Evoution taught in Amercia vs the World

[JUGGERNAUT]

The fact that Evolution by Natural Selection is being taught in American high schools is a good thing. The context in which it's being taught is not.

 

What's happened in America is that it developed a cultural separation of Church & state that goes way beyond the free exercise & establishment clause defined in the US Constitution. Such a cultural separation does not exist in many of the other G8's.

 

It's that cultural separation that led to the context in which ENS is taught in America. If you don't believe that man's roots lie in his spiritual origin than it's easy for you to make use of evidence that does exist to conclude that man is the result of random events coinciding with natural selection. When that is the context in which ENS is taught you are suppressing a child's beliefs in their spiritual existence.

 

I recently discusses this over a chat with a Japanese father & he says that doesn't exist in Japan. He said that they include a parallel of Buddhist teachings to relate ENS to reincarnation. He said the idea here is that the child grows up with those teachings prior to being taught ENS so by co-relating the two ideas it makes it easier for the child to remember & understand ENS. He believes similar methods are used in China & S Korea as well.

 

In other words Japan has no cultural separation of religion or spirtual thinking & secular teachings. If we were like Japan then teachers would mention those aspects of Christian literature (the Bible & letters of St Francis, Thomas Aquanis) that actually support the ideas of ENS. It's a fundamental precept of learning that people understand something best if you draw a relation to something they already know.

 

There is no final definitive word as to whether man's origins are spiritual or the consequence of random events. You can build a convincing argument on both sides of that question. It's a travesty that only one side of it is presented in American public schools.

 

When it comes to cultural separations between Church & state America might be the most decisive & oppressive. Even in China where it's becoming more & more open to religious teachings (as long as they don't oppose the state's political system) both private & parochial schools are given greater freedom to incorporate spiritualism in everyday teachings.

 

Hopefully as America evolves to being more asian & more hispanic the liberal idealism that creates such a rift in our society will fade away. Teachers will be free to teach the way they think works best. Understanding ENS may or may not land someone a job. But not understanding ENS removes some opportunities. If making spiritual references helps more children understand it then that's better for the nation.

Edited February 4, 2006 by JUGGERNAUT

[Heads22]

Good for Japan.

 

However, in America, I'm a big one on stuff that has been scientifically supported. I don't need to read that solar eclipses are because God is quite possibly pissed.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Understanding ENS may or may not land someone a job.

 

It led me to a job. The job was teaching evolutionary ecology, mind you.

 

You know, I think there are parts of your post that are not entirely out to lunch. I agree that since science takes the divine off the table as a testable hypothesis (but not as a possibility) to explain the origins of organic diversity, then yes it is logical to gravitate toward a neoDarwinian aproach to explanation.

 

The only difference is that I see that as a good thing. Not because of any belief in the impossibility of a Divine Agent. Rather, it is because of the impossibility that science can ever find meaning in the untestable or incorporate such into its explanations.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Good for Japan.

 

However, in America, I'm a big one on stuff that has been scientifically supported. I don't need to read that solar eclipses are because God is quite possibly pissed.

 

God gets drunk?

[Heads22]

God gets drunk?

 

I'm pretty sure that explains Ann Coulter.

[JUGGERNAUT]

It led me to a job.  The job was teaching evolutionary ecology, mind you. 

 

You know, I think there are parts of your post that are not entirely out to lunch.  I agree that since science takes the divine off the table as a testable hypothesis (but not as a possibility) to explain the origins of organic diversity, then yes it is logical to gravitate toward a neoDarwinian aproach to explanation.

 

The only difference is that I see that as a good thing.  Not because of any belief in the impossibility of a Divine Agent.  Rather, it is because of the impossibility that science can ever find meaning in the untestable or incorporate such into its explanations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

As usual you are wrong. But I'm not surprised since your capacity to reason in science seems limited to Biology. Any good student of science knows that which is unexplainable in Biology falls to the realm of Physics. Why? Because Biology is for the more part void of mathematical reasoning to explain that which it can not test.

 

We have covered this topic before & I have provided you the links on prevailing theories relating to quantum physics & how they gravitate to a Divine Agent explanation. Let me try to summarize it again:

 

"An unobserved quantum entity is said to exist in a "coherent superposition" of all the possible "states" permitted by its "wave function." But as soon as an observer makes a measurement capable of distinguishing between these states the wave function "collapses", and the entity is forced into a single state." The prevailing theory is that a universal observer must exist (metaphysical origin).

 

What is most surprising about this theory is that though it is new to most of us born in the 20th century it is not new in terms of history. It turns out well before quantum physics experiments came into being that a philosopher had worked out a similar explanation (1734) that predates Darwin's work.

 

http://thenewphilosophyonline.org/philosop...x.php?page=1001

 

So that begs to ask the question is it reasonable for a Biology teacher to teach ENS with NeoDarwinian context in light of the universal observer theory presented from QP? The answer is obviously no because physics is more capable of explaining that which leans towards a metaphysical origin.

[kevin57]

Many scientists have come to the conclusion, if not that only the existence of a Divine Being can explain all that cannot be explained, at least that the scientific method will not yield inexhaustible knowledge about the nature of reality. Hence, there is more and more openness in the scientific community to allow for "transcendental" causes.l

 

I agree that religious/spiritual perspectives should be allowed in the classroom. Oops! I let the cat out of the bag. They ARE allowed in the classroom, as long as the viewpoints are not "sectarian"; that is, a school could present the Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, etc. explanations for reality. Problem is school administrators have become completely spooked by the ACLU-types and avoid any mention of anything "transcendent." In the end, that's poor education because we have traded "wisdom" for "rote" knowledge.

[Kyyle23]

As usual you are wrong.  But I'm not surprised since your capacity to reason in science seems limited to Biology.  Any good student of science knows that which is unexplainable in Biology falls to the realm of Physics.  Why?    Because Biology is for the more part void of mathematical reasoning to explain that which it can not test. 

 

We have covered this topic before & I have provided you the links on prevailing theories relating to quantum physics & how they gravitate to a Divine Agent explanation.  Let me try to summarize it again:

 

 

Yep, this "discussion" is over.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Many scientists have come to the conclusion, if not that only the existence of a Divine Being can explain all that cannot be explained, at least that the scientific method will not yield inexhaustible knowledge about the nature of reality.  Hence, there is more and more openness in the scientific community to allow for "transcendental" causes.l

 

I agree that religious/spiritual perspectives should be allowed in the classroom.  Oops!  I let the cat out of the bag.  They ARE allowed in the classroom, as long as the viewpoints are not "sectarian"; that is, a school could present the Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, etc. explanations for reality.  Problem is school administrators have become completely spooked by the ACLU-types and avoid any mention of anything "transcendent."  In the end, that's poor education because we have traded "wisdom" for "rote" knowledge.

 

Scientists have never been bound together by some athiests' oath, and there are spiritual scientists on about the same order as there arre spiritiual members of all walks of life.

 

But so long as any speculated divine causes remain outside the realm of thhe testable, they will remain outside the realm of science.

 

I quite agree with your second paragraoh. Exposure, in a non-sectarian way, to a diversity of world spiritual and philisophical viewpoints in the classroom is invaluable, and it is a shame that it gets caught up in sectarian church-state arguments.

 

Everything in its place, however. The global diversity of transcendent viewpoints should be taught, but not as part of a science curriculum. I'm confident you agree.

[FlaSoxxJim]

As usual you are wrong.  But I'm not surprised since your capacity to reason in science seems limited to Biology.  Any good student of science knows that which is unexplainable in Biology falls to the realm of Physics.  Why?    Because Biology is for the more part void of mathematical reasoning to explain that which it can not test. 

 

We have covered this topic before & I have provided you the links on prevailing theories relating to quantum physics & how they gravitate to a Divine Agent explanation.  Let me try to summarize it again:

 

"An unobserved quantum entity is said to exist in a "coherent superposition" of all the possible "states" permitted by its "wave function." But as soon as an observer makes a measurement capable of distinguishing between these states the wave function "collapses", and the entity is forced into a single state."  The prevailing theory is that a universal observer must exist (metaphysical origin).

 

What is most surprising about this theory is that though it is new to most of us born in the 20th century it is not new in terms of history.  It turns out well before quantum physics experiments came into being that a philosopher had worked out a similar explanation (1734) that predates Darwin's work.

 

http://thenewphilosophyonline.org/philosop...x.php?page=1001

 

So that begs to ask the question is it reasonable for a Biology teacher to teach ENS with NeoDarwinian context in light of the universal observer theory presented from QP?  The answer is obviously no because physics is more capable of explaining that which leans towards a metaphysical origin.

 

You are correct, I have no credentials beyond the biological sciences. But I've as much layman's interest in other fields - cosmology, quantum physics, etc. - as anybody. I also agree that there seems to be a high percentage of spiritual scientists in those fields. But whether the spiritual were drawn to study the heavens or whether study of the heavens has instilled the spirituality is a chicken/egg question that I don't believe has been looked at.

 

That which is unexplainable in biology often does fall to the realm of physics. Just as often, however, it merely falls to the next generation of biologists and the advances in understanding and technology available to them.

 

It's vitally important to bear in mind the same is true of physics. At any point in time, it may be tempting and easy (if intellectually unfulfilling) to conclude that which is unexplainable in physcs fall to the realm of the Divine Agent. But that may just be reflective of the state of the science. With the next generations of physicists and tools, much of what is unexplanable today will become testable and eventually explanable.

[Wong & Owens]

The fact that Evolution by Natural Selection is being taught in American high schools is a good thing.  The context in which it's being taught is not.

 

I recently discusses this over a chat with a Japanese father & he says that doesn't exist in Japan.  He said that they include a parallel of Buddhist teachings to relate ENS to reincarnation.  He said the idea here is that the child grows up with those teachings prior to being taught ENS so by co-relating the two ideas it makes it easier for the child to remember & understand ENS.  He believes similar methods are used in China & S Korea as well.

 

Hopefully as America evolves to being more asian & more hispanic the liberal idealism that creates such a rift in our society will fade away. 

 

Sounds like you'd be happier if you moved to Japan. Correction, there's a whole BUNCH of people that would be happier if you moved to Japan.

 

MAke sure you have a firm grasp on the language first, however, they don't accept homework assignments in English.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Sounds like you'd be happier if you moved to Japan.

 

I hear they got some hot trannys there.

Edited February 4, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[Kyyle23]

Sounds like you'd be happier if you moved to Japan.  Correction, there's a whole BUNCH of people that would be happier if you moved to Japan. 

 

MAke sure you have a firm grasp on the language first, however, they don't accept homework assignments in English.

 

 

 

OOOOH SNAP!

[WCSox]

Despite the fact that I'm a conservative Christian, I'm sick and tired of people whining about the lack of a "spiritual alternative" to evolution in biology courses. Evolution a scientific THEORY and is NOT meant to contradict anybody's spiritual beliefs. On the other hand, intelligent design (and similar theories based in the spiritual realm) has no scientific basis. While it is more than appropriate to teach it in religion or philosophy courses, it is completely inappropriate in the context of science.

 

IMO, the solution to this is for one to take religion and philosophy courses alongside biology. The student can make up his/her mind about the origin of mankind.

Edited February 4, 2006 by WCSox

[sox4lifeinPA]

is the title of this thread somehow a slant on the stereotype that Japanese people have trouble saying their "L's" and "R's"...

 

 

just asking

[NorthSideSox72]

Despite the fact that I'm a conservative Christian, I'm sick and tired of people whining about the lack of a "spiritual alternative" to evolution in biology courses.  Evolution a scientific THEORY and is NOT meant to contradict anybody's spiritual beliefs.  On the other hand, intelligent design (and similar theories based in the spiritual realm) has no scientific basis.  While it is more than appropriate to teach it in religion or philosophy courses, it is completely inappropriate in the context of science.

 

IMO, the solution to this is for one to take religion and philosophy courses alongside biology.  The student can make up his/her mind about the origin of mankind.

 

I agree.

[JUGGERNAUT]

You are correct, I have no credentials beyond the biological sciences.  But I've as much layman's interest in  other fields - cosmology, quantum physics, etc. - as anybody.  I also agree that there seems to be  a high percentage of spiritual scientists in those fields.  But whether the spiritual were drawn to study the heavens or whether study of the heavens has instilled the spirituality is a chicken/egg question that I don't believe has been looked at.

 

That which is unexplainable in biology often does fall to the realm of physics.  Just as often, however, it merely falls to the next generation of biologists and the advances in understanding and technology available to them.

 

It's vitally important to bear in mind the same is true of physics.  At any point in time, it may be tempting and easy (if intellectually unfulfilling) to conclude that which is unexplainable in physcs fall to the realm of the Divine Agent.  But that may just be reflective of the state of the science.  With the next generations of physicists and tools, much of what is unexplanable today will become testable and eventually explanable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Let us not forget the closest cousin to a physicist: a mathematician. There are actually more spiritualists in that realm than there are in physics. It's really the mathematicians who have directed the physicists to the Divine Agent by immersing themselves into probability theories.

 

Behind the question of whether the NeoDawinian context of ENS is reasonable or not there are much larger questions:

1) Has the NeoDarwinian context led to declining interest in science in America?

Recent studies show that are high tech mind wealth is eroding even faster than our buying power.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Behind the question of whether the NeoDawinian context of ENS is reasonable or not there are much larger questions:

1) Has the NeoDarwinian context led to declining interest in science in America?

Recent studies show that are high tech mind wealth is eroding even faster than our buying power.

 

While I agree 100% that science education iis in the s***ter in America, even you would be hard pressed to find a between neoDarwinian studies and a decline in the science literacy in American students.

 

To the contrary, I think the popular culture evolution "controversy" probably aids in the weeding out poor candidates for careers in science.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(WCSox @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 12:00 PM)

IMO, the solution to this is for one to take religion and philosophy courses alongside biology.  The student can make up his/her mind about the origin of mankind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good luck trying to get those religious classes taught in a public school.

[NorthSideSox72]

Good luck trying to get those religious classes taught in a public school.

Which is as it should be. Church and state - it seems pretty clear. Both entities have a lot to teach, but you cannot teach beliefs as knowledge and call it a public school.

[JUGGERNAUT]

While I agree 100% that science education iis in the s***ter in America, even you would be hard pressed to find a between neoDarwinian studies and a decline in the science literacy in American students.

 

To the contrary, I think the popular culture evolution "controversy" probably aids in the weeding out poor candidates for careers in science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And this is what separates us. Your thinking is based solely on your personal beliefs where as mine are supported by the probability function. I simply look at the number of spiritual households in America & the impact the neoDarwinian context has on both the child & the household. It is not an environment that fosters good feelings about science.

 

Now I suspect someone on the board will weigh in with "blame the parents" again but that simply states the left-wing ideology for everything: "we are right, you are wrong, & don't expect a compromise of any kind".

 

In my other thread I was criticizing the current Biology course taught in high school. I asked myself a simple question: which is more likely to get children interested in the subject? Two semesters focusing on cells & evolution or physiology of plants & animals? After two semesters of Biology I had experience in dissecting all sorts of creatures & detailed study of plants. After two semesters of Biology my kid will not have even picked up a scalpel. Her labs will have been mundane exercises such as DNA testing using electrosynthesis & some weird evolution experiment involving cotton balls & spoons.

 

Of course I'm sure the left-wing will cry "blame the parents" for lack of interest as well. I wonder if they are ever capable of blaming themselves.

 

The true compromise in my opinion (which you won't like) is to de-emphasize the biological sciences in favor of emphasizing the mathemathical ones. Yes it's entirely possible that a new brilliant mind can emerge in the field that shifts the paradigm from the Divine Agent to something else. But if that should happen it will happen with far less stigmatism than the NeoDarwinist have caused because the basis has to be objectively based in mathematical formulation & computation. That's a much harder basis to weaken than a subjective one that holds no greater evidence than any other.

 

Simply put we have a much greater need & shortage in America for math related sciences than biological ones.

Edited February 4, 2006 by JUGGERNAUT

[FlaSoxxJim]

Electrosynthesis? I'm assuming you meant electrophoresis. And if your kid is running DNA gel separations and doing some genetics experiments than I'd say she's better off than lots of students. As I said before, American science education is in a shambles and I'm the last person to defend its current state.

 

I don't undervalue the importance of math, physics, et al, and don't deny they are at the heart of biology. But I disagree that our need for mathematicians and physicists is any more (or less) than our need to turn out capable life scientists.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 4, 2006 -> 02:32 PM)

Which is as it should be.  Church and state - it seems pretty clear.  Both entities have a lot to teach, but you cannot teach beliefs as knowledge and call it a public school.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does the phrase "seperation of Church and State" ring a bell to you?

 

If you're going to offer religious ed in public schools, you're going to have to offer ALL religions a course. It isn't fair to pick and choose which religions to teach or not teach in a public school.

 

Evolution is not a "belief." It's a "scientific theory."

 

The idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun is a "scientific theory" as well. It's also contradicted by the Bible.

[NorthSideSox72]

Does the phrase "seperation of Church and State" ring a bell to you?

 

If you're going to offer religious ed in public schools, you're going to have to offer ALL religions a course.  It isn't fair to pick and choose which religions to teach or not teach in a public school.

 

Evolution is not a "belief."  It's a "scientific theory."

 

The idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun is a "scientific theory" as well.  It's also contradicted by the Bible. 

 

Um... did you actually read my post? Because if you did, you'd find I agree with you 100%. Beliefs should be taught in religion, science should be taught in public schools. I was making the very point you are banging on.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Please share with us your infinite widsom of Bible passages that literally state the Sun revolves around the Earth.

 

The free exercise clause & establishment clause interpreted the correct way do not require all religions to be taught in a class. It simply requires that a class be created to teach a religion if the demand is sufficient enough to make it reasonable. When we are free of the left-wing ideology it will be correctly interpreted. We seem to be leaning in that direction.

 

But that has little to do with the discussion. No one is suggesting creationism or any specific religion be taught in context of ENS. All that is being suggested is that an intro to quantum physics & how it relates to metaphysical arguments about the origin of the universe & our our own existence be taught either in conjunction with ENS or prior to ENS.

 

Those metaphysical arguments have nothing to do with a specific religion & everything to do with the belief that science leans towards the direction that their is a greater existence in the universe than our owns & essentially is the root of our existence.

 

Now if a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc. wishes to map their own religious beliefs to that argument they are certainly welcome to do so but it is best that mapping be left to the household than the school. With an average cost of $10K a yr for each student as it is we don't need to increase that cost by including specialized religious instruction.

 

With respect to the free exercise clause & the establishment clause only a left-wing nut job would interpret that as meaning a public school can not teach philosophy or metaphysics in the most general sense or that some how any discussion of spiritual existence should be banned from such courses.

Edited February 4, 2006 by JUGGERNAUT