"Are you being intentionally dense or do you really not understand what you're talking about? Do you really think elementary school students, in general, have the mental deveolopment [sic] and intellectual context to perform a rigorous scientific debate? Yes, kids are more clever than many people give them credit for but no, this does not mean that we can turn the Tevatron [sic] over to a bunch of 3rd graders."
and to that I sing the non-sequitur song! NON SEQUITUR, NON SEQUITER! It does not follow, that science need be taught the way it is for school kids to learn science in a critical way. in fact, I've yet to meet very many people (much less school students) that know how to approach science with a critically thinking mind. Instead, people blindly accept the current newtonion models of physics, and gravity, even ones who have heard of Einstein have no idea what he proved. I feel comfortable saying that half the kids in my 10th grade earth and space class have no idea what E=MC^2 is and or why it's important or really any of Einstein's theories of the universe especially in regards to relativity and gravity. It also does not follow that we should expect "3rd graders" in such a learning environment to suddenly be at the level of tackling such scientific debates as evolution or quantum physics... but how about some simpler quandaries? like maybe teaching kids very simple ideas about gravity, and then debating the model, (of course you would have to spend time also explaining competing theories (or making up a competing theory)). Kid's who are taught to think critically (especially ones who are taught from a younger age to do so) can indeed handle debate amongst themselves with the teacher moderating.
"Explaining the scientific method to these kids is the right thing to do. Letting their teachers stand at the front of the room and use rhetorical tricks honed over years by propagandists to brainwash those children is morally repugnant and puts the lie to everything these relgious [sic] people claim to believe in."
and I agree that explaining the scientific method is a good idea. As far as propaganda goes, the evolutionary side isn't so stellar. Ben Stein in his documentary Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed documented how scientists who have dared to question the theory of evolution (which is something that should happen consistently to all scientific theories through peer review and other means) or even so much as give Intelligent Design a fair reading (Again, what happened to "objectivity" and "critical thinking?"), have been expelled from their jobs. Teachers have been blacklisted from being offered teaching positions at other universities just for even mentioning the words Intelligent Design in a publication (not even kidding). Don't talk to be about propaganda when clearly your side won't even give a fair reading to the ideas.
"If you have to lie and decieve [sic] to spread the "gospel" of your religion, then it ISN'T THE RIGHT RELIGION. No omnipotent, omniescient [sic] being needs a bunch of sychophantic [sic] simpering weasels to slip pamphlets about its awesomeness into the lunch boxes of little kids. If it does, then it doesn't deserve to be worshipped."
NON SEQUITUR NON SEQUITUR! TRA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LAAAA! That's based on your assumption that Intelligent Design is false. It does not follow that for evolution to be true, intelligent design must be false, or vice versa. You have documented no evidence except the existence of a "competing theory" that Intelligent Design is false, You assume it and that is your flaw. I have examined the evidence for myself and I believe in evolution.. and I believe in intelligent design. I don't think that either explanation is sufficient to explain on it's own the origins of the universe. or that either theory can be discounted on it's own wholesale for it's flaws. As a Christian (which is apparently an insult these days like it was in the first century) I believe that my sovereign, all powerful, omniscient, omnipotent, omnip
Slashdot Mirror
"Are you being intentionally dense or do you really not understand what you're talking about? Do you really think elementary school students, in general, have the mental deveolopment [sic] and intellectual context to perform a rigorous scientific debate? Yes, kids are more clever than many people give them credit for but no, this does not mean that we can turn the Tevatron [sic] over to a bunch of 3rd graders."
and to that I sing the non-sequitur song! NON SEQUITUR, NON SEQUITER! It does not follow, that science need be taught the way it is for school kids to learn science in a critical way. in fact, I've yet to meet very many people (much less school students) that know how to approach science with a critically thinking mind. Instead, people blindly accept the current newtonion models of physics, and gravity, even ones who have heard of Einstein have no idea what he proved. I feel comfortable saying that half the kids in my 10th grade earth and space class have no idea what E=MC^2 is and or why it's important or really any of Einstein's theories of the universe especially in regards to relativity and gravity. It also does not follow that we should expect "3rd graders" in such a learning environment to suddenly be at the level of tackling such scientific debates as evolution or quantum physics... but how about some simpler quandaries? like maybe teaching kids very simple ideas about gravity, and then debating the model, (of course you would have to spend time also explaining competing theories (or making up a competing theory)). Kid's who are taught to think critically (especially ones who are taught from a younger age to do so) can indeed handle debate amongst themselves with the teacher moderating.
"Explaining the scientific method to these kids is the right thing to do. Letting their teachers stand at the front of the room and use rhetorical tricks honed over years by propagandists to brainwash those children is morally repugnant and puts the lie to everything these relgious [sic] people claim to believe in."
and I agree that explaining the scientific method is a good idea. As far as propaganda goes, the evolutionary side isn't so stellar. Ben Stein in his documentary Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed documented how scientists who have dared to question the theory of evolution (which is something that should happen consistently to all scientific theories through peer review and other means) or even so much as give Intelligent Design a fair reading (Again, what happened to "objectivity" and "critical thinking?"), have been expelled from their jobs. Teachers have been blacklisted from being offered teaching positions at other universities just for even mentioning the words Intelligent Design in a publication (not even kidding). Don't talk to be about propaganda when clearly your side won't even give a fair reading to the ideas.
"If you have to lie and decieve [sic] to spread the "gospel" of your religion, then it ISN'T THE RIGHT RELIGION. No omnipotent, omniescient [sic] being needs a bunch of sychophantic [sic] simpering weasels to slip pamphlets about its awesomeness into the lunch boxes of little kids. If it does, then it doesn't deserve to be worshipped."
NON SEQUITUR NON SEQUITUR! TRA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LAAAA! That's based on your assumption that Intelligent Design is false. It does not follow that for evolution to be true, intelligent design must be false, or vice versa. You have documented no evidence except the existence of a "competing theory" that Intelligent Design is false, You assume it and that is your flaw. I have examined the evidence for myself and I believe in evolution.. and I believe in intelligent design. I don't think that either explanation is sufficient to explain on it's own the origins of the universe. or that either theory can be discounted on it's own wholesale for it's flaws. As a Christian (which is apparently an insult these days like it was in the first century) I believe that my sovereign, all powerful, omniscient, omnipotent, omnip