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

[amrchaos]

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.

If the current laws of physics prove to be inaccurate we can always change them to fit reality. It's the great thing about science. You can swear it's the truth one day and calmly say you were wrong the next day. No harm no foul.

In short--Science need sceptics, religion need believers!

 

[Oldguy]

I see the proponents of teaching creation in school are still avoiding the question of which version of creation should be taught.

When you're teaching a fairy tale, does the version really matter?

If the intent is to force it into schools, you're damned right it makes a difference.

 

[Flopper]

I see the proponents of teaching creation in school are still avoiding the question of which version of creation should be taught.

When you're teaching a fairy tale, does the version really matter?

If the intent is to force it into schools, you're damned right it makes a difference.

Are any of the versions of creationism closer to reality? Obviously, I'm not an expert on creationism.

 

[Foxfyre]

Freedom means the right to believe what we believe, profess what we profess, and value what we value regardless of anybody else's opinion about that or whether you or I think it is right or wrong. And when the federal government assumes the right to tell us what can and cannot be taught in the schools, what we must believe, profess, value, or accept, the federal government can do anything to us that it chooses to do and we have no freedoms.

True. When you ask that creationism be taught as an ‘alternative’ theory though, you are not referring to freedom that you are outlining so well here. Instead, you are demanding that others be handed competing ‘theories’ when one is clearly not scientific or based in anything other than religious preference. IOW, that is not an appeal to freedom but rather an appeal to make your own personal beliefs required teachings. Such is completely wrong.

The freedom to have your child educated in such a way still exists. You are completely capable of teaching them this at home for example. Homeschool is a strong and preferable answer to this. You are also capable of enrolling them in a private institution that teaches the curriculum that you believe in. That is your option and should always be your option but interjecting personal belief system or convictions does not belong in a public school.

I will conceded on one point though, the practice of requiring you to pay for a public institution that does not adhere to your standards of education is outright wrong and that is why I support vouchers to enable more people to choose the education for their children that they find meets the standards that they want. I think that is the only real hole here, the government taking your money and then not offering the decisions that you want in your own school.

Certainly we hope our local school boards will choose good curriculum for the public schools and will hire teachers who teach the kids good basic curriculum and teaches them to think and reason and who do not indoctrinate them in what their view of the world should be. It is our responsibility to see that we put people in those positions who do choose honest curriculum and who teach ideas, principles, concepts, theory, possibilities, and how to analyze and conceptualize and reason.

Those who trust the federal government to do that are fools.

Always true.

I would never teach Creationism as science. I would never teach Creationism as history. I would not allow that to be taught to my children if I knew that is what was being taught. I would strongly object to that as a member of my community and I would strongly reject that as a former school board member. If I was overruled by the majority, I would find another way to educate my children.

I have no problem with LOCAL property taxes going to support the public schools if that is what a majority of the people vote to do. Social Contract as the Founders envisioned it allows the people to have whatever sort of society they wish to have. And such societies are not going to be agreeable to every individual, but every individual has full right to form or be part of whatever sort of society he or she prefers.

But unless there is freedom to teach Creationism, or for those who believe in it to have equal voice in what is included in school curriculum, there is no freedom. And it is not a Constitutional function of the federal government to take away that freedom.

 

[Oldguy]

When you're teaching a fairy tale, does the version really matter?

If the intent is to force it into schools, you're damned right it makes a difference.

Are any of the versions of creationism closer to reality? Obviously, I'm not an expert on creationism.

What reality shall we compare them to?

 

[Flopper]

If the intent is to force it into schools, you're damned right it makes a difference.

Are any of the versions of creationism closer to reality? Obviously, I'm not an expert on creationism.

What reality shall we compare them to?

The basic postulates of the theory of evolution for a starter. Evolution doesn't address the origin of life and there are no widely accepted theories of Abiogenesis so there is some flexibility there as long it's not based on religious teaching.

 

[westwall]

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.

If the current laws of physics prove to be inaccurate we can always change them to fit reality. It's the great thing about science. You can swear it's the truth one day and calmly say you were wrong the next day. No harm no foul.

Science is not interested in "truth". That is the terrain of the religious. Science is interested in facts. We observe the physical world and record what we see. If a scientist begins talking about morality he is no longer a scientist, he has become a high priest advocating for whatever religion he happens to be pushing..

 

[Derideo_Te]

And now it seems that even private and home schooling is threatened, just like in Nazi Germany. The government knows what is best for the children to be taught. And you can bet, it isn't Creationism, or that homosexuality is a corruption, or abortion is inherently wrong, or that motherhood is a worthy commitment, or that a search for God is important...

Creationism belongs in religious classes not our schools. Do you want your child to be taught a version of creationism that is contrary to your beliefs?

Abortion is a legal procedure in this country. Its morality is something for parents and churches to discuss

I have never seen a school speak out against motherhood

Your parents and church should teach you that a search for God is important. NOT your school

Freedom means the right to believe what we believe, profess what we profess, and value what we value regardless of anybody else's opinion about that or whether you or I think it is right or wrong. And when the federal government assumes the right to tell us what can and cannot be taught in the schools, what we must believe, profess, value, or accept, the federal government can do anything to us that it chooses to do and we have no freedoms.

Certainly we hope our local school boards will choose good curriculum for the public schools and will hire teachers who teach the kids good basic curriculum and teaches them to think and reason and who do not indoctrinate them in what their view of the world should be. It is our responsibility to see that we put people in those positions who do choose honest curriculum and who teach ideas, principles, concepts, theory, possibilities, and how to analyze and conceptualize and reason.

Those who trust the federal government to do that are fools.

Does the term "We the people" ring any bells? The "federal government" is "We the people". We are responsible for the federal government that we have. "We the people" need to "unite to form a more perfect union" once again. "We the people" are the fools if we allow ourselves to be divided against our own government of the people, by the people and for the people. Or are you saying that you no longer trust "We the people"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Freedom means the right to believe what we believe, profess what we profess, and value what we value regardless of anybody else's opinion about that or whether you or I think it is right or wrong. And when the federal government assumes the right to tell us what can and cannot be taught in the schools, what we must believe, profess, value, or accept, the federal government can do anything to us that it chooses to do and we have no freedoms.

True. When you ask that creationism be taught as an ‘alternative’ theory though, you are not referring to freedom that you are outlining so well here. Instead, you are demanding that others be handed competing ‘theories’ when one is clearly not scientific or based in anything other than religious preference. IOW, that is not an appeal to freedom but rather an appeal to make your own personal beliefs required teachings. Such is completely wrong.

The freedom to have your child educated in such a way still exists. You are completely capable of teaching them this at home for example. Homeschool is a strong and preferable answer to this. You are also capable of enrolling them in a private institution that teaches the curriculum that you believe in. That is your option and should always be your option but interjecting personal belief system or convictions does not belong in a public school.

I will conceded on one point though, the practice of requiring you to pay for a public institution that does not adhere to your standards of education is outright wrong and that is why I support vouchers to enable more people to choose the education for their children that they find meets the standards that they want. I think that is the only real hole here, the government taking your money and then not offering the decisions that you want in your own school.

Certainly we hope our local school boards will choose good curriculum for the public schools and will hire teachers who teach the kids good basic curriculum and teaches them to think and reason and who do not indoctrinate them in what their view of the world should be. It is our responsibility to see that we put people in those positions who do choose honest curriculum and who teach ideas, principles, concepts, theory, possibilities, and how to analyze and conceptualize and reason.

Those who trust the federal government to do that are fools.

Always true.

I would never teach Creationism as science. I would never teach Creationism as history. I would not allow that to be taught to my children if I knew that is what was being taught. I would strongly object to that as a member of my community and I would strongly reject that as a former school board member. If I was overruled by the majority, I would find another way to educate my children.

I have no problem with LOCAL property taxes going to support the public schools if that is what a majority of the people vote to do. Social Contract as the Founders envisioned it allows the people to have whatever sort of society they wish to have. And such societies are not going to be agreeable to every individual, but every individual has full right to form or be part of whatever sort of society he or she prefers.

But unless there is freedom to teach Creationism, or for those who believe in it to have equal voice in what is included in school curriculum, there is no freedom. And it is not a Constitutional function of the federal government to take away that freedom.

It wasn't the "federal government" that took away "that freedom". It was the Judicial branch who ruled that creationism is religion and therefore cannot be allowed in public schools.

 

[numan]

In short--Science need sceptics, religion need believers!

No, religion needs sceptics, too !!! Very much so !!!
.

 

[idb]

In short--Science need sceptics, religion need believers!

No, religion needs sceptics, too !!! Very much so !!!
.

Scepticism is the antithesis of Faith.

 

[Foxfyre]

Creationism belongs in religious classes not our schools. Do you want your child to be taught a version of creationism that is contrary to your beliefs?

Abortion is a legal procedure in this country. Its morality is something for parents and churches to discuss

I have never seen a school speak out against motherhood

Your parents and church should teach you that a search for God is important. NOT your school

Freedom means the right to believe what we believe, profess what we profess, and value what we value regardless of anybody else's opinion about that or whether you or I think it is right or wrong. And when the federal government assumes the right to tell us what can and cannot be taught in the schools, what we must believe, profess, value, or accept, the federal government can do anything to us that it chooses to do and we have no freedoms.

Certainly we hope our local school boards will choose good curriculum for the public schools and will hire teachers who teach the kids good basic curriculum and teaches them to think and reason and who do not indoctrinate them in what their view of the world should be. It is our responsibility to see that we put people in those positions who do choose honest curriculum and who teach ideas, principles, concepts, theory, possibilities, and how to analyze and conceptualize and reason.

Those who trust the federal government to do that are fools.

Does the term "We the people" ring any bells? The "federal government" is "We the people". We are responsible for the federal government that we have. "We the people" need to "unite to form a more perfect union" once again. "We the people" are the fools if we allow ourselves to be divided against our own government of the people, by the people and for the people. Or are you saying that you no longer trust "We the people"?

Sorry, but I know how the Founders viewed 'we the people' and how different they saw the federal government to be from 'we the people'. They conceived of a government that would serve the people and would have no power or authority of any kind other than the powers very narrowly assigned to it by the Constitution. Its purpose was to secure the rights of the people, and then the people would govern themselves however they chose to do that.

And they repeatedly worried about and cautioned the people to fear and be ever wary of increasing powers of government, and to be prepared to defend themselves if anybody attempted to again attempt to subject them to a monarch or pope or any other government authority. There was a purpose and necessity for a central government, but the people were always cautioned to never see it as friend or benefactor.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

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.

If the current laws of physics prove to be inaccurate we can always change them to fit reality. It's the great thing about science. You can swear it's the truth one day and calmly say you were wrong the next day. No harm no foul.

Science is not interested in "truth". That is the terrain of the religious. Science is interested in facts. We observe the physical world and record what we see. If a scientist begins talking about morality he is no longer a scientist, he has become a high priest advocating for whatever religion he happens to be pushing..

It's interesting to hear you say that science is not interested in truth. Are scientists interested in lies then? I would say that science is only interested in truth. Truths that can be observed, truths that can be documented, truths that can be measured, truths that can be tested. Truth doesn't really have anything to do with morality except to say that it is immoral to lie.

There isn't really anything wrong with scientists talking about morality either. As long as they understand where the science ends and the morality begins.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Freedom means the right to believe what we believe, profess what we profess, and value what we value regardless of anybody else's opinion about that or whether you or I think it is right or wrong. And when the federal government assumes the right to tell us what can and cannot be taught in the schools, what we must believe, profess, value, or accept, the federal government can do anything to us that it chooses to do and we have no freedoms.

Certainly we hope our local school boards will choose good curriculum for the public schools and will hire teachers who teach the kids good basic curriculum and teaches them to think and reason and who do not indoctrinate them in what their view of the world should be. It is our responsibility to see that we put people in those positions who do choose honest curriculum and who teach ideas, principles, concepts, theory, possibilities, and how to analyze and conceptualize and reason.

Those who trust the federal government to do that are fools.

Does the term "We the people" ring any bells? The "federal government" is "We the people". We are responsible for the federal government that we have. "We the people" need to "unite to form a more perfect union" once again. "We the people" are the fools if we allow ourselves to be divided against our own government of the people, by the people and for the people. Or are you saying that you no longer trust "We the people"?

Sorry, but I know how the Founders viewed 'we the people' and how different they saw the federal government to be from 'we the people'. They conceived of a government that would serve the people and would have no power or authority of any kind other than the powers very narrowly assigned to it by the Constitution. Its purpose was to secure the rights of the people, and then the people would govern themselves however they chose to do that.

And they repeatedly worried about and cautioned the people to fear and be ever wary of increasing powers of government, and to be prepared to defend themselves if anybody attempted to again attempt to subject them to a monarch or pope or any other government authority. There was a purpose and necessity for a central government, but the people were always cautioned to never see it as friend or benefactor.

So are you saying that the founders "great experiment" in self government has been a complete and abject failure?

 

[Foxfyre]

Does the term "We the people" ring any bells? The "federal government" is "We the people". We are responsible for the federal government that we have. "We the people" need to "unite to form a more perfect union" once again. "We the people" are the fools if we allow ourselves to be divided against our own government of the people, by the people and for the people. Or are you saying that you no longer trust "We the people"?

Sorry, but I know how the Founders viewed 'we the people' and how different they saw the federal government to be from 'we the people'. They conceived of a government that would serve the people and would have no power or authority of any kind other than the powers very narrowly assigned to it by the Constitution. Its purpose was to secure the rights of the people, and then the people would govern themselves however they chose to do that.

And they repeatedly worried about and cautioned the people to fear and be ever wary of increasing powers of government, and to be prepared to defend themselves if anybody attempted to again attempt to subject them to a monarch or pope or any other government authority. There was a purpose and necessity for a central government, but the people were always cautioned to never see it as friend or benefactor.

So are you saying that the founders "great experiment" in self government has been a complete and abject failure?

Not at all. It was an outstanding success until Teddy Roosevelt turned the Constitution on its head by declaring the government free to do anything that the Constitution did not expressly FORBID, rather than being limited to what the Constitution expressly allowed. The libertarians got caught flat footed on that one and failed to stop it.

And that started the snowball of big government power rolling and it has been gaining size, speed, and power ever since so that it now intrudes on every facet of the peoples' lives and grabs for ever more power. And as long as we allow those in the federal government to increase their power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes at our expense, they have no incentive to reverse the damage.

When the federal government can tell us what sort of society we must have, and what must and must not be taught in 4th grade, we have no freedoms at all.

 

[idb]

If the current laws of physics prove to be inaccurate we can always change them to fit reality. It's the great thing about science. You can swear it's the truth one day and calmly say you were wrong the next day. No harm no foul.

Science is not interested in "truth". That is the terrain of the religious. Science is interested in facts. We observe the physical world and record what we see. If a scientist begins talking about morality he is no longer a scientist, he has become a high priest advocating for whatever religion he happens to be pushing..

It's interesting to hear you say that science is not interested in truth. Are scientists interested in lies then? I would say that science is only interested in truth. Truths that can be observed, truths that can be documented, truths that can be measured, truths that can be tested. Truth doesn't really have anything to do with morality except to say that it is immoral to lie.

There isn't really anything wrong with scientists talking about morality either. As long as they understand where the science ends and the morality begins.

No, you misunderstand.
Think of it this way.

The scientific method really deals in probabilities.
As more and more evidence points towards a likely explanation, 'science' can say that "that explanation is the most likely".
However, no matter how strongly a conclusion is proved and accepted, 'science' is always open to new evidence that points to a different conclusion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Science is not interested in "truth". That is the terrain of the religious. Science is interested in facts. We observe the physical world and record what we see. If a scientist begins talking about morality he is no longer a scientist, he has become a high priest advocating for whatever religion he happens to be pushing..

It's interesting to hear you say that science is not interested in truth. Are scientists interested in lies then? I would say that science is only interested in truth. Truths that can be observed, truths that can be documented, truths that can be measured, truths that can be tested. Truth doesn't really have anything to do with morality except to say that it is immoral to lie.

There isn't really anything wrong with scientists talking about morality either. As long as they understand where the science ends and the morality begins.

No, you misunderstand.
Think of it this way.

The scientific method really deals in probabilities.
As more and more evidence points towards a likely explanation, 'science' can say that "that explanation is the most likely".
However, no matter how strongly a conclusion is proved and accepted, 'science' is always open to new evidence that points to a different conclusion.

Well done. To a scientist, 'truth' and 'certainty' are very big words and rarely ever figure into comprehensive scientific opinion.

 

[idb]

I heard an interesting podcast a while back that argued that Creationism etc, by trying to do scientific research were undermining their own religion.
By looking for proof of the veracity of their religion's claims they were undermining the very central pillar of that religion - Faith.
A true adherent to a religion doesn't need proof...they have Faith.

 

[Mr. H.]

Years ago I was sub-teaching a class of 4th graders. I forget how we got on the subject of conversation but this little gal started schooling me on creation vs... reality. LOL

So I asked her... "why haven't 60 million year old domestic house cat bones been found".

Her reply... "they haven't looked hard enough". Everything, and I mean everything (according to her) was created at the same time.

I dropped that one like a hot potato. This was a public school. At least once during the day the principal would walk in unannounced and just... observe. Kept me on my toes LOL.

 

[Flopper]

Science is not interested in "truth". That is the terrain of the religious. Science is interested in facts. We observe the physical world and record what we see. If a scientist begins talking about morality he is no longer a scientist, he has become a high priest advocating for whatever religion he happens to be pushing..

It's interesting to hear you say that science is not interested in truth. Are scientists interested in lies then? I would say that science is only interested in truth. Truths that can be observed, truths that can be documented, truths that can be measured, truths that can be tested. Truth doesn't really have anything to do with morality except to say that it is immoral to lie.

There isn't really anything wrong with scientists talking about morality either. As long as they understand where the science ends and the morality begins.

No, you misunderstand.
Think of it this way.

The scientific method really deals in probabilities.
As more and more evidence points towards a likely explanation, 'science' can say that "that explanation is the most likely".
However, no matter how strongly a conclusion is proved and accepted, 'science' is always open to new evidence that points to a different conclusion.

In science there is no absolute truth. Only in mathematics do we have absolute truth.