CharlieM wrote:
I would be skeptical of an actual talking snake, but I'm not skeptical of the wisdom handed down to us from ancient cultures who had an entirely different knowledge from our own, a different view of reality.

If their view of reality was basically WRONG, why should we consider it wisdom? The only thing we can take from it is that it is the wrong path to accurate knowledge.

CharlieM wrote:
The serpent represents worldly knowledge. We obtain this knowledge from the serpent, at a cost. We need this knowledge to gain self consciousness, but it can ensnare us in a limited view of reality. The serpent knowledge is something we must transcend, just like childhood it is a stage we must go through. We must overcome the serpent.

Why yes, applicable knowledge if bad. We should drop all modern medical knowledge because it bad for the soul and pray for healing instead of researching for a cure. We should be so blissful in ignorance.
I'll take Modern Science over religion any day. It saved more lives and souls than all religions in the world combined though out history.

I would say that we can only really accuse the people in ancient history of being ignorant, not unwise and definately not unintelligent pr. definition. The acquisition of scientific knowledge over the centuries has been a long slow process. Of course we should appreciate their work for what it is, a step in a long process, but to pretend that ancient civilisations have something profound to offer in the 21st century is a proposition I have yet to see substantiated.

Additionally, the pyramids, stonehenge and the vedas are profoundly unimpressive in regards to their place as works of great "wisdom" of ancient cultures. Two of them might be impressive works of architecture for their time, sure, but wisdom? And the vedas contain what wisdom exactly of value in the 21st century? Certainly nothing that 21st century science and philosophy haven't been capable of vastly improving upon, if not directly superceding with something different and better.

With respect to the above, one of the more interesting 'eureka moments' I've had whilst dealing with the assorted attempts to propagandise for mythology, is this: we are purportedly told that a supremely powerful, massively knowledgeable invisible magic man, chose to dispense his purported "message" to humanity, using as a vehicle possibly the most inept of the civilisations extant at that time. At the time, for example, that the foetid and borderline psychotic nonsense encapsulated in Leviticus was being written, the current historical consensus dating this around 550 BCE, the Greeks were bestowing upon the world the first flowering of serious philosophical thought, and laying the foundations upon which such stellar achievements as Euclid's Elements and the works of Aristotle and Plato were to be built, whilst Pythagoras was developing his ideas, including his mathematics; an Indian scholar called Panini was constructing the first ever systematic grammar of his native language (the oldest such work in human history), other Indians were developing Jainism, incorporating the first system of ethics to include a concept of animal rights, and Buddha was dispensing his first teachings; the Chinese were preparing to bestow Confucius upon the world, along with the first writings of Taoism; and the infant Roman Republic was becoming established. On the other hand, the so-called "chosen people" of Magic Man were busy telling each other how to set fire to small furry animals in order to please their magic man. Hardly a glowing comparison, is it?

cursuswalker wrote:

Robert Byers wrote:The founders simply were very, very, very, Puritan Yankees and Anglican southerners and never would of put in the constitution anything that could possibly exclude God or Genesis.

This is simply delusional. They SPECIFICALLY did just that, as the USA was to have NO ESTABLISHED RELIGION.

Your not following the conversation.
I said that nothing would or could be put in the constitution to ban God or Genesis as the truth or options for truth in origins.
The separation concept was between the state and the church. it was not about separation from religious truth where the issue of that truth came up.
In origin subjects this comes up.
I made a unbeatable case.

Robert Byers wrote:

cursuswalker wrote:

Robert Byers wrote:The founders simply were very, very, very, Puritan Yankees and Anglican southerners and never would of put in the constitution anything that could possibly exclude God or Genesis.

This is simply delusional. They SPECIFICALLY did just that, as the USA was to have NO ESTABLISHED RELIGION.

Your not following the conversation.
I said that nothing would or could be put in the constitution to ban God or Genesis as the truth or options for truth in origins.
The separation concept was between the state and the church. it was not about separation from religious truth where the issue of that truth came up.
In origin subjects this comes up.
I made a unbeatable case.

And how is Mars at this time of year Robert?
The dust storms must be really bad for you there. Martian fines get into everything don't they? Perhaps some got into your brain? It would certainly explain the unique interpretation you enjoy of how phenomena relates to reality! Another tip. Your oxygen mask might be leaking, please ensure the seal is sound, and that might lead to annoxia, which can impair cognitive function. I can't see you from here, for I am a mere mortal and not privy to the whole universe and it's doings, unlike your good self. Is the seal tight now? Good, carry on!

PS. I picture you somehow with bible in hand. A delusion I know. Anyway, if so, do put Bible down and remove hand from cock, then you might have a fighting chance of catching up with reality, not to mention the discussion. There's a good chap!

Calilasseia wrote:With respect to the above, one of the more interesting 'eureka moments' I've had whilst dealing with the assorted attempts to propagandise for mythology, is this: we are purportedly told that a supremely powerful, massively knowledgeable invisible magic man, chose to dispense his purported "message" to humanity, using as a vehicle possibly the most inept of the civilisations extant at that time. At the time, for example, that the foetid and borderline psychotic nonsense encapsulated in Leviticus was being written, the current historical consensus dating this around 550 BCE, the Greeks were bestowing upon the world the first flowering of serious philosophical thought, and laying the foundations upon which such stellar achievements as Euclid's Elements and the works of Aristotle and Plato were to be built, whilst Pythagoras was developing his ideas, including his mathematics; an Indian scholar called Panini was constructing the first ever systematic grammar of his native language (the oldest such work in human history), other Indians were developing Jainism, incorporating the first system of ethics to include a concept of animal rights, and Buddha was dispensing his first teachings; the Chinese were preparing to bestow Confucius upon the world, along with the first writings of Taoism; and the infant Roman Republic was becoming established. On the other hand, the so-called "chosen people" of Magic Man were busy telling each other how to set fire to small furry animals in order to please their magic man. Hardly a glowing comparison, is it?

Yes, but we should remember there was plenty of mystical, supernatural nonsense going on in those cultures as well. The main difference being it wasn't the only thing going on. And that the super-religious kooks were not, as far as I know, attempting to shut down Plato's Academy because they didn't fully subscribe to their nonsense. Though of course Socrates paid the price for not being fully subservient to state-sponsored myths.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the most fully realized myth-legends developed in what you correctly describe as the most inept of all civilizations around the Mediterranean. When you don't have a Plato or Aristotle as a buffer zone, your myths are allowed to flourish unchecked as if they were reality.

Robert Byers wrote:

cursuswalker wrote:

Robert Byers wrote:The founders simply were very, very, very, Puritan Yankees and Anglican southerners and never would of put in the constitution anything that could possibly exclude God or Genesis.

This is simply delusional. They SPECIFICALLY did just that, as the USA was to have NO ESTABLISHED RELIGION.

Your not following the conversation.

Wrong, Byers, if anyone here isn't "following the conversation", it's you. What part of "REALITY says that your assertions are plain, flat, wrong" do you not understand?

Robert Byers wrote:I said that nothing would or could be put in the constitution to ban God or Genesis

And as you have been repeatedly told, Byers, the sad, pathetic, worthless little doctrine you subscribe to isn't "banned", all that is happening is that this sad, pathetic, worthless little doctrine you subscribe to is kept out of science classes because science classes exist to teach about REALITY, not to indoctrinate people with mythological bullshit.

Robert Byers wrote:as the truth or options for truth in origins.

Byers, when are you going to learn the basic lesson that REALITY says your book of myths is WRONG on this subject? Which is why your book of myths and its assertions do not belong in a science class, because science classes do NOT exist to teach WRONG ideas? Which is why everyone else's pet myths are kept out of science classes as well as yours.

Robert Byers wrote:The separation concept was between the state and the church.

What part of "keeping mythological bullshit out of science classes IS a part of separation between church and state" do you not understand, Byers?

Robert Byers wrote:it was not about separation from religious truth where the issue of that truth came up.

Byers, your mythology does NOT constitute "truth", no matter how much wishful thinking you want to indulge in with respect to this matter. REALITY says that your mythology does not constitute "truth", and laughs at your assertions in this vein.

Since science classes exist to teach about FACTS and REALITY, and your mythology manifestly has nothing to do with either, your mythology does not belong in a science class. Learn this elementary lesson once and for all, and desist from the tiresome, pathetic whingeing contained in your posts, because that's all you have here - a tiresome, pathetic and frankly infantile whinge, a piece of ideological foot-stomping just because reality won't roll over and genuflect before your favourite fantasies.

Robert Byers wrote:In origin subjects this comes up.

No, Byers, what "comes up" with respect to the origin of life and biodiversity outside of science classes, is a large amount of conspiratorial duplicity on the part of mythology fetishists, who won't shut up and learn to live with the fact that REALITY says that their favourite masturbation fantasies are all wrong. When we have massive amounts of hard scientific evidence that the assertions of your mythology are WRONG, then those assertions do not belong in a science class, and do NOT deserve to be taught as fact. What part of this elementary concept do you not understand?

Robert Byers wrote:I made a unbeatable case.

Poppycock. The diseased ravings contained in your posts are laughably fatuous in the extreme, and nothing more than a gigantic whinge along the lines of "Waaah, the nasty state won't let me force everyone to conform to my favourite fantasies!!!" Your posts are pathetic, Byers, they display a level of unreason that I would have been ashamed of at five years of age.

John P.M.:
The thing is, it seems to me, that the science is not done in the classrooms.

Well I hope its done in the classroom! Kids should be observing, carrying out experiments and analysing the results. But I think I get what you're saying. The classroom is not the place where cutting edge science is taking place. But nor should it be the place for pushing one's worldview.

From an article on education in the USA, "The Evolution of Teaching Evolution" by Jennifer Oldham:

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/02/11/21thr_evolution_ep.h30.html?tkn=NYQFsFtEHF3h9nnMhg6k9F86kkEpoHFwq0qw

Teachers Not Pushing Evolution?

One of the biggest challenges to improving evolution education may just be the teachers themselves.

A recent survey of 926 public high school biology teachers has revealed that nearly three out of four are not aggressively endorsing evolution.

According to the survey, only about 28 percent of biology teachers are strong advocates for evolution and “consistently implement the major recommendations and conclusions of the National Research Council.”

Thirteen percent are just the opposite, and explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design.

Most teachers, called the “cautious 60 percent,” told interviewers that they are “neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.”

I don't think teachers should be "aggressively endorsing" anything. If I were one of those teachers I'd probably be in with the "cautious 60 percent", although not having seen the wording of the survey, I can't be certain. I would hope that the word "evolution" was qualified, its a pretty vague term on its own.

The article continues:

“A lot of people think kids are not capable of sophisticated thinking about complicated science concepts,” said Nancy Songer, a professor of science education and learning technologies at the University of Michigan. “But all our research indicates this is simply not true.”

Songer designed BioKIDS, an evolution curriculum tested by educators in 22 Detroit public schools. Teachers credit the program with renewing their students’ interest in science, as well as improving their scores on Michigan’s standardized science tests.

Instead of requiring kids to memorize facts in a textbook, the program moves them outside, where they chart the lifecycles and food chains of local wildlife. They use this information to build scientific explanations by making claims, giving their reasoning and presenting their evidence.

Using the BioKIDS curriculum, Detroit middle-school teacher Connie Atkisson’s sixth-graders placed playing cards with pictures of local animals according to their physical characteristics on a big piece of butcher paper to create a “wall of life.”

Watching local animals and insects evolve outside the classroom also left a deeper impact on her students than looking at pictures in a textbook. For example, on a field trip to an oil field, of all places, her kids were astounded when they saw a colorful damselfly plying the breezes. They previously experimented with the insect back at school in its nymph stage, concluding it was a “boring black bug.”

“They were so engaged,” said Atkisson. “They took the information and said ‘we are little scientists, this is what scientists do.’”

The kids were actually studying nature which is what they should be doing. She used the word "evolve" to describe the development of a damselfly, and why shouldn't she? Every growth from seed or egg to a fully formed organism is a case of evolution. The path may be preordained but that's not to say every individual damselfly will unerringly travel that path. Observing the formation of a damselfly will tell them more about evolution than forcing them to believe any theory or worldview that may or may not come into conflict with what they are taught at home. Don't teach them abstractions, show them real life. A good teacher will nurture a love of learning not force feed personal views on their students. Give them a curriculum that allows them to do this.

Regards,
CharlieM.

We certainly agree on that CharlieM, both in regards to the way the science is taught : Textbook memorization vs. actual observation and experiment, and in the sense that even when they are taught the actual theory, it may be presented in a bad or incompetent way. Though of course, there is a case to be made about textbook facts, many of which we build new theories upon. A mix of the two would be optimal.

I would agree that "aggresively endorsing" evolution is a... weird way to describe it. I would personally prefer that the science is accurately, rigorously and competently presented as it is understood and accepted by the greater scientific community.
In an ideal world, even if the teacher secretly hated evolution and was a creationist, if she/he properly taught the science I couldn't care less. So that the teacher should be expected to "aggresively endorse" the theory is not something I would demand, it should just be taught.

Of course, it is not really an ideal world, and if the teacher is secretly a creationist and hates evolution, how can we be sure he/she is properly teaching it? That's a much more difficult problem to solve.

She used the word "evolve" to describe the development of a damselfly, and why shouldn't she? Every growth from seed or egg to a fully formed organism is a case of evolution.

Regarding this part, the development from seed/egg to adult is not what is commonly understood by evolution. We are talking about the theory of common descend through speciation or/with reproduction isolation etc.
The growth-stages of an organism is part of evolution sure, but there's more to it than that.

Oh, as far as doing science in classrooms goes, I think it is an excellent idea, and one key example illustrating the ability of schoolchildren to do science is this http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/7/2/168

CharlieM wrote:

John P.M.:
The thing is, it seems to me, that the science is not done in the classrooms.

Well I hope its done in the classroom! Kids should be observing, carrying out experiments and analysing the results. But I think I get what you're saying. The classroom is not the place where cutting edge science is taking place.

Yes, I almost edited my post, but thought it wouldn't be necessary, since it was so self evident.

hackenslash, I'm a bit confused. What is it that you took a long time to decide is all bollocks? It could not have been my words as you had read them just a few minutes before you made that remark. Besides I already gathered that you thought my words, "fucking horseshit"

Regards,
CharlieM

CharlieM wrote:hackenslash, I'm a bit confused. What is it that you took a long time to decide is all bollocks? It could not have been my words as you had read them just a few minutes before you made that remark. Besides I already gathered that you thought my words, "fucking horseshit"

Wrong again. It was your words. You might think that I responded quickly, but you didn't take into account several things:

1. I had already read the thread up that point.
2. I was responding to a specific post made by you in the post you quoted.
3. You might think that the guff you have thus far presented represents original thinking. Unfortunately, this guff, and a good deal of guff just like it, has been presented ad nauseum by the credulous on just about every rationalist forum I'm member of for pretty much the entire time I've been engaged in such discussion.
4. I read very quickly.

As for the above words about "aggressively" endorsing evolution, someone once more has forgotten to apply rigour to their thinking. What teachers should be doing is robustly endorsing evolution. There's a difference. Robust endorsement of evolution involves providing the class with the sound science in a rigorous manner, and explaining to that class why the vast mass of scientific papers documenting the evidence for evolution count for a lot, namely because those papers document in many instances the experiments that verify the relevant postulates. If teachers fail to do this, then in my view, they're failing to do their job.

Of course, there's an additional problem to be faced in the USA, namely the fact that duplicitous ideological warriors for doctrine, with large sums of money and political connections, are waging a wholly mendacious war against valid science, simply because that valid science does not genuflect before mythological blind assertions. When confronted with this, teachers should have the courage to stand up and confront it head on, and tell the class straight that creationists are lying to them. If that offends the sensibilities of mythology fetishists, then it's fucking tough, because creationist propagandists ARE lying to people. It's not as if we lack evidence for this.

CharlieM wrote:
I don't think teachers should be "aggressively endorsing" anything. If I were one of those teachers I'd probably be in with the "cautious 60 percent", although not having seen the wording of the survey, I can't be certain. I would hope that the word "evolution" was qualified, its a pretty vague term on its own.

The kids were actually studying nature which is what they should be doing. She used the word "evolve" to describe the development of a damselfly, and why shouldn't she? Every growth from seed or egg to a fully formed organism is a case of evolution. The path may be preordained but that's not to say every individual damselfly will unerringly travel that path. Observing the formation of a damselfly will tell them more about evolution than forcing them to believe any theory or worldview that may or may not come into conflict with what they are taught at home. Don't teach them abstractions, show them real life. A good teacher will nurture a love of learning not force feed personal views on their students. Give them a curriculum that allows them to do this.

Is it good if a teacher does not "aggressively endorse" gravity, because the child's parents believe that their god's love holds their feet to the ground? Should we care about the feelings of people who are willfully ignorant of facts? If parents want to tell their kids that the Holocaust never happened, should the school present both sides of the 'argument'? (My history teacher actually did this, and then utterly demolished the denialist 'arguments'. If creationism was given the same treatment I would fully support such a movement)
Do you seriously think that evolution is a WORLDVIEW? Reality is not affected by someone's "personal views", in case you haven't noticed.

Calilasseia:
What teachers should be doing is robustly endorsing evolution.

I'm not going to argue with that. They could explain to their pupils that we can observe, say, a damselfly growing and developing from a small, relatively undifferentiated egg. And we have good reason to believe that life as a whole has followed a similar course. From simple beginnings physical life has grown, diversified and populated the planet. Darwin put forward a theory to account for this growth of life and the vast majority of biologists think that this theory is basically correct. But the more we understand about life and the more we uncover we see that things are vastly more complicated than anyone realized. It is a fact that Darwinian mechanisms are real forces in the process of the evolution of life. Although is a matter of debate as to how overarching and effective these forces are. This is a good thing because science thrives on debate.

The teacher could then go on to talk about the research that has and is being done in this area.

regards,
CharlieM.

Think Floyd:
Is it good if a teacher does not "aggressively endorse" gravity because the child's parents believe that their god's love holds their feet to the ground?

I get the feeling that teachers do not need to aggressively endorse gravity for any reason because gravity aggressively endorses itself every time the kids scuff their knees.

Think Floyd:
If parents want to tell their kids that the Holocaust never happened, should the school present both sides of the 'argument'? (My history teacher actually did this, and then utterly demolished the denialist 'arguments'

So teaching both sides turned out to be a good thing as the teacher was able to bring the kids to an understanding of the full
facts and demonstrate the untenable nature of one side.

Think Floyd:
Do you seriously think that evolution is a WORLDVIEW? Reality is not affected by someone's "personal views", in case you haven't noticed.

Of course evolution is a worldview. Are you saying that someones worldview cannot align with reality, that it can't be a worldview and be "real" at the same time?

Regards,
CharlieM

CharlieM wrote:So teaching both sides turned out to be a good thing as the teacher was able to bring the kids to an understanding of the full facts and demonstrate the untenable nature of one side.

Except, of course, that there is a major distinction between teaching about history-denial, which is an element of history, in a history class, and teaching about science-denial, which is not science, in a science class. I'd have no objection whatsoever to discussing the evolution/cretinism in a class on, say, sociology or psychology, but the simple fact is that cretinism is not science, and nor is the alleged controversy scientific. Such discussions have no place in a science class, which is for teaching valid science.

Of course evolution is a worldview.

Utter ignorant bum-custard. Evolution is not a world-view, it's a demonstrable fact.

Are you saying that someones worldview cannot align with reality, that it can't be a worldview and be "real" at the same time?

Of course it can, but that's not the same as saying that it actually is a world-view. Is gravity a world-view? Atomic theory?

Of course, a world-view can incorporate these things, but that doesn't make them a world-view in and of themselves.