Kans. ed board OKs evolution-centered science

[MikeWM]

Dawkins comes to mind.

Dawkins is hardly typical. He is the extreme example, which is why everyone knows who he is.

Do some proponents of evolution use the theory to back up their militant atheist views? Yes. However, the fact that the theory is misused in this way, doesn’t make it any more or less correct.

Mike

 

[jman507]

Because it is not science.I certainly would agree that the concept of what science is is not well taught in high school. If we did a better job of teaching that one point, this ruling would never have come about because there would never have been a “teach the controversy” approach to begin with.Agreed.

Peace

Tim

The thing is science does not prove that any of its ideas to be true. By definition, its use of reasoning is not set up for that. That’s no knock on science, that’s just why it is practical. Also it can be one method of searching for Truth, but no one should think that it can give an adequate idea of the Truth on it’s own. Science tries to find answers to a certain and very fine pricision without being shown to be wrong. They could be shown later to be wrong, or they could be right, but not right enough. Germ thoery might be right, but it is not right enough to explain everything that could be considered a disease.

If this certain Fundamentalist says, God created the world and in this way, science can only say that thus far as far as what we know of the natural processes, it could not have been done by natural means, and by the way how can you explain x, y, and z observations. The Fundamentalist replies, when God created the world, he also made it to be that way supernaturally. As far as I can see rationally that is a possible answer. Do I think it is likely, no. But I don’t know Truth with any certainty to judge the answer upon objectivly. I don’t think anyone does, if it was widely known, science would be about as important as a crossword puzzle.

To me it goes back to Chotock’s high school science teacher who was an Atheist. To me the thing that matters in regards to science, is that it does not matter. I guess that wouldn’t really matter, unless everyone knew that it didn’t matter. If anyone in class was under the impression it did matter, I would say that would be an important point to bring up in class.

Science especially in high school shouldn’t just be about science – granted the main part of it should be. It also needs to help explain the context. It is important to give a brief history, how it fits in, and why it’s important. It needs to also explain the rules, it’s integrity is important. This topic of the misunderstanding of science on regards to ID vs. evolution is more important than whatever science is supposed to be taught. It strikes at the very foundation of science. If you got a shaky foundation, the person that might be skeptial of truth of evolution might disregard anything else. The person does not need to even go that route with altering his/her beliefs or trying to persuade others to do so too.

To me the crisis at hand on this issue, does not have to be framed as a threat, but a great teaching moment, that I think would be a rather effective at actually defining what science is to many high school kids. Usually the day of class of defining the subject of the class tends to be information going in one ear and out the other.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Dawkins is hardly typical. He is the extreme example, which is why everyone knows who he is.

Do some proponents of evolution use the theory to back up their militant atheist views? Yes. However, the fact that the theory is misused in this way, doesn’t make it any more or less correct.

Mike

Some evolutionists, almost ALL atheists. It, misapprehended evolution, has become a stumbling block to faith.

 

[Orogeny]

To me it goes back to Chotock’s high school science teacher who was an Atheist. To me the thing that matters in regards to science, is that it does not matter. I guess that wouldn’t really matter, unless everyone knew that it didn’t matter. If anyone in class was under the impression it did matter, I would say that would be an important point to bring up in class.

If you think science doesn’t matter, the rest of your argument should be that we shouldn’t waste class time teaching it, not which point should be taught. If science doesn’t matter, spend that time teaching something else.

I strongly disagree with your thesis that science doesn’t matter. Science has an overwhelming impact on our daily lives. Keep in mind, you and I and everyone else on this forum are using science to communicate.

Science especially in high school shouldn’t just be about science – granted the main part of it should be. It also needs to help explain the context. It is important to give a brief history, how it fits in, and why it’s important. It needs to also explain the rules, it’s integrity is important. This topic of the misunderstanding of science on regards to ID vs. evolution is more important than whatever science is supposed to be taught. It strikes at the very foundation of science. If you got a shaky foundation, the person that might be skeptial of truth of evolution might disregard anything else. The person does not need to even go that route with altering his/her beliefs or trying to persuade others to do so too.

I don’t disagree with the idea of teaching the history of science. That was part of my education in high school and later in college. I also agree that the concept of what science is and, just as if not more importantly, what science isn’t should be taught.

Peace

Tim

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Science has an overwhelming impact on our daily lives.
Tim

And evolutionary science’s impact?

 

[estesbob]

There are two things that one must never, never, dispute lest they be ripped to shreds by the inquisitors of high Holy Relgion of Secular Humanism. One is to question any facet of Global Warming the other is to questions any facet of Evolution. This thread is a good example. anyone who expresses any reservations about the theory of evolution is mocked, ridiculed and generally derided. The fact there are huge gaps in the understanding on of both of these is dismissed becuase as with any religion some things just have to be taken on faith and faith alone.

Although I tend to beleive in the theory of evolution I have two questions for those who mock and attack those who have more doubts than I do:

1. How did something come from nothing(and only once)
2. How did life spring from non-life(and only once)

 

[Orogeny]

And evolutionary science’s impact?

Medical science, genetics.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Some evolutionists, almost ALL atheists. It, misapprehended evolution, has become a stumbling block to faith.

That is no reason to not teach evolution. Using that same reasoning, we should not teach Christianity because some people have used it as an excuse to commit evil acts.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Although I tend to beleive in the theory of evolution I have two questions for those who mock and attack those who have more doubts than I do:

1. How did something come from nothing(and only once)

God.

1. How did life spring from non-life(and only once)

God.

By the way, neither of those two questions have anything to do with evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[estesbob]

God.God.

By the way, neither of those two questions have anything to do with evolution.

Peace

Tim

Of course they do. How can something evolve unless there is something for it to evolve from.

Are you suggesting that we shuld teach our Children that God is responsible for the origin of life? OR do we tell them they have to take it on faith that there is an explanation of the origin of life that does not involve God?

 

[Orogeny]

Of course they do. How can something evolve unless there is something for it to evolve from.

No more than they have to do with chemistry, but no one seems to have a problem with teaching chemistry without “teaching the controversy”.

Are you suggesting that we shuld teach our Children that God is responsible for the origin of life?

Of course we should teach our children that! Why would we not?

OR do we tell them they have to take it on faith that there is an explanation of the origin of life that does not involve God?

I’m sorry, but that is a silly question. Science isn’t about faith and the question of the supernatural is not within the realm of science.

Peace

Tim

 

[Thekla]

Of course they do. How can something evolve unless there is something for it to evolve from.

Are you suggesting that we shuld teach our Children that God is responsible for the origin of life? OR do we tell them they have to take it on faith that there is an explanation of the origin of life that does not involve God?

We should tell them what the Catholic Church tells us; that Evolutionary Theory and God the Creator are not incompatible with one another. That we are not God and cannot explain all things. That the Catholic Church does not encourage a literal interpretation of the Bible. That the Church has made mistakes in the past in rejecting science and has learned from it. That the Vatican takes science so seriously that it even has its own scientists.

 

[estesbob]

We should tell them what the Catholic Church tells us; that Evolutionary Theory and God the Creator are not incompatible with one another. That we are not God and cannot explain all things. That the Catholic Church does not encourage a literal interpretation of the Bible. That the Church has made mistakes in the past in rejecting science and has learned from it. That the Vatican takes science so seriously that it even has its own scientists.

Agreed. I am merely making the point to those who mock and deride those who have problems with evolution that there are unanswered questions on both sides. Any course on evolution should acknolwledge that .

 

[Maranatha]

There are two things that one must never, never, dispute lest they be ripped to shreds by the inquisitors of high Holy Relgion of Secular Humanism. One is to question any facet of Global Warming the other is to questions any facet of Evolution. This thread is a good example. anyone who expresses any reservations about the theory of evolution is mocked, ridiculed and generally derided. The fact there are huge gaps in the understanding on of both of these is dismissed becuase as with any religion some things just have to be taken on faith and faith alone.

Although I tend to beleive in the theory of evolution I have two questions for those who mock and attack those who have more doubts than I do:

1. How did something come from nothing(and only once)
2. How did life spring from non-life(and only once)

[SIGN]Nailed it![/SIGN]

 

[Richardols]

We should tell them what the Catholic Church tells us; that Evolutionary Theory and God the Creator are not incompatible with one another. That we are not God and cannot explain all things. That the Catholic Church does not encourage a literal interpretation of the Bible. That the Church has made mistakes in the past in rejecting science and has learned from it. That the Vatican takes science so seriously that it even has its own scientists.

And that Evolution is acceptable as long as one understands and acknowledges that God is the ultimate Creator. How He accomplished Creation was His choice alone, and His means and the rationale may not be for us to know.

 

[Thekla]

Agreed. I am merely making the point to those who mock and deride those who have problems with evolution that there are unanswered questions on both sides. Any course on evolution should acknolwledge that .

I understand that people have a problem with evolution; I can’t say that I think much about the origin of man. But what irritates me is what I see as Christian fundamentalists trying to use Catholics on this issue. I think that they do it to try and legitimize their concerns.

 

[estesbob]

And that Evolution is acceptable as long as one understands and acknowledges that God is the ultimate Creator. How He accomplished Creation was His choice alone, and His means and the rationale may not be for us to know.

Well this thread has proven there is no global warmiing . i have agreed wth both you and Thekla on something-a sure indication that hell has frozen over.

 

[Thekla]

i have agreed wth both you and Thekla on something-a sure indication that hell has frozen over.

For some reason, when this happens, I am almost compelled to take the opposing viewpoint from my own.

Brrrrrrrrr

 

[matt1985]

I have to say that it doesn’t bother me if ID and evolution are taught in schools. I say that the states should be allowed to decide what is taught. I don’t see where the constutition mandates science.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

That is no reason to not teach evolution. Using that same reasoning, we should not teach Christianity because some people have used it as an excuse to commit evil acts.

Peace

Tim

Which is why we try to catechize properly, why some martyr themselves for the Faith and do not accept some protestant interpretation but die first, because there is One Who is Truth.

Being slightly not true is the same as being false. If it must be taught in public schools, it must be taught accurately within the narrow confines of physical evoilution, which has at least some reference to fossil records as a means of bearing up its theory or casting doubt upon it.