»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
The "E" word
| The Alley |
|
The "E" word |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
very,veryold quote: Follow the money. If you're worried about the state of education in America, this strikes me as a good place to start. |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The first day that a school accepts government funding or grants it sells its soul to the devil. as many schools have learned there's no such thing as a free lunch (voucher). |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 Yay! I absolutely agree with Balladeer again! Love, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Great, what does government funding have to do with fundamentalists taking over school boards and telling you what you can't teach? The pressure put on teachers in this situation goes against government standards. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Brad, then they can take it to the ACLU. Deer -- for once, you and I agree, at least when it comes to lower education (college not included)!  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Can someone please explain what you are agreeing with? This has nothing to do with government coercion. Are you saying this is okay? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brad, what on earth would place a science facility in a "delicate" position, which in turn would place the school in a similar one? There's only one answer and you said it in your beginning...follow the money. How do religious fundamentalists have such control over the purse strings of education? If they do, it's only by their connections to government, who grants and funds the schools. If the school were self-sufficient, they would not have to be "forbidden" to teach truths. Look deep enough and you'll find politics running the show. Everytime the government shows up with money in one hand they have a whip in the other and you will do things their way if you want the rewards. There are stories that Hillary was very good at handling that whip. Who knows? Bush may be, too, for all I know. What I do know is that it makes me madder than hell that education and educators can be bought and manipulated and decent teachers be silenced from teaching the truth. Hey, Brad, we may have missed your point completely but you managed to get myself, Noah and Iliana all to agree on something. That's quite an accomplishment in itself!!!  |
||
|
stargal Senior Member
since 2006-03-06
Posts 1352OR USA |
I’m not sure what this school really believes on evolution, or if it’s really even true the reason their doing this is because some religious fundamentalists do have their fingers in the purse strings, either way I don’t care! Lets not say I don’t care, lets say I think it’s great that a science school, any school for that matter, has the guts to say their not going to allow this to be taught in classrooms. Yes, I am concerned about “the state of education in America” but not for this reason. What I would like to know is why home schooled children are getting higher marks in subjects than public school children? Everyone is always talking about how children who are taught at home “lack” social skills, I have my doubts on if this is a valid argument, yet these children who “lack” social skills are still achieving better grades. There, I did it again, like on the last post I’m getting off subject… Since Bob has objections to being limited on what he is allowed to say/teach, my advice to him would be find a new job, and leave the science facility school alone, their doing just fine in my opinion. Did I misunderstand you again Brad? Sorry, I do that a lot! @-->--- |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Okay, you guys are joking with me, you're trying to drive me nuts.  But let's put the problem in a nutshell. The reason America has such poor schools and the best universities in the world comes down to one thing: Parents Homeschoolers do better because parents care, public schools do poorly because parents don't care. How many of those fundamentalists could tell you the names of the geologic foundations outside their door? Until you let teachers teach (whether it be old rocks, or homo beats), you'll lose something fundamental to the learning process. |
||
|
stargal Senior Member
since 2006-03-06
Posts 1352OR USA |
Brad- I’m afraid that you cannot blame this on just the parents. Yes, they do play a major role in student education but it is not all up to the parents in what happens. I have known many parents who allow their children to go to public school, who DO care what their children are learning, and who DO ask that some things not be taught BECAUSE they care, but their children still have poor marks. Yet I have also known parents who don’t care, and their children are passing with flying colors! I think that parents are only part of the education problem, but I also believe you cannot pass everything on to them, saying it is their fault. I’m not sure if it was your intention, but please do not start pointing fingers at the parents, for there are more people involved in this than just them. What i am trying to say with this, is that you cannot just say parents do not care, there are many who do. @-->--- |
||
|
stargal Senior Member
since 2006-03-06
Posts 1352OR USA |
P.S. Are you annoyed with me yet for not understanding what you are trying to say? @-->--- |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I blame them because they care about what is NOT taught, not what is. PS Not annoyed at anyone. This thread took a different path, but that's going to happen. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I think the problem is the fundamental incompatibility between what parent’s and teachers want the kids to learn and what the kids actually need to learn. If I’m a fervent Atheist I don’t want my kids being taught that the Christian belief in creationism is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in the same way that a Creationist teacher doesn’t want the kids heads clouded by all that ‘evolutionary mumbo jumbo’. The reality is however that the kids don’t need either theory ramming down their throats as the one and only truth, they need to be exposed to both possibilities and allowed to develop their own beliefs instead of being indoctrinated with the beliefs of others. As soon as the kids are denied open access to one theory due to the prejudice of a parent or teacher the education system as a whole, in my opinion, has failed. Teachers are a waste of space unless they pass on the two abilities that kids actually need – the ability to acquire as much knowledge as possible and the ability to apply that knowledge to the world around them. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Since Bob has objections to being limited on what he is allowed to say/teach, my advice to him would be find a new job, and leave the science facility school alone, their doing just fine in my opinion. They are doing just fine, Stargal? Refusing to teach or even discuss something like the age of the earth is doing fine? Not being able to say a rock is 3 million years old or all even the possibility that Earth is billions of years old for fear of irritating religious groups is doing fine? Restricting education and ignoring knowledge for the sake of not 'rocking a boat' is fine? That's the kind of mind control school you prefer? How do they handle dinosaurs, I wonder? If little Johnny asks if human and dinosaurs existed at the same time, do they say "Well, they are both very old."? Schools are supposed to teach intelligence, not ignorance. You tell Bob to find another job if he doesn't like it? He could teach at my school any day. We need more Bobs and fewer school boards that knuckle under outside pressures to ignore truth and knowledge. The reality is however that the kids don’t need either theory ramming down their throats as the one and only truth, they need to be exposed to both possibilities and allowed to develop their own beliefs instead of being indoctrinated with the beliefs of others. As soon as the kids are denied open access to one theory due to the prejudice of a parent or teacher the education system as a whole, in my opinion, has failed. It can't be said any better than these words by Grinch. There are always multiple possibilities. Religions have theories and explanations that allow for the possibility and even compatibility of scienceand religion. Allow the student to think for himself by presenting these possibilities. Only the weak, and often wrong, theory is one that will not stand up to intelligent thought. Brad, I understand what you mean about the parents shouldering blame. in many cases that is true but it's wrong to say that is the problem "in a nutshell". I blame them because they care about what is NOT taught, not what is. Not sure I understand that comment. Parents should NOT care about what is not taught? Ignorance is bliss? If you, for example, do not care about what is not taught, why did you create this thread? (which we have decimated....sorry )I'm sure there are many second and third world countries that have school curriculums that teach the world and history according to their governments or religious leaders. Hopefully we will not be reduced to that. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I believe the best schools are those which are have strong, non-intergovernmental partnerships, believe that learning involves personal discovery, action, observation and reflection, embraces creative, hands-on active education programs which respects one’s self, the arts, and our connections to others and the natural world, and recognizes and celebrates diversity in that diversity advances the full social potential for each child. Education should be a foremost basic quality of life guaranteed to all citizens, and should be distanced from all politics. I happen to believe myself that I see nothing wrong with teaching both the evolution, intelligent design and any other theories out there in the same textbook, so we can allow the child to study and consider all the ideas and make up their own minds of what they believe to be most accurate in their hearts. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Grinch. Brace yourself. I agree with you. Only I think that Brad's example is the less often occurance. More often I think it is criticisms (whether scientific or religious) of Evolution which aren't allowed in public school with impunity. Stephen. |
||
|
stargal Senior Member
since 2006-03-06
Posts 1352OR USA |
Balladeer- Are you 100% positive you can tell the age of a rock? A 3 million year old rock? If your positive than you must have learned something in school I did not! “Sure, science can help determine the age”, how do we even know are scientific studies are even accurate? We could be just complete idiots who “think” we do know the age of rocks yet really don’t. Were you alive when the rock was created “3 million” years ago? Will you bet your life that rock is so old? Please tell me if rocks have rings on them like trees so I’m not stuck in the dark! I’m all for discussing how old the earth is, but I also believe you can not state that a rock is 3 million years old as scientific fact, that is a hypothesis. I would prefer the schools to be saying “very, very old” instead of having my child come home with a rock and saying, “mommy, my teacher said I this a 3 million year old rock, is that true”, I do not want to tell my child yes unless I myself know for sure, which I do not. We can guess/discuss all we like on how old the earth is, but you will never be 100% sure, at least not in this time. I’m not very good with words so if any of that does not make sense to you, I apologize. @-->--- |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
There are no scientific facts, stargal, only theories. That happens to include the one you're typing on, by the way, unless of course you can be 100 percent positive (pun intended) that you know what electricity is. No one else does. If your child comes home and asks you about electrons, what do you think you will say? I'm quite sure you don't "know for sure" they exist or can be used to power a computer. Questioning science is a good thing when one is convinced it may be wrong. That's not the same thing, however, as denouncing a science because it isn't understood. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
What we can do Stargal, with regular success is count. I can count the number of words in a book, the number of fingers and toes I have, and nuclides in an isotope. Through radiometric dating -- we can get within a reasonable margin of error about how old something is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating With Stratigraphy we can look at the layers (or rings) of the geological record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratigraphy . Apparently what school you go to does make a difference.  (repaired link) |
||
|
stargal Senior Member
since 2006-03-06
Posts 1352OR USA |
Apparently it does make a difference what school you go to, I admit for most of highschool i "bugged" out on science, so i'm not the smartest thang there Thanks for helping me see the... Dare I say error? In my ways/opinions? No offence to anyone here, but a rock is a rock, i don't care how old a rock is. @-->--- |
||
|
Just A Kid New Member
since 2006-03-26
Posts 2 |
idk, i kind of agree with stargal (that fact that she's my cousin has nothing to do with it, or does it, did i pick up all these ideas from living with her?!?!?) I mean like my name says i'm just a kid i still put up with this stuff from my teachers all the time. How do you really tell how old a rock is? aren't they coming up with new ideas on all this stuff everyday? doesn't it contradict the old opinion? can someone tell me how to tell how old a rock is? :S |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stargal, quote: I have to admit the age of rocks wouldn’t be high on my list of interesting things either, but don’t you think that it’d be worthwhile for a student of geology to understand the current dating techniques of rocks? Lets say he or she is looking to work for an oil exploration company where the calculated date and type of rock formations can make the difference between striking oil or coming up dry? Should they be interested? Wouldn’t it be useful at the interview if, when presented with a sample rock, they could say, “this rock is Quartz phase rock, between 2 - 3.75 million years old which can form diagenetic traps that hold crude oil” or would you employ the person that said, “ it looks like rock and it’s probably very very old”. (I nearly put dude at the end of that – but I’m closer to hip op than hip-hop) Just a Kid quote: Hopefully a geologist could, but even then, as you say, it isn’t going to be very accurate, in the above example the margin of error could be as much as 1.75 million years but that doesn’t always matter. As long as all geologists use the measurement consistently the system is usable to identify and group rocks by type and age. Sure the dating systems change but in a very specific way - they tend to get more accurate which means the type and date of rock formations can be more closely grouped. In the case of oil exploration that’s a good thing – if oil is normally found in traps that date from 2 –2.5 million years a more accurate dating technique means less failed wells. I used 2 - 3.75 million years in the above example and I have to admit I made that up. I’ve no idea how old diagenetic traps are (and am less interested)but I’m fairly certain the oil company geologists can put a figure on it and even if we’re both out by 50 million years or so it’d still be more useful than saying they’re very very old. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I have this crazy notion that a geology teacher should teach geology. "How do you know that a rock is 3 million years old?" is a great question and if Bob can't answer that, he's either not a very good teacher or he needs to do some homework. Parents have the same responsibility, don't they? When faced with a question you don't know, you go find out. You do what LR did or if you don't have a computer, you go to the library. That's one of the reasons we have libraries. What? You don't have the time? Then how can you get a seat on school board telling geology teachers what to do when you don't have an afternoon to sit down with your kid's textbook? Mike, Sorry about that phrasing. I was trying to be clever, and just ended up being trying. When I emphasized the 'not' I was trying to turn that phrase into an imperative. "Don't teach this, don't teach that," rather than actually grasp, gasp, the material. If you say "a rock is just a rock" or "I don't have much interest in the age of rocks", chances are you're not geology teacher material. Fine, Bob is interested, why are you telling him what to do? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: What if Bob's interest in rocks conflicts with Roger's desire to keep his son from being intersted in the age of rocks instead of the Rock of Ages? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Were you alive when the rock was created “3 million” years ago? Actually, stargal, no. I wasn't even alive when the earth was created but I believe it's here and I believe the experts when so many of them calculate the time to be in the vicinity of 4.3 billion years. That may not have anything to do with us but I assure you that it does to scientists who use that information. As as interesting anecdote, a $250,000 question on "Millionaire" dealt with how old the earth was. Four answers were given,with 4.3 billion being one of them. Can you imagine some graduate from that school saying "Hey, you don't have 'very old' as a choice!!" |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Bob should teach Geology. If this conflicts with your personal belief system, give your child extra work. There's a tremendous amount of material on the internet that does just that. How does muffling the teacher do anything except make the subject less interesting? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
But what if Bob is teaching geology as a component of general science -- a required course for every student -- and Roger's son has to take the course and pass it in order to advance to the next grade? What if passing means Roger's son has to put down answers on tests and homework assignments that conflict with Roger's personal, Constitutionally protected, beliefs? What if Roger is a blue collar kind of guy and can't afford a private school? He pays his taxes. What do we do with and for Roger? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: But that’s not what happens Brad. When a kid goes home and says to his creationist parent “my teacher says this rock is 3 million years old, is that true?” the parent calls the school board to complain. When the kid goes home and says to his atheist parent “my teacher says god created rocks 6 thousand years ago, is that true?” the parent calls the school board to complain. See the parents and teachers all have an opinion, they all think they know the answer, they don’t need to go looking for answers on the internet or in libraries, they just want the school to teach what they believe. Which is why some school boards prefer ‘very very old’, some prefer 3 million years and some prefer 6 thousand depending on the majority beliefs of the parents and, to a lesser degree, the teachers in their catchment area. quote: Because if I’m a creationist Bob isn’t teaching the truth and if Bob happens to be promoting creationist beliefs the atheists want it stopped. The only way to break the circle is to teach both as possibilities along with evidence for and against each theory and let the kids decide which is more plausible, in effect let evolution sort it out – as Mike pointed out in time the fittest will prevail. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: When did constitutionally protected beliefs mean that you can't be exposed or shouldn't be exposted to ideas contrary to your own? As far as tests and grades are concerned, how many students do that anyway? What is the purpose of public education? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Exactly. And yet, not all opinions are created equal. A geology class should teach what most geologists believe. If not, it's not a geology class. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: The problem is if you teach creationism in science class Grinch -- you aren't teaching the science. (And you're getting a little bit casual with the word theory again too.) Same thing goes for Bob and Roger. The right, scientific answer is that radiometric dating says X. I'd stipulate Roger has no 'right' to prevent his son from hearing information that might conflict with personal beliefs -- at least not when he's out in public. But, education has been publicly mandated -- if Roger's son (I guess he needs a name -- Eric) If Eric must SAY somehting (as in on a test or paper) that conflicts with HIS beliefs -- then aren't we violating his first amendment rights? Shouldn't he have the right to object to his participation in the test and the requirement to pass based upon its successful completion? It doesn't seem that we have to acquiesce to muzzling Bob in order to uphold Eric and Roger's rights. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
ya know, I was going to use muzzle, I just thought muffle was the better word here. Sorry, quick digression. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
LR, quote: We aren’t teaching science now LR – that’s the point! I think the problem is if you don’t teach both you end up teaching neither consistantly. Creationism thrives because evolution isn’t taught or understood, rocks are aged using the ‘very very old’ method as a compromise to creationist beliefs. Why not extend the compromise and teach creationism and evolution and let the best theory win? Brad, quote: What happens if 90% of geologists in 5 years time are Christian Creationists? The problem with majority rule is it falls down if the majority happen to be wrong. Which is in effect the creationist’s argument |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
My oldest daughter does terribly in science and algebra. She doesn't even get good grades in English and she's been speaking it (nonstop) since she was 8 months old. She get's A's in Japanese. Students learn what interests them. As I've said time and time again -- if someone wants to teach creationism in Philosophy class -- go right ahead. But it's not going to lead to an increase in understanding of evolution. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: It isn't about majority rule. It's about evidence and experimentation and consensus. If 90% of geologists become Christian creationists it will be because evidence has led them to that conclusion -- or... they will no longer be geologists. I'm not sure why we're talking about geology in a biology class though. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
er, because we have rocks in our heads?  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, I started the thread with Bob, the geology teacher. The original idea, such as it was, was to show that if you try to extract evolution from the curriculum, it doesn't stop at biology. Oh, and that, in a very real sense, the idea of presenting both sides is a ruse. The idea, for many people (excepting the well meaning people here), is that you present both sides with the intent of eradicating evolution and deep time altogether. --------------------- Grinch, It's not majority rules, it's the rule of geology, or of geologists. I can't think of anyone better qualified to run the geology curriculum. Can you? |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
I am hoping I haven't skipped over some significant input here that will make my reply seem redundant. It's an interesting subject, Brad. thanks for bringing it to the forum. Public schools have many pluses as well as failures. Teachers have to juggle politics and religion as well as a million other factors that threaten to stop them from their basic job, which is to offer information, assist students in learning how to filter information, in order to arrive at a workable understanding of reality, to decipher what is right/wrong, fact/theory, truth/fiction. Homeschooling is not a viable option for everyone, but it doesn't mean the parents do not care. I homeschooled my daughter after grade 5, and gave her the world, so-to-speak, by encouraging her to seek truth from many diverse sources. Nothing was held back or censored. I respect her as an independent person, and guided her minimally. It's vital we encourage each child to read all sides of issues like evolution and creationism. Many parents I interacted with homeschooled because of this one issue, and actively kept their children from from studying evolution. What is that child going to do on college entrance exams when they an't answer any of the questions about geology, biology, or any other science subject when they haven't the foggiest idea of the overwhelming amount of well-documented data that supports evolution? (Guess you can see my slant )No teacher or student should be restrained from seeking information and then interpreting that information as they see fit. What should never be allowed is the total blockade of information, no matter who does the funding or the teaching. My daughter happens to be a declared non-believer. As a young teen, she asked to have two versions of the Bible, as well as works from many scientists and philosophers, so she could read and decide for herself. As a parent/teacher I encouraged her to seek a balanced input, not to accept at face value anyone else's opinions or beliefs, not even those of her mother. To me, that is the crux of the issue. Educational institutions are useless unless they teach student how to seek information, ways to filter that information, the skills with which to make INFORMED decisions about all aspects of life. Having said all that? I've also known some students who went out of their way to find the information, irregardless of restraints. But some will fall into the authority trap, and do as their told, believe as their told to believe, and not ever 'learn how to learn' which is what education should be about. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: I think we need to rewind this discussion a little: quote: Actually, I don't think it comes down to exactly one thing. It is true enough that schools don't often change the status quo without parental pressure. This can be good or bad. I think history demonstrates repeatedly that parental advocacy drives most positive (and even negative) changes. The effectiveness of such change is often contingent upon our knowledge of the problem. The better our knowledge of the problem, as parents, the more likely it is that we'll choose a reasonable course of action. I can report from firsthand experience that parent advocacy can effect dramatic changes in the educational status quo. Public systems might not be the best innovators, but they are good copiers. Parents are naturally motivated to drive change and many are sophisticated enough to grasp complicated issues and find innovative ways to solve systemic problems. If a parent succeeds in doing so and creates a "market" for this new educational product, chances are that public systems will attempt to copy some or all of what the parent has created and "voila" ... you've got systems change. Incidentally, exercises in this considerable "parent power" is also capable of resulting in very, very bad education policy, as I believe is the case in your geology example. quote: I want my sons to be skeptics. I want them to challenge the assumptions of those who say, "this is the right answer" or "that is the right answer" with questions like, "What makes your position more plausible than the other's? What are your position's underlying assumptions?" For the geologist in your example, it might be that one can, somewhat accurately, determine the age of rock by examining the strata. I'm no geologist, but I think this is a somewhat plausible argument. The next question might be, "What else could account for these patterns in the strata? Could it be a cataclysmic event? Is there any evidence of such an event? Are there any modern-day examples that might support challenges to your assumption?" quote: While, generally, I'd agree with you that those trained in the field should drive curriculum content moreso than school boards, but if I followed your advice here, I wouldn't be in the special education business today. A small part of me is amused by the notion that popular science is now the target of iconoclasm. But seriously, I think skepticism is a good thing. Debate is good. Not for those who have already made up their minds, but rather for those who are interested in seeing who makes the most convincing argument. Jim |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:Good answer, Jim - I knew you was smart. The problem I see, though, is that it doesn't matter how well-informed you are as a parent if your religious beliefs tend you toward the opposite end of the creationism spectrum. It's a fair bet that to many 'believers,' refuting evolution (in any and all forms) is a knee-jerk response to their upbringing and beliefs. Couple that tendency with a group of like-minded individuals and you have a cohesive, illogical unit forcing "Bob" to disingenuously call rocks "very old." But it works the other way too – an evolutionist is just as likely to dismiss any religious theory out-of-hand. Demographics can play a large part in this – not to pick on Arkansas, but it is considered part of the “Bible Belt,” isn’t it? Come here to California and you’re more likely to encounter Michael Newdow and the like. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Chris: quote: Chris, I'm glad you're allowing for the possibility of that problem working the other way too. Atheism, humanism, and dialectical materialism, are all religious-style ideologies which may and do affect science. I haven't done so yet, but I'm planning to post a thread on the anti-theistic thought processes that went hand in hand with the development of evolutionism in science. Some of it, I believe, would surprise you. The impression that evolutionary scientists always represent an unbiased and ideologically neutral mindset, while those who disagree represent the mindset of ardent zealotism, willing to dump clear evidence in favor of religious dogma, is not accurate. I for one, have no a priori reason to think that theistic evolution would be wrong, or would contradict the Christian faith, because to me evolution still requires intelligence. But scientifically, the evidence for common descent is not convincing for me. Disagreeing with common descent, however, I am still open to the question of Old Earth ... and actually I tend to lean that way, because the evidence seems less contrived. Your concern is indeed a concern for both sides (or shall I say all sides) of the issue. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Actually, you were the model for my advice. Such as it is. quote: Sounds like a good thread -- for the likes of us anyway. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: As long as we agree that the burden of proof rests on the non-specialist to demonstrate the superiority of his/her position over that of a specialist, we're on the same page. If you had me in mind as a "test case," I can say that the best I could do was to become an adept generalist in a large number of disciplines related to my son's disability (enough, at any rate, to vet the competing positions of specialists) and the complicated administrative functions and regulatory compliance functions of operating his school. As Donovan's advocate, I sought to build my case on the research foundations of experts in behavioral psychology and education disciplines ... not on the foundation of my own achievement as a novice behaviorist. My underlying assumption is that my son's medical condition requires an educational approach with a sound clinical foundation. Since public schools don't necessarily have the medical/clinical model down, it follows that public education alone is not best equipped to deliver medical/clinical services. Thus, our school brings the clinical and educational models together and, in doing so, improves the prognosis of our kids. I've been to many education planning meetings where the public education administrator remarks that the parent is the "expert" on their child. I couldn't disagree more. First, the public educator probably doesn't believe this to be true (i.e., it is and example of Harry G. Frankfurt's "BS" phenomenon). Second, it simply is not true in the general sense. Being an expert in anything requires an incredible amount of time and energy. Specialists become experts in one, or maybe a couple, disciplines. Some of us, for practicle reasons, cannot afford to become specialists and aim to do the best they can in multiple disciplines to achieve their goals and objectives. There's nothing wrong with being a generalist. We're just not experts. While I like to think there can be advantages to keeping the forest in view, when it comes to giving me the particulars on the trees, I tend to defer to the experts. End of rant. Thanks for thinking of me. Jim |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
