Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:
> I can basically agree, but one very sticky point
> is over the education issues. As far as what someone
> wants to believe, that is probably not my business
> to monkey with, but we do need to teach students
> science: how to analyze a process and how to
> formulate and test that hypothesis. That is what
> good science is all about. It seems to satisfy
> the YEC folk in the US, we are either forced to
> simply skip over the origins issue all together,
> or confront the model in the best way we know how
> from a scientific view point (which assumes
> the intelligibility of our universe). If we do the
> latter, the hard line YECs start demanding this
> equal time nonsense. At some point, we *do* need to
> teach our students how to do good science on the issue
> of origins, and the YEC stuff just doesn't measure up.
> So what do we do? If we present their ideas, we end
> up doing short work on them, and so we lose whatever
> we do.
>
> So whereas I don't require that my students become
> some carbon copy of my own way of thinking to
> satisfy some goal in my life (probably a good idea
> all of its own), neither do I feel it right to
> simply neglect teaching students (at least in a
> public institution) what scientist think is the best
> (intelligible) way to describe what actually happened.
>
> What do you suggest?
If students go to a private institution, they will be taught whatever is
the philosophy of that institution. It could be YEC, humanism or
anything else. The basic question then is: what _must_ be taught in the
public schools. If science is a subject, then what should and should not
be taught? Is it mandatory to teach Gravitational Theory? Relativity
Theory? Quantum Mechanical Theory? Evolutionary Theory?
I went to school a very long time ago -- but not much of any of these
subjects were taught. Although science is more important nowadays, one
can teach biology and all manner of subjects without getting into areas
which are potentially offensive. One can be absolutely certain that
there are humanists who love to push evolution into students as a means,
not to teach science, but as "sneaky" way to push atheism. I am not
being paranoid here because it is their openly stated goal to eliminate
religion and parental influence over children. One need only read the
"Humanist Manifestos". If one must teach evolution, there is no need
whatsoever to present a theory of how it comes about. There appears to
be a great emphasis on Darwinian evolution when it is a theory which
Gould disputed. One can present facts without presenting an underlying
theory --- especially a controversial one.
>
>
> by Grace we proceed,
> Wayne
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 04 2002 - 09:58:02 EDT