Evolution question.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

...Thanks, Tao.

I would have to agree, creationism has no place in the public school. Inasmuch as we trying to present a sound education, we should teach the current understanding of evolutionary theory ... keeping in mind that `theory' isn't the same thing as a hypotheis, or belief, or educated guess. What we know about the development of the earth ... the evolution of various species, the diversification and complexity that have emerged from a much beginning, and so forth ... all of this needs to be taught as fact. Dating methods, as we know, are only approximate, and always subject to later reinterpretation and correction.

Then censurship is an acceptable paradigm? I mean, after all, the scientifically educated are of the mind that theirs is the correct way, and all other thought is "pagan"? Therefore the errant ignorant thinking must be erradicated?

My word! Just substitute a few words in the above paragraph and what do we have? Let's find out:

I would have to agree, evolutionism has no place in the public school. Inasmuch as we trying to present a sound education, we should teach the current understanding of creationary theory ... keeping in mind that `theory' isn't the same thing as a hypotheis, or belief, or educated guess. What we know about the development of the earth ... the creation of various species, the diversification and complexity that have emerged from a much beginning, and so forth ... all of this needs to be taught as fact. Dating methods, as we know, are only approximate, and always subject to later reinterpretation and correction.

Sounds eerily familiar...and just as scary...

one more point: "...all of this needs to be "taught" as "fact"."

Says who?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Thanks, Tao.

You are welcome but that was only my synopsis, others may see it differently.


It has been a long time since I have had a post of yours to respond to Andrew. You have a unique approach, and to my mind set of beliefs, that I have always enjoyed. As I am not as active on your favourite topics this rare treat is welcomed.

But I think the conclusions must be left open-ended. And a good teacher knows how to stimulate his students interest, draw out (educare) their innate curiosty and desire to learn, and lead them only toward the search that they must make their own -- and not toward pre-packaged, rote conclusions which substitute for, or negate any real future possibility of say, a proper cosmology or metaphysics, a cosmogensis, an anthropogenesis, or even a theogenesis.

POO went into this eloquently toward the beginning of the thread. I of course concur that a good educator is creating the environment and providing the tools for the pupils self discovery. Far from all see it that way tho. And too often the very best teachers are hampered at every turn by legislative limitations and rigid educational goals. Each of us has had their own unique experience of the education system. And each of us will value it differently. Personally in my education experience about 10% of my teachers cared about their job at all and less than half of them were actually inspirational. I recognise different pupils find different teachers inspirational or even motivated so such a summary statement is not the true picture of teachers ability overall.

Religion, where it intersects with education, should be taught in a college course, either by the religious studies department, or in the philosophy department ... or by a divinity school.

Yes, when the person is old enough to make that as a choice.

World mythologies, on the other hand, both East, West, modern and ancient ... including at least some fragments from as many diverse cultures as possible, ought to be required reading from even as early an age as kindergarten. An entire program of arts & humanities is sorely lacking in the educational system that I remember, and even in the current textbooks what we have is an extremely biased, or at least cursory presentation ... which hardly encourages students to look beyond their own Sunday School lessons, or Buddhist sutras, Koran verses, Torah, etc.

I could go with this for kids over 12 so long as it was 100% unbiased and revealed the many wrongs religion can be held accountable for. I do not think children incapable of thinking deeply far younger, quite the opposite, but as religion throws up such contentious questions that have such wide ramifications a child ought to be able to do a bit of independent learning before approaching such complexity. You might even find if this was enacted that you would have far more people that find true meaning in their religion rather than having been bored into submission as a child and never really understanding, questioning and questing for it for themselves. And it seems to me that any religion that feels obliged to indoctrinate its children into it has very little faith in itself. The "we have a duty to save our children" argument is weak. Children are children and they should be allowed to be children. Starting that facet of education at 12, unbiased and comprehensively looking at all and all aspects of religions, is what we are owe our children. A pre 12 might have some very cute, ingenious and even inspirational things to say about the concept, but they do not possess the experience to make overall value judgements. So I say let them be.

The `either-or' problem is a dead end, however, and I would hope that we'd all be able to see that at this point. Personally, I groan when I hear the term Intelligent Design ... because I happen to believe this phrase beautifully captures the exact point which spiritually-minded (and religiously-minded) people have been trying to make for decades!

I agree the term "Intelligent Design" has been hijacked by a group that does not deserve to use it and that it belongs throughout the gamut of spiritual experience to describe those that have bothered looking and have arrived at that conclusion. I never use the phrase, I always use creationists as I believe to use it is playing into their hands. It is no accident that the phrase is misapplied when you consider creationists employ advertising and PR execs.

Yes, we would all do well to have a look once again, from start to finish, at Spencer Tracy, Gene Kelly, Harry Morgan and the gang in Inherit the Wind ... if we haven't watched it recently. It is a beautiful testament to the triumph of Truth in our modern world, over superstition, fear, suppression and hate. Many more such triumphs have been won in the name of science ... but I'm afraid the cold, dead fingers of the spectres of 18th and 19th century materialism still haunt our modern mind all too pervasively.

A rather sideways response to this but one that stays firmly linked with education......

Education is all the difference in the world. I am one of those, like most people who would even bother to post on a forum site like this, who has not let their education stop at the formalised variety. We are all here seeking a path through and sharing our thoughts. Diverse as they are. Thoughts are rarely huge edifices carved in Grampian granite but neither are they vacuous strands of gossamer. But the swing toward either extreme is generated by individual circumstance and is informed by our education. Knowing your individual circumstance in a comprehensive self-honest way is not easy and, I think, very rarely even attempted. Religions like Buddhism that are heavy on the introversion then often attach a cartload of baggage, ( obligatory text and ritual), and whilst they can in some cases aid a person to as full a perception of their reality as any of us achieves, they are still largely baggage for the majority of seekers. In my experience wisdom is never complete and so neither should be our education. Too often the adoption of religion means an end to education.

Anyone who takes a little time to investigate -- and this already includes a good number of modern and 20th Century scientists -- cannot but be amazed and impressed, even intrigued, captivated by the extensive astronomical (and astrological) knowledge of the ancient Hindus. A similar knowledge can be demonstrated as being in the possession of dozens of other civilizations or cultures, from the Egyptian, Roman and Greek, to the Babylonian, Chaldean, Azetec, Mayan, Dogon, Nordic, Icelandic and so forth. Only now, in the past few decades of astronomical observation and progress in the various branches of physics, are some of our "cutting edge" discoveries finally catching up with what the ancients knew tens (if not possibly hundred) of thousands of years ago.

I know this touches on some of your more unusual beliefs that I personally find fantastical. None the less from what I have read and find interesting is a body of evidence to support very early intellectual civilisations. I would say we have a bit of a Victorian mindset about man suddenly becoming little more than a stupid cave dweller just before agriculture took hold in Mesopotamia. They had stars to look at back then. Not drowned out by the glare of city lights. The stars were very much more a part of everybody's daily life and we can only expect there to be a rich and diverse body of thought on them and what/how they are. So much so that you could expect every idea we see.

Now ... if modern science, which is revered as gospel and hailed as the new religion by its adherents worldwide, but nowhere so unabashedly as in the west ... if science, could only be understood in the same light as religion, as art, as economics, politics and philosophy -- we might finally be able to get somewhere in our thinking.

I disagree on two fronts. First, with the exception of very few vocal exceptions, I have yet to meet someone who embraces science as a way at answering questions that calls science their religion. I know what science is, I know what religion is and I know they are not the same thing. What science is is, to quote you,
" Science is a method, and not primarily a body of knowledge, or facts."
Second... as "method" or, as I prefer, tool...science is open to every facet of human questing. It should stand alone and independent and that is how I view it and why I refute it can be called a religion. To me religion is a metaphysical philosophy. Science an observational reality philosophy. Religion is not a science and science is not a religion. Religion can use science, however corruptly, and science can describe religion, sometimes scathingly. There are interfaces but they are not the same.

But what does science have to say at this point about additional senses as fully legitimate means of information-gathering ... or with regard to the Intuition as a faculty of consciousness altogether different than, and superior to the Intellect?

Not a lot but there is some research done and very little of it has shown much evidence. Some slight effects have been found but nothing startling. It is hard to get funding for serious studies into this area and so maybe there are realisations to be made, we maybe even be on the verge of opening a new sensory family, but it has not happened yet and so must await its time, if ever.

But that needs to be kept close in check with our greatest understanding of a Divine Plan for Humanity, for other species and for the planet as a whole, inasmuch as we may have thus far discovered -- and understood one.

With the exception of a belief in a Gaia type theory of super organism, in which man is utterly expendable, I see absolutely no evidence anywhere for such a "plan". Where is the evidence?

Some might want to simply toss this bone to the religious-minded, or to the "speculations of philosophers," as we like to say, but this is the kind of buck-passing which the scientist should not be permitted. Science, just as politics, economics and religion, has a responsibility to the greater whole ... and sometimes the hard questions must be addressed head-on. We cannot let vital questions about human origins be kicked back and forth like a soccer ball, each team apparently oblivious to the fact that that little orb actually veils (quite innocently, but necessarily) all the answers to the debate at hand -- plus the potential realization that that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Again I say science is a tool. It does not 'pass the buck'. The four methods of human speculation are Philosophy, Religion, Science and the Arts. Each are tools by which we can study the human condition and our greater environment. There can be many interfaces between them and I have never knowingly seen them all perfectly balanced, there is always a weighting in some direction. To say that something is true it has to have empirical, repeatable proof. It has to have science prove it. Religions try to cop out of it in various ways, but until science proves that there is some real evidence for "Diving Planning", it is only philosophy. And, crucially, should be regarded as such.

The absurdity of what we have heard does make you want to roll your eyes, on the one hand, but what about the indignation which the person of faith (be that Christian, Muslim, Pagan or non-specified) must suffer when the die-hard skeptic, the materialist and reductivist steps into the arena?

With a few choice words, the reverential atmosphere, the very aura of both mystery and knowing, familiarity and awe seems to vanish, parodied and rendered superfluous, childish and absurd, by the oh-so-superior and supposedly obvious conclusions of our senses, and "rational mind."

-- There is no invisible man in the sky, there are no magical winged creatures flitting about doing good deeds as bells ring, and surely when we look at the enormity of it all, the sheer complexity of what nature has produced, and reconcile the many successes with the equally staggering number and variety of failures ... clearly there is no room to entertain an unsupported & undefensible blind faiith in a method to all the madness?

The last, desperate cry of the materialist being the most ironic, as he himself knows, deep down, that he cannot fail to see the ever-present pattern, and Order behind all of nature, anywhere and everywhere he might happen to look!

lol, you mean me dont you!! Right up to the last paragraph it is very me. For the last paragraph I would respond that the human brain is wired to measure its observations by creating patterns. That does not infer a great big pattern maker in the sky.

We are like the residents of the Cave, doin' fine watchin' shadows on the wall ... and the lunatic raving about the Sunlight is mad as a march hare. He's nothing new. They come and go, and disturb our ways ... but eventually they leave us in peace, and let us go on with -- hmmm

Reaching for the light?


tao

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I think there is a 10 thousand word maximum per post, so you would have to split into 4.

My suggestion would be to begin a new thread for something so lengthy. I have done that a time or two on CR. By no means do I make this next suggestion as a way to shoo you away, but I think you may have the best opportunity to catch Bananabrain's attention by posting on the Judaism board. If I were you, that is what I would do; split my OP into 4 parts (less than 10 thousand words each) and start a new thread on the Judaism board to get BB's attention.

Best of luck whatever you decide. And please feel free to continue here as well.

Thanks. I took your advice and queried bananabrain as a separate thread on the Judaism board. The thread is at

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...rain-9420.html

Best to all,

Operacast

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Then censurship is an acceptable paradigm? I mean, after all, the scientifically educated are of the mind that theirs is the correct way, and all other thought is "pagan"? Therefore the errant ignorant thinking must be erradicated?

My word! Just substitute a few words in the above paragraph and what do we have? Let's find out:

I would have to agree, evolutionism has no place in the public school. Inasmuch as we trying to present a sound education, we should teach the current understanding of creationary theory ... keeping in mind that `theory' isn't the same thing as a hypotheis, or belief, or educated guess. What we know about the development of the earth ... the creation of various species, the diversification and complexity that have emerged from a much beginning, and so forth ... all of this needs to be taught as fact. Dating methods, as we know, are only approximate, and always subject to later reinterpretation and correction.

Sounds eerily familiar...and just as scary...

one more point: "...all of this needs to be "taught" as "fact"."

Says who?

Ah! Someone does understand.

It's kinda hard to take someone seriously who is guilty of the same crime "he" is accusing others of...

[China Cat Sunflower]

I don't mind if creationism is taught in religion classes, I just don't want it taught as science on the taxpayers dime. I certainly don't mind if Comparative Religion, or World Religions, or Western (eastern, northern southern...) Religion is taught as an elective provided there is a budget for that and it doesn't take resources away from core liberal arts. I'm not so naive that I don't know what religionists actually want, though. They want the government, if not actively indoctrinating our kids, at least introducing them to religion oriented foundational mythology. That way religion always sets the flavor of nationalism.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I am sorry you do not see the religious indoctrination of children as an issue worthy of some debate.

I am sorry you feel it is your concern how another parent chooses to raise their child. Nosey nellies ruin families. Who are you to tell a Buddhist mother she has no right to teach Buddism to her child? Who are you to tell a Hindu mother she has no right to teach Hinduism to her child? Who are you to tell a Jewish mother she has no right to teach Judaism to her child? Who are you to tell a Christian mother she has no right to teach Christianity to her child?

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

But at least you have come out and admitted yourself to be a creationist.

In the sense of G-d standing behind it all as the first cause, I will not deny.

But the caricature you paint based on the stereotype you promote, nah. Not even close.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

What I write on these threads is my opinion and you are under no duress or compulsion to agree with one word of it.

If what you wrote were reversed back at you, you would call it "hate speech." That is why I disagree.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I don't mind if creationism is taught in religion classes, I just don't want it taught as science on the taxpayers dime. I certainly don't mind if Comparative Religion, or World Religions, or Western (eastern, northern southern...) Religion is taught as an elective provided there is a budget for that and it doesn't take resources away from core liberal arts. I'm not so naive that I don't know what religionists actually want, though. They want the government, if not actively indoctrinating our kids, at least introducing them to religion oriented foundational mythology. That way religion always sets the flavor of nationalism.

Chris

Agreed on all points, Chris. That is where it becomes imperitive to reinforce the separation of church and state. Secular education will always be at odds with religious education...that can't be helped, it is the nature of the beasts.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I am sorry you feel it is your concern how another parent chooses to raise their child. Nosey nellies ruin families. Who are you to tell a Buddhist mother she has no right to teach Buddism to her child? Who are you to tell a Hindu mother she has no right to teach Hinduism to her child? Who are you to tell a Jewish mother she has no right to teach Judaism to her child? Who are you to tell a Christian mother she has no right to teach Christianity to her child?

I have said that I would like to see those that use deliberate falsification of science, to promote their dogma as fact in our schools, should be prosecuted. If you had a group of paedophiles promoting that every age had its 'innate sexuality' or sexual curiosity was to be encouraged among young children and that it was ok for adults to give them that experience how would you react? They are both groups playing with childrens minds.
What a parent chooses to do I have no real say over. And I do not promote compulsion but an atmosphere where holding of on the religious stuff till the child can fully 'get it' for themselves is seen as the right thing to do. Like i say are the beliefs of the parents so shallow and insecure that they need to indoctrinate their children before they can evaluate it for themselves?

If what you wrote were reversed back at you, you would call it "hate speech." That is why I disagree.

Would I? I am so happy I have you to interpret my thoughts for me And so very Christian of you to deliberately misrepresent my words as something they are not. I have been trying to support a point of view here that has nothing to do with "hate". I believe religious indoctrination of children is very often harmful and on several fronts. Biggest amongst them is that it stunts or even kills the desire toward searching for answers on their own. That the churches deliberately encourage and facilitate a structured indoctrination plan, hijacking the trust the child has in its mother and father, is to me shameful. And I would like the churches themselves to see that and to encourage their flock to just let their children be children. The only prosecution I advocate is to those that truly do promote hate. The racist, supremacist, creationists that deliberately lie and cheat their way into your children's education. I would call that very specific and the opposite of hateful, protecting our children from such people it seems to me is the opposite of hate. But maybe hate means something else to you.


tao

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I have said that I would like to see those that use deliberate falsification of science, to promote their dogma as fact in our schools, should be prosecuted. If you had a group of paedophiles promoting that every age had its 'innate sexuality' or sexual curiosity was to be encouraged among young children and that it was ok for adults to give them that experience how would you react? They are both groups playing with childrens minds.

Elsewhere I got royally lambasted for invoking paedophiles to support my POV, but here it's OK? This is exactly the kind of double standard I am talking about. Granted that was not by you, but I do still feel that what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. If I am not allowed, neither are you.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

What a parent chooses to do I have no real say over. And I do not promote compulsion but an atmosphere where holding of on the religious stuff till the child can fully 'get it' for themselves is seen as the right thing to do. Like i say are the beliefs of the parents so shallow and insecure that they need to indoctrinate their children before they can evaluate it for themselves?

And if the parent chooses otherwise, you want them prosecuted? That contradicts.

Besides, most kids are gonna figure it out anyway, eventually. Haven't we? Most people just don't give a $hit about any of this. Church is a social club to chase next saturday night's date, religion is a myth they stop believing in like Santa Claus, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy. But its all fun to lead the kids on while they're still gullible. I'm being a little sarcastic here, but this is essentially what I see play out as the norm all around me. There are so many cynical college age kids...the Catholic church is begging for new priests...I hear talk all the time from church goers who don't really believe, or at least seriously question. This illusion of some mindless collective unquestioningly following every command of the guy behind the pulpit is simply not the reality. There may be a few isolated places where you can point to make your case, but for every one you point to I can point to *at least* 5 that don't fit what you are saying.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Would I? I am so happy I have you to interpret my thoughts for me And so very Christian of you to deliberately misrepresent my words as something they are not.

Just returning the favor. You showed how you wanted to be done unto, I am only obliging you.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I have been trying to support a point of view here that has nothing to do with "hate".

Of course you would say that, your words are not directed to yourself. But you admit to the vitriol towards those you....hate, because they disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I believe religious indoctrination of children is very often harmful and on several fronts. Biggest amongst them is that it stunts or even kills the desire toward searching for answers on their own. That the churches deliberately encourage and facilitate a structured indoctrination plan, hijacking the trust the child has in its mother and father, is to me shameful. And I would like the churches themselves to see that and to encourage their flock to just let their children be children. The only prosecution I advocate is to those that truly do promote hate. The racist, supremacist, creationists that deliberately lie and cheat their way into your children's education. I would call that very specific and the opposite of hateful, protecting our children from such people it seems to me is the opposite of hate. But maybe hate means something else to you.

Hating haters is still hate. Justifying your hatred doesn't change what it is.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Elsewhere I got royally lambasted for invoking paedophiles to support my POV, but here it's OK? This is exactly the kind of double standard I am talking about. Granted that was not by you, but I do still feel that what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. If I am not allowed, neither are you.

It is not who. Substitute the rap artists who glorify guns, knives, drugs and oppression of the female. You want their lyrics taught to your 3 year old?

And if the parent chooses otherwise, you want them prosecuted? That contradicts.

No I bloody well do not. If you cannot be bothered to read what I wrote then please do not try to misrepresent it with your posed and answered words in my mouth.

Besides, most kids are gonna figure it out anyway, eventually. Haven't we? Most people just don't give a $hit about any of this. Church is a social club to chase next saturday night's date, religion is a myth they stop believing in like Santa Claus, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy. But its all fun to lead the kids on while they're still gullible. I'm being a little sarcastic here, but this is essentially what I see play out as the norm all around me. There are so many cynical college age kids...the Catholic church is begging for new priests...I hear talk all the time from church goers who don't really believe, or at least seriously question. This illusion of some mindless collective unquestioningly following every command of the guy behind the pulpit is simply not the reality. There may be a few isolated places where you can point to make your case, but for every one you point to I can point to *at least* 5 that don't fit what you are saying.

I am not aloud to address concern about a vocal minority?

Just returning the favor. You showed how you wanted to be done unto, I am only obliging you.

Give it back! Thats my precious. How sad.

Of course you would say that, your words are not directed to yourself. But you admit to the vitriol towards those you....hate, because they disagree with you.

Again "hate" is your insertion here not mine.

Hating haters is still hate. Justifying your hatred doesn't change what it is.

Why is it so important for you to class me as a hateful person? I never say we should hate them, I said we should prosecute them for fraud. And prevent them teaching in any school again. You and you alone introduce hate into that. And I certainly question why you choose to do so.


tao

[Dogbrain]

It is not the proper place of government to dictate religion to families--EVEN IF THAT RELIGION IS ATHEISM.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

It is not the proper place of government to dictate religion to families--EVEN IF THAT RELIGION IS ATHEISM.

um...er...that would depend on which gov't one lived in/under.

Governments do this all the time. One of the reasons folks fled to the Americas, one of the reasons for the revolution in the US. But that is the US belief in Gov't, congress shall pass no laws.

Teaching Evolution however is not teaching a religion its premise may oppose other religious creation stories, but it is teaching science, not atheism.

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by wil

um...er...that would depend on which gov't one lived in/under.

Governments can be illegitimate and improper, even when they still cling to power.

Governments do this all the time.

That does not make it proper.

Teaching Evolution however is not teaching a religion

Specifically quote where I wrote it was. I was responding to the fascist who wants the state to destroy families for daring to teach their children religious ideas.

[wil]

Namaste Dogbrain,

My statement regarding teaching evolution was a general one, not specifically pointed at you.

There may be good Gov'ts and bad Gov'ts but these are subjective opinions, same as what is proper or improper.

In the US we thought Iraq and Afganistan were improper, we think China, North Korea, and Russia are improper. I say we, the governmental we, the collective we that thinks that way but that is not all the US. And at the same time many in those countries and Gov'ts think our gov't and that of our allies are improper.

Who is right depends on what side of this fence you are.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

Specifically quote where I wrote it was. I was responding to the fascist who wants the state to destroy families for daring to teach their children religious ideas.

That can be interpreted as you trying to call me a fascist. So to leave no ambiguity, is that what you are doing?

tao