But why not do that pro-actively?
Creationism Banned In U.K. Schools
- Thread starter Relayer1
- Start date
Possibly because kids have short attention spans and retain misinformation as easily as valid information, although if you work them through a problem the method does give better results. In physics, it's been found that directly addressing their common misunderstandings (that a sweater is "warm") is very productive. It also applies to things we know so innately that we have trouble understanding them, such as crawling (which babies can easily do while normal adults can't even teach it, when asked to explain which limb to move next), hitting things with sticks, etc.
However, creationist books might be a great teaching tool, because I've found them to have about two glaring errors per page, such as arguing that evolutionary theory has to be wrong because it claims that whales are more closely related to bats than frogs are to other frogs. Well, in fact that's the case, and it makes an interesting teaching point.
However, creationist books might be a great teaching tool, because I've found them to have about two glaring errors per page, such as arguing that evolutionary theory has to be wrong because it claims that whales are more closely related to bats than frogs are to other frogs. Well, in fact that's the case, and it makes an interesting teaching point.
It's officially banned? It will spread. The human psyche loves nothing more than that which is forbidden. Britain is so secular generally, though, that it might not have an effect.
So was your mom.
And HAS been done for many years. My Junior year in high school we had to put up with one of the Pastor's kids trolling for intelligent design for a solid month until our teacher decided to have a "write off" contest for the entire class: the side that could write the best POSITIVE proof of intelligent design or evolutionary theory would get an automatic A for the final and the rest of us would have to learn the winning theory for the exam.
Pogo was a clever teacher: he deliberately specified in the assignment that the theory would have to be proved on its own merits -- NOT in comparison to competing theories -- and that at least half of our citations had to be original research (meaning raw data, not citing other papers with a conclusion). Our resident ID troll actually came impressively close to making a case for it, but he ultimately lost out because the majority of his data was probability estimates (e.g. citing the probability of an Earthlike planet evolving in Sol's goldilocks zone).
We learned that day that real science isn't about defeating your competition's theory, but about proving your own theory based on its own evidence. Unintentionally, we also learned a very important lesson about science: not everyone who writes a compelling research paper is interested in discovering the truth.
You can also have fun debating intelligent design with unintelligent design, which has an almost infinite number of examples (the lower back, eyesight that fails with age, aging in general, herd animals that lack defensive rocket launchers and chafe and flare dispensers).
Creationists don't like that debate because the obvious conclusion is that God is incompetent boob with abysmal engineering skills, which might explain why he couldn't manage to create an HP Laserjet when he wanted to spread his Holy word, and instead had to rely on the handwriting of dudes wearing flip flops and bathrobes.
Creationists don't like that debate because the obvious conclusion is that God is incompetent boob with abysmal engineering skills, which might explain why he couldn't manage to create an HP Laserjet when he wanted to spread his Holy word, and instead had to rely on the handwriting of dudes wearing flip flops and bathrobes.
Well, you usually run into the "God works in mysterious ways." wall.
Your thought here only generated a vague spark when read, but I'll throw this out anyway. You seem to be suggesting that public education's brief is to present varying theories, explanations, schema, etc. for the subject matter that is being engaged in, so as to facilitate the result that the model's outcomes are ultimately decided by the choices or preferences, well considered though they hopefully are, of its students. Am I misunderstanding your meaning here?
I don't mean to imply that the State should seek to inculcate the objects of learning in a manner redolent of how the General attempted to foster a class of "knowledgeable cabbages" through the use of Speed Learn.
I guess it hasn't struck me though that a system that is essentially heaving plates of content, albeit ones that are objectively researched and presented unbiasedly, hoping that the ones that stick do benefit to the goals of society at large, will largely be dependent on the individual determinations of those being instructed.
Is a philosophy for primary public education whose "success" would seem to rely on an aggregation of volitional expressions an effective, or even proper, framework for acheiving a commonly agreed on set of objectives for such an integral facet of children's integration into the wider world?
She's Italian, you bet she's got a hell of temper.
Of course it had. The impetus behind this regulation is that ID proponents are getting more and more loud with their request. I'm not sure if you are posting in support or in criticism of what I wrote.
That was Philosophy class. In fact, a few of us were able to make a pretty compelling case for an omnimalevolent creator, who designed the universe the way he did specifically to maximize the suffering of his creations. In this view, humans developed consciousness only because our self-awareness makes our suffering SEEM a lot worse than it really is, and that every happy experience and every pleasant thing in our lives that we hold so dear was actually granted to us just so a malevolent god would have something to take away from us and then relish the resulting pain caused by that deprivation.
IOW: inanimate objects are incapable of feeling pain, therefore God created life. Not satisfied with merely torturing animals, God created man, so that he could torture not just his body, but also his immortal soul by tempting and then destroying his dreams and aspirations a few at a time.
If you consider that god is omnimalevolent, then the confusion of the holy books could be interpreted as a DELIBERATE attempt to create strife and discord among humanity. It could very well be that Jihadists really ARE fighting a war on behalf of God and that George W. Bush really DID hear God's voice telling him to fight back. In this case, it's not actually a contradiction, since tricking two completely different groups into engaging in a series of pointless and destructive wars maximizes the misery of everyone caught in the middle of that conflict, an outcome that a malevolent God would find utterly delightful.
Mainly in support of you, partially in support of your mom (Italians are hot
).
To me, that is another indication of entropy: the world is falling into chaos.
Years ago, in an interview, Prince Charles had said he didn't consider himself to be a "defender of the Faith," but rather as a "defender of faith," in general. That showed his lack of commitment to The Bible.
Without powerful support in high places, it was just a matter of time before the disassemblers started tearing things apart. Now, they've started tearing up the foundation. When will they stop?
Years ago, in an interview, Prince Charles had said he didn't consider himself to be a "defender of the Faith," but rather as a "defender of faith," in general. That showed his lack of commitment to The Bible.
Without powerful support in high places, it was just a matter of time before the disassemblers started tearing things apart. Now, they've started tearing up the foundation. When will they stop?
OMG! Everybody knows the Church of England is the cement of the universe. We're doomed if his future leader gives us up! 
Not to worry. If the Church of England ceases to be relevant as a religious organization, it will probably find something better to do with itself.OMG! Everybody knows the Church of England is the cement of the universe. We're doomed if his future leader gives us up!
Those weeping angels won't slaughter themselves, right?
I for one welcome all of the bulls issued by the Papal Mainframe Herself.
So just where is John de Lancie these days?
So just where is John de Lancie these days?
A recurring role as "Discord" in My Little Pony. Other than that, haven't seen him in much.
Highly unlikely. People making such claims either usually confuse God with the Devil or are abusing God as a scapegoat for all the evil things they are about to do.
Interestingly, the Bible had a fail-safety mechanism which was supposed to prevent such abuse. It's usually known as the Second Commandment.
Bob