Teach the Controversy

Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Teach the Controversy

Though I am an atheist and a skeptic, I must confess I fully support the teaching of creationism - sorry, Intelligent Design - in our public schools.  In any serious consideration, especially in scientific ones, we must weigh the evidence and take into account all possible explanations of it before pronouncing ourselves satisfied with the answer.  The path to knowledge lies amidst the broken remains of ideas and theories discarded for their inadequacy.  We must not be afraid to kill our darlings, to borrow from literature, and if evolutionary theory is found wanting, it must be discarded as wholly useless.

Even if we concede that every fossil is a transitional form, we must also aknowledge that every fossil leaves two gaps in our knowledge of biological history where before there was only one.  If we cannot reasonably expect the skeletons of every living thing that ever died to be preserved in the fossil record, we must seriously consider that evolution may be fatally flawed. Of course, I have been having trouble finding any articles published in peer-reviewed journals demonstrating that no clear line can be drawn between light-spots on certain single-celled organisms and the irreducible complexity of the human eye.

I am not satisfied, however, with merely asking these questions.  It is imperative that, in these times of crises, our government find the most effective solutions to the problems that plague us.  We must demand that the government consider the power of prayer, which moves mountains according to one alternative theory, when outfitting our soldiers with armor and weapons.  We use dangerous beams of electromagnetic radiation and potentially lethal cocktails of chemicals to treat many diseases, when we don't just start barbarically cutting people open to rearrange their innards.  Are there no federally-funded hospitals researching the vibrational frequencies of carcinomas? Why not?

I am still unsatisfied, though.  All federally funded or subsidized scientific enterprizes should be forced by law to consider every alternative theory before trying to force "mainstream" ones down our throats. Every research lab, synagogue, mosque, church, and cathedral in the nation should have on hand the Holy Bible, as well as the Origin of Species, the Torah and Qu'ran, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, the Book of Going Forth By Day and the Epic of Gilgamesh.  We must teach all of these alternative theories, favoring neither mainstream science nor any individual alternative theory when we teach in our classrooms and from our pulpits.  After all, one cannot elevate Intelligent Design to legitimate scientific theory without inviting every other alternative theory in through the same door.  We have to teach the controversies where-ever we find them.

Now I am satisfied.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
If there was a controversy

If there was a controversy to teach, I'd be all for it.

 


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Please actually read the

Please actually read the post.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I read the whole thing,

 I read the whole thing, and I can't decide if this is supposed to be a modest proposal or not.  Poe strikes again.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
I would think the part where

I would think the part where I called for every church to teach evolutionary theory and the Qu'ran would have made that a little more apparent, Hamby.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If there was

jcgadfly wrote:

If there was a controversy to teach, I'd be all for it.

 

 

Yes, that, and also the YEC/ID angle has no substance to teach. Here's how that lesson would go:

 

"Or God created it."

 

And then you'd have to move on. What argument the angle DOES have comes in two forms: 1) attempts to prove that evolutionary theory is mistaken because it allegedly doesn't account for X (from what I have seen, these arguments tend to be the result of ignorance), 2) finding something not yet explained and then pointing out that there is currently no explanation, and therefore God did it.

 

There's no substance there. It's all about cherry-picking excuses to say "yeah, but evolution hasn't explained THIS yet."

 

How would you even teach that?

 

But mostly what JCgadfly said.

 

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote: We have to

Kavis wrote:

 We have to teach the controversies where-ever we find them.
 

We must never forget to teach the moon is made of green cheese and Mars has a hidden civilization just waiting to invade.

And the Cylons are looking for us as we speak.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
The cylons are looking for

The cylons are looking for us? Crap, hide!


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I would think the

 

Quote:
I would think the part where I called for every church to teach evolutionary theory and the Qu'ran would have made that a little more apparent, Hamby.

It seems like every time I assume someone on this site is joking, they're serious.  If there's no smiley face and it's about religion, I really can't tell.

As to the actual content of the post, I have to say that it's not my favorite approach.  Sorry.  I just don't think the average person even understands the difference between a plausible theory and a random guess.  I don't think they know that scientists are under no obligation to test random guesses, which is why most universities know better than to fund paranormal research.

In other words, I think the only people who would understand your argument are the people who don't need it.

I could be wrong, of course.  I'd be interested to see the reaction of Christians if you put this in a theist forum.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
I was a little worried about

I was a little worried about Poe, and I'm sorry if I confused you.  But yes, the OP is 80% sarcasm and 20% bile.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote:Please actually

Kavis wrote:

Please actually read the post.

I did - there is no controversy between ID and evolutionary biology. ID is wrong - no controversy. I'm not going to contribute to a group trying to create a tempest in a teapot.

As for teachng science in church - religion shouldn't be taught as science and I'm not crazy about teaching science as a religion.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 583
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
So, Kavis, you're basically

So, Kavis, you're basically suggesting an amalgamation for everything regarding research, religion, theory and fact?

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override wrote:So,

Sage_Override wrote:

So, Kavis, you're basically suggesting an amalgamation for everything regarding research, religion, theory and fact?

I think it would be enlightening to introduce a bill like that and watch the Fundies howl, yes.

 

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
they should teach the ID controversy in schools

They need to teach the ID controversy, and all the arguments for and against ID in schools. The most important argument against ID being that there is no God because God is impossible and there is no evidence for any God, and the Jewish Scriptures are bogus, for example, the messiah that was prophesied never came because Jesus never existed yada yada yada.

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
The only problem is that

The only problem is that Intelligent design does not pass the criteria of falsifiability, therefore it cannot be a valid scientific theory.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Under ideal circumstances it

Under ideal circumstances it wouldn't be a problem. However, when 75+% of your staff isn't actually teaching any controversy, but backing creationism, you don't have an environment capable of taking advantage and producing critical minds. You simply have an environment that produces brainwashed idiots.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Under ideal

Vastet wrote:
Under ideal circumstances it wouldn't be a problem. However, when 75+% of your staff isn't actually teaching any controversy, but backing creationism, you don't have an environment capable of taking advantage and producing critical minds.

That, right there, is the serious problem with "teaching the controversy". Well, that and there isn't enough time in the day to teach kids *everything*.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
I think we should. After all

I think we should. After all the Bible does make some valid scientific points, such as the Young-Earth, Flat-Earth, and Geo-Centric universe "theories." As far as I know there isn't the slightest bit of evidence to falsify any of the aforementioned ideas. We should teach those as well as ID.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace