Re: Why cant students critically analyze evolution?

On Oct 31, 9:21 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It is NOT just evolution that students are forbidden to critically analyze.
It is everything. Students today are leaving schools with ZERO critical
thinking skills. They question nothing. And they assume information in the
books they read are accurate without question. This has been the downfall of
many societies in history. In fact, the best way to brainwash a society is
with books. Books that have only one point of view in them.

for a good example of this, read the sorry, sordid history of mel and
norma gabler here in texas as they censored textbooks they thought
were anti-christian.


Take for instance the creation/evolution debate. Even of one does not
believe in God there is a useful comparison to be made between creation and
evolution. If for no other reason other than to have two sides of the coin
elvauated by showing the other way of thinking. One way of thought would be
the physical side of thinking with facts and figures and the other side
being the more creative side of the human existence such as imagination and
spirituality. This is called balance and every human in existance needs
balance.

it is NOT, however, called 'science'. teaching of science should stick
to the teaching of science..that is, evolution. creationism is not
science and there's no point in teaching it or about it in a science
class.

and who says science ISNT 'more creative' than superstition,
supernaturalism, and other religious nonsense? science is among the
most creative concepts ever invented. it's enabled us to become true
explorers, expanded our understanding of the universe, etc.

what arrogance.



To address the first point: "That evolution has "withstood 150 years of
critical analysis""

Well, that is an obvious lie. Why? Because evolution has not been allowed to
be compared to an alternative view point.

what 'alternative viewpoint'? astrology? witchcraft? voodoo?

creationism is not taught for the same reason phlogiston is not taught
about in chemistry. neither idea has scientific validity.


There has been no comparison that
is critial of evolutions assertions regarding the existance of various
species. Evolution puts forth a single idea on how life got from point A to
point B without any comparison to that premise at all. Which is the same as
i describ above regarding a book showing only one point of view on a topic
and then burning the other book.

this sentence needs to be re-stated in the english language.


Evolution is simply a theory that fits some of the observations so far. This
is not, and should not, be considered the only theory that fits such
observations. A comparison needs to be made in the name of objective
edcuation. Because as we all know, theories change with new evidences. It
could very well turn out that evolution is wrong when such new evidences are
found.

the same can be said of every single theory in science. in fact, we
scientists are taught this as a basic part of our learning about how
to DO science. and what 'other' theory is there? i'm a chemist, not
a biologist, but i certainly haven't seen any other theory of origins
besides evolution.


Well, that is just nonsense. This type of thinking is part of the problem
and not part of the solution on many levels. Students need an objective
edcuation. NOT just what YOU want them to learn.
--


glad to see i wasn't the only one suckered in!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: americans willing ignorance
    ... of Americans want creationism to be taught along with evolution. ... more about evolution and related science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Discovery Institute Coven filed fraudulent DMCA take-down notices
    ... Science and Culture Coven managed to use the DMCA to remove ... Then why do critics of creationism desire to censor creationism ... creationism or ID taught in the science classroom. ... all of the ruckus between religion and evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez: there is no evidence of a material process.
    ... planet that defines science as neutral observations, ... Both Creationism and Evolution interpretations exist. ... neither "scientism" or a religion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Religious fundamentalists in Texas continue attack on science; they want Texas children to remain ig
    ... The debate about teaching creationism in the classroom is set to start ... scientist in Texas think should be taught in Texas science classrooms. ... The survey concludes that 98% of scientists favor the unadulterated ... teaching of evolution in public school science classrooms. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Activist judge declares that Intelligent Design is not science
    ... Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design. ... The idea in its current form appeared in the 1980s, and Johnson adopted and developed it after Darwinian evolution came up short, in his view, in explaining how all organisms, including humans, came into being. ... In this interview, hear why he feels that such evidence is "somewhere between weak and nonexistent," why he feels intelligent design is a testable science, and why he thought the Dover trial was a train wreck waiting to happen. ...
    (alt.politics)