|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 15:08:02 GMT
By worldview I mean worldview, that's why I said "worldview". If you think your worldview is based on facts and other people's worldviews aren't, that's just your worldview. You have a right to express your worldview, and others have the right to express theirs. You don't have the right to dictate. And you're still attacking a straw-man. I never said people are not allowed to express their beliefs. They're not allowed to teach their baseless believes to children as facts. That's lying. Regardless of anyone's 'worldview'.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 13, 2012 15:11:59 GMT
You appear very desperate to have only your worldview taught as fact, which is very convenient seeing as it's your worldview. It's not your place to dictate what is taught as fact. You are not omniscient and even if you were that doesn't give you the right to dictate. It makes no difference how sure you are that your opinion is the right one, education is about teaching people what is out there and leaving it to them to make up their own minds, not go along with your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 15:29:57 GMT
You appear very desperate to have only your worldview taught as fact Because it is supported by facts. , which is very convenient seeing as it's your worldview. Again, it's the facts. If you can prove to me there is a god that designed everything, I will accept that and change my worldview accordinlgy. You have failed however to post the scientific theory of ID. It's not your place to dictate what is taught as fact. No but it is the right of the facts. You have failed to show the scientific theory of ID or any facts that support it. You are not omniscient and even if you were that doesn't give you the right to dictate. Never claimed that, yet another straw-man attack. It makes no difference how sure you are that your opinion is the right one, education is about teaching people what is out there and leaving it to them to make up their own minds, not go along with your opinion. Still attacking the same straw-man. ID can be taught, in religious studies or social studies.Not in any science class since it has no facts to back it up or, more importantly a scientific theory.You still have not posted the scientific theory of ID.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 13, 2012 15:32:46 GMT
Now you're admitting that indeed you are desperate to have only your worldview taught as fact. I hope you're not going to take that back at some point. It's no good trying to have an argument with me about ID, that discussion belongs in a science class.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 15:37:42 GMT
Now you're admitting that indeed you are desperate to have only your worldview taught as fact. I hope you're not going to take that back at some point. No, I don't see what's wrong about teaching people the difference between verifiable facts and baseless fantasies. If you want to be irrational, which is evident by your responses to my comments, that's your choice. It's no good trying to have an argument with me about ID, that discussion belongs in a science class. In other words you have no way to refute the facts, nor a scientific theory of ID, so you try to make it go away by acting dismissive. Until ID can provide a scientific theory, it does not belong in the science class.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 13, 2012 15:42:24 GMT
You're illustrating perfectly the problem with not teaching ID in the science class. It results in materialists trying to have arguments with non materialists on forums. The discussion belongs in the science class, no matter how desperate you are (already admitted) to fiercely protect your worldview. Education is not about protecting points of view, it is about presenting them and openly discussing them and yes, challenging them. It's not about censorship or presupposing that an idea is false by putting it in a religious class. If you think ID is wrong, that is your view, don't dictate to the rest of us. No one appreciates being told what to think. It makes them wonder what that person's agenda is.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 18:59:37 GMT
You're illustrating perfectly the problem with not teaching ID in the science class. It results in materialists trying to have arguments with non materialists on forums. Except science does not concern itself with the metaphysical. That's philosophy. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand: ID has no scientific theory, therefore it does not belong in a science class. The discussion belongs in the science class, no matter how desperate you are (already admitted) to fiercely protect your worldview. Stop attacking this straw-man. My world-view has nothing to do with it. The science class is for scientific theories, ID has none. Education is not about protecting points of view, it is about presenting them and openly discussing them and yes, challenging them. Of course and when ID has conceived of a scientific theory or evidence against evolution, then it can be discussed in a science class. But it has failed to do either of those things. It's not about censorship or presupposing that an idea is false by putting it in a religious class. Not going to address this straw-man argument any further. If you want to be disingenuous, that's your choice. I am not going to indulge your dishonest behaviour any longer. If you think ID is wrong, that is your view, don't dictate to the rest of us. No one appreciates being told what to think. It makes them wonder what that person's agenda is. You're still attacking a straw-man. I never said it was false. I said it does not have a scientific theory nor any facts to back it up. Which is a fact, as evident by multiple court rulings.You continue to fail to present the scientific theory of ID, instead trying to shift the burden of proof to me. It is you who is making the claim that ID is scientific therefore you have to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 13, 2012 21:05:26 GMT
Your opinion about ID and whether you like it or not is of no consequence. You say that your view has nothing to do with it yet you are demonstrating a desperate desire to dictate to others what should be considered science and taught as such and what should not, based on your worldview. It is you who is being dishonest. If you want a discussion about ID, the best place is the science class.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Feb 14, 2012 4:43:50 GMT
Your opinion about ID and whether you like it or not is of no consequence. You say that your view has nothing to do with it yet you are demonstrating a desperate desire to dictate to others what should be considered science and taught as such and what should not, based on your worldview. It is you who is being dishonest. If you want a discussion about ID, the best place is the science class. 99.86% of all scientists agree that evolution is fact. Go argue with them. It is not my opinion, it is the opinion of people in the field.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 14, 2012 14:17:02 GMT
Your opinion about ID and whether you like it or not is of no consequence. As is your continuous posting of this same old fallacy. It isn't my opinion. It's a fact. ID has no scientific theory therefore it does not fall under the definition of science. Even the courts ruled that way. Your continued denial won't change these facts. You say that your view has nothing to do with it Again with the straw-man arguments. I said my worldview is irrelevant. It's a fact that ID isn't a science. yet you are demonstrating a desperate desire to dictate to others what should be considered science and taught as such and what should not, based on your worldview. It is you who is being dishonest. If you want a discussion about ID, the best place is the science class. No, you are showing a desperate desire to ignore the facts about what a science is and that ID is not a science. You still have not posted the scientific theory of IDYour failure to do so, only shows that you can't.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 14, 2012 17:30:01 GMT
No I'm sorry but when someone says "It's not my opinion, it's fact", alarm bells ring. And then you go on to say that your worldview is irrelevant, yet conveniently, it just so happens that your worldview happens to be fact. That's handy. Desperate, and now arrogant. This discussion says way more about you than it does about any "facts". How about you let people decide for themselves what to think rather than trying to dictate to them.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Feb 14, 2012 23:17:27 GMT
Worldquest, do you think that alternate views of historical events, such as the theory that the moon landing was a fake or the various theories about the death of JFK should be taught in history class as equally valid as the official story? They should be taught in history class, yes. The validity of those ideas or any mainstream ideas is up to the student. Yes, the holocaust never happened theory, that too, thomas. The problem is that schools do not have the time, or the resources, to teach all of the theories that are out there. The most important thing a school should teach, IMO is critical thinking so that students can look at the evidence and decide for themselves. However when preventing evidence and explanations for that evidence it makes sense for them to present the explanations that are supported by a critical approach to the evidence rather than every possible explanation. If there are other possibilities that are supported by a critical examination of the evidence then they should be taught as well but ID is not.
|
|
timo
Newbie
oyeme
Posts: 37
|
Post by timo on Feb 20, 2012 3:55:11 GMT
Worldquest, the problem with teaching ID isn't that it challenges evolution or anyone's worldview more broadly. In science education, it's perfectly reasonable to teach competing explanations of a given phenomenon when there isn't consensus surrounding one explanation of said phenomenon. The problem is that evolution is the consensus view among biologists. And where controversies exist, they tend to exist within the evolutionary paradigm. If proponents of ID want to change what is taught then they need to change or at least challenge that paradigm. They need to do original research, publish papers, and make falsifiable theories. As it stands, ID is just a political movement, not a scientific one.
But then again, if you think we should teach alternate theories about the moon landing....I don't know, the problem might just be that you have an unrealistic view of what teachers can reasonably expect to teach in a given year. In which case, I can kind of understand your position. If teachers were able to teach their standards while at the same time acknowledging all the fringe views on a given topic, I'm not sure that I'd be opposed to doing it. After all, I think that refuting the claims of ID proponents would make a good critical thinking exercise for biology students, since they tend to rely on arguments that have already been put to rest. Furthermore, a lot of fringe views are surprisingly widespread. Speaking from my own experience with middle school and high school students, I wouldn't be opposed to having a course that dealt with alleged conspiracies in government, the illuminati, etc.
Peace
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 20, 2012 12:51:34 GMT
Bayes :
Is creationism a popular view? I'd say so. I'm not a creationist myself, by the way, I think it's absolutely absurd to still say that the world is 7 thousand (or whatever it is) years old in the face of all the evidence that clearly screams no. I also don't believe in the christian concept of god. I don't believe that Jesus is the SOG, I don't believe that the bible os the word of god. And so on.
But all those are very popular views. I'm not suggesting that schools dedicate time to discussing all views. I'm saying that popular views deserve attention for the simple reason that if people are to learn about the world, that includes popular views.
Your issue is that there's no time. That's your argument. And I agree that time can't be given to everything. But I never said that it should.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 20, 2012 13:00:21 GMT
Timo :
The fact that there is a concensus among biologists about evolution (a concensus which I agree with, by the way) is not a good reason to not discuss other ideas and views. I'm not suggesting that all alternative ideas are looked at. There simply isn't the time. But then again let's face it, if you do a course in any subject, you're unlikely to be taught every single thing about that subject anyway. Time is always limited, I agree. All I'm saying is that because creationism / ID are popular views, views which pertain to the same thing that evolution pertains to (ie where we come from), they ought to be looked at. If creationism and ID were extremely rare, I wouldn't be suggesting that they be taught. Not because it wouldn't be interesting, but because not enough people would believe in those things to make it that worthwhile. But they are popular.
|
|