely expressing their right to freedom of conscience and speech.... and i don't have a problem with discussing creationism in a science class - and i never said both are equally valid as scientific theories, merely that both are theories.... since one has been tested and held up under the scientific method and the other not, what is the problem of discussing it in a science class? this thread *should* be about the best way to educate children, not *winning* a debate....and dismissing children's creationist beliefs as "superstition" and "hogwash" is....as Reiss says, not a good idea.... funny how you're selective about which parts of his statements you'll agree with... as i said, i agree with him that it's better to tackle the issue head-on rather than avoid the issue of creationism altogether....and discussing creationism in a science class is NOT the same thing as teaching that both theories are equally valid as scientific theory, a straw man argument if there ever was one..... and, as i said, it's not the zero-sum issue you want to make it out to be - unless the sole purpose of the thread is to defend your position and "win" the debate....even though you asked for solutions in your first post....but i see that you're not interested in finding solutions, just "winning".... the obvious solution is to discuss the controversy, not hide from it....and really, if you read the book of Genesis and the Koran, it really isn't that difficult to discuss....one could even argue both support evolution....if anything, it presents a perfect opportunity to discuss what exactly scientific theory is....for an open-minded, capable teacher.....would be a bit difficult for someone like you who has obviously never read either of the books....which may explain why you're so scared of them.... peace
|
|
|
Post by long on Oct 8, 2007 20:24:43 GMT -5
this thread *should* be about the best way to educate children, not *winning* a debate... Yes Mia I think you've hit upon something with which I can wholeheartedly agree - this current line of debate is going nowhere very slowly, and as Zoff suggested the argument was probably played out pages ago. That whole questioning whether teachers have been influenced by creationists was pretty tiresome. Let's try to reach some agreements, here are some things I think should be pretty uncontroversial by now: - We have reason to believe (although we're not 100% certain! ) that at least a handful of teachers in the UK have felt pressured by creationist students into avoiding the teaching of evolution. A much higher percentage of teachers have begun to include the teaching of creationism or ID alongside evolution. - Evolutionary theory and "literal creationism" - that which is generally meant by the unqualified term 'creationism' - are mutually exclusive beliefs (or as Mia would say zero-sum). You can't believe them both. "Metaphorical creationism" can perhaps be reconciled with, and perhaps be complimentary to, evolution; certainly there are people that feel this way. - The theory of evolution is a "scientific theory" in a way that creationism and ID are not (they are unfalsifiable, unamenable to empirical support, etc). I propose that the term 'belief' be used for the latter two in the remainder of this thread (I'm particularly thinking of you Mia), while reserving the word 'theory' for the scientific variety. The conflation of these two is causing some misunderstanding in this thread IMO and is a big problem among uneducated masses as well. - Not all religious people are fundamentalists - taking their holy books as literal truth, but some are. Not all religious thought is in conflict with science, but some of it is (such as a literal creationist belief). To me these ideas seem incontestable, I thought we needed some common ground to bring this discussion back to the realm of sanity. If you disagree with any of these statements I'd really be interested in hearing about it explicitly . My opinion: Creationism can be mentioned in science class to appease the believers, however it is important that students are taught that it is not a true scientific theory and does not play an active role of any kind in the studies of modern scientists. I agree with Mia that it is just as 'irrational' to have blind faith in evolution as it is to have blind faith in the Bible story, however, I do not believe that my belief in evolution is blind in that it is seemingly consistent with the evidence presented to me. all for now. please agree with me on those points Mia
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 9, 2007 6:12:51 GMT -5
My opinion: Creationism can be mentioned in science class to appease the believers, however it is important that students are taught that it is not a true scientific theory and does not play an active role of any kind in the studies of modern scientists. I agree with Mia that it is just as 'irrational' to have blind faith in evolution as it is to have blind faith in the Bible story, however, I do not believe that my belief in evolution is blind in that it is seemingly consistent with the evidence presented to me. all for now. please agree with me on those points Mia ah, someone who is rationally logical! i know perfectly well that creationism is not a scientific theory - however, when people debate these issues, they should be as equally careful about the definition of creationism, and distinguish between the literal variety (irreconcilable with evolution) and the metaphorical (which isn't, necessarily, in opposition to evolution)....instead of demanding people stick to their own definition but play fast and loose with the others'.... other than that, i basically agree with you.... my main points on this issue, that people couldn't see because they assume that anyone who thinks it's okay to discuss religious texts/beliefs/ideas/theories in a science class is trying to impose literal creationism through the back door, are: 1. who's at fault if a teacher stops teaching evolution because a student challenged them? the teacher for caving in or the student for challenging? 2. and why are people so obsessed about putting school subjects into boxes? many religious texts sought to explain the natural world as they saw it, back in the day....modern scientific theories were built on knowledge accumulated over thousands of years, some of which can be found in religious texts....not all of it is/was right or correct but neither was all of it wrong or incorrect.... either way, tackled head-on, the logical rational conclusion is that the theory of evolution has an overwhelming mountain of evidence to support it - and children can understand that....i don't see why people seem to think children wouldn't be able to tell the difference, which seems to be the argument to support keeping any mention of religious text or theories out of science classrooms.... and anyway, that isn't working too well, is it? one problem is that adults tend to underestimate children's intelligence....but i digress.... peace
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Oct 12, 2007 6:25:10 GMT -5
I'm confused.. are you Christian? I thought they were sposed to love their neighbours, not tell people to kill themself. emm maybe when you stop making assumptions perhaps youll see things more clearer. Im merely saying that what miami was saying both evolution and creationism isnt a fact so your brialliant idea to suggest muslims country to teach evolution is pretty ridiculous. See? Instead of assuming Im joking or a christian Im giving you permission to cut your wrist if you cant handle ppl disagreeing to you. ya well i dun like u n e more
|
|
Szymon Von Zalyn
Full Member
50% Polish of Prussian descent, 25% Italian, 25% kalmyk, but 100% English.
Posts: 367
|
Post by Szymon Von Zalyn on Oct 28, 2007 7:11:35 GMT -5
Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.
It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial. I'm also stuck on this.... wtf?? What PC prick thought this was a good idea? I fully support and defend anyone's right to their beliefs, but I also feel that there are lines that shouldn't be crossed, and this is one of them. Holocaust denial is despicable, and if thinking that makes me ignorant/bigoted/insensitive, so be it. I think that it is odd that muslims should be thought as holocaust deniers. A majority of muslims I have met acknowledge that it took place The people who tend to deny the holocaust from my experience tend to be white , thick as pigsh*t and profess to follow some distorted form of christianity
|
|
|
Post by truthpolitics on Oct 28, 2007 17:51:49 GMT -5
I vote we ban religion! You are like violently persecuting people like China's Falun Gong persecution.
|
|