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

[FA_Q2]

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?

Unfortunately I can’t give you a name, but my brother went to a really good catholic school that taught evolution. The faith was the basis for the founding of the school but it had little influence in the actual curriculum (other than they DID have to take a catholic theology course). My high school was a Lutheran school, Lutheran High actually, and they taught evolution. It is actually more prevalent than most realize considering most schools want to be taken seriously.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

A better way of putting it, is to say that public school students only get what is repeatedly demonstrable via the scientific method and empirically verified across a vast network of experts over the course of an 150 years without any contrary evidence to negate it.

^Id rather take this over a fairy tale in book. Being taught the lies of creationism is not education, it is miseducation, and harms the future of this country's competitive standing next to countries that aren't feeding their posterity this garbage.

 

[Oldguy]

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

Of course there is. In fact, New Testament Biblical faith is evidence based or it's not true faith.

In the NT, the word most commonly translated into English as "faith" is the Greek word "pistis," which means: conviction of the truth of anything. It comes from the word "peitho" which is defined as: to be persuaded. Paul defined faith as "evidence of things not seen."

See? Blind faith is no faith at all. It's a hope. True faith examines the evidence of the truth of the existence of God, the reality of Christ, the authenticity of Scripture and makes a decision to believe based upon that.

In that sense, it is very much like having faith in science because it too is based upon the evidence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

Of course there is. In fact, New Testament Biblical faith is evidence based or it's not true faith.

In the NT, the word most commonly translated into English as "faith" is the Greek word "pistis," which means: conviction of the truth of anything. It comes from the word "peitho" which is defined as: to be persuaded. Paul defined faith as "evidence of things not seen."

See? Blind faith is no faith at all. It's a hope. True faith examines the evidence of the truth of the existence of God, the reality of Christ, the authenticity of Scripture and makes a decision to believe based upon that.

In that sense, it is very much like having faith in science because it too is based upon the evidence.

Interesting approach you are taking. Your differentiation between "blind faith" and your "conviction" explains why you are open minded since your "faith" is not "threatened by science".

 

[Two Thumbs]

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?

I refuse to even pretend this is real.

snopes has had weeks to verify and they haven't.

I'd call that a clue

 

[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?

I refuse to even pretend this is real.

snopes has had weeks to verify and they haven't.

I'd call that a clue

Did you read the Snopes article in the link? Snopes has subsequently verified that it is true.

 

[Oldguy]

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

Of course there is. In fact, New Testament Biblical faith is evidence based or it's not true faith.

In the NT, the word most commonly translated into English as "faith" is the Greek word "pistis," which means: conviction of the truth of anything. It comes from the word "peitho" which is defined as: to be persuaded. Paul defined faith as "evidence of things not seen."

See? Blind faith is no faith at all. It's a hope. True faith examines the evidence of the truth of the existence of God, the reality of Christ, the authenticity of Scripture and makes a decision to believe based upon that.

In that sense, it is very much like having faith in science because it too is based upon the evidence.

Interesting approach you are taking. Your differentiation between "blind faith" and your "conviction" explains why you are open minded since your "faith" is not "threatened by science".

You're right. My faith is not threatened by science. But, because of the actions of some of my brethren, science might very well be threatened by faith. We've seen it before in history, haven't we?

 

[westwall]

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.

On the contrary. Cosmologists tell us that all matter in the Universe was created in a huge explosion, an explosion that originated in a singularity the size of a proton. That's one half the size of an atom. They have no "proof" of this, they have calculations that can take us back to within 300,000 years (so they believe) of the Big Bang, but no closer.

So, you tell me....is it faith, or science, that we "believe" that all the matter in the universe originated from a point the size of half of an atom?

 

[FA_Q2]

On the contrary. Cosmologists tell us that all matter in the Universe was created in a huge explosion, an explosion that originated in a singularity the size of a proton. That's one half the size of an atom. They have no "proof" of this, they have calculations that can take us back to within 300,000 years (so they believe) of the Big Bang, but no closer.

So, you tell me....is it faith, or science, that we "believe" that all the matter in the universe originated from a point the size of half of an atom?

It is conjecture based loosely on observed data. The observation that all matter (for the most part) is traveling outward, the relative speed that it is traveling and the measurements that we take show us that it was once in a tight cluster. From there, we have observable data on gravity and how it works, a rough idea of the total matter that we can see and it is clear that the gravitational force is far more than needed for a singularity.

See, the difference here is that we have observable, natural phenomenon that this thesis is based on. There is data at the core of this. It is NOT faith.

Further, cosmetologists say that this is a POSSIBILITY. There is no faith in that because the idea is not something that we state as a truth, it is a POSSIBILITY and the best possibility that we have based on the observations. As soon as we have better possibilities, the old one will be tossed and replaced with the new one. Is faith the same? Of course not.

Are you going to trash your Christian faith because someone comes to you with a better one? Not likely, you have a strong faith in a Christian god. You might lose that faith one day, many have, and then move on to another faith but you do not hold that as a replaceable tenant in your life. Christianity is fact for you, not mere conjecture or theory. It is hard because you have FAITH in it.

I have no faith in science. When a better theory comes along, I trash my old thoughts and replace them with the new ones.

I realize that I am making the assumption that you are Christian here and you might not be. It does not matter, replace Christian with whatever faith you are and if you are not faithful you still get the idea.

 

[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.

A better way of putting it, is to say that public school students only get what is repeatedly demonstrable via the scientific method and empirically verified across a vast network of experts over the course of an 150 years without any contrary evidence to negate it.

^Id rather take this over a fairy tale in book. Being taught the lies of creationism is not education, it is miseducation, and harms the future of this country's competitive standing next to countries that aren't feeding their posterity this garbage.

But this is a lie. No teacher has ever been able to create life from an inanimate object, no matter how much electric is sparked through it. No teacher has ever been able to induce a species to become another. No teacher has been able to prove that fossils are not the end result of Flood waters and mud. What public school teachers do infer is that GOD is not necessary for anything to occur and destroy the spirituality of the weaker students. And yet they offer no ABSOLUTE proof. It is all conjecture founded in faith of materialism.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

A better way of putting it, is to say that public school students only get what is repeatedly demonstrable via the scientific method and empirically verified across a vast network of experts over the course of an 150 years without any contrary evidence to negate it.

^Id rather take this over a fairy tale in book. Being taught the lies of creationism is not education, it is miseducation, and harms the future of this country's competitive standing next to countries that aren't feeding their posterity this garbage.

But this is a lie. No teacher has ever been able to create life from an inanimate object, no matter how much electric is sparked through it. No teacher has ever been able to induce a species to become another. No teacher has been able to prove that fossils are not the end result of Flood waters and mud. What public school teachers do infer is that GOD is not necessary for anything to occur and destroy the spirituality of the weaker students. And yet they offer no ABSOLUTE proof. It is all conjecture founded in faith of materialism.

It doesn't matter that a teacher can't demonstrate abiogenesis, and this has NOTHING to do with evolution anyways! Speciation has been observed in the lab, therefore macroevolution has been observed. Even if it hasn't, it wouldn't matter. Evolution is the best explanation to fit the evidence. Science finds god nowhere, so god doesn't belong in the science class room.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

A better way of putting it, is to say that public school students only get what is repeatedly demonstrable via the scientific method and empirically verified across a vast network of experts over the course of an 150 years without any contrary evidence to negate it.

^Id rather take this over a fairy tale in book. Being taught the lies of creationism is not education, it is miseducation, and harms the future of this country's competitive standing next to countries that aren't feeding their posterity this garbage.

But this is a lie. No teacher has ever been able to create life from an inanimate object, no matter how much electric is sparked through it. No teacher has ever been able to induce a species to become another. No teacher has been able to prove that fossils are not the end result of Flood waters and mud. What public school teachers do infer is that GOD is not necessary for anything to occur and destroy the spirituality of the weaker students. And yet they offer no ABSOLUTE proof. It is all conjecture founded in faith of materialism.

Likely because none of that has anything to do with evolution.

Remember that evolution concerns the Earth changing, and life responding to that change to adapt and survive. Indeed, without evolution, life would have ceased to exist on Earth eons ago.

 

[Oldguy]

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.

A better way of putting it, is to say that public school students only get what is repeatedly demonstrable via the scientific method and empirically verified across a vast network of experts over the course of an 150 years without any contrary evidence to negate it.

^Id rather take this over a fairy tale in book. Being taught the lies of creationism is not education, it is miseducation, and harms the future of this country's competitive standing next to countries that aren't feeding their posterity this garbage.

But this is a lie. No teacher has ever been able to create life from an inanimate object, no matter how much electric is sparked through it. No teacher has ever been able to induce a species to become another. No teacher has been able to prove that fossils are not the end result of Flood waters and mud. What public school teachers do infer is that GOD is not necessary for anything to occur and destroy the spirituality of the weaker students. And yet they offer no ABSOLUTE proof. It is all conjecture founded in faith of materialism.

It's not the teachers job to impart or sustain "spirituality" in their students for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that all teachers do not share the same faith, nor should they be compelled to.

The spiritual instruction of children should be done in the home, with assistance from a local house of worship if you like. Biblically speaking, that responsibility rests with the father. Not Mom, or granddad or the preacher, and certainly not with the teacher.

Perhaps we would all be better off if fathers (or, in their absence, a male role model) would quit trying to shirk their responsibility and do the job they're supposed to be doing.

 

[Oldguy]

Science finds god nowhere,

Maybe. Science must at least admit the possibility of God until it can explain where original matter came from. There has to be a point where something suddenly appeared out of nothing and science cannot yet account for that. Until it can, God remains the most logical conclusion.

 

[newpolitics]

Science finds god nowhere,

Maybe. Science must at least admit the possibility of God until it can explain where original matter came from. There has to be a point where something suddenly appeared out of nothing and science cannot yet account for that. Until it can, God remains the most logical conclusion.

No, it most certainly does not. There isn't a single sound and valid syllogism that confirms this. If it was so logical, there would be. All cosmological arguments for a first cause fail, and even if they succeeded, they still would only establish a first cause, not a god.

 

[newpolitics]

A better way of putting it, is to say that public school students only get what is repeatedly demonstrable via the scientific method and empirically verified across a vast network of experts over the course of an 150 years without any contrary evidence to negate it.

^Id rather take this over a fairy tale in book. Being taught the lies of creationism is not education, it is miseducation, and harms the future of this country's competitive standing next to countries that aren't feeding their posterity this garbage.

But this is a lie. No teacher has ever been able to create life from an inanimate object, no matter how much electric is sparked through it. No teacher has ever been able to induce a species to become another. No teacher has been able to prove that fossils are not the end result of Flood waters and mud. What public school teachers do infer is that GOD is not necessary for anything to occur and destroy the spirituality of the weaker students. And yet they offer no ABSOLUTE proof. It is all conjecture founded in faith of materialism.

It's not the teachers job to impart or sustain "spirituality" in their students for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that all teachers do not share the same faith, nor should they be compelled to.

The spiritual instruction of children should be done in the home, with assistance from a local house of worship if you like. Biblically speaking, that responsibility rests with the father. Not Mom, or granddad or the preacher, and certainly not with the teacher.

Perhaps we would all be better off if fathers (or, in their absence, a male role model) would quit trying to shirk their responsibility and do the job they're supposed to be doing.

I agree with everything except the idea that only a farther should be in charge of spiritual teaching. I'm not sure what your justification for this is, but the rest was spot on. There is plenty of time outside of school to teach anything having to do with personal spiritual beliefs.

 

[Oldguy]

Science finds god nowhere,

Maybe. Science must at least admit the possibility of God until it can explain where original matter came from. There has to be a point where something suddenly appeared out of nothing and science cannot yet account for that. Until it can, God remains the most logical conclusion.

No, it most certainly does not. There isn't a single sound and valid syllogism that confirms this. If it was so logical, there would be. All cosmological arguments for a first cause fail, and even if they succeeded, they still would only establish a first cause, not a god.

It doesn't? The sudden, inexplicable appearance of something out of literally nothing does not suggest at least the possibility of directed creation? Why not?

 

[newpolitics]

Maybe. Science must at least admit the possibility of God until it can explain where original matter came from. There has to be a point where something suddenly appeared out of nothing and science cannot yet account for that. Until it can, God remains the most logical conclusion.

No, it most certainly does not. There isn't a single sound and valid syllogism that confirms this. If it was so logical, there would be. All cosmological arguments for a first cause fail, and even if they succeeded, they still would only establish a first cause, not a god.

It doesn't? The sudden, inexplicable appearance of something out of literally nothing does not suggest at least the possibility of directed creation? Why not?

We are entirely ignorant as to Origins for the universe, therefore any assertions that lack empirical evidence and sound demonstration are automatically an argument from ignorance. This being the case, god is simply a guess. There is no reason to believe this is the actual truth of the matter.

 

[Oldguy]

But this is a lie. No teacher has ever been able to create life from an inanimate object, no matter how much electric is sparked through it. No teacher has ever been able to induce a species to become another. No teacher has been able to prove that fossils are not the end result of Flood waters and mud. What public school teachers do infer is that GOD is not necessary for anything to occur and destroy the spirituality of the weaker students. And yet they offer no ABSOLUTE proof. It is all conjecture founded in faith of materialism.

It's not the teachers job to impart or sustain "spirituality" in their students for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that all teachers do not share the same faith, nor should they be compelled to.

The spiritual instruction of children should be done in the home, with assistance from a local house of worship if you like. Biblically speaking, that responsibility rests with the father. Not Mom, or granddad or the preacher, and certainly not with the teacher.

Perhaps we would all be better off if fathers (or, in their absence, a male role model) would quit trying to shirk their responsibility and do the job they're supposed to be doing.

I agree with everything except the idea that only a farther should be in charge of spiritual teaching. I'm not sure what your justification for this is, but the rest was spot on. There is plenty of time outside of school to teach anything having to do with personal spiritual beliefs.

I was just summarizing several Biblical injunctions which make the father head of the household, head of the family and responsible for the religious instruction of the children.

 

[Oldguy]

No, it most certainly does not. There isn't a single sound and valid syllogism that confirms this. If it was so logical, there would be. All cosmological arguments for a first cause fail, and even if they succeeded, they still would only establish a first cause, not a god.

It doesn't? The sudden, inexplicable appearance of something out of literally nothing does not suggest at least the possibility of directed creation? Why not?

We are entirely ignorant as to Origins for the universe, therefore any assertions that lack empirical evidence and sound demonstration are automatically an argument from ignorance. This being the case, god is simply a guess. There is no reason to believe this is the actual truth of the matter.

Since we are entirely ignorant on the subject, is not God still a possibility? If not, why not? Is there some reason to believe God is NOT the actual truth of the matter? Is His reality automatically precluded from the list of possibilities? If so, why?