Should criticisms of Round Earth Theory be mandated in science classrooms?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Flat Earth Society



More and more this discussion, finally, seems to be centering on the real issue and that is that not believing in a round earth does not mean you are a religious freak or desire religion be taught in science class.



Round earth theory has some seriously structural flaws and was created before Columbus was even known about. Displaying critical thinking and openmindedness should be a hallmark of science and there should be evidence against Copernicus's theories of planetary bodies presenting while the theory itself is presented.



Dick

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 11
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    haha this is very similar to another thread
  • Reply 2 of 11
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    and technically, it's an oblate spheroid, but we don't teach the advanced geometry to young'uns cause they can't absorb it until they have a wider grounding in conic sections and ellipses. so we teach "round" until after high school.



    nice twist.
  • Reply 3 of 11
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    Flat Earth Society



    More and more this discussion, finally, seems to be centering on the real issue and that is that not believing in a round earth does not mean you are a religious freak or desire religion be taught in science class.



    Round earth theory has some seriously structural flaws and was created before Columbus was even known about. Displaying critical thinking and openmindedness should be a hallmark of science and there should be evidence against Copernicus's theories of planetary bodies presenting while the theory itself is presented.



    Dick




    Nice point but in this case no substance.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 4 of 11
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Oh no, in this case it has quite a bit of substance.



    I wish creationists could realize that it's just the most awful kind of theology, what they preach.
  • Reply 5 of 11
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,455member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    Oh no, in this case it has quite a bit of substance.



    I wish creationists could realize that it's just the most awful kind of theology, what they preach.




    Perhaps someone is not a creationist but nicely tolerates your limited ability to catagorize people and their thinking.



    Nick
  • Reply 6 of 11
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Come again?



    I dunno if you're a creationist, you seem much too reasonable to be one, but you may have fallen victim to the slight of terms they've managed to impose upon "theory" and "science" in your thread about criticisms in pedagogy (ugh, I hate that term, but it's basically what your thread is about)



    As for my own limited abilities, Creationists are scraping the bottom of the theological barrel, redmedial bible studies 101. It takes almost nothing to demonstrate that the concept of "time" is pointless in the context of a limited being interogating the infinite at a point "before" time. What's a day? A metaphor for a phase? you think?



    Its far graver sin is the pollution of religion with simplistic notions, not any attack it can mount against science. And where does man come from? The earth?



    When people can not read the poetry of their own faith, I can not respect them. This is a failing of mine, so be it.



    As for your thread, it was surprising, since I believe you're a more reasonable person than that, but I don't know you. You cannot divorce the politics from the subject, to be fair to your topic post, mebbe everyone should have, but they didn't, and you knew to expect that. The problems with evolution can be dealt with entirely in the realm of science, just as many areas of scientific theory have been improved or partially or wholly rejected. No credible scientists are prepared to reject evolution outright, though they may impose alterations that make it unrecognizable from Darwin (and already have in many places)



    Curricula for young students needs to strike a balance of breath and appropriate representation and difficulty, so the task of deciding what to teach is a little thornier than the vastly more entertaining debate about God and apes.



    As far as you're saying we should teach the most up to date revisions of scientific theory, the most current knowledge, then I agree with you, there is a lot of room for "criticism." I would not, however, really characterize those bits of learning as "criticism." -- if only for political reasons.
  • Reply 7 of 11




    "Dick"



  • Reply 8 of 11
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,455member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    Come again?



    I dunno if you're a creationist, you seem much too reasonable to be one, but you may have fallen victim to the slight of terms they've managed to impose upon "theory" and "science" in your thread about criticisms in pedagogy (ugh, I hate that term, but it's basically what your thread is about)



    As for my own limited abilities, Creationists are scraping the bottom of the theological barrel, redmedial bible studies 101. It takes almost nothing to demonstrate that the concept of "time" is pointless in the context of a limited being interogating the infinite at a point "before" time. What's a day? A metaphor for a phase? you think?



    Its far graver sin is the pollution of religion with simplistic notions, not any attack it can mount against science. And where does man come from? The earth?



    When people can not read the poetry of their own faith, I can not respect them. This is a failing of mine, so be it.



    As for your thread, it was surprising, since I believe you're a more reasonable person than that, but I don't know you. You cannot divorce the politics from the subject, to be fair to your topic post, mebbe everyone should have, but they didn't, and you knew to expect that. The problems with evolution can be dealt with entirely in the realm of science, just as many areas of scientific theory have been improved or partially or wholly rejected. No credible scientists are prepared to reject evolution outright, though they may impose alterations that make it unrecognizable from Darwin (and already have in many places)



    Curricula for young students needs to strike a balance of breath and appropriate representation and difficulty, so the task of deciding what to teach is a little thornier than the vastly more entertaining debate about God and apes.



    As far as you're saying we should teach the most up to date revisions of scientific theory, the most current knowledge, then I agree with you, there is a lot of room for "criticism." I would not, however, really characterize those bits of learning as "criticism." -- if only for political reasons.




    I don't know what you would call me. I am not criticizing evolution based off of theological problems with the theory.



    You, knowing how I am mostly reasonable Matsu have likely seen how some people who are not religious take their political stances to religious levels. They will defend things doggedly, they will jump clear gaps in reasoning and logic. They will twist and contort their own words and stances into pretzels to avoid harming their political "gods" as it were.



    I simply submit that much the same has happened to evolution. Macroevolution has never been proven nor has it even been fully explained by anyone.



    Natural processes are supposed to be continual and pretty much constant. What occurs might vary within a given spectrum and location, etc. In otherwords the sun constantly gives off energy. Erosion constantly works at locations around the earth. Living organisms are dying, reproducing, etc.



    You would think that there would be a pretty much constant stream of new species occuring. Again perhaps not everywhere all the time, but it should occur with some frequency that is measurable. We have interpreted evidence for this, but I want to see happening now. I want the action, not the speculation. Considering it is pretty much THE fundimental aspect of evolution theory there should be a clearer understanding of when it would occur, why it is or is not, and we should be able to artificially induce it like we do with many other sciences. This is simply not the case which again leads me to doubt the underlying science.



    Notice no mention of God, religion, creationism, philosophy, or any other field in there. I asked if these criticisms should be taught. The answer is plainly yes, but some are so dogmatic about the evolutionary religion, that they are unable to take criticism of it without acting like religioius zealots themselves.



    Nick
  • Reply 9 of 11
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,455member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce





    "Dick"







    I know that one is so original. I think I heard it for the first time when I was about six.



    Nick
  • Reply 10 of 11
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I know that one is so original. I think I heard it for the first time when I was about six.



    Nick




    Oh come on, laugh already.



  • Reply 11 of 11
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Yah, I think a thread about a thread is interesting. I read your bit about people getting what they need from religion or science. You didn't write that, you wrote about how one explanation cannot be complete, how people look elsewhere. So you and I realize how the debate just naturally drifts to god questions when flumoxed people get too many questions too fast.



    And yeah, there's a nasty politics in (not scientific) but atheistic circles that wants to supress religion by forcing any proof that can make religion look foolish. This just makes the atheists look foolish along with the devout.



    The problem here has been that creationist parents fight curriculm by demanding the imposition of fantasy into science rather than a dispassionate critique of the evidence and some anti-theists ignore their native duty to dispassionate critique just because they want to fully supress the prospect of religious outlooks.



    Neither is helpful. The best thing would be for the creationists to go back and learn to read their bibles and for the atheists to hold to their coveted rigor more earnestly, and, finally, for the scientists to ignore both of these aformentioned ridiculous species and just do their work.
Sign In or Register to comment.