Beerball Posted June 3, 2012 Posted June 3, 2012 Or do you believe what your taught? Perhaps a well rounded look might do many on both sides of the aisle well. In this case to argue we should teach it because it's what we believe is a bit of a circulat logic for me on unproven things like religion. I think if venturing into religious teachings a diverse look at them is the best approach. To exclude anything foreign has a bit of the 'mericas the best ring to it. I get what your saying, but personally don't believe it's the best approach, If it were practial schools could teach everyone everything. That would be best.
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 3, 2012 Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) If it were pracital schools could teach everyone everything. That would be best. As long as we mock America. That seems somehow important to our enlightened Friends. Edited June 3, 2012 by Jim in Anchorage
LeviF Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 If it were pracital schools could teach everyone everything. That would be best. Indeed. I think a well-rounded general education in the early adolescent years should include a class on various religions and their mythos. My earlier world history classes covered most of the major religions, including their rises (and, if applicable, falls) and their major beliefs. Looking at how religions like Christianity and Islam spread like wildfire is rather interesting.
boyst Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Indeed. I think a well-rounded general education in the early adolescent years should include a class on various religions and their mythos. My earlier world history classes covered most of the major religions, including their rises (and, if applicable, falls) and their major beliefs. Looking at how religions like Christianity and Islam spread like wildfire is rather interesting. Good point. I remember studying the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians and their religious beliefs being all but laughed at and mocked (remember I grew up outside of Toledo - a very good suburb with one of the top school districts in the state). We never talked about Christianity and talked about Islam for perhaps 2 classes - but not as Islam, it was about the Gulf War (graduated in 2000). Our History classes (up until 8th grade) stopped right at Vietnam where we were told it was controversial but not why. Then our HS only taught 2 semesters of "modern" American History - and one of those was more a government theory class. I think Sylvania's issue was that there was a very diverse culture. The Catholic, Hebrew and Muslim population were large and as a total population may have been just as prevelant as Christians.
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 And you are blind. PTR Math can, in fact, describe things that don't exist. That's why it's "math", and not "science".
LeviF Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Good point. I remember studying the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians and their religious beliefs being all but laughed at and mocked (remember I grew up outside of Toledo - a very good suburb with one of the top school districts in the state). I always like to pose this question to monotheists who laugh at pagans: what makes more sense, a bunch of supreme beings (gods) came together to create a universe, or some bored guy came up with it all on his own? It always gets me some odd looks. It's like they've never worked as a team before.
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 I always like to pose this question to monotheists who laugh at pagans: what makes more sense, a bunch of supreme beings (gods) came together to create a universe, or some bored guy came up with it all on his own? It always gets me some odd looks. It's like they've never worked as a team before. monotheists? Oh I bet you get odd looks.
boyst Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 I always like to pose this question to monotheists who laugh at pagans: what makes more sense, a bunch of supreme beings (gods) came together to create a universe, or some bored guy came up with it all on his own? It always gets me some odd looks. It's like they've never worked as a team before. The part you and many forget is that for many others it is not about sense or even logic. It is about faith. Just lie being asked what do you believe in and replying you're atheist. The next question is always "so you believe in nothing?" I believe in me...and Yoko...of course. Religion is not a belief it is a choice. As part of that choice you choose to believe.
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 The part you and many forget is that for many others it is not about sense or even logic. It is about faith. Just lie being asked what do you believe in and replying you're atheist. The next question is always "so you believe in nothing?" I believe in me...and Yoko...of course. Religion is not a belief it is a choice. As part of that choice you choose to believe. So's reality. You choose to believe the evidence of your own perceptions. Anything comes down to some a priori assummption that can't be proven, only accepted on faith.
LeviF Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 So's reality. You choose to believe the evidence of your own perceptions. This is true. But hey, if I can't rely on my own eyes and ears, what can I rely on? Oh, wait. !@#$.
Marv's Neighbor Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Our Education System is circling the drain! Every day our board is filled with "would ya?'s" and the "would ya" is usually a teacher?? The rest of the "developed world" is eating our lunch because we're so far behind in Math & Science. So everybody's got their shorts in a knot over a percentage number, from a mathematical poll, that's basis is a version of Science??
Dan Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 1338751448[/url]' post='2479572']To my knowledge, there isn't any widely accepted, factual evidence for evolution as a "ground up" theory. The evidence is limited to the evolution of particular species over time. Although I am personally accepting of evolution, the idea that this theory accounts for our physical and biological origins isn't any more factual at this point than creationism, IMO. I'm not sure where new species come from, but last I knew there wasn't any "factual" evidence that species evolve into OTHER species. The factual evidence of evolution is limited to intra-species variation and cannot yet account for, say, our evolution from apes or fish or whatever. Perhaps at some point that evidence will be found, and it's something I will probably find as fascinating as anyone else, but as of today (last I knew) it simply doesn't exist. It is, of course, THEORIZED how one species evolves into other species, but I don't recall there being anything definitive on this as of yet. Actually there's quite a bit of evidence that species diversify over time and the creation of new species. Here's a decent overview. The classic example is Darwin's finches. Indviduals made their way from the mainland to the Galapagos islands and became reproductively isolated from their mainland counterparts. Over time, the island inhabiting birds evolved into new species.
ajzepp Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Indeed. I think a well-rounded general education in the early adolescent years should include a class on various religions and their mythos. My earlier world history classes covered most of the major religions, including their rises (and, if applicable, falls) and their major beliefs. Looking at how religions like Christianity and Islam spread like wildfire is rather interesting. Couldn't agree more. The Christians here in the south were mentioned earlier...one of my biggest criticisms of them is that they don't know about ANYTHING else in the world. They have their one view of religion, completely to fail to understand how strong the cultural/parental influence is on one's religious bent, and have absolutely no tolerance or interest in the basis for another's views or beliefs. It would be like someone who believes that Georgia is the best place in the country to live, even though they've never set foot in any other state, have never taken the time to learn about other states, and have no desire to ask you about your feelings on the matter. I don't see how you can know if you really believe what you believe until you have at least some understanding of the alternative explanations. One of the best things that ever happened to me was when I took a series of courses called "Intellectual Heritage". It was over three semesters and we read and discussed some of the world's literature, religious beliefs, etc. I had no idea what Hinduism was specifically when I took the course, but I had a professor who was a classical romantic and he presented it in such a way that really appealed to me. Do I subscribe to Hindi beliefs? No. But I find their religion beautiful and I loved learning more about it. Same was true when we read and discussed the Koran, poetry (Pablo Neruda changed my life!), literature, etc...I would have loved to have gotten more of this in h.s, especially considering how our country doesn't exist in a vacuum anymore.
ajzepp Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Actually there's quite a bit of evidence that species diversify over time and the creation of new species. Here's a decent overview. The classic example is Darwin's finches. Indviduals made their way from the mainland to the Galapagos islands and became reproductively isolated from their mainland counterparts. Over time, the island inhabiting birds evolved into new species. Thanks man, I'll definitely give that a read. I do remember Darwin's Finches, but thought that had more to do with natural selection than it did speciation...I'll have to update myself in this area cause it's been about 14 years since I was last involved with it.
ajzepp Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Actually, there is. Speciation has been observed - although it causes problems, not with evolutionary theory, but with the definition of the term "species". This is sort of where something like Darwin's Finches would fall though, right? Not really evidence that a finch evolves into some other more complex character, but evidence that variation exists to such a degree that one finch is differentiated from another finch by classification? Sort of how there are like a thousand different types of ant or fly or whatever based on certain differences and the fact that the fly with the bigger eyes won't mate with the fly with the stubby wings?
Cynical Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) It would be like someone who believes that Georgia is the best place in the country to live, even though they've never set foot in any other state, have never taken the time to learn about other states, You have lived in GA since 1999 and you have not come across at least one of these people? How have you managed that? I have run into people who have no problem telling me the South is the best place to live, except for Florida (because FLA is not really southern anyways) Their entire exposure of the "south" means venturing into Tenn once a month Georgia is the best place to live ( they have been to Athens and Macon, they know!) and the occasional "NW Georgia is the best". Rationale? Everything else is just a cesspool of Atheism, Liberalism, and Socialism. Their friend told them so. (The friend is the idiot that went to Athens and Macon.) and have no desire to ask you about your feelings on the matter. Even if they do ask, anything less than "I love me some Georgia! Bestest place in the whole wide God fearing world!" goes over like a lead balloon. When I first moved here, any criticism was met with "Delta's ready when you are". Edited June 4, 2012 by Cynical
ajzepp Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 You have lived in GA since 1999 and you have not come across at least one of these people? How have you managed that? No, I totally HAVE lol. I'm using the Georgia thing to illustrate my point about the "Christians" down here...all they know is what their parents and their pastor taught them. They have no clue about the cultural landscape of this country outside of their own isolation, let alone the world. It's just a big "rah-rah" brainwashing session in lot of churches down here...to each their own, but I think a conviction for Mazda's beign the best cars on the market is much more valid when you are also knowledgeable about Fords, Hondas, VW, and whatever else.
Dan Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 1338788670[/url]' post='2479883']This is sort of where something like Darwin's Finches would fall though, right? Not really evidence that a finch evolves into some other more complex character, but evidence that variation exists to such a degree that one finch is differentiated from another finch by classification? Sort of how there are like a thousand different types of ant or fly or whatever based on certain differences and the fact that the fly with the bigger eyes won't mate with the fly with the stubby wings? Yes, the classic Finch example is representative of natural selection, which is a microevolutionary process and is responsible for speciation on a smaller time frame. In a nut shell, its as you stated, how you get multiple similar species. To see more dramatic speciation, ie the development of chordates, you need to look at macroevolutionary processes that take place over a much longer time frame. For that, we're by and large talking about fossil records.
ajzepp Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Yes, the classic Finch example is representative of natural selection, which is a microevolutionary process and is responsible for speciation on a smaller time frame. In a nut shell, its as you stated, how you get multiple similar species. To see more dramatic speciation, ie the development of chordates, you need to look at macroevolutionary processes that take place over a much longer time frame. For that, we're by and large talking about fossil records. Okay, that sounds pretty consistent with what I was taught...definitely an interesting field of study
Recommended Posts