darwism taught in school question
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2015, 05:59 AM
RE: darwism taught in school question
(23-08-2015 05:21 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Your friend is mislabeling things he or she doesn't understand .

Religion is believing that angels make it possible for planes to fly in the air.

Science explains why powerful engines and wing design are able to create lift as it moves quickly through the air.

Evolution has rational, justified reasons in the billions of pieces of evidence that supports the full body of facts we refer to as the theory of evolution. Theories give a detailed explanation of our observations in nature.

Religion doesn't do jack shit.

Comparing the two is insulting and frankly stupid and uninformed

She believes in evolution but not darwism. I find that strange or am i missing something
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 06:02 AM
RE: darwism taught in school question
Oh amd how is it taught in school? As darwism or evolution? Thanks
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 06:04 AM
RE: darwism taught in school question
(23-08-2015 05:52 AM)purpledaisies Wrote:  Thank you all. I tried to explain it to her but it went in one ear and out the other. I agreed to disagree.

Edit To add: She thinjs it shoukd be in history class not science. But im not seeing how its just history as it is refind as most science us as we get new information.

Darwin original idea could appear during history lessons, why not.

I think by darwinism she means TE which by some religious and/or uneducated people is labeled as religion or part of wider "religion of science". Also I think using that particular word has a ring of insult to it i.e. - you're darwinist, so you believe in everything he wrote.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 06:18 AM
RE: darwism taught in school question
(23-08-2015 05:52 AM)purpledaisies Wrote:  Edit To add: She thinjs it shoukd be in history class not science. But im not seeing how its just history as it is refind as most science us as we get new information.

From my view, Darwinism is history as opposed to science, strictly speaking, but it is a little more than 'just history'. It's scientific history; in the world of modern science, what was Darwinism no longer has any strength, having been supplanted and built upon many times, it is irrelevant in function.
But, much like the history that has become of Ancient Rome, it still has ramifications as the foundation of modern biology.

I see no problem teaching it in history as history, or in science as scientific history within the context of evolutionary theory today.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
23-08-2015, 06:28 AM
RE: darwism taught in school question
(23-08-2015 06:18 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 05:52 AM)purpledaisies Wrote:  Edit To add: She thinjs it shoukd be in history class not science. But im not seeing how its just history as it is refind as most science us as we get new information.

From my view, Darwinism is history as opposed to science, strictly speaking, but it is a little more than 'just history'. It's scientific history; in the world of modern science, what was Darwinism no longer has any strength, having been supplanted and built upon many times, it is irrelevant in function.
But, much like the history that has become of Ancient Rome, it still has ramifications as the foundation of modern biology.

I see no problem teaching it in history as history, or in science as scientific history within the context of evolutionary theory today.

So how is it taught in schools? As history or science or is it obsorbed into evolution? Or is it taught as something separate issue? Im not quite understanding how it is taught?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes purpledaisies's post
23-08-2015, 06:46 AM
RE: darwism taught in school question
(23-08-2015 06:28 AM)purpledaisies Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 06:18 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  From my view, Darwinism is history as opposed to science, strictly speaking, but it is a little more than 'just history'. It's scientific history; in the world of modern science, what was Darwinism no longer has any strength, having been supplanted and built upon many times, it is irrelevant in function.
But, much like the history that has become of Ancient Rome, it still has ramifications as the foundation of modern biology.

I see no problem teaching it in history as history, or in science as scientific history within the context of evolutionary theory today.

So how is it taught in schools? As history or science or is it obsorbed into evolution? Or is it taught as something separate issue? Im not quite understanding how it is taught?

I would imagine it would depend on the teacher's teaching plans and the local, state, and federal curriculum guidelines.

Keep in mind, I live in Aus so my experience is bound to be different; my history teacher set his own curriculum to teach, and didn't decide to cover things like the scientific revolution so Darwinism was never mentioned.
My biology teacher spent no time on Darwinism, except to denounce it (and evolution in general) as 'crap' and Darwin as a thief. (product of an Indian Islamic school, what can you expect?) He only mentioned Evolution itself a few times and "only because the State says too".

However now that I'm in Uni, much of my various professors' time was spent exploring Darwin and his work, and the work of others (like Alfred Russel Wallace and Thomas Huxley) (Fun fact; Huxley, referred to as "Darwin's Bulldog" due to his staunch defence of Darwin's work actually coined the term 'Darwinism') to build a basis for understanding modern biology, which is how I think it ought to be taught.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
23-08-2015, 06:52 AM
RE: darwism taught in school question
The Theory of Evolution is the principle that underlies and explains everything we know about biology. It is taught in science class (biology) because it is the principle every working biologist on the planet uses, and students should understand the major theories of science: Germ Theory (biology), the Theory of General Relativity (physics), the Theory of Special Relativity (phys), Wave-Particle Theory (phys), Atomic Theory (phys/chemistry), Kinetics Theory (chem), and so on. You cannot teach these sciences without the theories that explain all that we have learned in those sciences.

Creationists like to call evolution a "religion" because they feel that gives it rhetorical equivalency to their religions view that we were created by a sky-daddy out of clay via magic. As explained already, "Darwinist" is an archaic term, and it's generally a good clue that anyone using it has an agenda. Learning what science has learned and built into models (theories) that have explanative and predictive power is always what science class should be about. They single out the Theory of Evolution but not Germ Theory for no other reason than they don't like its conclusions. You friend really needs to understand that she is being fed a line of rhetoric (lies) by religious leaders with an agenda against knowledge that they think threatens their faith--and they are thus willing to "lie for Jesus"--and that failing to understand what science really teaches could have negative effects on her overall education and understanding of how the world really works.

If she feels her religion compels her to reject it in defense of her faith, show her a book by a Christian that shows evolutionary theory does not require one to give up their belief, only the belief that Genesis is a science textbook. A good example is The Language of God by the lead scientist of the Human Genome Project, Francis S. Collins.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
23-08-2015, 07:23 AM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2015 07:27 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: darwism taught in school question
(23-08-2015 06:52 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The Theory of Evolution is the principle that underlies and explains everything we know about biology. It is taught in science class (biology) because it is the principle every working biologist on the planet uses, and students should understand the major theories of science: Germ Theory (biology), the Theory of General Relativity (physics), the Theory of Special Relativity (phys), Wave-Particle Theory (phys), Atomic Theory (phys/chemistry), Kinetics Theory (chem), and so on. You cannot teach these sciences without the theories that explain all that we have learned in those sciences.

Dude, *I* don't understand relativity. I mean, about all I get out of it is "speed, time, and distance get wonky at high speeds or near large masses".

But here's the bottom line, OP. Science is a discipline (well, several disciplines) of high standards. An idea or theory has to work really hard, clear a lot of hurdles, and be very, very important to be taught in a public school science classroom. (That's the idea, at least. Stupid politicians keep screwing it up though.) It doesn't matter whether the idea is religious or not. Religious or not, it is held to the same standard regardless. The theory of evolution meets those standards. Creationism does not. The idea that their doctrines aren't given a special pass, and that they fall flat when put up against alternative ideas on a level playing field, is what really pisses religious people off.

Someone else (no, wait, it's RS67 again) said that calling Darwinism a religion is about establishing a false equivalency. It doesn't even do that much. If it WERE, for sake of argument, a religion, then it is still a matter of Darwin's "religion" meeting scientific standards and the Christian religion falling short of them. The religion line is pure bullshit... and entertaining bullshit. Follow up on the line of thought. Tax breaks for people teaching evolution! Equal access to city councils and their opening prayers! The right for soldiers to select the Darwin Fish as the symbol that will eventually appear on their graves! Keep at it until the whole weight of the absurdity is too much to bear.

This is really a question about what is a religion and what isn't. The simplest answer is that a religion is something whose doctrines are based on faith. And the theory of evolution is not that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
23-08-2015, 07:39 AM
RE: darwism taught in school question
Unless she is thinking about Social Darwinism, a social theory that Darwin himself thought was repulsive, there is no real reason to talk about Darwin in a history class. Though Darwin's theory of evolution has been revised and improved multiple time over the last century and a half, its core remain pretty much intact hence why we talk about the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. It seems your friend has been contaminated by religious and/or pseudoscientific propaganda.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
23-08-2015, 07:42 AM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2015 07:56 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: darwism taught in school question
Reltzik - It's actually disturbingly easy to describe. In your mind, picture a "stationary watcher" (SW), floating in space (presumably in a space suit). Then picture a big spaceship going past made of glass, and inside the glass bottle is an "astronaut crewman" (AC) who is holding a flashlight, and shines it up to the ship's "ceiling", firing one photon up to the ceiling and back down to the AC's eyeball. Inside the ship, the photon takes a straight path, up to the ceiling, with the photon traveling at the speed of light. If the ship isn't moving very fast, the SW observes the same path of the photon, up and down. But if the ship is traveling near the speed of light, the AC still sees his photon the same way, but the SW sees it travel a diagonal up, then a diagonal the other way, as the ship flies by. (If it's easier, imagine a guy in a car tossing a tennis ball up and down in his hand as the car drives by you on the interstate at 120kph. The ball describes a straight path by his frame of reference, but an arc by yours-- an arc rather than a hypotenuse of a triangle as in the photon example because gravity is imparting a constant acceleration on the ball, changing its vertical speed at each second of time).

If you draw on a piece of paper the position of the photon at each point in several drawings of the ship flying by (with each position-at-time), and draw where the photon is at a constant speed (because C is a constant), you will be able to draw the triangle of the path taken by the photon from flashlight to ceiling as the hypotenuse (from SW's point of view), and the opposite side (from AC's point of view). The path of the flashlight is of course the adjacent side, like so:

[Image: th?id=JN.nsujNXRz2w4KAgkPX6KUJA&...;amp;h=300]

Since Einstein discovered that (in empty space) the Speed of Light is a constant, yet the photon must travel to the ceiling by both paths (depending on POV), it is time that becomes distorted in the faster frame of reference, in order to keep the particle's speed the same in both frames. Measuring the difference between the two (or how small angle A has become) is the amount of time-dilation that occurs in the faster frame.

(Edited to correct a couple of errors.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: