13
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 325:
Line 325: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools? (view source)
Revision as of 22:04, August 28, 2007
, 22:04, August 28, 2007Line-by-line refutation of Ed Poor's claims about the assumptions we should be challenging.
I don't think we can answer the instant question without giving some attention to the bigger questions. It's all related. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't think we can answer the instant question without giving some attention to the bigger questions. It's all related. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Go-Go Gadget LINE BY LINE!
The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#*
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*Both--they are not mutually exclusive. However, I'm not sure there's any real way to "do" Creationism because it provides no falsifiable hypotheses. Children should be shown what is currently believed to be true in the scientific community today.
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#**Yes. If that was the opinion of science at the time. However, today we know that that is not the case, in the same way we know lots of other things now that we didn't know then. Just because someday we might find out otherwise, doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach something that there is overwhelming evidence in support of today. Also, Cross-apply TimS's analysis of eugenics under "Teach all theories" that eugenics is inconsistent with the Theory of Natural Selection and thus irrelevant.
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#**No, "Evolutionism" is a word you just made up. The Theory of Natural Selection is a set of falsifiable hypotheses that have been demonstrated to be true by experimentation and observation.
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#**Scientific. Anthropogenic global warming is an attempt to explain something (the heating up of the earth) through falsifiable hypotheses. Whether you or I agree with that theory or not is a different story. The attempt to prove is what separates science from religion.
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*This is far from relevant. Children are not being taught that Creationism and Intelligent Design are bad or that evolution is good. Evolution is simply being presented as a Theory believed to be true at this point in time.
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#**What? Are you implying that sex is evil or that we should stop reproducing?
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*If so, this doesn't mean that we should present religion as science.
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#**Not only is that article far from fact and much more opinion (Isn't this a violation of the commandments?), but the idea that Values clarification is bad is at odds with one of the main arguments in favor of Creationism--"Let them choose for themselves," as well as the argument that you made at the bottom, calling science and social studies "dogma." Which are you suggesting?
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#** Where would we be without a little rebellion? ;-) Seriously, though, rebellion checks against evils of the establishment, such as statism or coercion (I know this sounds really liberal, but bear with me). Without any kind of rebellion, we would all live in a fascist totalitarian state.
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science
classes?
#**Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof (Princeton WordNet, <wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn>). How is anything taught in social studies or science classes dogma? It is exactly the opposite: an attempt to substantiate hypotheses.
Please try and have a heart--if it looks like I'm poking fun, I am. Debate is about learning, right? The both of us can learn from each other and have a few laughs at the same time. If I come across as rude or sarcastic, I sincerely apologize. Also, if this way of thinking is not tolerated on Conservapedia, forgive me--I'm new.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:04, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
==Be careful what you wish for==
==Be careful what you wish for==