[Eagare the Alenthin]

Emperor Stranger, on Sep 14 2009, 09:48 PM, said:

Maybe they aren't ignorant to it, maybe they just don't care or if they care, then they chose not to believe in Evolution. It's not like Evolution isn't being taught in certain places in America; every school, besides certain private schools, teaches Evolution. While some kids are forced to go to church, EVERY kid (or at least the majority of kids) are forced into public school, where they are forced to learn about Evolution. Not Creationism, but Evolution. Either the teachers are doing a terrible job teaching it, or there is just something in Creationism that Evolutionists can't see that attracts them. (Of course, the 61% of Americans who said they don't believe in Evolution don't necessarily believe in Creationism, but I can imagine that a good portion believes in it.)

That said, why would, say, McDonald's try to advertise to the rich? Do you think they would bother showing a commercial with Bill Gates in a $20,000 tuxedo eating a dollar menu cheeseburger, or Wal-Mart showing Bill Gates walking through an aisle shopping? No. Why? It's not their demographic. The people they need to advertise to is the poor. They have a low chance of getting the rich to eat their !@#$%* food, but they have a high chance of getting that single mother of four who is struggling to pay her bills to eat there on their dollar menu. Likewise, why would a distributor try to sell a movie to a demographic that isn't interested in it?

Here's the problem: religious beliefs tend to trump science in this particular case. Also, understand that what is taught in high school biology is 1) not mandatory (you don't have to take senior level bio if you're, say, an arts student) and 2) not philosophy of science/religion. There's a huge difference. The way evolution is presented in high school is not done to convince people. It's done to present the facts in such a way that they relate to the forthcoming university curricula. These classes do not investigate the relationship between evolution and religion, because they're science classes.

[-Wolverine-]

Emperor Stranger, on Sep 14 2009, 09:48 PM, said:

Maybe they aren't ignorant to it, maybe they just don't care or if they care, then they chose not to believe in Evolution. It's not like Evolution isn't being taught in certain places in America; every school, besides certain private schools, teaches Evolution. While some kids are forced to go to church, EVERY kid (or at least the majority of kids) are forced into public school, where they are forced to learn about Evolution. Not Creationism, but Evolution. Either the teachers are doing a terrible job teaching it, or there is just something in Creationism that Evolutionists can't see that attracts them. (Of course, the 61% of Americans who said they don't believe in Evolution don't necessarily believe in Creationism, but I can imagine that a good portion believes in it.)

That said, why would, say, McDonald's try to advertise to the rich? Do you think they would bother showing a commercial with Bill Gates in a $20,000 tuxedo eating a dollar menu cheeseburger, or Wal-Mart showing Bill Gates walking through an aisle shopping? No. Why? It's not their demographic. The people they need to advertise to is the poor. They have a low chance of getting the rich to eat their !@#$%* food, but they have a high chance of getting that single mother of four who is struggling to pay her bills to eat there on their dollar menu. Likewise, why would a distributor try to sell a movie to a demographic that isn't interested in it?

Then why don't you come up with a theory that is even better than the theory of evolution?

There is a reason why one concept is taught and the other is not. One has mountains of evidence to support the hyposthies made for the theory, the other has none. The same reason that horse biology is taught in schools, but unicorn biology is just somehow swept aside.

[Emperor Stranger]

Eagare the Alenthin, on Sep 14 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

Here's the problem: religious beliefs tend to trump science in this particular case. Also, understand that what is taught in high school biology is 1) not mandatory (you don't have to take senior level bio if you're, say, an arts student) and 2) not philosophy of science/religion. There's a huge difference. The way evolution is presented in high school is not done to convince people. It's done to present the facts in such a way that they relate to the forthcoming university curricula. These classes do not investigate the relationship between evolution and religion, because they're science classes.

1. It is mandatory; it's an opt-out program, not an opt-in program and it is required to be taught by state law, therefore if they don't even go over it once, then the teachers will be fired. The students can't pass without being taught this. (Although I have noticed that teachers in Florida tend to do Evolution in a day just to get it over with.) And from my experience - which I know isn't anywhere near enough for anyone here to care about - Evolution is taught beginning in the sixth grade.
2. Maybe both should be taught equally? If the majority of citizens in America believe in the opposite of what they are teaching, wouldn't it be fair to teach them equally? I thought that we aren't supposed to be indoctrinating our kids? And technically, the Creation Theory and the Evolution Theory are as scientific as each other. Neither side can be proven. Both simply take the same exact observations and come to conclusions (which is scientific, by the way). You may think that evidence supports one more than the other, but it matters not. One can not look at a bunch of bones in the ground and know exactly how and why they came there. You can't even tell why they died, let alone when they died or what order they died in. All you know is they died.

[Loki Ire]

Eagare the Alenthin, on Sep 14 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

Here's the problem: religious beliefs tend to trump science in this particular case.

For whom, exactly? Do you have data to support this?

Eagare the Alenthin, on Sep 14 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

Also, understand that what is taught in high school biology is 1) not mandatory (you don't have to take senior level bio if you're, say, an arts student)

Many high schools do not distinguish between those who are "arts students" and those who are "science students", but require certain levels of instruction in each to produce well-rounded students. Don't generalize your personal experience to some universal law of high school curricula.

Eagare the Alenthin, on Sep 14 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

and 2) not philosophy of science/religion. There's a huge difference. The way evolution is presented in high school is not done to convince people. It's done to present the facts in such a way that they relate to the forthcoming university curricula. These classes do not investigate the relationship between evolution and religion, because they're science classes.

You're again generalizing. In fact, I was presented with such investigations of the relationship between many aspects of science and religion. This happened in my world literature class, several history classes, somewhat in a couple of science classes, a mythology course I took, and religion classes through my four years of private (Catholic) schooling.

And for what it's worth, science reigned supreme in that school. All religious instruction was either well outside science class's pervue (metaphysical discussion) or well within accepted scientific principles. I even recall one religion teacher speaking with the head of the science department between classes after a number of students had challenged him on there being a biological basis for "blue balls" (all-boys school). The following day, he corrected himself and explained what he'd learned from our science department chairman.

[-Wolverine-]

Emperor Stranger, on Sep 14 2009, 10:13 PM, said:

1. It is mandatory; it's an opt-out program, not an opt-in program and it is required to be taught by state law, therefore if they don't even go over it once, then the teachers will be fired. The students can't pass without being taught this. (Although I have noticed that teachers in Florida tend to do Evolution in a day just to get it over with.) And from my experience - which I know isn't anywhere near enough for anyone here to care about - Evolution is taught beginning in the sixth grade.
2. Maybe both should be taught equally? If the majority of citizens in America believe in the opposite of what they are teaching, wouldn't it be fair to teach them equally? I thought that we aren't supposed to be indoctrinating our kids? And technically, the Creation Theory and the Evolution Theory are as scientific as each other. Neither side can be proven. Both simply take the same exact observations and come to conclusions (which is scientific, by the way). You may think that evidence supports one more than the other, but it matters not. One can not look at a bunch of bones in the ground and know exactly how and why they came there. You can't even tell why they died, let alone when they died or what order they died in. All you know is they died.

If a majority of the population believed the earth was flat, then is that what should be taught in schools? Its silly a silly argument. What the majority of the population believes means absolutely nothing when scientific research points in another direction.

Evolution has been proven hundreds of times, through a multitude of observations and experiments.

Show me how creationism has done the same.

[Foggers]

-Wolverine-, on Sep 14 2009, 11:17 PM, said:

If a majority of the population believed the earth was flat, then is that what should be taught in schools? Its silly a silly argument. What the majority of the population believes means absolutely nothing when scientific research points in another direction.

Evolution has been proven hundreds of times, through a multitude of observations and experiments.

Show me how creationism has done the same.

Faith requires no evidence.

Sorry to be annoying but may as well get that point out there before someone does it seriously.

[-Wolverine-]

That is why creationism is not a valid scientific theory to be taught in schools.

"10,000 years ago, the FSM created the earth and heaven. Populating the earth with pirates, and placing an infinite number of strippers and beer in heaven".

King Diamond, on Sep 14 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

I know Catholics that believe Evolution and the Big Bang is God's work, I don't see the problem.

Exactly.

Evolution =/= existence of god.

Some people seem to hold a no compromise stance on it, which makes no sense.

This post has been edited by -Wolverine-: 14 September 2009 - 04:22 PM

[Emperor Stranger]

-Wolverine-, on Sep 14 2009, 06:17 PM, said:

If a majority of the population believed the earth was flat, then is that what should be taught in schools? Its silly a silly argument. What the majority of the population believes means absolutely nothing when scientific research points in another direction.

Evolution has been proven hundreds of times, through a multitude of observations and experiments.

Show me how creationism has done the same.

Then let's not teach origins in school? It is possible for someone to go throughout their entire life and be successful without even learning about origins. What point does it serve to force something down people's throats when it is so controversial? I don't see abortion being taught in any sense in school, besides maybe in sex ed. It too has scientific relevance, yet it's not taught in Biology or any science class for that matter.

Observations can often lead to multiple conclusions. In fact, the most unlikely conclusion can often be the best conclusion. I see it all the time in history and in real life. (Let's take House MD for example, since not everyone can get into a hospital and watch a diagnostics center. How many times did the unlikely become the best answer in diagnosing a patient?)

It's also highly unlikely that Ebola can come to America and spread. Is it therefore impossible? Probably 90% of Americans before September 11th thought that America was safe and would never be hit by terrorists. We saw where that led to..

King Diamond, on Sep 14 2009, 06:18 PM, said:

I know Catholics that believe Evolution and the Big Bang is God's work, I don't see the problem.

There is a problem. The Evolution Theory contradicts many parts of the Bible. I don't see how they can co-exist without excluding or rewriting many parts of Genesis or Evolution/the Big Bang.

[President Nevik]

Emperor Stranger, on Sep 14 2009, 06:13 PM, said:

1. It is mandatory; it's an opt-out program, not an opt-in program and it is required to be taught by state law, therefore if they don't even go over it once, then the teachers will be fired. The students can't pass without being taught this. (Although I have noticed that teachers in Florida tend to do Evolution in a day just to get it over with.) And from my experience - which I know isn't anywhere near enough for anyone here to care about - Evolution is taught beginning in the sixth grade.

Those damn intellectual fascists are forcing our children to learn about scientific theory!

Quote

2. Maybe both should be taught equally?

Should a history teacher be required to teach his or her students that the pyramids were built by the Egyptians, but maybe they were built by aliens as well?

Quote

If the majority of citizens in America believe in the opposite of what they are teaching, wouldn't it be fair to teach them equally?

How does their lack of belief make the case for evolution weaker? How does it make the case for creationism stronger? Oh right, it doesn't. On to the next question.

Quote

I thought that we aren't supposed to be indoctrinating our kids?

We aren't, which is why we should keep creationism out of the classroom.

Quote

And technically, the Creation Theory and the Evolution Theory are as scientific as each other.

The sad part is you typed this with a straight face.

Quote

One can not look at a bunch of bones in the ground and know exactly how and why they came there. You can't even tell why they died, let alone when they died or what order they died in. All you know is they died.

[Eagare the Alenthin]

Emperor Stranger, on Sep 14 2009, 10:13 PM, said:

1. It is mandatory; it's an opt-out program, not an opt-in program and it is required to be taught by state law, therefore if they don't even go over it once, then the teachers will be fired. The students can't pass without being taught this. (Although I have noticed that teachers in Florida tend to do Evolution in a day just to get it over with.) And from my experience - which I know isn't anywhere near enough for anyone here to care about - Evolution is taught beginning in the sixth grade.
2. Maybe both should be taught equally? If the majority of citizens in America believe in the opposite of what they are teaching, wouldn't it be fair to teach them equally? I thought that we aren't supposed to be indoctrinating our kids? And technically, the Creation Theory and the Evolution Theory are as scientific as each other. Neither side can be proven. Both simply take the same exact observations and come to conclusions (which is scientific, by the way). You may think that evidence supports one more than the other, but it matters not. One can not look at a bunch of bones in the ground and know exactly how and why they came there. You can't even tell why they died, let alone when they died or what order they died in. All you know is they died.

1.I'm not especially familiar with the American state system, but is there a specific class there called "Evolution?" Here it's all lumped under biology. You can take biology, physics, chemistry or earth & space sciences. You only have to take one, I'm pretty sure.
2. One isn't a scientific theory. You can teach creationism in religion class, and it usually is mentioned, but it doesn't have much if any scientific backing which is why it isn't in textbooks. Creationism seems to occupy itself more with denying evidences for evolution rather than authentically reinterpreting them. This is especially evident in criticisms of scientific methodology by creationists (ie. carbon dating, white whole cosmology etc.).

Loki Ire, on Sep 14 2009, 10:15 PM, said:

For whom, exactly? Do you have data to support this?



Many high schools do not distinguish between those who are "arts students" and those who are "science students", but require certain levels of instruction in each to produce well-rounded students. Don't generalize your personal experience to some universal law of high school curricula.



You're again generalizing. In fact, I was presented with such investigations of the relationship between many aspects of science and religion. This happened in my world literature class, several history classes, somewhat in a couple of science classes, a mythology course I took, and religion classes through my four years of private (Catholic) schooling.

And for what it's worth, science reigned supreme in that school. All religious instruction was either well outside science class's pervue (metaphysical discussion) or well within accepted scientific principles. I even recall one religion teacher speaking with the head of the science department between classes after a number of students had challenged him on there being a biological basis for "blue balls" (all-boys school). The following day, he corrected himself and explained what he'd learned from our science department chairman.

1. No, but I don't think it's really necessary to possess any. Religion is primarily a philosophical field, and that's why it's not really discussed in a biology class as part of the actual curriculum. I'm not aware of any biology textbooks which include a section on "Evolution & Theism" because that's not a question of science.

2. It's not necessary to take biology in Canada, as far as I know. You have to take one of the core sciences. Plus, evolution is a paltry one unit in an entire semester.

3. I'm not really sure what you mean here. Science as a discipline isn't really concerned with religion because the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Are you saying that we should be teaching creationism or?

[shoe the fifth]

Emperor Stranger, on Sep 14 2009, 10:32 PM, said:

Then let's not teach origins in school? It is possible for someone to go throughout their entire life and be successful without even learning about origins. What point does it serve to force something down people's throats when it is so controversial? I don't see abortion being taught in any sense in school, besides maybe in sex ed. It too has scientific relevance, yet it's not taught in Biology or any science class for that matter.

the problem being that knowledge of evolution is mandatory for any career involving biology, as well as quite a few other sciences.

knowledge of abortion is not mandatory for any career outside the medical field. it's the same reason why they don't teach about hip replacements in biology or any other science class despite them being scientifically relevant, because it's unneeded to understand the fundamental principles of that field.

[Emperor Stranger]

President Nevik, on Sep 14 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

Those damn intellectual fascists are forcing our children to learn about scientific theory!

One that is still disputed. I don't see Global Warming being taught as a fact, yet it's preached in Washington and the UN.

President Nevik, on Sep 14 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

Should a history teacher be required to teach his or her students that the pyramids were built by the Egyptians, but maybe they were built by aliens as well?

If it were the consensus, then sure.

President Nevik, on Sep 14 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

How does their lack of belief make the case for evolution weaker? How does it make the case for creationism stronger? Oh right, it doesn't. On to the next question.

Beliefs are everything in this case. Coming to conclusions based on observations without actual physical evidence tends to do that..

President Nevik, on Sep 14 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

We aren't, which is why we should keep creationism out of the classroom.

So teaching them something that is generally accepted more than what is being taught is indoctrination, but the other way around isn't. So if we taught that aliens landed on Earth to produce the first human, it wouldn't be indoctrination simply because it's not religious?

President Nevik, on Sep 14 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

The sad part is you typed this with a straight face.

I know. I am just one of this stupid, ignorant Creationists who wants to refute science because it completely disagrees with my faith. Even the law of gravity can't be proven.

_______________________________

I just thought about that. Whoever said that gravity was a theory was an idiot. It's the Law of Gravity, not the theory of gravity.

[shoe the fifth]

Emperor Stranger, on Sep 14 2009, 10:45 PM, said:

I just thought about that. Whoever said that gravity was a theory was an idiot. It's the Law of Gravity, not the theory of gravity.

this shows so much ignorance it's not even funny.

[Emperor Stranger]

shoe the fifth, on Sep 14 2009, 06:44 PM, said:

the problem being that knowledge of evolution is mandatory for any career involving biology, as well as quite a few other sciences.

knowledge of abortion is not mandatory for any career outside the medical field. it's the same reason why they don't teach about hip replacements in biology or any other science class despite them being scientifically relevant, because it's unneeded to understand the fundamental principles of that field.

But it's mandatory in one field, therefore it should be taught. I don't remember leaving out English. Not everyone is going to be writers or speed readers. I don't remember leaving out history. History has absolutely nothing to do with many fields today or can just go without history.

Parts of evolution are mandatory in probably Virology and a few other smaller careers. Not knowing it will not affect someone going into Culinary Arts, writing, etc.

[Emperor Stranger]

shoe the fifth, on Sep 14 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

this shows so much ignorance it's not even funny.

You do know the difference between a law and a theory, right?

[King Diamond]

Emperor Stranger, on Sep 14 2009, 03:32 PM, said:

There is a problem. The Evolution Theory contradicts many parts of the Bible. I don't see how they can co-exist without excluding or rewriting many parts of Genesis or Evolution/the Big Bang.

How? The bible is something written by man's hand, giving their own interpretations of events, completely metaphorical, without comprehension to what they're really writing. Not to mention that something was bound to get lost in translation.

[Eagare the Alenthin]

Emperor Stranger, on Sep 14 2009, 10:47 PM, said:

But it's mandatory in one field, therefore it should be taught. I don't remember leaving out English. Not everyone is going to be writers or speed readers. I don't remember leaving out history. History has absolutely nothing to do with many fields today or can just go without history.

Parts of evolution are mandatory in probably Virology and a few other smaller careers. Not knowing it will not affect someone going into Culinary Arts, writing, etc.

Yes. Could someone enlighten me as to how this works in America? In Canada we have biology offered in Grades 11 and 12. Before that everything is just "science class" and it's general. Evolution isn't even touched until the final year, so it's completely optional.

[-Wolverine-]

Emperor Stranger, on Sep 14 2009, 10:32 PM, said:

Then let's not teach origins in school? It is possible for someone to go throughout their entire life and be successful without even learning about origins. What point does it serve to force something down people's throats when it is so controversial? I don't see abortion being taught in any sense in school, besides maybe in sex ed. It too has scientific relevance, yet it's not taught in Biology or any science class for that matter.

So? A round world was controversial at one time to, should the truth about the earth and cosmos be suppressed because people do not understand a particular subject?

Evolution has more evidence going for it than gravity, do you believe in gravity? Or should gravitational theory be suppressed as well?

Quote

Observations can often lead to multiple conclusions. In fact, the most unlikely conclusion can often be the best conclusion. I see it all the time in history and in real life. (Let's take House MD for example, since not everyone can get into a hospital and watch a diagnostics center. How many times did the unlikely become the best answer in diagnosing a patient?)

Those are doctors, who treat dozens of people for multiple illnesses in a day. They are specialists. They do not focus on one field.
The comparison here does not make any sense.

Quote

It's also highly unlikely that Ebola can come to America and spread. Is it therefore impossible? Probably 90% of Americans before September 11th thought that America was safe and would never be hit by terrorists. We saw where that led to..

This is obviously relevant to scientific theory.

Quote

There is a problem. The Evolution Theory contradicts many parts of the Bible. I don't see how they can co-exist without excluding or rewriting many parts of Genesis or Evolution/the Big Bang.

And? You are reading the writing of man, and using it literally describe to some how paint a picture of the earth and the cosmos. The Bible was written by man several thousand years ago, using mans understanding of the time. The Bible has very little or no relevance to science now.

This post has been edited by -Wolverine-: 14 September 2009 - 04:59 PM

[-Wolverine-]

Emperor Stranger, on Sep 14 2009, 10:48 PM, said:

You do know the difference between a law and a theory, right?

Apparently you don't. Done any reading on the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics?

What is gravity?

This post has been edited by -Wolverine-: 14 September 2009 - 04:56 PM

[Lamuella]

Emperor Stranger, on Sep 14 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

I just thought about that. Whoever said that gravity was a theory was an idiot. It's the Law of Gravity, not the theory of gravity.

the page you linked to redirects to the Wikipedia page on gravitation. Gravitation is a theory and always was. The "law of gravity" is the name commonly given to the Newtonian theory of gravitation, a theory that, amusingly enough, has been disproven by general relativity.