or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Judge rules evolution theory stickers unconstitutional
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge rules evolution theory stickers unconstitutional - Page 2

post #41 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
No. It isn't 'controversial'. It makes perfect sense. It's the best explanation there is. The only people who claim it to be 'controversial' appear to be conservative Christians.

Tum te tum.

Thanks for validating my point in a post just before yours.
post #42 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Look at joke stickers that BRussel posted. There's a damn good point there.

So because something can be satirized, it means it is wrong? That must mean that just about everything is wrong then.

You can produce satire on just about anything.

Quote:
Despite the fact the 18th and 19th century scientists were fond of calling this and that the Law of This and the Law of That, it was, and is, all theory. Some of those so-called "Laws", such as Newton's "Law of Gravity" were less complete and accurate than the science that followed, such as Einstein's "Theory" of gravitation.

Correct and imagine if we had a mindset that told students they could and should not question or keep an open mind regarding those less accurate theories. Imagine instead that we told them such theories were complete, totally accurate and were above reproach. Think about that for a minute or two.

Quote:
Where's the clamor to put stickers on physics text books saying that gravity is "just a theory"? That's an utterly true statement, so, by your convenient logic, there's no harm done, right? I'm sure somewhere you can find someone who doesn't even believe in gravity, so you might as well extend the sticker to mention that gravity is "controversial", so students should "keep an open mind". Telling student to "keep an open mind" is always a good thing, right?

Gravity is a really good example because we don't claim to have a unified theory that includes how gravity works. We have mathematical models that predict the force, but we can't explain why the force exists. If a textbook claimed that we not only did we have an explanation for that force, but that it was a fact beyond question, then that book should probably be viewed with skepticism at this point in time. Pointing this out would also not be an endorsement of religion.

Quote:
Try this on for size: All of your students make mistakes from time to time, right? No one is perfect. An utterly true statement. So, how well do you think it would go over to pick on one or two students out of the whole classroom and make them wear signs around their necks that read:

The problem with your reasoning here is that you treat all students equally whereas all scientific theories are not advanced along to the same degree of completeness and understanding.

Now if I were to read a textbook on childhood development and it were to point out the diffences in mental capabilities and understandings of children at different levels of age and development, that would be considered entirely appropriate. If it pointed out that most four year olds likely have no ability to abstract information and draw conclusions from it, whereas twelve year olds can, I don't consider that odd. Pointing out that gravity has a predictably mathematical constant to it, even though we do not understand the force associated while pointing out that we have no predictive ability with regard to evolution, is likewise appropriate as well.

Quote:
The "truth" of the stickers isn't the issue here. The value of telling students to think critically and keep an open mind isn't the issue here -- and you know it. It's the selective application of such warnings, clearly meant to single out and discredit evolution, not meant as good general advice. The clear intention of these stickers is to turn evolution into the kid with a stupid, embarrassing sign around his neck. You don't call that a "burden"?

It's not an "OR" proposition. I am constantly amazed at this very flawed line of logical reasoning. If evolution were totally disproven on it's face tomorrow, it doesn't prove anything religiously. There are also loads of religious people who hold evolution is a naturalistic process put in place by God and that it is even proof of his existance.

The only burden faced by evolution is the incompleteness of its explanation. If it weren't such an incomplete theory, people couldn't question it so readily. If it had some predictive qualities, people would be more likely to treat it like chemistry, physics, or other fields.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #43 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
If we want to teach critical thinking, putting evolution up against creationism is hardly the way to do it (no where is it claimed in evolution that the truth is contained in a single text etc etc). Critical analysis of evolution would involve taking the theory as it was in say the 1920's and figuring out what it did not explain and show how that was fixed with added concepts etc.

But that's the point about the sticker. It wasn't offering creation as an alternative. People are inferring this. Right? I mean all it really said was..."hey...think carefully about this."

Is everyone afraid that people might begin to question evolution?
post #44 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:

The sticker is outside of the book's actual content, which removes its use of the word theory from the proper scientific context and moves it into the colloquial use of the word, which is different.

In a book full of theories (which is what a science book is), putting a sticker on the front associating a specific theory with the colloquial use places on it an extra-scientific burden in the student's mind.

The only non-scientific, colloquial use of the word theory I can read or think of is one associated with say, police work. Are you claiming that students are going to think evolution the same as say, a murder mystery? Also by what reasoning would the word definition change when still applied in the same book and field? It's your assertion so please back it up.

You've restated your assertion about the burden but have not proven it. How does reading a sentence produce a burden?

Quote:
I do not think people should play stupid when they are not stupid.

The only reason the sticker exists is to denigrate the theory of evolution in favor of a religious view. Since when do statements have to be explicit to have a message?
Further, do you honestly think these parents are all evolutionary science scholars who feel that the book misrepresents evolution? Honestly answer that please.

I think your "OR" reasoning is quite sad. Just because you question evolution does not mean you are religious, and likewise belief in evolution does not exempt you from religious beliefs. The intent of the parents that you raise is not justifiable grounds for running roughshod over rights.

Quote:
Here is the problem, and I would love for someone to tell me this statement is wrong in some way:
Parents are using either ignorance of science or religious evangelism as motivation to influence what is taught in science classrooms.

Do not be angry with this judge for seeing right through a transparent attempt at religious evangelism.

It is wrong because pointing out the flaws in evolution does not require a motivation of intent of any sort. Good science requires questioning and continual rexamining of stated theories. Evolution is controversial not just because some people associate it with religious beliefs, but also because as fallible human beings, we often perform worst where the stakes are highest. We are talking about the beginning of ourselves and to the very nature of why we exist. The stake and risk of fraud there isn't just religious. There is prestige, research dollars, and lots of other factors to consider as well.

Quote:
Absolutely. We are talking about public schools, so this is of great importance.

It is also of great importance to insure that students are taught to question and be open minded.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #45 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
It gives political advantage to a religious group.

Secondly, political corruption is by definition giving advatages to individuals/groups through the political process. So yes, if the Right begins to give advantages to people who support it selectively then that is corruption and it is wrong. Politics is supposed to be for the good of all people, not just for those who support you.

Prove the advantage. How does reading a sticker not associated with religiou give one an advantage?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #46 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
as fallible human beings, we often perform worst where the stakes are highest

Boy, I like that statement. Not certain it is true...but it seems like it might be. A good thing to consider (in general) regardless of the particular topic.

Thanks!
post #47 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No one said that they cannot participate in democracy. Their actions as a group through the school board counts as government.

Look at it this way: if the city council in Podunk, Alabama decided to put lables in all of the city-library copies of religious texts that stated that none of the information contained in this book has conclusive factual basis because some atheists propositioned the council -- your panties would be in a knot...

You are getting lost in the details here. Validity/nonvalidty of evolution is completly beside the point. This has little to do with the WHAT and everthing to do with the THAT. The judge said as much.

He is now in the business of binding the conconsiences of the these people. You may not participate in this instance if you do not have a "correct" motivation.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #48 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Prove the advantage. How does reading a sticker not associated with religiou give one an advantage?

Nick

Nick, I don't believe that, as a teacher, you would approve of the gov't putting stickers on books they deem politically incorrect. They certainly did their best to word it in as neutral a fashion as possible, encouraging "critical thinking" and all that, but just in principle, you can't like this. Tell me you don't.
post #49 of 325
It's the government that buys the books and educates the kids. If you're worried about a sticker why aren't you worried about everything else Or maybe you are?
post #50 of 325
Brussel, if a group of scientists had done this it would be accepted.


Also, the "government" bought these books in the first place. This is the reaction of the more deeply entrenched Federal level of government dictating who may or may not direct their children's education based on "correct" motivations.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #51 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But that's the point about the sticker. It wasn't offering creation as an alternative. People are inferring this. Right? I mean all it really said was..."hey...think carefully about this."

Is everyone afraid that people might begin to question evolution?

That inference is also based upon the facts of the case -- the who, what, where and why these stickers were added.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #52 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Nick, I don't believe that, as a teacher, you would approve of the gov't putting stickers on books they deem politically incorrect. They certainly did their best to word it in as neutral a fashion as possible, encouraging "critical thinking" and all that, but just in principle, you can't like this. Tell me you don't.

There are stickers or even more specifically warnings on items all the time, especially in schools. Some specifically to warn of intent for example of racial epitaphs, foul language and other such things. I would rather have a sticker and let the two sides disagree than not have access to the content. (For example not being able to access say, Huck Finn.)

My class for instance recently underwent a lesson on various types of abuse from a rape prevention center. The types were physical, mental, neglect and sexual. We needed to have a signed permission slip affirming the parent's permission to receive this information.

Now on a day to day basis, this information attempting to allow the children to recognize abuse is probably much more important than knowing that say, evolution is a theory. Yet even in liberal California it requires parental permission.

Additionally you are talking about a sticker in an age where the cafeteria has to warn against peanur products, where schools have to send out notices informing that chemical products are being used outside to treat for various insects, etc.

You're living in the wronge age my friend. We live in the age of liability. Schools sticker, post about and warn about everything warrented or not.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #53 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Prove the advantage. How does reading a sticker not associated with religiou give one an advantage?

Nick

What religious groups question on a public front evolution?

By saying that evolution (and not any other theory in the text) needs to be critically analyzed gives those arguing against evolution an advantage. Period.

Now the sticker I would have written given all that I said would have been this:

This textbook contains scientific theories about Biology. Many of the theories in this text have not been proven but have a great deal supporting evidence. As they have not been proven, please think critically and with an open mind about them.

(or some such)
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #54 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Now the sticker I would have written given all that I said would have been this:

This textbook contains scientific theories about Biology. Many of the theories in this text have not been proven but have a great deal supporting evidence. As they have not been proven, please think critically and with an open mind about them.

(or some such)

But of course you wouldn't be trying to say anything that might bias the reader.

post #55 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
What religious groups question on a public front evolution?

By saying that evolution (and not any other theory in the text) needs to be critically analyzed gives those arguing against evolution an advantage. Period.

Now the sticker I would have written given all that I said would have been this:

This textbook contains scientific theories about Biology. Many of the theories in this text have not been proven but have a great deal supporting evidence. As they have not been proven, please think critically and with an open mind about them.

(or some such)

Are you saying that evolution or any other scientific theory need not be critically analyzed? Is that not the point of science?

You prove my point that where the stakes are highest, the likelyhood of fallibility is highest as well. Critically analyzing theories is a regular part of science. You seem to want it excused for the theories that might undermine your own worldview. That to me does appear to be an advantage that the sticker sought to work against and neutralize. You consider placing evolution on the same field as other scientific theories to be a disadvantage. However the reality is that it is just a theory. It could be discredited and replaced tomorrow. The fact that it might harm your worldview or make you uncomfortable really shouldn't be a consideration.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #56 of 325
<- @ this whole thread.

Personally, the only reason I care about the morons who support this stuff is because the stupider evangelical fundamentalists and their offspring are, the more they would drag down the quality of life here, economically.
post #57 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
You are getting lost in the details here. Validity/nonvalidty of evolution is completly beside the point. This has little to do with the WHAT and everthing to do with the THAT. The judge said as much.

He is now in the business of binding the conconsiences of the these people. You may not participate in this instance if you do not have a "correct" motivation.

You suggested that they cannot participate in the democracy -- that a group of people governing isn't a government.

Those suggestions are wrong.

Now, I think I have given enough reasons to suggest that since the Christians who argue publically that evolution is wrong gain an advantage by having government sponsored weakening of evolutionary theory that this more than anything makes this Judicial descision correct. The motivation is key to this analysis -- it wasn't scientists who think that the book presented too strong a declaration of evolutions truth who questioned it...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #58 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But of course you wouldn't be trying to say anything that might bias the reader.


Its a fact.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #59 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Are you saying that evolution or any other scientific theory need not be critically analyzed? Is that not the point of science?

You prove my point that where the stakes are highest, the likelyhood of fallibility is highest as well. Critically analyzing theories is a regular part of science. You seem to want it excused for the theories that might undermine your own worldview. That to me does appear to be an advantage that the sticker sought to work against and neutralize. You consider placing evolution on the same field as other scientific theories to be a disadvantage. However the reality is that it is just a theory. It could be discredited and replaced tomorrow. The fact that it might harm your worldview or make you uncomfortable really shouldn't be a consideration.

Nick

psha... WHY NICK DID THEY FOCUS ON EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IN THE TEXTBOOK STICKERS? I expressly stated in my remake of the sticker that all theories should be approached critically... but that isn't what the real sticker said now is it?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #60 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
<- @ this whole thread.

Personally, the only reason I care about the morons who support this stuff is because the stupider evangelical fundamentalists and their offspring are, the more they would drag down the quality of life here, economically.

\

Not entirely sure...but that might outside the boundaries of the spirit (if not the letter) of the posting rules here.

( of course I'm no expert...nor moderator )

post #61 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
( of course I'm no expert...nor moderator )

Exactly, so post on topic.
post #62 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Its a fact.

Didn't dispute that...only that the wording was designed to bias the statement in some fashion.

post #63 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Exactly, so post on topic.

I will if you will refrain from inflamatory rhetoric.

( hey...we're all supposed to be having fun here aren't we? )

post #64 of 325
How about this -- the theories presented in this text are those that are accepted by the scientific community because they are supported by the most evidence.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #65 of 325
sounds great
post #66 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I will if you will refrain from inflamatory rhetoric.

It's a fact that it's completely stupid to believe the world is 6000 years old, whether or not you find it inflammatory.
post #67 of 325
It's also a fact that an ignorant and uneducated population is a less prosperous one.
post #68 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
It's a fact that it's completely stupid to believe the world is 6000 years old, whether or not you find it inflammatory.

Well, that may or may not be a "fact"...but that's not what you said (or supported). What you did say was:

"Personally, the only reason I care about the morons who support this stuff is because the stupider evangelical fundamentalists and their offspring are, the more they would drag down the quality of life here, economically."

That is what could be reasonably characterized as "inflamatory rhetoric".
post #69 of 325
It's the truth. There is campaign to spread ignorance and it will hurt the country economically if too many people become completely ignorant and stupid, ie, believing that the world is 6000 years old.
post #70 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You suggested that they cannot participate in the democracy -- that a group of people governing isn't a government.

Those suggestions are wrong.

Now, I think I have given enough reasons to suggest that since the Christians who argue publically that evolution is wrong gain an advantage by having government sponsored weakening of evolutionary theory that this more than anything makes this Judicial descision correct. The motivation is key to this analysis -- it wasn't scientists who think that the book presented too strong a declaration of evolutions truth who questioned it...


No, you are wrong, and still lost in the details. There is a simple, legal process for people participate in directing the education of their children -- the school board. This was done.

The judge ruled that the motivations were "religious" and therefore not exceptable. The judge has barred anyone who uses Christianity to inform their "first principles" from bringing those "first principles" to a school board meeting, because Christian "first principles" are forbidden by law to effect the changes in the education of thier own children.

Very insidious.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #71 of 325
Some forum guidelines to keep in mind, fellas:

Ad-hominem attacks of forum members will not be tolerated. We understand that things get heated, but it helps to maintain a modicum of respect for the membership. Attack ideas, not people. Be open-minded and try to help foster meaningful discussion. Yes, meaningful discussion is possible if everyone respects each other.

Bad:
"Christians are stupid!"

Good:
"The idea of the Earth only being 10,000 years old is stupid!"

See the difference? Good. You don't have to a saint, but there are rules. And I will enforce them with the enforcing power of 1,000 wildebeests'. In heat. With rabies.

Love and kisses,

groverat

p.s. - Do not call out posts within the thread, click the little lightning bolt below it to report it to a moderator. Or private message/e-mail/AIM/smoke signal a moderator/administrator. Your "Hey meanie guy that's against the rules!" posts will only clog up the thread once the Lone Ranger rides in to clean up the mess and create unnecessary tension. Use the lull in time after an inappropriate post to work on your argument in a text editor (I like OpenOffice) to firm it up and make it impenetrable. Petty squabbling benefits no one except the Noid. Avoid the Noid.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #72 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
No, you are wrong, and still lost in the details. There is a simple, legal process for people participate in directing the education of their children -- the school board. This was done.

The judge ruled that the motivations were "religious" and therefore not exceptable. The judge has barred anyone who uses Christianity to inform their "first principles" from bringing those "first principles" to a school board meeting, because Christian "first principles" are forbidden by law to effect the changes in the education of thier own children.

Very insidious.

No he hasn't.

Edit: He has bared actions by the school board that would give advantage to a religious group.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #73 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Bad:
"Christians are stupid!"

Good:
"The idea of the Earth only being 10,000 years old is stupid!"

Except that what we are talking about is the education of people. While the idea is stupid, what's worse is the push to have an education system designed to make stupid people.
post #74 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
It's the truth. There is campaign to spread ignorance and it will hurt the country economically if too many people become completely ignorant and stupid, ie, believing that the world is 6000 years old.

Wel I'm not quite sure what it means to "spread ignorance" or even to "become ignorant", since ignorance is:

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or
knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

It seems that once a person has knowledge/information/education...they are no longer "ignorant". Now...they can choose to ignore or not use the knowledge/information/education. This might be "stupid" or it might not be (depending on the perceived reliability/accuracy/usefulness of the knowledge/information/education).

Back on topic here...I don't happen to believe that the sticker in question in this discussion does anything to "spread ignorance" (or even stupidity). One might argue it encourages the intelligent and wise critical thinking that the scientific community cherishes so.

We can argue about whether the sticker was too specific (evolution theory)...and perhaps it was. I've suggested that the reason for that might be derived from the situation that exists in which evolution appears to be propagated as undeniable "fact" (whether officially, in text books, or unofficially by dimissing any skepticism or doubt as ignorant or stupid...thus quelling any debate at all.)

Anyway...my $0.02.
post #75 of 325
WTF?

The education system these cults dream of would churn out ignorant young adults that know close to nothing about the world around them, ie, total and complete ignorance.
post #76 of 325
Welcome to the 20th century Georgia.

Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
The government is now in the business of sanctioning official scientific positions. The judge ruled that since the intent was wrong, the exercise of an otherwise legal act, is illegal. The government has told those 2000 petition signers what they may or may not think before they will be allowed to participate on the school board. Decisions based on "correct" motivations will be permitted, but if your motivations are not "correct" you have no business in the school board's process.

The government, like Medieval Rome, is binding people's consciences.

And that is pure bullshit.

Oh no, they have to teach science in a science class! What will those liberals do next?
post #77 of 325
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Existence
Oh no, they have to teach science in a science class! What will those liberals do next?

Of course they should...but whatever happened to that old liberal saw...how does it go..."Question authority"?
post #78 of 325
It just boils down to a bunch of complaining because reality has demonstrated that the earth is round, billions of years old, etc.
post #79 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
So because something can be satirized, it means it is wrong? That must mean that just about everything is wrong then.

Do you stand in front of a mirror when you practice being deliberately obtuse, just to see if you get the dull, blank expression right?

Let me spell it out: I thought that particular piece of satire made a specific good point about a specific issue. That has nothing to do with the validity or lack thereof of anything which can be satirized... and you know it.
Quote:
Correct and imagine if we had a mindset that told students they could and should not question or keep an open mind regarding those less accurate theories. Imagine instead that we told them such theories were complete, totally accurate and were above reproach.

The parallel with how evolution is taught would be ?
Quote:
Think about that for a minute or two.

Somehow Einstein managed to come up with his theory of gravitation without someone having put any disclaimer stickers on his physics textbooks warning him to be especially careful about that terribly incomplete Newton stuff.

This is all about what gets singled out for special disclaimers -- and yes, the motivation behind the people out to place those special disclaimers has to be considered. Consider again my hypothetical example of students forced to wear "This student makes errors" signs, signs that only a willfully obtuse person could defend of the basis of their factual truth. You'd certainly have to consider the motivations of a teacher for picking on particular students made to wear these signs when such abuse was investigated.
Quote:
Gravity is a really good example because we don't claim to have a unified theory that includes how gravity works. We have mathematical models that predict the force, but we can't explain why the force exists. If a textbook claimed that we not only did we have an explanation for that force, but that it was a fact beyond question, then that book should probably be viewed with skepticism at this point in time.

Please show me an example of any high school biology textbook that claims that evolution is completely understood and that all aspects of it are totally beyond question.
Quote:
Pointing this out would also not be an endorsement of religion.

Perhaps, but since there's no parallel about any such thing needing to be pointed out about how evolution is taught, you have no point.

Are you going to claim that every time someone uses a phrase like "millions of years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs" that a long-winded disclaimer needs to be attached, or else this would be a shameless example of treating every aspect of evolutionary theory as incontrovertible fact? Are you also going to clamor for disclaimers about the incompleteness of gravitational theory to be placed next to every physics textbook question about how long it take for a rock to fall 50 meters?

Quote:
The problem with your reasoning here is that you treat all students equally whereas all scientific theories are not advanced along to the same degree of completeness and understanding.

So it would be okay to hang disclaimer signs around the necks of particularly erroneous students?

I don't even buy the parallel that evolution is somehow like the slow student in a classroom of other scientific theories, but beyond that, there's a difference between recognizing a problem (that one student might not be as bright as most others) and the way you handle it (being helpful, or trying to shame the student).

The motivation to place these stickers on biology textbooks is to discredit the theory of evolution, first and foremost, not to improve the education of students.
Quote:
It's not an "OR" proposition.

You seem to like saying this a lot today, whether it's particularly apropos or not.
Quote:
The only burden faced by evolution is the incompleteness of its explanation. If it weren't such an incomplete theory, people couldn't question it so readily. If it had some predictive qualities, people would be more likely to treat it like chemistry, physics, or other fields.

Lots of theories are incomplete. Most are. You haven't shown any examples that when evolution is taught that there's any particularly egregious way that the teaching hides or disavows said incompleteness. So, again, what makes evolution so special that it needs to be called out with warning labels? When we talk about gravity in science textbooks, we generally treat it as a matter of fact, without disclaimers galore trying to hammer home the notion that gravity is incompletely understood.

Even if the motivation for placing such stickers wasn't religiously motivated (which largely it is) there's no good non-religious reason for the theory of evolution to receive any special disclaimer treatment either.

On your last point, if you don't think evolution has any testable predictive qualities, you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. (And please, spare me a weak comeback about "not predictive in the same way" or some other such BS that I might have to waste keystrokes knocking down.)
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #80 of 325
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
WTF?

The education system these cults dream of would churn out ignorant young adults that know close to nothing about the world around them, ie, total and complete ignorance.

That is incorrect, Christian/Christian Home Schooled kids are on average consistently better educated than the public school children.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Judge rules evolution theory stickers unconstitutional