Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • It isn't about teaching alternatives. It is about schools teaching that there are no alternatives, and teaching that there can't be intelligent design (which there's nothing really new about; it's probably been around for at least 30 years).

    This method of instruction is not based in fact, and is a form of religion itself. In my experience, public schools often teach that things just happened, that there was no design to how things came about. Fine, teach science, but that is not science! Teaching about dinosaur vomit and mammals with fins and birds with gills, that's science. Sure, teach it. But as soon as a public school starts to teach the religious belief that it is all chance, it opens the door for other religious beliefs. If that's what you want, fine. But I don't think it is.

    And as a lesser point, a public school should never say that creationsm -- or any other belief about such things -- is false or wrong.

    If that's fine with you -- don't teach that creationism is wrong, and don't teach the religious belief that things happened by chance -- then it's fine with me. But what strikes me is that both of these things happen far more often than what you're complaining about, and you don't decry the incidence of them. Hm.
    • Science is about theories, and proving or disproving them. There are few "cold hard facts" in science, it's - by and large - filled with theories that nobody has disproven yet, and are considered to be "the way it is" until proven otherwise.

      In this respect "random chance" is the accepted scientific .. process, if you will. That is not, in itself, a religious belief of any kind. It's a "fact" that science considers that theory the most likely, and that there are no other scientifically-sound theories that

      • You are conflating two things: the facts of what happened -- evolution of species -- and why that thing happened. Evolution as a scientific theory does not, and cannot, say anything about why it happened. That is philosophy, not science.

        Fine, don't call it religion, although I'll disagree, but to call that science? What do you weigh or measure or compare or graph to say it happened by chance? There's nothing empirical about it in any sense. Sure, science can say that because this species didn't have i
        • If you think the school should answer (or even try to give an answer or a few) to the question "why", then we obviously disagree. The family and the culture in which we grow up should give the building blocks so that we ourselves can then decide what we choose to believe in and not to believe in. "Why" is a question of faith, and public schools should stick to things provable, that is, science. We don't teach alternative histories, like for example that Josef Stalin was a really nice guy, after all.
          • If you think the school should answer (or even try to give an answer or a few) to the question "why", then we obviously disagree.

            Then we don't disagree! I thought I was clear in my initial reply to gnat, but perhaps I wasn't: I don't want the schools to answer that question. I want them to stick to the facts. The problem is that many schools don't do that; they say that these things happened by chance, effectively telling many children that their religion is wrong.

            Well, really, I want local school boa
            • In that case, we can agree to disagree about the definition of "facts". From my viewpoint, you are mixing facts with faith.

              • Which facts are you referring to? I am only talking about one supposed "fact" here: that these things all happened by chance. You yourself admit that is not a fact. So what's the problem?
                • I'm sorry but you are reading to my words something that isn't there. Let me spell it out: all these things happened by chance. Your nitpicking over the word is sadly one of the classical misunderstandings creationists like to nag about. Firstly, chance does not mean "completely random", secondly, chance has nothing to with faith or lack thereof. Do not mix faith and facts. Go over to talk.origins [talkorigins.org] and search for "chance".

                  • Let me spell it out: all these things happened by chance

                    Not in the very clear context I was using the word, no: chance in the sense of randomness, of lack of design or direction.

                    In that sense, as I said, science cannot say these things happened by chance. If you prefer, I'll amend that to science cannot say these things happened randomly, without direction or design. But from the context, such a clarification shouldn't have been necessary: I was using "chance" in the context of causation; to use that w
          • We don't teach alternative histories, like for example that Josef Stalin was a really nice guy, after all.

            Well, actually, we do. Except these things are taught more by omission.

            For example, I was looking at my thirteen year old cousin's history book on East Asia (primarily, China, Japan, and Taiwan). I flipped to the section on Taiwan and found no mention of the following facts:


            •  
            • Taiwan was invaded by the Nationalist Party, led by Chiang Kai-Shek, after the Nationalists were defeated by the Co
            • That is very true: the Art of Omission is doing well, and no country is free of it, each has their own blind spots in their history they'd rather forget. Another guy's guerillas (I guess the updated term would be "terrorists") are another guy's freedom fighters, another guy's uniter is another guy's oppressor.

              For example: I had my hair cut few days ago and the guy who did is of Armenian origin. Search for "armenian massacre": in 1915-1916 Turkish troops killed 1-2 million Armenians. Of course, the Turki
    • It isn't about teaching alternatives. It is about schools teaching that there are no alternatives, and teaching that there can't be intelligent design (which there's nothing really new about; it's probably been around for at least 30 years).

      Schools teach the scientific method. That emphasises the process of analysing the data, trying to come up with a theory that matches the data, using the theory to predict what shoudl happen in similar circumstances (especially emphasizing circumstances in which this t
      • I've not seen any evidence that supports intelligent design. (Admittedly, I haven't looked too hard.) Without some compelling evidence, it is philosophy or wishful thinking rather than science.

        Yet again, people missing the point, right and left and fore and rear. I don't want intelligent design to be taught. Why do you pretend that I do? I've clearly stated I don't.

        I simply don't want teachers teaching that the cause of evolution is pure chance or randomness, that the cause excludes the possibility of
      • There is no need (and considerable distraction) in exploring the facets in which the scientific evidence is contradictory or incomplete for each area studied.

        Somehow that reminds me of second grade when I got all mad because they kept telling me you had to put the smaller number on the bottom in a subtraction problem and I knew they were wrong. My brother did the same thing, too, five years later. (We Blackstones liked our negative numbers as kids.)

        All the same, Pudge isn't saying to examine the pos

        --
        J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers