From 16 Myths About Atheists:
'don’t try to teach your religion in science classes by dishonestly giving it a new name and disguising it as “science”...'
Oh good, someone else finally got tired of Darwinism, did they?
'don’t try to teach your religion in science classes by dishonestly giving it a new name and disguising it as “science”...'
Oh good, someone else finally got tired of Darwinism, did they?
posted by Noof @ 8/26/2006 03:55:00 pm
14 Comments:
At August 26, 2006 6:50 pm,
Anonymous said…
hmmm, yes...that would have to be the "theory" of Darwinism....
funny how Darwinism is taught as fact, yet a historically accurate document like the bible is often portrayed as fiction.....?
my mum teaches RE at Eagle Junction State School, and often goes out of her way to show the kids that many places, events and people in the bible can be confirmed historically. she does this because she has had so many kids come through that think the bible is just a myth or fairy tale. sad, huh?
At August 27, 2006 8:19 am,
Pete said…
Hey Nicola, are you prepared to back up that rather subjective, poorly defended statement?
(I'm just trying to make you think harder :P)
Apparently, according to my science courses, a "theory" isn't a theory as such. The theory you would be thinking about would be referred to as a hypothesis in scientific circles. A theory is a hypothesis that has had a bit of testing done to it to see if it works. Teories then become laws if they have found sufficient evidence that they are "observable, repeatable phenomenon"
My tone for this comment is probably a little harsh or like "You should know what you're talking about before saying anything"... Thus, I have also made a subjective statement in that I have (subjectively) assumed that you were simply making that statement without much thought or basis for it.
Anyway... creation is a theory... evolution is a theory... (talking strictly from a scientific point of view)...but it's hard to observe or repeat either of them. Thus it becomes difficult.
At August 27, 2006 12:57 pm,
Noof said…
Hehe, thanks Pete.
Yes, I would be prepared to back up that statement, but I think you already did it for me. Simply put, both evolution and creation are ways of explaining how we came to be. Neither of them are strictly "scientific" as such, since they can't be observed or repeated - they are probably closer to philosophical viewpoints than scientific theories. I just wanted to make people think about why one is taught as scientific at school and one isn't.
At August 27, 2006 3:40 pm,
Pete said…
Hmm... good point.
I'll test you some more...
Are you saying we shouldn't teach either then?
And what about the 'evolution' that is seen everyday in the mutations and adaptation of micro-organisms?
I'll tell you the answer if you can't figure it out
At August 27, 2006 11:08 pm,
Anonymous said…
I don't think either should be taught in terms of origins of life in science. Despite that I believe God created us and whatnot (though i'm not sure if i'm a strict 7 day creationist type, but thats another debate for another day) I think using either in a science classroom is just an exercise in speculation, as far as science goes in terms of hypotheses and the scientific method and such. However, classes like social studies and SOR should be encouraged to consider this sort of thing as both are products of different world views, I think a comparison of them would prove interesting in class, especially in a state school, where there's no church agenda as such.
At August 27, 2006 11:14 pm,
Pete said…
That's a good idea.
At August 28, 2006 4:31 pm,
Gloz said…
Noof you're going to Japan!!!!
At August 28, 2006 5:24 pm,
Noof said…
There is such a thing as micro-evolution (change within species) but not macro-evolution (change from one species to another). So probably you could teach micro-evolution as part of biology/genetics.
Where to teach evolution/creation?SOSE, maybe? Or create a new subject of philosophical worldviews - or perhaps it could be covered in study of religion.
At August 28, 2006 5:25 pm,
Noof said…
P.S. Maybe, Gloria :-)
At August 28, 2006 5:51 pm,
Noof said…
P.P.S. No, actually, you're right! :-D
At August 29, 2006 8:58 am,
Anonymous said…
I hate this - just spent 10 minutes typing crap up and it is gone - session timed out... AAARRRRRHRGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!
SIGH - Noof - I'd like to talk with you about this on Sunday, maybe? Evolution is a theory that scientists continually "prove" day to day, week to week. HOWEVER, we choose to follow Christ and believe what we are told in the Bible... they don't, so why should they see it as fact?
Convert people with love, not arguements over monkeys. Monkeys are cute, and don't deserve to be in the middle of all this. Well... maybe not the big blood-thirsty ones with sharp teeth, but most monkeys are cute...
At September 11, 2006 10:47 pm,
Anonymous said…
Molk dude, monkeys are NOT cute man. They carry rabies in the wild and bite badly.
However the only evolution I reckon is any good are the evo's from bits are missing when they rally them.
Yeah guess who
At September 14, 2006 9:12 pm,
Noof said…
hi Dad,
No, Lancer is better on Colin McCrae 2. The gears are bigger. 6 in the Ford Focus is 4 in the Lancer.
The Evo Bits are Missing (Mitsubishi) is similar I think....I'm just used to the Lancer and I like it cos I can hold it sideways round the first corner in the first stage of the Finland rally.
At September 20, 2006 10:42 am,
Anonymous said…
I did an assignment last semester addressing the teaching of evolution in science classrooms. the tutor/lecturer (whoever marked it) completely shut me down. was kinda dissappointing. i don't think i have any hope of the curriculum or educational attitudes changing anytime soon and will have to find comfort in teaching my future students that evolution is a theory not proven fact and that there are other theories out there as to how the world began!
wv: spaws
Post a Comment
<< Home