4th Grade "Science" Quiz - Were you there?

[Derideo_Te]

snopes.com: 4th Grade Science Quiz

Assuming that this is genuine (still pending verification) is this right or wrong for children to be taught in schools as "science"?

(Note that attacks on Snopes will be considered to be a deflection under the assumption that this is genuine.)

Is this the "science education" you want for your own 4th grader? What is the purpose of handicapping American children by giving them false information rather than a fact based education? Religion belongs in the home and places of worship. Schools are where children are supposed to learn about the real world so that one day they will know enough in order to survive.

So the question is a simple one. Is this what you want your own children to be taught in school? Yes or no?

 

[LittleNipper]

snopes.com: 4th Grade Science Quiz

Assuming that this is genuine (still pending verification) is this right or wrong for children to be taught in schools as "science"?

(Note that attacks on Snopes will be considered to be a deflection under the assumption that this is genuine.)

Is this the "science education" you want for your own 4th grader? What is the purpose of handicapping American children by giving them false information rather than a fact based education? Religion belongs in the home and places of worship. Schools are where children are supposed to learn about the real world so that one day they will know enough in order to survive.

So the question is a simple one. Is this what you want your own children to be taught in school? Yes or no?

A religion that isn't based on truth isn't worth anything. I see nothing wrong with the belief that God created. And it is impossible for scientists to determine how or when God created. There are CLEARLY assumptions being made based on what is expected of natural processes; however, no one has determined that nature came about on its own. So, the proof of anything is relative to what one is willing to assume and accept.

 

[Mr. H.]

That's not from a public school.
No Marxist dogma on that test.

 

[amrchaos]

Well, let us say a private school taught it--would you send your kids there with your "No child left behind" voucher money??

 

[Flopper]

The real damage done to children by this kind of education is not the teaching of fairly tails about dinosaurs and the age of the earth, but rather the rejection of the scientific method which is a foundation of modern science.

Creationism begins with a conclusion, that which is in Bible. There is no hypothesis and thus the purpose of research is not to test the hypothesis but rather to support the conclusion, that which is in the Bible.

Creationism should be taught in a theology class not a science class.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The real damage done to children by this kind of education is not the teaching of fairly tails about dinosaurs and the age of the earth, but rather the rejection of the scientific method which is a foundation of modern science.

Creationism begins with a conclusion, that which is in Bible. There is no hypothesis and thus the purpose of research is not to test the hypothesis but rather to support the conclusion, that which is in the Bible.

Creationism should be taught in a theology class not a science class.

Damn true.

 

[Noomi]

If my kids were being taught some crap such as this, I'd take them out of school.
The teachers are fucking stupid if they believe this crap.

 

[FA_Q2]

The real damage done to children by this kind of education is not the teaching of fairly tails about dinosaurs and the age of the earth, but rather the rejection of the scientific method which is a foundation of modern science.

Creationism begins with a conclusion, that which is in Bible. There is no hypothesis and thus the purpose of research is not to test the hypothesis but rather to support the conclusion, that which is in the Bible.

Creationism should be taught in a theology class not a science class.

Very true.

The people that demand that ‘creationism’ needs to be taught next to evolution fail to understand what science is and what creationism is. They are not competing theories as one is NOT science weather or not it is true. One is science and should be taught in science class.

 

[Derideo_Te]

snopes.com: 4th Grade Science Quiz

Assuming that this is genuine (still pending verification) is this right or wrong for children to be taught in schools as "science"?

(Note that attacks on Snopes will be considered to be a deflection under the assumption that this is genuine.)

Is this the "science education" you want for your own 4th grader? What is the purpose of handicapping American children by giving them false information rather than a fact based education? Religion belongs in the home and places of worship. Schools are where children are supposed to learn about the real world so that one day they will know enough in order to survive.

So the question is a simple one. Is this what you want your own children to be taught in school? Yes or no?

A religion that isn't based on truth isn't worth anything. I see nothing wrong with the belief that God created. And it is impossible for scientists to determine how or when God created. There are CLEARLY assumptions being made based on what is expected of natural processes; however, no one has determined that nature came about on its own. So, the proof of anything is relative to what one is willing to assume and accept.

Scientists can't determine something that never happened. It is you that is making the assumption that there was a "creation event". There is no evidence that the universe was "created". The laws of physics state that the universe must always have existed and will always exist in some form or another.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If my kids were being taught some crap such as this, I'd take them out of school.
The teachers are fucking stupid if they believe this crap.

Under these circumstances that should be more than enough evidence to claim a full refund of the tuition fees for the entire year.

 

[there4eyeM]

The real damage done to children by this kind of education is not the teaching of fairly tails about dinosaurs and the age of the earth, but rather the rejection of the scientific method which is a foundation of modern science.

Creationism begins with a conclusion, that which is in Bible. There is no hypothesis and thus the purpose of research is not to test the hypothesis but rather to support the conclusion, that which is in the Bible.

Creationism should be taught in a theology class not a science class.

Very well stated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

snopes.com: 4th Grade Science Quiz

Assuming that this is genuine (still pending verification) is this right or wrong for children to be taught in schools as "science"?

(Note that attacks on Snopes will be considered to be a deflection under the assumption that this is genuine.)

Is this the "science education" you want for your own 4th grader? What is the purpose of handicapping American children by giving them false information rather than a fact based education? Religion belongs in the home and places of worship. Schools are where children are supposed to learn about the real world so that one day they will know enough in order to survive.

So the question is a simple one. Is this what you want your own children to be taught in school? Yes or no?

Of course not.

In a private or home school venue, however, parents are at liberty to teach their children any sort of such superstition or like nonsense they wish.

 

[there4eyeM]

Assuming that this is genuine (still pending verification) is this right or wrong for children to be taught in schools as "science"?

(Note that attacks on Snopes will be considered to be a deflection under the assumption that this is genuine.)

Is this the "science education" you want for your own 4th grader? What is the purpose of handicapping American children by giving them false information rather than a fact based education? Religion belongs in the home and places of worship. Schools are where children are supposed to learn about the real world so that one day they will know enough in order to survive.

So the question is a simple one. Is this what you want your own children to be taught in school? Yes or no?
Of course not.

"In a private or home school venue, however, parents are at liberty to teach their children any sort of such superstition or like nonsense they wish."

Absolutely, and I believe totally in such choice. I also hope my child would only have to compete with people educated that way.
__________________

 

[Derideo_Te]

snopes.com: 4th Grade Science Quiz

Assuming that this is genuine (still pending verification) is this right or wrong for children to be taught in schools as "science"?

(Note that attacks on Snopes will be considered to be a deflection under the assumption that this is genuine.)

Is this the "science education" you want for your own 4th grader? What is the purpose of handicapping American children by giving them false information rather than a fact based education? Religion belongs in the home and places of worship. Schools are where children are supposed to learn about the real world so that one day they will know enough in order to survive.

So the question is a simple one. Is this what you want your own children to be taught in school? Yes or no?

Of course not.

In a private or home school venue, however, parents are at liberty to teach their children any sort of such superstition or like nonsense they wish.

Too bad that deliberately misinforming their offspring under the guise of "education" isn't treated by the court system as a form of child abuse.

 

[Oldguy]

Believing in creation is not the same thing as creationism.

Creationism is a political construct based upon religious dogma, masquerading as fact. In many cases, it's a specific curriculum as well. It begins with the correct starting point (creation by God), but then tries to corral the known facts into a Bible box where it surely does not fit.

Once you begin with the incorrect notion of the earth only being 6000 years old, everything known by science must fit into that erroneous assumption. It does not. It cannot. Therein lies the greatest fault of creationism. It's so patently and obviously untrue that it holds all the Scripture and every believer up to public ridicule.

Creationist's should take note of what St. Augustine warned about nearly 1700 years ago:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."


No, I wouldn't want my kids or grandkids being taught that and, no, I wouldn't send them to most modern-day "christian" schools, even though I am a fundamentalist Southern Baptist.

 

[FA_Q2]

Believing in creation is not the same thing as creationism.

Creationism is a political construct based upon religious dogma, masquerading as fact. In many cases, it's a specific curriculum as well. It begins with the correct starting point (creation by God), but then tries to corral the known facts into a Bible box where it surely does not fit.

Once you begin with the incorrect notion of the earth only being 6000 years old, everything known by science must fit into that erroneous assumption.

Not all creationists believe that though. Some simply refute evolution. Only the extreme demand that you place an age with that. Either way, your assertion that they start with the ‘correct’ starting point is a matter of faith. We don’t know if it is the correct starting point at all but as a personal matter, your faith apparently tells you that it is so. Unfortunately, the very nature of faith and the supernatural means that science will NEVER prove that fact. It will also never disprove it. Hence, not a science issue but rather a faith issue.

 

[Oldguy]

Believing in creation is not the same thing as creationism.

Creationism is a political construct based upon religious dogma, masquerading as fact. In many cases, it's a specific curriculum as well. It begins with the correct starting point (creation by God), but then tries to corral the known facts into a Bible box where it surely does not fit.

Once you begin with the incorrect notion of the earth only being 6000 years old, everything known by science must fit into that erroneous assumption.

Not all creationists believe that though. Some simply refute evolution. Only the extreme demand that you place an age with that. Either way, your assertion that they start with the ‘correct’ starting point is a matter of faith. We don’t know if it is the correct starting point at all but as a personal matter, your faith apparently tells you that it is so. Unfortunately, the very nature of faith and the supernatural means that science will NEVER prove that fact. It will also never disprove it. Hence, not a science issue but rather a faith issue.

Yes, but so is relying solely on science to explain things. That too is a faith issue.

I think the key is found in what kind of faith: Blind faith? Or, a faith based upon the preponderance of the evidence? They aren't the same thing, though I doubt most people have ever thought of the difference. Faith based upon the evidence is a choice one makes, similar to what a jury does in a trial. Blind faith, on the other hand, requires no evidence at all to believe.

Personally, based upon my studies of both scripture and science, I see no reason to presume the universe did not start when God said, "Let there be a Big Bang." The point being that science and faith do not have to be mutually exclusive. It doesn't have to be a case of either/or, but that's the position most people take on both sides of the issue because they're not willing to consider any alternative other than the one they're defending.

There's a term for that: It's called being closed-minded.

 

[LittleNipper]

Assuming that this is genuine (still pending verification) is this right or wrong for children to be taught in schools as "science"?

(Note that attacks on Snopes will be considered to be a deflection under the assumption that this is genuine.)

Is this the "science education" you want for your own 4th grader? What is the purpose of handicapping American children by giving them false information rather than a fact based education? Religion belongs in the home and places of worship. Schools are where children are supposed to learn about the real world so that one day they will know enough in order to survive.

So the question is a simple one. Is this what you want your own children to be taught in school? Yes or no?
Of course not.

"In a private or home school venue, however, parents are at liberty to teach their children any sort of such superstition or like nonsense they wish."

Absolutely, and I believe totally in such choice. I also hope my child would only have to compete with people educated that way.
__________________

Well, the reality is that Christian schools teach BOTH Creationism and evolutionary theory. So they get TWICE the education. The public school student merely hears that he'she is the end result of mindless natual influences without goal or purpose.

 

[Oldguy]

Assuming that this is genuine (still pending verification) is this right or wrong for children to be taught in schools as "science"?

(Note that attacks on Snopes will be considered to be a deflection under the assumption that this is genuine.)

Is this the "science education" you want for your own 4th grader? What is the purpose of handicapping American children by giving them false information rather than a fact based education? Religion belongs in the home and places of worship. Schools are where children are supposed to learn about the real world so that one day they will know enough in order to survive.

So the question is a simple one. Is this what you want your own children to be taught in school? Yes or no?
Of course not.

"In a private or home school venue, however, parents are at liberty to teach their children any sort of such superstition or like nonsense they wish."

Absolutely, and I believe totally in such choice. I also hope my child would only have to compete with people educated that way.
__________________

Well, the reality is that Christian schools teach BOTH Creationism and evolutionary theory. So they get TWICE the education. The public school student merely hears that he'she is the end result of mindless natual influences without goal or purpose.

Right off hand, I can't think of any well-known Christian schools which teach evolution. Can you name some that do?

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, but so is relying solely on science to explain things. That too is a faith issue.

No, it’s not. That is only true if you are going to redefine what the words mean. That is a pointless exercise. Faith is belief absent hard evidence. Science is not faith, it is belief WITH evidence.

The key here is that, when using science as a foundation, the words ‘I don’t know’ are common. The reality is that we know VERY little. Then there is also the acceptance that fact really does not exist. Gravity might seem like a fact yet it is not. It is simply the best current theory that we have for that particular phenomenon. Tomorrow it could be proven false. With science as a foundation, you accept that. Faith, however, does not make that distinction.

I think the key is found in what kind of faith: Blind faith? Or, a faith based upon the preponderance of the evidence? They aren't the same thing, though I doubt most people have ever thought of the difference. Faith based upon the evidence is a choice one makes, similar to what a jury does in a trial. Blind faith, on the other hand, requires no evidence at all to believe.

See above. There is no faith based on the preponderance of evidence. That really is not faith.

Faith:
1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof

I will dispute the ‘logical’ portion though tbh. Though I do not believe in a higher power, I do not find that belief lacking ‘logic’ per say, just hard evidence.

Personally, based upon my studies of both scripture and science, I see no reason to presume the universe did not start when God said, "Let there be a Big Bang." The point being that science and faith do not have to be mutually exclusive. It doesn't have to be a case of either/or, but that's the position most people take on both sides of the issue because they're not willing to consider any alternative other than the one they're defending.

There's a term for that: It's called being closed-minded.

Well, this we agree on again. Science and faith are defiantly NOT mutually exclusive. A LOT of people screw this up. They tend to mingle the two. Not only is faith not mutually exclusive to science, it has nothing to do with science at all. The basis of science is in nature. The observable world around us and the discovery of natural laws. Faith, on the other hand, deals with the supernatural. Science can NEVER offer proof of God or disprove God as it has nothing to do with God. I wish that more people would approach science with an open mind and stop trying to put God in the small box that they tend to. Instead of viewing something like evolution or the universe in it amazing journey from creation to now, they want to demand that God used the method that THEY want him to. Demanding that evolution did not take place or that the universe is 6000 years old confines creation. If there is a God and he created all, I highly doubt that he had done so without intricate systems that we are just beginning to peer at. For me, that makes the universe far more interesting and great than confining it.