Atheism

[Panthera tigris FC]

All I'm saying is that the topic shouldn't be a closed one. This idea of compartmentalising knowledge runs counter to modern educational theories.


He didn't :hihi? I think he did. Surely in claiming something like that your claiming that we should expect to behave just like apes aren't you? If we are apes why should any civilised standards apply to us?

We do behave like apes, we are apes! We just happen to act like humans, a species of ape. Civilised standards apply because we apply them.

 

[evo]

Heh heh heh. Cute little stawman your burning there Evo. I suggest you get Panther to explain to you what we were talking about a few pages ago though.

What strawman.You don't think morality is subjective,you've stated this on a number of occassions.


Basically you believe in Divine Command theory,like Euthyphro in the Socratic discussion I posted

So we only do science in the science class then, Evo? We shouldn't worry about morality and ethics and all that inconvenient stuff.

You demonstrated conclusively (to me at tleast ) that you don't have the first clue about the subject of ethics.

So yes,I'd prefer if you were my sons teacher that you stuck to scientific theories in the science classes.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

OK, so we are definitively not apes then? We have evolved beyond that stage? Can you please tell me what the statement is about then? Why make it if we are really Human beings.

Nope. Humans are apes. Evolution is not directed...we aren't any 'pinnacle'.

You could certainly say that, but in saying it the students would want to give their opinions and should be able to. So should the teacher. At the end of the day I agree with you that it shouldn't be part of the science curriculum, but there should be no banning of all discussion of this sort of thing.

In any science course ethics and the moral dimension is always on the table for discusssion. This is part of a rounded science education.

Agree. I think discussion of ethics in science education is a must.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

If it validifies it for me then it is more than an idiosyncracy.So did Mohammed with the Koran and yet the prophecies were ignored and unfulfilled. What does that say about the Koran? Besides, you can take the skeptical viewpoint on the authorship and their previous knowledge and I will just have faith that the authors were genuine. You have no actual proof of any foul play, you are merely speculating without evidence.Again, it's about faith in the message of each. The Koran does not seem like the word of God to me. The Bible does and makes sense.If I had issues with the teachings of Christ then I would doubt whether He was God obviously. I have no such doubts. Which of His teachings do you have issues with, apart from loving and respecting God?

I just can't agree with some of the teachings in the Koran, and much of it does not sit well with the OT, so I don't believe it can be the word of God.

Yeah but nothing I could've said would make a difference to you anyway, would it?

So basically it comes down to your personal faith and opinion on the matter. There isn't really anything that validates your beliefs over other contradictory beliefs.

 

[evo]

Nope. Humans are apes. Evolution is not directed...we aren't any 'pinnacle'.

Agree. I think discussion of ethics in science education is a must.

Well then Djevv better go back and do some follow up study because he hasn't got the first clue about it in my opinion.

The mere fact I was talking about first causes in science and he conflated that with ethics and morality demonstrates where his mindset is at on the subject.

 

[Tiger74]

Where did I say or insinuate I wanted a ban on the subject. As Djevv rightly points out there are no such bans (nor should there be) on open discussion in the classroom. However, teaching non-science as part of a science curriculum is damaging and runs counter to the aim of science education.

you tell the kid that theory is not appropriate discussion for your class, and to discuss it further in another. Thats banning the subject from the school, but its effectively banning the discussion in your class.

 

[evo]

There is no viable scioentific theory to teach T74.

Would you like phrenology taught too?

 

[Tiger74]

There is no viable scioentific theory to teach T74.

Would you like phrenology taught too?

you guys keep confusing curriculum for discussion. Refer back to what Disco suggested, its spot on for what I want. I don't want kids being told for ANYTHING "don't discuss this in my class".

Kids ask questions, and often out of what is on the official reading list. I know for myself, I learnt a lot more when the teachers took the time to address questions on matters we raised, rather than saying "no, thats not for this classroom, now back to .....".

 

[evo]

I don't think there would be many teachers who would just completely shut it down.

Hopefully they'd explain irreducible complexity for what it is.A crackpot 'theory' designed to plead for God that has been studied and roundly dismissed by the vaste majority of the scientific community.

 

[Tiger74]

I don't think there would be many teachers who would just completely shut it down.

Hopefully they'd explain irreducible complexity for what it is.A crackpot 'theory' designed to plead for God that has been studied and roundly dismissed by the vaste majority of the scientific community.

Again, thats not a discussion, thats a dismissal, and a kid learns nothing from that.

A good example of how it can work that I remember was with Astrology. I forget which class we were in, but one of the girls raised the issue of astrology being real. Rather than dismiss it, the teacher lead the class in a discussion. Firstly on the "fortune telling" aspect. Some pointed out that they read "...." and "...." came true. Others though asked how stars so far away could have any influence on us, and that the predictions were often open ended and vague. The teacher acted as the conduit for the discussion, pulling up people who made claims without evidence, and pointing out errors in fact, but allowed the kids to speak their opinions.

It became more interesting on the personality side. Some said the moon is a big key, and given its influence on tides, how do we know it doesn't influence people (given we are mostly water). Again the teacher allowed the debate to continue, with issues such as the moons gravitational pull, lack of proper sampling in analysis, cultural variation, and so on being discussed.

While the teacher did not say "astrology is a fairy tale that only 14 year old girls believe, so focus on something real", the issue was discussed, the kids views taken seriously, and some basic science, statistical research, and cultural issues were discussed. More importantly, as it was an issue several of the kids cared about, they were more likely to pay attention and actually learn something.

 

[evo]

Yea,ok ok,if thats what you're arguing for, fine.Admittedly I didn't realise it was so wishy-washy(but I should've known)

 

[evo]

Two weeks ago, the Royal Society — the world's most distinguished scientific club — issued a statement decrying the creationists and defending the work of Darwin, who is among its most revered former members.

"Young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs," the statement said.

But I suppose if we're just 'discussing' it,it's ok


http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/creationist-on-a-dinkum-crusade/2006/04/29/1146198391637.html

Crazy geologist.Maybe this is Djevv? ;D

 

[Djevv]

What strawman.You don't think morality is subjective,you've stated this on a number of occassions.

Basically you believe in Divine Command theory,like Euthyphro in the Socratic discussion I posted

Your ludicrous strawman having me state that ethics & morals are equivalent to numerical constants.

Err I'm a Christian. I believe in objective morality based on the person of Christ. However I know in saying this I'm wasting my breath, as you don't have the first clue about what I believe. Even after 500 + pages of discussion.

You demonstrated conclusively (to me at tleast ) that you don't have the first clue about the subject of ethics.

So yes,I'd prefer if you were my sons teacher that you stuck to scientific theories in the science classes.

Your great with trumpeting your opinion, but the substance of your posts are desperately thin. I won't be responding to you in future, and I would prefer if you ignored my posts as well. I'm a little tired of being slandered by a pompous windbag.

 

[Djevv]

But I suppose if we're just 'discussing' it,it's ok


http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/creationist-on-a-dinkum-crusade/2006/04/29/1146198391637.html

Crazy geologist.Maybe this is Djevv? ;D

OK, once more. You're here for comic relief aren't you? A bit like redford's pics in the other thread.

 

[Djevv]

I believe it's a fable that people of those times made up to attempt to explain their existence and the universe - in this case the historical Jews informed by all sorts of older cultures, traditions and stories. But my point (as I'm sure you appreciate) is that even if you believe God created the universe, he could hardly explain how to people of that time. More intelligent, non-fundamentalist Christians read most of the Bible as a metaphor for this precise reason and it doesn't challenge their faith.

Now, instead of answering my question with a question, is Genesis a metaphor for the creation? And I want an answer that is not a sidestep because you know how I hate intellectual dishonesty.

Is Genesis metaphorical?? Or is it the literal truth?

I made my meaning clear when I posted originally. Go back and read it carefully.

 

[Djevv]

We do behave like apes, we are apes! We just happen to act like humans, a species of ape. Civilised standards apply because we apply them.

This is all subjective and means nothing - except to equate us with a species of animal. What kind of message does this send to people? We are only apes anyway so what does it matter how we behave. And further, while were at it why not equate ourselves with trees and fungi, as we are also related to them, just a little further down the phylogenetic tree :hihi.

 

[Tiger74]

But I suppose if we're just 'discussing' it,it's ok


http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/creationist-on-a-dinkum-crusade/2006/04/29/1146198391637.html

Crazy geologist.Maybe this is Djevv?  ;D

Now you are misrepresenting me.  All I support is not banning the discussion, and allowing it to take place.  I am completely against any distortion of facts or evidence to make a point.

Actually an edit for some background that may clarify the reasons for my stance. Had a mate who failed a year 12 English paper he wrote. It was an argumentitive essay on why native forest woodchipping in Tassie was a good thing. His teacher who was a hard-core greenie failed him because his stance was "wrong". He ended up appealing, and the fail was overturned. Reason was that his argument was well made, and the evidence he used to substantiate his claim was correct. Stupidly his teacher failed him simply because he disagreed with the stance.

This is why the issue of classroom censorship fires me up a bit. Sure, if you have to write an essay outlining the theory of evolution and you dump a whole lot of creationist rubbish in your paper, you deserve the fail as you failed to answer the question. Likewise if you have a exam on geology, and answer that carbon dating evidence is wrong and the earth is only 5000 years old, BUT you provide no evidence to back this belief up, bring on the fail.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

you tell the kid that theory is not appropriate discussion for your class, and to discuss it further in another. Thats banning the subject from the school, but its effectively banning the discussion in your class.

Go back and re-read my posts. I said no such thing. I said that when such questions are asked we do discuss them and I point out why such questions don't represent scientific answers. I think we actually agree when you look at it.

I don't think it is appropriate to introduce the topics that are not scientific into a science classroom (where do you draw the line?) but they can be discussed in the context of science in the classroom if they are raised by the students.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

This is all subjective and means nothing - except to equate us with a species of animal. What kind of message does this send to people? We are only apes anyway so what does it matter how we behave. And further, while were at it why not equate ourselves with trees and fungi, as we are also related to them, just a little further down the phylogenetic tree :hihi.

Yes, phylogeny is a human construct and is open to interpretation, however it is clear that human are apes. This is supported by our similarities to other apes at many different levels. We are different to other apes, especially in our cognitive functions, but we are still apes.

What does only apes mean? I have never understood that particular mentality. We are humans, a species of ape and I certainly care about how I behave and my fellow man behaves. As for trees and fungi, we can compare humans to any living organism and you would be amazed to see the level of conservation retained, even over these evolutionary distances....the footprints of evolution are clear when you start to look at the molecular level.

 

[Tiger74]

Go back and re-read my posts. I said no such thing. I said that when such questions are asked we do discuss them and I point out why such questions don't represent scientific answers. I think we actually agree when you look at it.

I don't think it is appropriate to introduce the topics that are not scientific into a science classroom (where do you draw the line?) but they can be discussed in the context of science in the classroom if they are raised by the students.

Actually thats a slight (slight) change from your earlier posts. Earlier you were telling the kids their discussion was non-scientific, telling them why, and then directing them to discuss it in a more appropriate forum.

I have no issue at all with what you have said in any of this. I don't think we should have "Karma 101" on the curriculum, but if in the discussion of a particular issue a kid raises a faith based or spiritual angle relevant to the issue, it should be discussed. BTW this does not condone hijacking either (you discuss, cover the issue, and then get back to whats on the agenda - although as a student I used to love trying to take the teacher off topic for the full 50 minutes ;D)