- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 4,081
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Upper Midwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
steen said:In the SotU address, Bush advocated improvement in science education. How does that fit with his claim earlier in the year that he felt "Intelligent Design" should be taught in school?
Hmm, according to republicans, that would make him a flip-flopper and therefore not suitable as president. Just as he flip-flopped on Rove and exposing secret agents.tryreading said:If he means what he said, then he has done a complete 180 degree turn.
steen said:Hmm, according to republicans, that would make him a flip-flopper and therefore not suitable as president. Just as he flip-flopped on Rove and exposing secret agents.
tryreading said:Because if he is serious, valuable class hours will not be wasted on a faith-based course that has nothing to do with science. If we are to become more competitive with other countries, surely the best education for today's students is vital, should be a primary concern.
justone said:This country used to be well ahead of all competition when students prayed in schools.
When darwin took over, God washed his hands and it seems He is turning human evolution backwards in schools, just for laugh.
I hardly can expect anything good to come out of Bush's ''pushes''.
28Th place in math leads to 28th place in world economy. We are too much behind. It has to take a village in order to pull out of the hole.
justone said:This country used to be well ahead of all competition when students prayed in schools.
When darwin took over, God washed his hands and it seems He is turning human evolution backwards in schools, just for laugh.
I hardly can expect anything good to come out of Bush's ''pushes''.
28Th place in math leads to 28th place in world economy. We are too much behind. It has to take a village in order to pull out of the hole.
tryreading said:There were a lot of other changes that affected the public school system since prayer in school was outlawed, I believe in 1963. There is a lot less parental guidance because most households are two-earner situations, which I think is the biggest factor.
In the SotU address, Bush advocated improvement in science education. How does that fit with his claim earlier in the year that he felt "Intelligent Design" should be taught in school?
Engimo said:Probably the largest contributing factor to the increase in education was the attention paid to education reform that resulted from the Sputnik scare. In fact, it was the introduction of teaching Evolution in a standardized curriculum that began as a result of a fear of the Russians gaining an educational (and subsequent technological) edge over America.
tryreading said:And it seems that the knowledge that certain countries, at least one of them third world, which educate their children to standards much higher than ours, would be a good reason to upgrade our school system. I am embarrassed by our very average schools, but what's really important is to improve them now. I don't have any kids, but I sure hate to see other people's children short-changed in what should be the best educational system in the world.
Engimo said:Perhaps the growing threat of Japanese and Chinese students that are doing much better than American students will spur us into another round of educational support and reform.
Maybe the problem is how the parents were educated, per the large number of US parents who look towards creationism and other right-wing fundie lies.Mr. D said:Maybe it will get us to look at how much the average American values an education! Remember those Japanese and Chinese students are doing better in our failing American schools! How can that be?
Gee, maybe the excuse our schools are the big problem is
Christine said:I wish people would stop being so closed-minded. Would 10 seconds of mentioning that there are alternative possibilities of the beginning(s) of life, the universe, and everything really corrupt the brains of American children?
Science is defined as “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). Basically, science is explanation with backing. For some people, religion is explanation with backing (observable, identifiable, describable, explainable). For others, Darwin (by the way, his theory is of adaptability, not the evolution theory we think of today) is explanation with backing. Transitive property? Science equals explanation equals religion, which can-or-cannot-equal Darwinism. For some people, evolution isn’t fact. For others, God isn’t fact. I’m willing to bet that neither can be definitely proved in the classroom.
What IF God created everything in 6 days? Wouldn’t that make Creationism science? We shouldn’t be closed-minded. Now, I’m not saying that we should try to prove intelligent design or try to teach intelligent design in the classroom. I’m just saying that we shouldn’t say that intelligent design should stay as far away from the science classroom as possible, because, quite honestly, we have too many different, conflicting and not-so-conflicting theories about our origins to be able to say that one is the truth. We, in general, know very little about our origins. Closing off any explanation from the classroom altogether is too risky—the Einstein of biological origins may be brainwashed to believe a certain way is fact. Without being presented with all possibilities and then being more able to prove and disprove different theories, this Einstein may not be able to reach the truth, whether through process of elimination or reevaluation of a generally-discarded-scorned-upon-theory.
There is no actual evidence for the beginning of life. The beginning of the universe is not known, but we do know what happened soon after. In Science class, what we talk about is science, not fantasies and "just because I want to believe it is so" faiths.Christine said:I wish people would stop being so closed-minded. Would 10 seconds of mentioning that there are alternative possibilities of the beginning(s) of life, the universe, and everything really corrupt the brains of American children?
No, It is investigation of phenomena through the application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Perhaps you have heard about it?Science is defined as “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). Basically, science is explanation with backing.
But the explanation is "because I believe this." So it has absolutely nothing to do with actual evidence.For some people, religion is explanation with backing (observable, identifiable, describable, explainable).
Are you trying to imply that one excludes the other? You better be able to prove that weird speculation. Certainly, Christians accept the science of the Scientific Theory of Evolution. Your claims seem bogus, so can you please clarify?For others, Darwin
Huh? You say that the older Hypothesis is more valid than the Scientific Theory that has been developed from research? I REALLY hope this is not what you are saying, as that shows serious ignorance of what science is.(by the way, his theory is of adaptability, not the evolution theory we think of today)
"Backing"? It seems that you are equating Scientific Evidence with Faith in its verifiability? Again, that seems, on the surface, as an ignorant remark, so can you clarify?is explanation with backing.
What do you mean?Transitive property?
False.Science equals explanation equals religion,
And as such, it is a meaningless remark.which can-or-cannot-equal Darwinism.
Evolution already HAS been definitively proved in and outside of the classroom. That the processes of Evolution occurs has been documented as a fact. Every time a research paper is published, it demonstrates specific, proved examples of Evolution. Your claim is false.For some people, evolution isn’t fact. For others, God isn’t fact. I’m willing to bet that neither can be definitely proved in the classroom.
Nope. Science is the exploration of observable and measurable phenomena through the application of the Scientific Method.What IF God created everything in 6 days? Wouldn’t that make Creationism science?
Hint, hint!We shouldn’t be closed-minded.
Oh, the ignorance. This is beginning to be uneducated claptrap. If you want something in the science classroom, then it has to be science :doh.Now, I’m not saying that we should try to prove intelligent design or try to teach intelligent design in the classroom. I’m just saying that we shouldn’t say that intelligent design should stay as far away from the science classroom as possible, because, quite honestly, we have too many different, conflicting and not-so-conflicting theories about our origins to be able to say that one is the truth.
But we DO know what scientific research has provided evidence off.We, in general, know very little about our origins.
And heavens know that scientists are to STUPID to research the evidence, right? Once again, your appaling ignorance of the Scientific Method shows that you have no clue what the hell you are talking about. Once again, that is incredibly insulting to the rest of us. You are at a point where you need to retract your post and apologize to us and then go learn something about what you are talking about.Closing off any explanation from the classroom altogether is too risky—the Einstein of biological origins may be brainwashed to believe a certain way is fact.
You have NO clue what a Scientific Theory is, do you?Without being presented with all possibilities and then being more able to prove and disprove different theories,
If something is discarded, it is because the evidence showed it to be wrong. Like the Earth being flat.this Einstein may not be able to reach the truth, whether through process of elimination or reevaluation of a generally-discarded-scorned-upon-theory.
It is hypocricy. bush has spend many years gutting science, distorting science and making policies directly contradicting the scientific evidence. He has made claims that are scientifically incredibly ignorant, like you do, and now he claim to support science? He is either a hypocrite, a liar, or both.Christine said:On another hand, does anyone see anything wrong with Bush supporting education in math and science?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?