TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Floridians Debate Evolution, Oranges
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Floridians Debate Evolution, Oranges

quote:

State Seeks New Standards On Teaching Evolution The Florida state school board is set to vote on new standards for teaching the theory of evolution in its schools. One of the big revisions centers on using the word "evolution" itself, WESH 2 News reported. At issue is a proposed change in the science curriculum that would require Florida public school teachers to teach Charles Darwin's theory of evolution -- that man evolved from primitive life forms over millions of years. Local teacher Richard Ellenburg of the Florida Department of Education helped write the change. "I'm responsible for the children of Florida and for them to become high achievers and for them to compete globally, and I believe and my committee believes that this is definitely the only step that we should be taking at this time," Ellenburg said. Darwin's theories are already taught, but without the word "evolution." Supporters of intelligent design, or creationism -- theories that some higher being created man -- call the proposed changes offensive. "There is nothing about this language that is going to make Florida smarter or make kids have better education," John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council said. At a jammed final public hearing before the state votes on the matter, opinions were strong on both sides of the aisle. "Please, I beg of you, do not put evolution in there as a fact as to how everything was formed and made on this Earth," Joanne Wilson said. "Putting doubt into the theory of evolution is a backdoor way of introducing religious concept into science and I strongly oppose that," Faye Armitage said. Those opposing the change in the science curriculum were especially critical Monday of the state board of education for not sending any commissioners to this public hearing. The Board of education votes on the recommendation from the science committee on Feb. 19.

http://www.wesh.com/education/15274507/detail.html

I... I just... ugh.



Florida, justify your existence.

They should teach a class where philosophy, religion, and metaphysical theories are presented for the students to analyze on their own.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton They should teach a class where philosophy, religion, and metaphysical theories are presented for the students to analyze on their own.

I agree with my mate, I think if equally explored then there is no issue at all. I think children of today are mature enough to observe said teachings with an analytically inclined frame of minnd.

christ, you just know any private organisation with the word "family" in it is going to suck.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton They should teach a class where philosophy, religion, and metaphysical theories are presented for the students to analyze on their own.

really, why? what do they really have to discuss - they only propose one single sentence "god did it". good luck "analysing" that.

philosophy (at least in Oz) isn't really taught until university anyway, why not wait until then when students are free to select that as part of their curriculum?

I'm personally offended that my religion is not included in these lessons..

I encourage you all to open your mind and take a look at it:

Church of the FSM

Gospel of the mighty FSM

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN really, why?

Why? Because god, metaphysics, and religion don't belong in a science classroom. Science is only concerned with how the universe operates. It is not concerned with why the universe is or the human relationship to the creation/(perceived creator). It would therefore be helpful to learn about philosphy, logic, and religion to broaden one's mind. "God" is something which can't be confined to a test tube.

The most important purpose of having such a class is to satisfy those who want creationism taught in the science class. It's a great legal remedy to the issue. A moderate stance is best here...

quote:

what do they really have to discuss - they only propose one single sentence "god did it". good luck "analysing" that.

There are PLENTY of things to talk about. How about morality and ethics? Where did they come from? What is their purpose? Are they absolute or relative? Students should also know about logical fallacies so each one can be critical thinkers of the media, sciences, etc.

quote:

philosophy (at least in Oz) isn't really taught until university anyway, why not wait until then when students are free to select that as part of their curriculum?

It should be an elective in high school in my opinion because it's that important. Remember, these "non-scientific" subjects would be taught in an objective manner giving the student the ability to develop his/her own worldview independently.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton They should teach a class where philosophy, religion, and metaphysical theories are presented for the students to analyze on their own.

No we should just bring our mathematics up to par with the rest of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild No we should just bring our mathematics up to par with the rest of the world.

Of course, but math is not an elective.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Why? Because god, metaphysics, and religion don't belong in a science classroom.

Yeah, well what I was questioning was religion's place in the classroom at all people can go to church to learn about the gospels if they really must.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The most important purpose of having such a class is to satisfy those who want creationism taught in the science class. It's a great legal remedy to the issue. A moderate stance is best here...

so appeasing those that hold unsubstantiated superstitious beliefs is a good thing? i think not.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton There are PLENTY of things to talk about. How about morality and ethics? Where did they come from? What is their purpose? Are they absolute or relative? Students should also know about logical fallacies so each one can be critical thinkers of the media, sciences, etc.

And what is going to be removed to include philosophy in the curriculum?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton It should be an elective in high school in my opinion because it's that important.

students that are that interested in philosophy go onto tertiary studies in that discipline. i cant see many 16 year olds getting enthused over discussions re existence or truth. i know i struggled in first year to see the point of it all.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Remember, these "non-scientific" subjects would be taught in an objective manner giving the student the ability to develop his/her own worldview independently.

oh, just the way evolution is being so "objectively" taught (avoided) in the US today?

in any case, being more specific, i dont see why creationism should be taught in ANY classroom, unless there are also schools for tarot readings, astrology, tea leaves etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton They should teach a class where philosophy, religion, and metaphysical theories are presented for the students to analyze on their own.

I went to public high school and we had a class for precisely that. But that wouldn't temper the demand for an evolution-free curriculum.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Of course, but math is not an elective.

Yeah but we should fix our basics before we look to electives.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Yeah but we should fix our basics before we look to electives.

exactly.

the meaning of life is completely irrelevant if someone cant work out how much change johnny should get from going to the shop for a carton of milk.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yeah, well what I was questioning was religion's place in the classroom at all people can go to church to learn about the gospels if they really must.

What if they do not go to church or mosque or temple? It would still be helpful to have at least a basic understanding of religion as a whole than none at all.

quote:

so appeasing those that hold unsubstantiated superstitious beliefs is a good thing? i think not.

That's because you are not a moderate. I'm proposing a moderate solution where both sides might finally have a comprimise. The science classroom would still not have ID taught in it...

quote:

And what is going to be removed to include philosophy in the curriculum?

Students would be free to choose it as an elective.

quote:

students that are that interested in philosophy go onto tertiary studies in that discipline. i cant see many 16 year olds getting enthused over discussions re existence or truth. i know i struggled in first year to see the point of it all.

I don't know about you, but religion class was one of my favorite subjects in high school. No other class challenged us to examine why we exist, our relationship to the universe, and the religious experience.

quote:

oh, just the way evolution is being so "objectively" taught (avoided) in the US today?

Well, if there were a comprimise, teachers would be more inclined to teach evolution as is.

quote:

in any case, being more specific, i dont see why creationism should be taught in ANY classroom, unless there are also schools for tarot readings, astrology, tea leaves etc.

In a philosophy/religion/ethics class, such topics would have no other forum. At least it'll shut everyone up and we can finally just get on with it...

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Yeah but we should fix our basics before we look to electives.

Of course, but that doesn't mean we completely forget about electives.

quote:

exactly. the meaning of life is completely irrelevant if someone cant work out how much change johnny should get from going to the shop for a carton of milk.

Math standards are not so bad that electives have to be eliminated to devote more time to math. Yes, the USA lags behind many industrial nations in math standards, but it still outranks most of the world. It's not THAT bad..

quote:

I went to public high school and we had a class for precisely that. But that wouldn't temper the demand for an evolution-free curriculum.

There is the option of private/home school for those people

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What if they do not go to church or mosque or temple? It would still be helpful to have at least a basic understanding of religion as a whole than none at all.

but why? religion is a personal adventure, leave it to people that really feel they wanna get amongst it or the stupid private schools.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton That's because you are not a moderate. I'm proposing a moderate solution where both sides might finally have a comprimise. The science classroom would still not have ID taught in it...

but its stupid. how would you test a class of ID? the only thing ID attempts to do is poke holes in evolution, and postulates ideas that it can never ever prove. the last thing you want is people becoming confused because of this bullshit pseudo science. if people wanna believe in nonsense that's fine, but they shouldnt be enforcing their retarded beliefs on other people.

should we appease every interest group that wants something taught differently? if christianity (and ID is completely chrisian if im not mistaken) gets its own, should we then allow other religions their own take on the world too?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I don't know about you, but religion class was one of my favorite subjects in high school. No other class challenged us to examine why we exist, our relationship to the universe, and the religious experience.

thankfully i only had to take it one year in primary school, for some reason australians think maths and science and legal studies is more important and i got all the wanky concept stuff in first year uni, which is where a subject like philosophy should be taught imo.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Well, if there were a comprimise, teachers would be more inclined to teach evolution as is.

pretty defeatist attitude though. im sure teachers are more than happy with teaching evolution too, its those on the schoolboard you have to worry about.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton In a philosophy/religion/ethics class, such topics would have no other forum. At least it'll shut everyone up and we can finally just get on with it...

the religious right never shuts up

Compared to the students I met from Japan in high school they knew a lot more that we did and at a younger age. We also have a very poor attitude towards mathematics that promotes mediocrity.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but why? religion is a personal adventure, leave it to people that really feel they wanna get amongst it or the stupid private schools.

Because religion is a hard fact of history and belief and has been for thousands of years. It would be stupid to not at least examine it in an academic setting.

quote:

how would you test a class of ID? the only thing ID attempts to do is poke holes in evolution, and postulates ideas that it can never ever prove. the last thing you want is people becoming confused because of this bullshit pseudo science. if people wanna believe in nonsense that's fine, but they shouldnt be enforcing their retarded beliefs on other people.

Easy, you test them on what was taught...

ID actually makes propositions and assumptions of its own apart from evolution. A class on ID would not be about poking holes in evolution, but simply teaching what ID says, and also examining other metaphysical theories of the universe which would have no basis in a science classroom. No one is enforcing anyone's beliefs in a philosophy/religion/etc. class. It is an examination of what they are. The choice of belief is still up to the student!!

quote:

should we appease every interest group that wants something taught differently? if christianity (and ID is completely chrisian if im not mistaken) gets its own, should we then allow other religions their own take on the world too?

In a religion/philosophy/ethics class, all religion would be examined, apart from all the religious reteric, but instead in the academic setting. No religion or philosophy would be taught as truth. They would all be looked at.

quote:

pretty defeatist attitude though. im sure teachers are more than happy with teaching evolution too, its those on the schoolboard you have to worry about.

Actually, one of the reasons a lot of teachers find it difficult to teach evolution is because of their own religious convictions. If all matters and issues are covered in the curriculum, then teachers with such religious convictions would be more inclined to teach evolution as is.

quote:

Yeah, well what I was questioning was religion's place in the classroom at all people can go to church to learn about the gospels if they really must.

I'de also like to say that places of worship are for participants of that particular religion. One does not go to church to examine Christianity in an academic setting other than to witness how its practiced.

theologian - an expert in the unknowable (thanks pat).

its a waste of time and will only serve to cause more problems "omg you taught my child this about muslims, i dont want my child learning about islam!" etc etc.

there is no place for religious instruction in schools, period. and ID is merely religion manifesting as an actual science. why on earth would you advocate teaching a stream of thought that, contrary to what you believe, has ZERO propositions or assumptions that are backed by any evidence whatsoever? all to placate some narrow-minded fools who think the world is 6000 years old? puh-lease!

what else should we advocate because its important to religion?

religion has been forcing itself into the public sphere since day one, and its about fucking time rational-minded people took that sphere back. and its not going to happen when you provide religion with the same respect and attention you actually provide REAL discourse, discussion and discovery. how about we stop cutting it some slack and have it stand up to the criticism every single other body of thought has to?

they teach theology at uni, that's enough. every other country survives ok without ID being taught at school, so i dont see why any sane person would make an exception for the idiot yanks

As long as Tropicana OJ keeps flowing out of Florida in large volumes and low(er) prices, I dont give a rats ass or two shits and a fock as to who wins there. Actually, I could care less who wins in USA. Nothing will change, really. Its all a show! Enjoy it while the game is still playing ;-)

I focking love my Tropicana OJ ... pure premium with extra pulp. Bitches!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN theologian - an expert in the unknowable (thanks pat). its a waste of time and will only serve to cause more problems "omg you taught my child this about muslims, i dont want my child learning about islam!" etc etc.

Electives are not mandatory classes. The only way a student would be in the class is if they chose to take it.

quote:

there is no place for religious instruction in schools, period. and ID is merely religion manifesting as an actual science. why on earth would you advocate teaching a stream of thought that, contrary to what you believe, has ZERO propositions or assumptions that are backed by any evidence whatsoever? all to placate some narrow-minded fools who think the world is 6000 years old? puh-lease!

I very much think there should be a class covering philosophy, religion, and ethics. It's not telling people to convert to any religion, but simply teaching the history of philiosphy, religion, and ethics. It would be just the class where the teacher could just ask a controversial question, then let the students debate it out on their own. What's wrong with that? They'll finally be forced to examine what they believe and why. It's not a conversion class. If ethics (important in law) and philosophy aren't important, I don't know what is..

quote:

how about we stop cutting it some slack and have it stand up to the criticism every single other body of thought has to?

The class that I'm talking about would do just that!@!

quote:

they teach theology at uni, that's enough. every other country survives ok without ID being taught at school, so i dont see why any sane person would make an exception for the idiot yanks

ID shouldn't be taught in public schools, and guess what PKC, it isn't, contrary to the legal fights going on. Science classrooms still can't teach ID or creationism unless its a private school. But in a philosophy type class, it would be a great discussion. In my idea, it wouldn't be taught as science, but as philosophy, because really, that's what religion is.

These threads are always interesting.

PKC, while I agree with you that there should be no religious "instruction" in schools I do not believe that is what Krypton is arguing for. Certainly, you must accept that the major world religions and many secular philosophies have formed the basis for much of our society as it exists today. Regardless of whether or not there is any basis in fact to support any religion or belief system the study of those belief systems is very relevant to understanding human history and society. You're a smart, rational, person, don't let your distain for religion force you to make idiotic arguments... arguing there is no merit in the study of religion (note STUDY rather then practice) is an idiotic possition, which has more in keeping with the arguments of those who seek to keep the word evolution out of schools because they don't want it represented as fact.... your argument is the inverse of that... you do not want religion discussed in schools because if someone learns about it they may find merit in it.

Krypton, while I agree with you that the study of religion and philosophy can be very beneficial I do question whether high school is the most appropriate place for it. The time allowed in school for such study would be so minimal that it could really only act as an introduction to broad ideas... I'm not sure that spending a semester introducing broad concepts would be an effective use of scarse resources afforded to the schools. Additionally, I have to agree with PKC in that a course dedicated to the study of religion as a philosophy would not satisfy those who want ID studied in schools, as their goal is not to further the understanding of the human condition but to create doubt as to the validity of evolutionary science.

I'm not worried about ID. I went to a private Catholic school, and they taught us about evolution in biology class. So I really can't see schools that anyone takes seriously (accredited) teaching anything other than evolution.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Certainly, you must accept that the major world religions and many secular philosophies have formed the basis for much of our society as it exists today.

yes, i certainly accept that.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Regardless of whether or not there is any basis in fact to support any religion or belief system the study of those belief systems is very relevant to understanding human history and society.

agreed.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You're a smart, rational, person, don't let your distain for religion force you to make idiotic arguments... arguing there is no merit in the study of religion (note STUDY rather then practice) is an idiotic possition, which has more in keeping with the arguments of those who seek to keep the word evolution out of schools because they don't want it represented as fact....

I think the problem is we've blurred the lines between religion and philosophy in this thread. I do not have a problem with the study of religion per se, but I do have a deep and sincere problem with the teaching of ID at any level of education, same as I would have the teaching of any other body of thought that lacked any merit whatsoever. And I certainly don�t agree with teaching something so unsubstantiated just to appease some theists that represent everything that is wrong with religion in modernity (no, I wont use "post" coz I think it�s a wank).

I have no issues with, say, "the history of religion in britian in the 12th-18th centuries" being taught, but I do have an issue with religious instruction. I see merit in teaching all kinds of history, I do not see any merit in teaching something like ID, which has NO validity, it is akin to holocaust denial and 911 conspiracy theories in how it treats accepted scientific fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard your argument is the inverse of that... you do not want religion discussed in schools because if someone learns about it they may find merit in it.

no, i dont want religious instruction to become the norm, and placating nutjobs that deny evolution just to keep everybody "happy" gets right up my nose

i think religion and religious philosophy are fine to be taught at the correct level, and i think university is the perfect place for such esoteric thought and discussion, where people have the maturity to really grasp what they're talking about. there's enough religious indoctrination in the US as it is.

there's a reason some subjects only pop up later in life, and i see no benefit in allowing something useful like philosophy being hi-jacked by by the evolution denialists, pro lifers and pro death penalty crowd.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Compared to the students I met from Japan in high school they knew a lot more that we did and at a younger age. We also have a very poor attitude towards mathematics that promotes mediocrity.

Same with Russian students. Our secondary school ciriculum sucks balls.

PKC, Intelligent Design is philosophy. It's assumptions are not based on physical science but on ancient philosophical texts. The opinion that ID should not even be discussed in any form whatsoever is akin to the creationist who wants evolution taken completely out of the classroom. Should ID be taught in the science classroom? NO. Should it be discussed in an appropriate setting? ABSOLUTELY.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.