Texas Board Passes Social Studies Curriculum

Status
Not open for further replies.
AndyE9503 said:
Both are theories without 100% proof. .
Click to expand...

Not sure about that. I am pretty sure I saw the missing link at the DMV yesterday. :)
 
Secretblend said:
That is the problem isn't it? Some teaches it as fact when like you said it is just a theory. That is why I have a problem with teaching evolution without showing other side.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean some teaches it as fact instead of theory. Example?

Secretblend said:
You do have a choice to believe what you want. If you don't believe it, you have the right to not believe it.

Doesn't that work both ways, don't I have the right to not believe in evolution?
Click to expand...
everybody gets that choice at public school.

Secretblend said:
Based on last question, doesn't it take away my right by teaching evolution and not include intelligent design?
Click to expand...
If that's what the school policy is, then seek teaching employment somewhere else or talk to your principal/superintendent/school board about it.

Secretblend said:
Why is it okay to teach evolution to those that don't believe in evolution but it's not okay to teach intelligent design to those that don't believe in intelligent design?
Click to expand...
well - every school and state is different so if you feel they should be teaching both, then bring that to their attention.

I'm ok with public school teaching both but the public school should not elaborate more on intelligent design because it causes problems. It's best to let the parents tell more about it to their children than teachers.
 
WeeBeastie said:
IMHO, what's there to teach about ID? ID is not a science, it's a belief. either you do or you don't.

To support teaching ID, one would have to take into consideration which deity is responsible (and there's hundreds to choose from) and then prove the existence of that deity. then there is the task of proving creation. how to prove it? Did the god responsible keep notes? Just what evidence is available, aside from the Bible, which is written and very heavily edited by men. How do you prove creation other than saying "It's what I believe"?

You can't teach a belief. You can teach about it and those who believe it, though.
Click to expand...

It's providing factual scientific information based on pure science alone for people to draw their own conclusions about themselves, the subatomic to macro scale, and to the universe. The use of a scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions.
 
Secretblend said:
It has been found that a "scientific fact" has been wrong in the past and they had to change the way they think.

That is problem with science, the "fact" they thought was correct was actually wrong. Man's bias is always there no matter how much they try not to have bias.

The problem of bias is also there when it comes to religion just as much as science. Man has and will change what religion teaches because they are biased toward what they want to follow just as much as what they want science to show.
Click to expand...

Science is generative and constantly changing. That is the stuff of progress.
 
Reba said:
Until decades after the Scopes trial, there was a legal reason not to teach evolution.

"Legal reasons" change with the times.
Click to expand...

And....? There is still a legal reason currently why public schools do not teach religious theory.
 
souggy said:
Isn't "intelligent design" nothing more than stating that a creator made the universe? Doesn't matter if it's God, Buga, Chaos, Ymir, Ptah, Trimurti, Earth Mother, the Raven... and so on? The extension of how much the creator established the system can vary from a clockwork point of view (as preached by many Christians deists) ranging all the way to being responsible for every spontaneous evolution (as preached by fundamentalists) on the planet.

So... isn't "intelligent design" more of a religious thing? If anything the "big bang theory" and "spontaneous evolution theory" are the neutral versions of "intelligent design theory" void of religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

When ID is taught in it's purest sense, yes. However, rarely will you find the case where it is taught in the way the theory is intended. Doctrine somehow always gets confused in there.
 
Reba said:
Because they can't, if one is intellectually honest.
Click to expand...

Many scientists will disagree with that one. Are you saying scientists are all intellectually dishonest?

ID has virtually nothing to do with intellect. It is all about faith outside of intellect.
 
souggy said:
I dunno.

We were taught about macro-evolution versus micro-evolution; spontaneous evolution versus gradual evolution; Gregor Mandel versus Hugo de Vries; Darwin and Wallace versus Lamarck and much more.

After looking all these... they didn't force Darwin's theory of evolution on us since we also explored the alternative theories proposed by other scientists as well. Any of the above theorists could be applied to any faiths.
Click to expand...

Sure they can. However, those who are faith based in their explanations normally run for the hills at the first mention of the word "science". It is a shame that they don't open their minds enough to see that the two can be reconciled and actually complement each other as theories. I dunno...guess the faith based see scientific discovery and progress as some sort of a threat to their faith, so they choose to turn a blind eye and deaf ear.
 
jillio said:
When ID is taught in it's purest sense, yes. However, rarely will you find the case where it is taught in the way the theory is intended. Doctrine somehow always gets confused in there.
Click to expand...

Doctrine or not, not everyone believe that there is necessarily a creator. Some mythologies do have creation myths, but they don't have a creator.

So... it seems to me it's easier to teach the two theories above which doesn't require the presence of a creator to fit into a religious belief than teaching "intelligent design."
 
If history don't fit what we want everyone to believe, then, by golly, we'll just rewrite it so it does fit! Again I say...SHAMEFUL!/QUOTE]
I have to agree with this statement.

History should be facts, no liberal bias and no conservative bias, just the facts.
Click to expand...
 
jillio said:
Science is generative and constantly changing. That is the stuff of progress.
Click to expand...

Could be that man is not as smart as they like to think they are. I really don't see man doing much better today than they did in Roman times.
 
Secretblend said:
That is the problem isn't it? Some teaches it as fact when like you said it is just a theory. That is why I have a problem with teaching evolution without showing other side.

You do have a choice to believe what you want. If you don't believe it, you have the right to not believe it.

Doesn't that work both ways, don't I have the right to not believe in evolution?

Based on last question, doesn't it take away my right by teaching evolution and not include intelligent design?

Why is it okay to teach evolution to those that don't believe in evolution but it's not okay to teach intelligent design to those that don't believe in intelligent design?
Click to expand...

I've yet to know a teacher that teaches "evolutionary fact". The topic is still titled "evolutionary theory."

Those that do not believe in evolutionary theory are free not to listen to the lecture. Most of them don't listen to it anyway.:giggle:
 
souggy said:
Doctrine or not, not everyone believe that there is necessarily a creator. Some mythologies do have creation myths, but they don't have a creator.

So... it seems to me it's easier to teach the two theories above which doesn't require the presence of a creator to fit into a religious belief than teaching "intelligent design."
Click to expand...

Agreed. Problem is, when it is taught, curriculum standards have to be developed to cover it. Seen that thread lately?:laugh2:
 
jillio said:
Sure they can. However, those who are faith based in their explanations normally run for the hills at the first mention of the word "science". It is a shame that they don't open their minds enough to see that the two can be reconciled and actually complement each other as theories. I dunno...guess the faith based see scientific discovery and progress as some sort of a threat to their faith, so they choose to turn a blind eye and deaf ear.
Click to expand...

That is whole point of intelligent design. Yet it is being dismissed!
 
jillio said:
Sure they can. However, those who are faith based in their explanations normally run for the hills at the first mention of the word "science". It is a shame that they don't open their minds enough to see that the two can be reconciled and actually complement each other as theories. I dunno...guess the faith based see scientific discovery and progress as some sort of a threat to their faith, so they choose to turn a blind eye and deaf ear.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Not only they can complement each others; people fail to realize Darwinian evolution or its derivatives is not the only thing being studied by our lab technicians. :lol:
 
ASLGAL said:
If history don't fit what we want everyone to believe, then, by golly, we'll just rewrite it so it does fit! Again I say...SHAMEFUL!/QUOTE]
I have to agree with this statement.

History should be facts, no liberal bias and no conservative bias, just the facts.
Click to expand...

Hey, Gal! Long time no see. Welcome back!
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top