how would you feel if a creationist taught your kids science?

[geauxtohell]

Well bully for you. I would like to see how you would organize a classroom full of students from a wide variety of backgrounds, experiences, and faiths and ensure that none of them ever ask the awkward question about anything. Perhaps you wouldn't ever allow them to talk or ask questions? Or maybe you would be the science teacher I would recommend to transferred to the shop class?

Actually, I have a very pragmatic solution for this issue: teach science.

That means, before you get into the meat of scientific curriculum; do a block about what science is and is not, to include the history of science. Then explain the scientific method and how it defines what is and what is not a scientific theory.

In this aspect, I think ID has a very good role in the science classroom: as an example of what a scientific theory is not. You don't have to try and debate ID, you simply have to demonstrate why it is not a legitimate scientific theory (among the many reasons, you can't falsify the existence of a supernatural, all powerful being).

Don't insult me. I've been rather civil on this thread, despite the fact that the same dishonest crap gets thrown around. As I am a year and a half away from being an M.D., i am fairly confident I could handle a scientific curriculum at the high school level. I don't know a damn thing about shop class and would be completely worthless there.

 

[edthecynic]

A committed capitalist would probably know all the theories of economics out there and would probably teach them competently. If he was of the bent that would teach Marxism as evil rather than as an economic concept, however, then yes, I would object to him as a teacher.

I've never known a committed Marxist however who even understood how capitalism works, much less would be able to teach it objectively. And yes, my opinion about that speaks to my own prejudices as there could be a Marxist out there somewhere who could teach economics competently and objectively. But I've never known one. Nor read one. Nor listened to one. So I'll just hold onto my opinion about that. A Marxist by definition views capitalism as evil.

Judging from the committed Capitalists on this board, it is highly unlikely they would know any theory of economics, not even Capitalism.

Fortunately you CON$ervative "mind-readers" don't get to control the definitions!!!

But we can argue a point of view without being hateful or ad hominem or personally insulting. Can you?

But can you stop reading minds?

 

[geauxtohell]

That is not the FLot!

That is the Creationist's PERVERSION of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The actual SLoT says, In a closed thermodynamic system, Entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO zero. When Entropy equals zero you break even. If Entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist.

Well, I heard it from my physics professor and took it to mean you can never get to 100% efficiency when it comes to energy, which encompasses all three laws.

In other words, it took millions of years to form the hydrocarbons that we are going to blow through in a few hundred years.

I would guess that you misunderstood your professor. If you look it up you will see the equation is E ≥ 0. Your version would be E > 0. While there are many examples where E > 0, it is not true in ALL cases.

Maybe, physics wasn't my cup of tea.

Although I do find the lame attempts by the creationists to evoke the 2nd law of TD as an argument against evolution to be hilarious. Almost as funny as the "You'll never see a plane spontaneously assemble in a junkyard" crapola.

 

[geauxtohell]

I guess as long as the cartoonist doesn't draw pictures of Muhammad in science class we're good.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

 

[saveliberty]

I guess as long as the cartoonist doesn't draw pictures of Muhammad in science class we're good.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Exactly dumbass.

 

[geauxtohell]

I guess as long as the cartoonist doesn't draw pictures of Muhammad in science class we're good.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Exactly dumbass.

Aren't you a peach?

Are you going to actually contribute to the thread, or just keep posting dumb-assed one liners?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well bully for you. I would like to see how you would organize a classroom full of students from a wide variety of backgrounds, experiences, and faiths and ensure that none of them ever ask the awkward question about anything. Perhaps you wouldn't ever allow them to talk or ask questions? Or maybe you would be the science teacher I would recommend to transferred to the shop class?

Actually, I have a very pragmatic solution for this issue: teach science.

That means, before you get into the meat of scientific curriculum; do a block about what science is and is not, to include the history of science. Then explain the scientific method and how it defines what is and what is not a scientific theory.

In this aspect, I think ID has a very good role in the science classroom: as an example of what a scientific theory is not. You don't have to try and debate ID, you simply have to demonstrate why it is not a legitimate scientific theory (among the many reasons, you can't falsify the existence of a supernatural, all powerful being).

Don't insult me. I've been rather civil on this thread, despite the fact that the same dishonest crap gets thrown around. As I am a year and a half away from being an M.D., i am fairly confident I could handle a scientific curriculum at the high school level. I don't know a damn thing about shop class and would be completely worthless there.

I don't think you're listening. I hope you listen to your patients better. I don't want the teacher to debate ID or Creationism or anything even remotely like that. I have been pretty explicit about that. But if you would choose that as the illustration of what scientific theory is not, it's shop class for you. You might suck at teaching shop but at least you would not be perceived as attacking the religious faith of your students.

I suppose your lecture on what science is and science is not would work with most students. I doubt seriously it would head off the awkward question or objection from the sincere fundamentalist student who felt it necessary to defend his religious beliefs.

 

[saveliberty]

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Exactly dumbass.

Aren't you a peach?

Are you going to actually contribute to the thread, or just keep posting dumb-assed one liners?

Already did a few pages back. I suppose a black person should not bring their beliefs into an American History class. Fat gym teachers should be fired. I definitely think a doctor is worthless, if he doesn't understand a patient's state of mind as important in recovery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Exactly dumbass.

Aren't you a peach?

Are you going to actually contribute to the thread, or just keep posting dumb-assed one liners?

Already did a few pages back. I suppose a black person should not bring their beliefs into an American History class. Fat gym teachers should be fired.

The public school biology class, saveliberty, deals with evolution not ID or creationism, which can be taught elsewhere in the school because they are philosophical explanations. Foxfyre has answered clearly as anybody here as to questions about ID and creationism should be handled: sensitively and reasonably.

 

[geauxtohell]

I don't think you're listening. I hope you listen to your patients better.

Lame personal attack. You are usually better than this.

I don't want the teacher to debate ID or Creationism or anything even remotely like that. I have been pretty explicit about that. But if you would choose that as the illustration of what scientific theory is not, it's shop class for you.

No, I'd just give up on being a pro-bono High School Science Teacher (which I am interested in doing) and go back to be a full time Doctor and making much more money.

I realize that was a dick thing to post, but since you have decided to become somewhat nasty, I figured I'd return the favor.

By all means, inform me why intelligent design is a scientific theory. I am really interested in your thoughts on the matter. Though, I am curious as to how you are going to formulate your null hypothesis.

Do you know what a null hypothesis is? I can explain it to you if you want.

You might suck at teaching shop but at least you would not be perceived as attacking the religious faith of your students.

As I said before, you don't have to debate the issue of whether ID is true or not true, you simply have to point out that is is not scientific and doesn't belong in science class. Not a hard concept.

I suppose your lecture on what science is and science is not would work with most students. I doubt seriously it would head off the awkward question or objection from the sincere fundamentalist student who felt it necessary to defend his religious beliefs.

Again, you have obviously misunderstood my thoughts on the matter. My response would be: "I can't tell you if ID is true or not true. That is beyond the scope of science. My point to you is that it is not science. Now let's review the scientific method again so we understand the difference between science and theology as I obviously didn't do a good job of explaining that."

 

[geauxtohell]

Exactly dumbass.

Aren't you a peach?

Are you going to actually contribute to the thread, or just keep posting dumb-assed one liners?

Already did a few pages back. I suppose a black person should not bring their beliefs into an American History class. Fat gym teachers should be fired. I definitely think a doctor is worthless, if he doesn't understand a patient's state of mind as important in recovery.

That's apples and footballs to this subject. Science is a rigorously defined matter that doesn't leave any room for debate over what is and is not scientific.

That's why it's a little different then the other fields.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I would like to see how you would organize a classroom full of students from a wide variety of backgrounds, experiences, and faiths and ensure that none of them ever ask the awkward question about anything. Perhaps you wouldn't ever allow them to talk or ask questions?

The dumb suggestions you are making have little to do with what the children ask, but how the science teacher answers. Kids are allowed to ask questions, but that doesn't mean a teacher needs to answer them directly. If a 5th grader raises his hand and asks his English teacher to go over the benefits and drawbacks of abortion to society, that is NOT an appropriate topic to be addressed by that teacher, and should be redirected elsewhere. Similarly, a student asking about religious topics in a SCIENCE classroom should NOT have his religious ideas acknowledged, but redirected elsewhere.

Stop pushing your religious beliefs into the science classroom in ANY capacity, regardless of who brings it up first.

I don't think you're listening. I hope you listen to your patients better. I don't want the teacher to debate ID or Creationism or anything even remotely like that. I have been pretty explicit about that. But if you would choose that as the illustration of what scientific theory is not, it's shop class for you. You might suck at teaching shop but at least you would not be perceived as attacking the religious faith of your students.

I don't think YOU'RE listening. This has nothing to do with attacking the faith of others. It has to do with not acknowledging it. You seem to have difficulty with the idea of no acknowledged response. It seems that to you, the teacher needs to either agree or disagree on the spot, when the third option of doing neither and redirecting that student is the BEST option.

Your religion has NO place in the science classroom.

 

[saveliberty]

Aren't you a peach?

Are you going to actually contribute to the thread, or just keep posting dumb-assed one liners?

Already did a few pages back. I suppose a black person should not bring their beliefs into an American History class. Fat gym teachers should be fired. I definitely think a doctor is worthless, if he doesn't understand a patient's state of mind as important in recovery.

That's apples and footballs to this subject. Science is a rigorously defined matter that doesn't leave any room for debate over what is and is not scientific.

That's why it's a little different then the other fields.

Sceince has large areas of theory, which by definition, are not proven fact. You choose to dismiss what I say, because it is truth and hurtful to your argument.

 

[geauxtohell]

Already did a few pages back. I suppose a black person should not bring their beliefs into an American History class. Fat gym teachers should be fired. I definitely think a doctor is worthless, if he doesn't understand a patient's state of mind as important in recovery.

That's apples and footballs to this subject. Science is a rigorously defined matter that doesn't leave any room for debate over what is and is not scientific.

That's why it's a little different then the other fields.

Sceince has large areas of theory, which by definition, are not proven fact. You choose to dismiss what I say, because it is truth and hurtful to your argument.

LMAO. If you are one of those whack-a-doodles that doesn't know the difference between a scientific theory and the common usage of the word, you are beyond caring about.

Don't play lame semantics games with me. I know better.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think you're listening. I hope you listen to your patients better.

Lame personal attack. You are usually better than this.

Not a personal attack at all. My perception is you are not hearing what I'm saying and you are misinterpreting my point of view. I could have left off the patients thing I suppose but you're the one claiming expertise in science because you're about to be a doctor. So I think I wasn't totally out of line there. My intent is not to offend but to defend my own point of view.

I don't want the teacher to debate ID or Creationism or anything even remotely like that. I have been pretty explicit about that. But if you would choose that as the illustration of what scientific theory is not, it's shop class for you.

No, I'd just give up on being a pro-bono High School Science Teacher (which I am interested in doing) and go back to be a full time Doctor and making much more money.

I realize that was a dick thing to post, but since you have decided to become somewhat nasty, I figured I'd return the favor.

No sir. I have not become in any way nasty and I have refrained from personal insults or ad hominem comments. You're the one who said you wouldn't make a good shop teacher. I wouldn't either. But neither one of us has any business in a discussion class of any kind if we are going to even appear to attack or criticize the faith of our students.

By all means, inform me why intelligent design is a scientific theory. I am really interested in your thoughts on the matter. Though, I am curious as to how you are going to formulate your null hypothesis.

Do you know what a null hypothesis is? I can explain it to you if you want.

And this is why I think you aren't listening. I have not even remotely suggested that intelligent design is a scientific theory and have specifically stated that numerous times in this thread. I have provided a lot of thoughts on the matter. Perhaps if you had read them you would not be suggesting that I am proposing what I am not proposing.

You might suck at teaching shop but at least you would not be perceived as attacking the religious faith of your students.

As I said before, you don't have to debate the issue of whether ID is true or not true, you simply have to point out that is is not scientific and doesn't belong in science class. Not a hard concept.

But why in the world would you, the teacher, introduce a hot button topic such as that if it was not for the explicit purpose of appearing to attack the students' faith? That might not be your intent at all but it would absolutely have that effect and almost force the issue onto the surface. I think your principal would have every reason to see that as very poor judgment however objective your motive might have been.

I suppose your lecture on what science is and science is not would work with most students. I doubt seriously it would head off the awkward question or objection from the sincere fundamentalist student who felt it necessary to defend his religious beliefs.

Again, you have obviously misunderstood my thoughts on the matter. My response would be: "I can't tell you if ID is true or not true. That is beyond the scope of science. My point to you is that it is not science. Now let's review the scientific method again so we understand the difference between science and theology as I obviously didn't do a good job of explaining that."

You still aren't getting my point. My point is that this student will not give a flying fig about what your concept of scientific theory is. This student will be defending his belief system, his faith. Your job as the teacher, the way I see it, is not to attack or dismiss that faith in any way. All you have to do is agree that there are those who see it as the student sees it, but as it is a matter of faith and not science, it will not be discussed in your class. That would be the truth. And you can tell the student he does not have to agree with the theory of evolution. But he will have to know the subject matter in order to pass the test.

 

[saveliberty]

That's apples and footballs to this subject. Science is a rigorously defined matter that doesn't leave any room for debate over what is and is not scientific.

That's why it's a little different then the other fields.

Sceince has large areas of theory, which by definition, are not proven fact. You choose to dismiss what I say, because it is truth and hurtful to your argument.

LMAO. If you are one of those whack-a-doodles that doesn't know the difference between a scientific theory and the common usage of the word, you are beyond caring about.

Don't play lame semantics games with me. I know better.

Fact: I'm a trained science teacher.
Fact: Theories are not proven fact.

Suggestion: Become a surgeon. Your bedside manner sucks. Relating to people is critical to being a successful teacher.

 

[rdean]

We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.

One is the study of this "reality". The other is based on the belief in "magic".

 

[Foxfyre]

Sceince has large areas of theory, which by definition, are not proven fact. You choose to dismiss what I say, because it is truth and hurtful to your argument.

LMAO. If you are one of those whack-a-doodles that doesn't know the difference between a scientific theory and the common usage of the word, you are beyond caring about.

Don't play lame semantics games with me. I know better.

Fact: I'm a trained science teacher.
Fact: Theories are not proven fact.

Suggestion: Become a surgeon. Your bedside manner sucks. Relating to people is critical to being a successful teacher.

Exactly. I had a science teacher once--the best I EVER had--who wouldn't allow us to state anything as fact. If "A" worked in a stationary environment or at X speed or at mach speed, would it work at warp speed? We don't know as we have never had a way to test that.

If "B" is a fact on Planet Earth would it be the same in a different solar system? We can suppose that it would be, but we won't know for certain until we test it.

Geauxtohell told me that it wasn't true that 'certainty' was a very big deal to a scientist.

That science teacher taught me to believe that it was true. He died last year. He left a lot of very much better educated students behind who will remember him fondly.

 

[rdean]

Sceince has large areas of theory, which by definition, are not proven fact. You choose to dismiss what I say, because it is truth and hurtful to your argument.

LMAO. If you are one of those whack-a-doodles that doesn't know the difference between a scientific theory and the common usage of the word, you are beyond caring about.

Don't play lame semantics games with me. I know better.

Fact: I'm a trained science teacher.
Fact: Theories are not proven fact.

Suggestion: Become a surgeon. Your bedside manner sucks. Relating to people is critical to being a successful teacher.

Is there a difference between a "theory" and a "scientific" theory and if there is, what makes them "different"?

 

[saveliberty]

There are very few facts in science Foxfyre. He taught you corrctly. Mr. God complex is typical of doctors.