Evolution vs Creationism

[Coburgtiger]

Who knows.

It's generally depressing to think about.

The reason we're going backwards at the moment is because life is too good. We're all too fat, too rich, too comfortable, and there's less pressure to think critically about things.

 

[poppa x]

The reason we're going backwards at the moment is because life is too good. We're all too fat, too rich, too comfortable, and there's less pressure to think critically about things.

I think this is called Evolution.

 

[Coburgtiger]

Yep. It is.

 

[WesternTiger]

I think this is called Evolution.

No but wait! ;D

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I guess it's less about the demands of any religious institutions, and more about the political difficulties in teaching a science which can be seen to be in direct opposition to the religious beliefs that may make up the majority of your classroom.

At what point are you infringing on the students religious rights? And, as an educator, at what point are you undermining your own efforts to teach students how to be informed, critical thinkers by avoiding the holistic nature of what evolution actually means. It's a topic that's very difficult to appreciate or understand accurately by just remembering components of it's theory.

This idea that people who have a "personal" or even a collective religious affiliation are somehow imbued with inaliable rights really grinds my gears. Why should the religion of the students have any affect on what they are taught at a "state" school? Which rights are being infringed upon? While I like Australia's enlightened approach to civics there do have to be boundaries don't there? I'm a Tigers supporter - I arbitrarily believe that they are the best - do I have any "rights" in relation to this "belief". No.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Enough from me, here is Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

[quote author=Neil DeGrasse Tyson]"Kids are never the problem. They are born scientists. The problem is always the adults. They beat the curiosity out of the kids. They out-number kids. They vote. They wield resources. That's why my public focus is primarily adults."[/quote]

 

[Azza]

One more nail in the credibility of "science" -

http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/10/4/some-online-journals-will-publish-fake-science-for-a-fee-shots-health-news-npr

When people try to rely on the net for knowledge, it's no wonder they give up and turn to faith.

 

[AngryAnt]

The net, just like the real world is full ofgood and information. Learning to tell the difference is a.life skill.

If you really can't tell the difference then yeah, blind faith is probably your best option.

 

[Azza]

The net, just like the real world is full ofgood and information. Learning to tell the difference is a.life skill.

If you really can't tell the difference then yeah, blind faith is probably your best option.

The 'real world' at least has had long standing checks and balances that make it easier to filter fact from fiction. Filtering the net is more complex, less clear cut, and it's swamped with information accessible by all.

 

[Coburgtiger]

The 'real world' at least has had long standing checks and balances that make it easier to filter fact from fiction.

Tell that to the herald sun.

 

[Azza]

Tell that to the herald sun.

.. hence the 'has had' rather than 'has'.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The net, just like the real world is full ofgood and information. Learning to tell the difference is a.life skill.

If you really can't tell the difference then yeah, blind faith is probably your best option.

Yes but humans are first person filters. We have innate *smile* detectors sure some are taught early to switch them off but we are good at instinctively knowing who to trust. Body language, tone of voice, choice of suit, shifty eyes etc. We don't have any of these on the net. I keep trying to get my sister's kids to dig deeper when they use the net as a source. Look for corroborating evidence, learn what a trusted source looks like.

This is the educator's dilemma as I see it. In the Wiki/Google age how do you teach young minds to test the source, in fact how do you get them to think that they should.

 

[AngryAnt]

You guys crack me up.

We live in an age where almost all information is now publicly available at your fingertips just for the searching of it.

And yet your comments seem to indicate a desire a return to the past where there was a "system of checks and balances" ie the funnel of governments/teachers/Murdoch/Fairfax/"experts" who can "filter" the information for you, simply because there is a risk that incorrect information is also accessible.

Well, teach people to make rational and informed decisions about which information to place greater stock in. Actually, I was taught to do that in school and university even in the bad old days. The first thing I was taught in critical thinking was "just because Professor So-And-So says it's true in a book or article, does not make it so.".

Humans are good at detecting falsity on the part of people in front of them - but we are also pretty good at filtering *smile* written in text too, with a little education. In fact we do this all the time, particularly when reading PRE

 

[Coburgtiger]

Exactly right antman,
The most powerful thing I was taught in high school was the Socratic Method of Doubt - Question everything, regardless of where it came from. Turns you into a cynic a little, but an informed one.

It's another reason why I find Science to be so beautiful. We live in a world where, with such a variety of perspectives, there is almost no such thing as an absolute truth. Where separating fact from fiction almost becomes an exercise of quantum entanglement. Which is why Science as a practice is so important.

Scientists operate on the basis that any truth can be tested, and any hypothesis or belief should immediately be assumed to be wrong, and questioned as such. IT means that the 'facts' don't get any credence unless they are controlled, repeatable and, essentially, peer reviewed. What remains after this filtration process is the closest thing to truth about the universe that we have as a species.

Science is beautiful not because it's a list of facts but because it's a method of fact checking that ultimately leads to the nearest thing to objective truth. The idea that there are no absolutes, just informed thinking. Of course there's always political and financial obstructions to this, but they usually get eroded away eventually.

Back on note, an article in this week's New Scientist claims that Texas is about to introduce BIOLOGY textbooks into their highschools that cast doubt on the scientific validity of evolution and contain creationist arguments. The Texas state board of education is about to vote on it, and around a third of the board questions the teaching of evolution at all.

Lucky Texas is not Australia.

 

[Azza]

And yet your comments seem to indicate a desire a return to the past where there was a "system of checks and balances" ie the funnel of governments/teachers/Murdoch/Fairfax/"experts" who can "filter" the information for you, simply because there is a risk that incorrect information is also accessible.

You misunderstand - whether deliberately or not, I'm not sure!

I never said the past was better. I suggested that the undermining of science may have something to do with the explosion of difficult to verify information on the web. For people not equipt to deal with this, 'fact' can become nebulous. Science becomes just another thing someone says on the web, open to criticism on a host of grounds (including religion) because the context is not understood.

You only have to look at the success of the attacks on AGW to see the result.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

You misunderstand - whether deliberately or not, I'm not sure!

I never said the past was better. I suggested that the undermining of science may have something to do with the explosion of difficult to verify information on the web. For people not equipt to deal with this, 'fact' can become nebulous. Science becomes just another thing someone says on the web, open to criticism on a host of grounds (including religion) because the context is not understood.

You only have to look at the success of the attacks on AGW to see the result.

I think this is the point. People without the grounding that Ant is talking about struggle. I think the problem is that politicians and media types are rarely science and engineering graduates (perhaps not in China and Germany) so they cut their teeth in an environment of equal opposing arguments. In standard debating rules. As a result they are skeptical when told that science can't be reported this way and then transport this to their audience.

I think Ant is missing the point or didn't read my earlier post where I advocated the teaching of critical thought. I was naturally drawn to the sciences and hence this way of thinking but those who weren't left, and still leave, school without this basic skill.

 

[AngryAnt]

So it seems we are in furious agreement then.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

some more furious than others

 

[AngryAnt]

Yeah, "woe is us due to an overabundance of choice of information" arguments will do that to me.

 

[Azza]

Yeah, "woe is us due to an overabundance of choice of information" arguments will do that to me.

Looking back at my posts Antman, I can see how they came across that way. You're right, the net's not really the issue, it's the tools for dealing with it. The mass of anonymous info on there just makes it harder to find those tools. I'm not sure that the educators have won that battle yet.