|
|
Post by sonlyte on Sept 3, 2008 19:18:59 GMT -8
Eavesdroppping again!
Chris, how certain do you believe we should be of any given idea before it is introduced into formal education?
Obviously there will always be a debate, but I am wondering if you could envision a time where a concept such as evolution would be taught. If you can, what would the conditions be?
Without knowing your perspective on this particular matter, it would be very difficult for an opponent to make a case that now is that time.
(Yeah I can't help myself, analyzing the logic in arguments and dissecting preconditions which lie at the root of differences is becoming a passion of mine)
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 3, 2008 21:41:42 GMT -8
Hi Sonlyte, Cool...we haven't interacted nearly enough on this forum. I'm thrilled to get the opportunity to converse with you.  First, I think it's important to clear up some definitions. you wrote: I think it's important to make the distinction here between "formal education" and public education of minor children funded by every taxpaying citizen of the community. I have no opposition to the theory of evolution being taught in formal education like colleges and such to young men and women who are at the prime of developing their discernment skills and critical thought, in fact I strongly encourage it. I have no intention of keeping it from my own kids and in fact, they will learn it long before college even though we home school. But I object to any government imposed debatable curriculum that is very arguably not necessary to general education. That's kind of where I'm coming from. So I'm not just looking at the veracity of an idea itself, but it's necessity as well. you wrote: I know this is bad form, but I'd like to turn the question back to you and ask what you think the purpose of public education of children is (or should be)? To be fair, I'll give my own opinion first. I personally believe the purpose of public education is to equip children with the basic communication and math skills to enable them to function as a productive member of society. You know, the 3 R's (readin', rightin', and rithmetic' ). Anything beyond that is not the government's business IMO. Those basic skills enable a level playing field for kids to branch out into higher education as they and their parents see fit and I believe those decisions belong to them and them alone, not the government. I know this will probably spark much discussion (and possibly give birth to yet another whole new thread  ) but that's exactly what I love anyway so I welcome it. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 4, 2008 2:23:05 GMT -8
it would be very difficult for an opponent to make a case that now is I didn't understand that sentence. To who are you referring with "opponent"? To the opponents of evolution or to the opponents of Chris' opinion (the opponents of the opponents of evolution)?  |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 4, 2008 2:38:51 GMT -8
Just one small remark, Chris: You wrote: It’s only when a claim like “ I think you are really underestimating the status of the theory of evolution in science” that I cry fallacy, because what you’re essentially asking me (and by extension, everyone else) to do, is to accept on FAITH the theory based on nothing other than an apparent consensus in the scientific community. That is exactly what appeal to authority is and although it is valid evidence to consider, it doesn’t provide conclusive proof to an argument like this. With the statement: “ I think you are really underestimating the status of the theory of evolution in science” I didn't ask you to accept anything. I just wanted to state my opinion that the evidence pro evolution might be much better than you think. On the question of whether the theory of evolution should be taught in school we can only agree to disagree again.  |
|
|
|
Post by sonlyte on Sept 4, 2008 19:38:06 GMT -8
Moritz... "opponent" in the post above was intended to convey a person who was on the opposite side of the argument, not specifically anyone, but one who would draw up an opposing case.
Chris... we have homeschooled until 3 days ago when my daughter entered second grade. It is hard to let her education go for now, but my wife and I are currently planning to use the public schools as a free day care until we have a better position...who knows when that will be.
Because of this, I have not really, up until now, given much thought to public schools one way or the other. I went through them and found the overall experience not terribly positive.
To answer your question directly, although I don't trust the public education system with the cognitive development of my children, I still believe the purpose should be to provide the knowledge and tools for critical thinking. I personally think teachers should try to avoid teaching conclusions as often as is reasonable. The fewer conclusions to the facts the better, but I tend to have a very high expectation of people in general and I know even well-intentioned teachers can overstate things if they are passionate about them.
It seems to me that science is by nature incomplete; it is always testing modifying and proving hypothesis both old and new, so it would be very difficult to present any components of science to children if we had to wait until debate was over.
I think I was tremendously blessed by my learning of what makes a star tick: gravity and nuclear fusion. But this is just a theory. No one has observed it directly yet, the evidence has just reached the point of overwhelming that there is indeed fusion happening inside a star. My teachers even proposed the temperature of the inner core at 26 million degrees. Interestingly, this theory did not evoke much of a conflict.
My passion for science started with the planets and the stars and I am glad I learned of them.
It would be very difficult to study radioactive decay and measure the half life of different substances without any thought of origins. Astronomy would be tricky without considering the supposed lifespan of stars. Many scientific subjects would be made into a path of eggshells if such knowledge was restricted from being communicated.
I enjoy and want my children to know about the universe that God has made, and I intend to make a special point about how different ideas could hint to us about God's character, but I expect my children's teacher's to make outrageous claims at times.
If science were left out of the curriculum my children would learn at home. (They are likely to anyway)
I am kind of curious what difference it might make in their education if the boldest claims of science are unable to dethrone the creator.
I did not have the advantage of that position.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 4, 2008 21:46:22 GMT -8
Hi Sonlyte,
I don't think I disagree with anything you said there. Perhaps our disagreement is more a matter of public policy than the value of science.
Public education is funded by everyone and I believe things that are controversial and unnecessary to lower learning should be avoided. I believe the sciences are extremely valuable, but maybe they belong in higher learning where people are paying from their own pocket to receive them.
Appreciation for science is one thing, but I still believe there is really no practical value (in ordinary day to day life) in knowing the theory of evolution. This is evidenced by the diversity of opinions on the matter from equally productive members of society.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 4, 2008 21:58:35 GMT -8
Hi Mo,
you wrote:
You might be right, but I'm not aware of it yet. I still look at the arguments and see many assumptions. But I'm aware of many learned Christians that hold to the theory as well. For example, Christian apologist Alister McGrath (a strong critic of Dawkins) is a phD in molecular biology and he believes in evolution. However, just because he's a Christian and an evolutionist, I still don't put my faith in his beliefs. It's one of those things I need to be convinced of myself. I'm just not there at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 5, 2008 10:20:23 GMT -8
Here's a cartoon take on evolution and creationism. Depending on your sense of humor you'll find it either funny or offensive. www.jibjab.com/view/117034 ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 5, 2008 13:23:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 5, 2008 15:57:24 GMT -8
Here's the thing, guys. I don't want to have to start deleting posts, censoring stuff. So I want to ask that we all censor ourselves a bit more.
Whether you prefer this or not, as the administrator I'd like us to always err on the side of kindness, respect, patience, and sincere listening.
If there is some doubt about whether something might unnecessarily offend someone (like this video or comments about Germans) take the side of kindness. If in doubt about something, just don't post it. There's plenty to discuss elsewise anyway.
If something is written that does offend you, communicate it kindly. If something you've not intended to be offensive turns out to be, work through it with the person.
I don't think truth and kindness need to be pitted against each other. There are plenty of ways to communicate one's perspectives and beliefs with kindness.
If this crazy idea is going to work (a church sponsored online community for people with all sorts of perspectives on faith) we'll all have to bite our tongues a bit and we'll all have to simultaneously extend others the benefit of the doubt, while all the while remembering kindness.
Lastly, I value both of your perspectives tremendously. It'd be an absolute shame to lose either of you over this.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 13, 2008 5:29:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 19, 2008 19:31:22 GMT -8
 Does that count? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 15, 2009 10:15:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 12, 2009 20:10:48 GMT -8
Came across this quote on another website, which reminded me of some our debates regarding naturalistic evolution vs. young-earth creationism vs. old-earth creationism. I'm just curious how long those of you who hold a young earth perspective think it will be until this happens? I know you've expressed some reasons why you think it would be rare to find such a discovery, but it sure seems like sooner or later we should find an anamoly such as this. Or at least maybe a fossilized mammal in a fossilized dino's stomache? |
|
|
|
Post by robcantrell11 on Oct 18, 2009 21:19:41 GMT -8
Very true. And with a bit of humor! That's the neat thing about science - all you need is the evidence.
|
|
) but that's exactly what I love anyway so I welcome it. 
