Teachers brainwashing our children?

[betsy]

You don't understand what the word theory means in a scientific context. Scientifically speaking evolution is an established fact.

It's not a matter of my lack of understanding. It's a matter of the misrepresentation of 'evolution' as a 'fact'.

Further, like I said, why would you put a limit on what you use to arrive at the truth?

If a naturalist cannot demonstrate physical evidence to substantiate whatever theory, why would he assume there's no other explanation? Because she's discounted the possibility of non-physical evidence (ie. the supernatural, God), that's why.

Permit me to quote William Lane Craig:

...methodological naturalism, that is to say, the view that in doing natural science we should assume that all physical events have only natural causes. The methodological naturalist neednt be a metaphysical naturalist [as atheist scientists almost always are], that is to say, he neednt deny that miracles occur or that supernatural entities exist. He contends merely that they are not the concern of science. Science just is the search for natural causes or explanations of phenomena. This methodological thesis is one which a great many, if not most, Christian scientists agree with...

As Michael Rea has shown in his incisive book World without Design (Clarendon Press, 2002), the only defensible form of epistemological naturalism (a.k.a. scientism) is that it is a methodological decision to follow a research program which takes the physical sciences to be the only basic source of knowledge. As such it cannot be justified. It just represents the naturalists personal decision to adopt a certain research program. Anyone else can with equal right adopt a different research program which may accept additional sources of knowledge in addition to the physical sciences.

...[it is claimed that] no supernaturalistic explanation has ever superseded a naturalistic one! Thats guaranteed by sciences assumption of methodological naturalism. It prohibits supernatural explanations from even being included in the pool of live explanatory options. Thus its impossible for a supernaturalistic explanation to supersede a naturalistic one! Only for theorists who are willing to challenge the assumption of methodological naturalism, like creation scientists or advocates of Intelligent Design, is there the possibility that a naturalistic explanation might give way to a supernaturalistic explanation. They argue that it should in the case of biological complexity. But because they are working with a conception of science outside the mainstream (namely, they reject methodological naturalism), its highly unlikely that their view will ever become the paradigmatic view of science, no matter what the evidence...

[My additions in square brackets, my emphasis in bold]

Edited March 24, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Huh? There's millions of fossils that demonstrated evolution in action. There's an entire human family tree of fossil evidence.

There isn't. There's no conclusive evidence in the fossil record.

In fact it's so inconclusive that paleontologists doctor the "evidence."

You can't go to a Museum of Natural Science, anywhere in the world, that hasn't filled in the missing links.

By definition, supernatural explanations are untestable and therefore unscientific. As for "half-baked theories", well, you can't be talking about evolution, because it's backed by reams and reams of data and is regarded by the scientific community (as well as the Catholic Church) as fact.

Check out my quote of William Lane Craig.

An open mind is not the same thing as empty room to be filled with any old junk lying around.

That's quite a metaphor, mixed as it is. First you've got a mind, then you've got a room, and now you've got a dumpster!

I bet your open mindedness would balk at giving equal credence to alternative supernatural explications for creation outside of the Judeo-Christian myth.

Actually no I wouldn't balk at anything like that because there won't be any supernatural events that are outside the power of the Judeo-Christian God. So there.

Edited March 24, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

betsy's couch could be on fire. You could point to it and say, "betsy, your couch is on fire," and she would reply, "IT IS NOT!"

[betsy]

Im not saying you shouldnt keep an open mind, and people can teach whatever spirital beliefs they want to their kids. Im just explaining to you how we determine what we teach in science/biology. ID/Creationism has no place there at all.

Do you think we should teach creationism in math class, or at a hockey school? No... its not a part of either of those subjects, and its not a part of science class either.

No, nor do we teach science and biology in math class or hockey schools. I don't mean to bicker but I'm not sure where you're going with that.

Besides that... Im not exactly sure what it is youre whining about.

Actually I'm not whining. I don't whine. I leave that up to those who aren't very sure about their arguments.

You rant about all this "brain washing" and try to act all victimized by the fact schools are secular. But the reality is that MOST people believe in some sort of higher creator. More than 90% world wide as a matter of fact.

What are you saying? That because most people believe in God therefore it shouldn't be taught in schools? Are you trying to change the world?

If most people believe in God (which is not a given) then why shouldn't Theism be part of the system? It should. It is because people holding power are secularists. And don't hesitate for a moment to impose their religion on our children.

And yes, there is brain-washing. Just look how Christianity (which is a huge part of history and culture in this nation) is being eased out or omitted as the Christmas holiday I've given as an example.

The reasons/comments given by some posters does reflect an approval of such revision - and it is indeed a revision of history and culture! If we let it be, what's our history gonna be? Mythology or fairy tale.

And the same thing is happening to science - theory being passed off as actual fact, taught in schools!

And again, the reason is of course, religion. That's blatant brainwashing!

Anyway the fact is we're talking about western education system.

We have churches and parents to teach children spiratual beliefs, and we have schools to teach them the skills, and knowledge they need to prosper in the evidence based reality they have to live in. Why is that such a problem?

You're describing the faults of the system, not the benefits.

Yeah, as I've explained above about revisions, misrepresentations and brainwashing....soon children in school wouldn't know where reality begins and fantasy ends.

Edited March 24, 2011 by betsy

[GostHacked]

You got some really messed up logic Besty.

[cybercoma]

You got some really messed up logic Besty.

Something that's messed up can be fixed. There's no fixing something that's not there at all.

[Black Dog]

It's not a matter of my lack of understanding. It's a matter of the misrepresentation of 'evolution' as a 'fact'.

Nope. You just don't understand what "scientific fact means".

Further, like I said, why would you put a limit on what you use to arrive at the truth?

You have a better way?

If a naturalist cannot demonstrate physical evidence to substantiate whatever theory, why would he assume there's no other explanation? Because she's discounted the possibility of non-physical evidence (ie. the supernatural, God), that's why.

Ah yes, the old god of the gaps fallacy.

Permit me to quote William Lane Craig:

Anyone else can with equal right adopt a different research program which may accept additional sources of knowledge in addition to the physical sciences.

What other sources of knowledge?

There isn't. There's no conclusive evidence in the fossil record.

Sure you could say that if you choose to ignore the fossil record completely.

In fact it's so inconclusive that paleontologists doctor the "evidence."

You can't go to a Museum of Natural Science, anywhere in the world, that hasn't filled in the missing links.

Actually no I wouldn't balk at anything like that because there won't be any supernatural events that are outside the power of the Judeo-Christian God. So there.

What about all the other Gods? After all, why limit yourself to just one when there's so many older, cooler gods to choose from? After all, your belief system dictates that literally anything is possible. Just imagine a dream-team of Thor, Jesus, Vishnu and Osiris.

[dre]

No, nor do we teach science and biology in math class or hockey schools. I don't mean to bicker but I'm not sure where you're going with that.

Actually I'm not whining. I don't whine. I leave that up to those who aren't very sure about their arguments.

What are you saying? That because most people believe in God therefore it shouldn't be taught in schools? Are you trying to change the world?

If most people believe in God (which is not a given) then why shouldn't Theism be part of the system? It should. It is because people holding power are secularists. And don't hesitate for a moment to impose their religion on our children.

And yes, there is brain-washing. Just look how Christianity (which is a huge part of history and culture in this nation) is being eased out or omitted as the Christmas holiday I've given as an example.

The reasons/comments given by some posters does reflect an approval of such revision - and it is indeed a revision of history and culture! If we let it be, what's our history gonna be? Mythology or fairy tale.

And the same thing is happening to science - theory being passed off as actual fact, taught in schools!

And again, the reason is of course, religion. That's blatant brainwashing!

Anyway the fact is we're talking about western education system.

You're describing the faults of the system, not the benefits.

Yeah, as I've explained above about revisions, misrepresentations and brainwashing....soon children in school wouldn't know where reality begins and fantasy ends.

No, nor do we teach science and biology in math class or hockey schools. I don't mean to bicker but I'm not sure where you're going with that.

Its obvious. Youre proposing creationism be taught in a subject that it has nothing to do with. Science. Creationism would be just as out of place in a science class as biology is in a hockey school.

You're describing the faults of the system, not the benefits.

No these are STRENGHTS of the system, and every single prosperous first world nation has taken similar measures separate religious authority from civil society. The ones that havent are hellholes. The people who set our civilization up this way had actually LIVED in a time when the line between civil authority and the church was blurry or didnt exist at all, and under those conditions we saw extreme tyranny. Booting the church out of our government and schools is probably the single most important and enabling thing that western civilization have ever done. Its what sets us apart.

Even most religious people understand why its necessary for public schools to be secular. The very worst thing we could teach kids in school is doctrinal knowledge, whether its your doctrine or somebody elses.

And the same thing is happening to science - theory being passed off as actual fact, taught in schools!

No sorry this really is just a baseless rant. In science class we teach the scientific method, and body of evidence and knowledge produced by that method. The theory of evolution as it is today is our best attempt at using the scientific method to explain what we see in nature, and theres thousands of people doing millions of hours of work to keep improving it.

And whats hilarious is that in response to your worry about things being "passed off as facts", you would have us teach a doctrine created by the roman government thousands of years ago

If most people believe in God (which is not a given) then why shouldn't Theism be part of the system?

Because all of the various different religions are the doctrines of private clubs. Its up to those private clubs to spread their own doctrines. The purpose of public schools is to teach people skills that they are going to need in the real world, to be productive. Schools are not there to teach the doctrines of private organizations.

Teach them yourself. For the government to endorse a specific body of religious knowledge is nothing short of tyranny. Even most religious people would be outraged, and rightfully so.

Edited March 24, 2011 by dre

[betsy]

Its obvious. Youre proposing creationism be taught in a subject that it has nothing to do with. Science. Creationism would be just as out of place in a science class as biology is in a hockey school.

No these are STRENGHTS of the system, and every single prosperous first world nation has taken similar measures separate religious authority from civil society. The ones that havent are hellholes. The people who set our civilization up this way had actually LIVED in a time when the line between civil authority and the church was blurry or didnt exist at all, and under those conditions we saw extreme tyranny. Booting the church out of our government and schools is probably the single most important and enabling thing that western civilization have ever done. Its what sets us apart.

Even most religious people understand why its necessary for public schools to be secular. The very worst thing we could teach kids in school is doctrinal knowledge, whether its your doctrine or somebody elses.

No sorry this really is just a baseless rant. In science class we teach the scientific method, and body of evidence and knowledge produced by that method. The theory of evolution as it is today is our best attempt at using the scientific method to explain what we see in nature, and theres thousands of people doing millions of hours of work to keep improving it.

And whats hilarious is that in response to your worry about things being "passed off as facts", you would have us teach a doctrine created by the roman government thousands of years ago

Because all of the various different religions are the doctrines of private clubs. Its up to those private clubs to spread their own doctrines. The purpose of public schools is to teach people skills that they are going to need in the real world, to be productive. Schools are not there to teach the doctrines of private organizations.

Teach them yourself. For the government to endorse a specific body of religious knowledge is nothing short of tyranny. Even most religious people would be outraged, and rightfully so.

I must admit I'd be impressed by anyone who could describe the history of Western civilization in a single paragraph. However, you managed to get everything wrong (even the little you said).

First, you, like most people, don't understand the historical concept of separation of Church and State. The point was to prevent the interference of either in the other’s affairs and areas of jurisdiction, not to "boot" the church out. Although developed in the West, the concept is expressed, first as far as I know, in the Bible. When tempted by synagogue officials as to whether He believed He should pay taxes to the Roman authorities, Jesus said "...render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matt. 22:21) Is there nothing new!

A relatively recent example in Canada demonstrates the wisdom of such separation. In the early 1960s, the Duplessis government and the powerful RC Church in Quebec tried together to restrict the rights of a particular business by disallowing a business licence. The real reason for the restriction was the fact that the business owner was a Jehovah's Witness. The court found Duplessis and the involved church people guilty of whatever they were charged with.

The church in fact has always been the major and essential social influence in the West, both in our day-to-day lives and in our institutions. All our major universities are the product of the church - in most of Europe, the Roman Church and since the mid-sixteenth century, Protestant denominations, and in England, the Church of England. Come to think of it, where would all the atheist professors like Dawkins make a living if it wasn't for their ill-gained tenure.

Our legal systems also are based on Biblical law and teachings. The Mosaic Law of the Old Testament and the Judeo-Christian Gospels are the basis of the law of all Western societies. Our Common Law in Canada (Quebec's civil law is based on Roman Law, but its criminal law is based on the Common Law) and most if not all the U.S. was imported directly from England, which was there developed based on Christian moral standards and the process of precedent.

The booting out of the church started later. Napoleon, Marxism, Stalin and the U.S.S.R., Pol Pot, Mussolini, Hitler are some examples of the benefits of secular thinking. You may not see them as tyrannies in the severe sense such as Cromwell, or the Pope, or Louis XVI, but still...

However, the "booting out" that you so enthusiastically praise is somewhat different but every bit as insidious. It is the legislation preventing the teaching in public of Christian doctrine and is much newer and differently motivated, although it is equally based on the desire for power and control.

Even in the middle of the 20th century, the idea that the church was not, let alone should not be, a major influence on society, was considered ludicrous. And it still is ludicrous. That's why it has been necessary to propagandize, lie, legislate, and coerce poor children and mindless adults into believing what they know to be ludicrous.

Like most of those poor souls, you too have become a victim of the indoctrination of a secularist tyrant who has spent the last 60 or 70 years manipulating the population with the collusion of a large portion of the scientific community. And the indoctrination is not into a doctrine of science - a doctrine of science could live comfortably and happily alongside any other - it is an indoctrination into an ideology whose proponents intent to control, dictate and regulate. They understand the importance and power of Christianity and are intent on seeing it gone. They understand that those who believe in God don't see secularists (or scientists) as important or authoritative. So they will restrict your freedom of speech and expression until they are meaningless; they will restrict your right of access to information to only what they want you to believe. They already are. Maybe you imagine going along with it will protect you. It won't. Maybe these are the people you refer to.

...the people who set our civilization up this way...

and maybe you're okay with them. Poor you.

Okay, what does this mean?

the worst thing we can teach kids in school is doctrinal knowledge, whether it’s your doctrine or somebody elses.

I can accept "knowledge" in a loose sense to mean something like information being passed along that the teacher hopes will become the opinion of the kids (its truth believed or not by the teacher), but what about "doctrinal"?

I take it from your context, and your nature, that you mean by doctrine, religious belief, and therefore don't see scientific doctrine, as doctrine. But of course, you're wrong. Scientific theories and methodology are doctrinal if anything is.

So what you must mean is that it's really unacceptable to teach something in school,

whether it's your doctrine or somebody elses

but it's okay if it's your doctrine. That of course, doesn't really mean your doctrine; it is "your" doctrine only in the sense that it is what you learned in school, or on the net, or wherever.

Btw, what do you mean

Dre

teach a doctrine created by the roman government thousands of years ago

Do you mean the doctrine of Christ? Jesus was crucified by the Romans. They killed thousands of Christians in the 300 hundred years before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Quite apart from the fact that it is decidedly not a doctrine of the Roman government, what does the age of a doctrine have to do with its validity?

One last point. If you teach scientific methodology in science class in the public system, things have certainly changed. We were taught science - told what science had "proved". That certainty is still the case today when it comes to the theory of evolution.

Anyway, to suggest that the theory of evolution explains what we see in nature is, to say the least, a contradiction. "What we see in nature" is now and observable. The theory of evolution attempts to explain what we don't see in nature. And come to think of it, what we don't see in the fossil record either.

Edited March 29, 2011 by betsy

[GostHacked]

The Bible = Fiction.

[Oleg Bach]

OH MY GOD THAT's AWFUL!!!

If I were still a young parent I would be pisseed off if they told my kid that a an anus was a vagina. I had a young nephew who asked me "what is gay?" - I explained that it was when they convinced you that having kids and being a king of your own domain was not popular these days..that that powers that be wanted to disempower you by pushing the stupid gay agenda...mean while their kids are not gay but they would like it if everybody elses were.

[cybercoma]

Oleg, your post is utter ignorance coming awfully close to offensiveness.

[Shwa]

Oleg, your post is utter ignorance coming awfully close to offensiveness.

No worse than some others on other topics. In this case, it generates some discussion, which I suppose, is within bounds.

Also? Oleg can be hilarious.

[cybercoma]

No worse than some others on other topics. In this case, it generates some discussion, which I suppose, is within bounds.

Also? Oleg can be hilarious.

The notion of a "gay agenda" has been utterly and thoroughly debunked. There is, however, a straight agenda that seeks to push all gays into the closet. Heteronormative social control is a reality and the suicide rates in gay communities is one small piece of the evidence that points towards its existence.

[Shwa]

The notion of a "gay agenda" has been utterly and thoroughly debunked. There is, however, a straight agenda that seeks to push all gays into the closet. Heteronormative social control is a reality and the suicide rates in gay communities is one small piece of the evidence that points towards its existence.

And you having a platform to express this view - even repeatedly - is a good thing!

Gotta look on the bright side sometimes, even with Mr. Oleg.

[stignasty]

Anyway, I haven't been on this forum for years because of moronic posts like the one that started this thread.

Provincial governments publish the program of study that teachers are required to use in the classroom. There's no conspiracy.

http://education.alberta.ca/teachers/program.aspx

[Pliny]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District -U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution....

absolute comedy how the creationist "textbook" Creation Biology was renamed and re-edited as Of Pandas and People eliminating the words "creation and creationist" and replacing them with "intelligent design and "design proponent" in order to try sneak by as a serious science source ...really how dumb are people to fall for BS like that ...

That judge, if he believes what he said, just violated the establishment clause of the first amendment of the US Constitution.

[guyser]

That judge, if he believes what he said, just violated the establishment clause of the first amendment of the US Constitution.

How so ?

[Oleg Bach]

Oleg, your post is utter ignorance coming awfully close to offensiveness.

How can you call me offensive? I would say that I am defensive - of myself and of children. Surely it is not good for children to believe that gayville is an option or a superiour or equal way of living? Not that I care to persecute - I don't - but if I were a young parent I feel and firmly believe that it is wrong to brain wash children about something as important as sexual conduct. That is NOT the job of teachers or the social engineers working for the state - The children are my property not the states.

[Bonam]

The children are my property not the states.

A person (including a child) is not property.

[Oleg Bach]

A person (including a child) is not property.

Knew someone was going to say that - That is like saying that a mans body is not the property of the wife..and a wife's body is not the property of the husband..If that is the case - then let all the monkey humans pile on the wife - and let all the seductive woman sleep with the husband. You must look upon a child - which is generated by your body as your property - after all YOUR body is YOUR property - and offspring or (product) created by YOUR body - must surely belong to you and no one else . The abortion issue is the same thing - It is a woman's body......BUT it seems that we have policy in place that makes that body property of the state.

Put it this way - not that I believe in ownership of people - but if YOU don't stake your claim then the state or others will.

[guyser]

Surely it is not good for children to believe that gayville is an option or a superiour or equal way of living? .

No...No...and yes of course it is.

[Oleg Bach]

No...No...and yes of course it is.

Out of the five hundred people in my small town as a kid - we had two - count them - gays ---- One 78 year old man that wore tennis shoes ( and that was bold back then) and BOB - who managed a rock band. Today it seems that the numbers have grown. The gay men back then were respectful of other and did not talk about what they did behind closed doors...nor did they have an agenda...and let me tell you - no one persecuted these men..There were strange in comparison to us - a little queer in character. When the old man was dying - the FAMILY - next door brought him meals and nursed him...they did not care if he was gay or not...It was NOT at issue. The old man left all his money to this nuclear family.

Hate to mention this but because I am close to my youngest son and know all of his friends - The idea of gay - as an option is not very popular with them - and most of them are artists..and musicans. They like us just tolerate - and do not persecute.

[guyser]

Out of the five hundred people in my small town as a kid - we had two - count them - gays ---- One 78 year old man that wore tennis shoes ( and that was bold back then) and BOB - who managed a rock band.

You forgot to add the words ".....that I knew of".

Today it seems that the numbers have grown. The gay men back then were respectful of other and did not talk about what they did behind closed doors...nor did they have an agenda...and let me tell you - no one persecuted these men..There were strange in comparison to us - a little queer in character. When the old man was dying - the FAMILY - next door brought him meals and nursed him...they did not care if he was gay or not...It was NOT at issue. The old man left all his money to this nuclear family.

sniff sniff.....nice story.

Hate to mention this but because I am close to my youngest son and know all of his friends - The idea of gay - as an option is not very popular with them - and most of them are artists..and musicans. They like us just tolerate - and do not persecute.

Ah...so the orange doesnt come from the apple tree?

[Oleg Bach]

The media and YOU are a bit out of step with how young people think and what they privately believe - this generation is still dominated and controlled by hetro sexuals. It is not that they except gays as equals - They like the previous generation knew that it was and is wrong to harm anyone - even those you consider evil. The kids have made up their own minds on this question and all the social engineering really has had no effect on the more intelligent thinkers.