| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Dumbing Down Of America, 2 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,655 Views) | |
| cmoehle | May 28 2006, 10:27 AM Post #196 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
"The universe, from the moment of it's bursting into existence, has always been subject to natural law. No, they may not have been the laws we now see - Inflation is a good example of that - but laws nonetheless." I admit I may be confusing chaos with that, and that is perceptual. Still, the universe is ordered and that allows us to discover the laws that govern that order. This is conceptual. I think the difference between my view of this order and Jane's, or Teryt's, or Alan's, is while we all might see order, I, like you, see it as what is, simply what is, nothing more, and not as something some orderer ordered--iow, not as something some designed designed with some purpose. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 28 2006, 10:55 AM Post #197 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
I'll pop in here just a moment. (Jane said a lot for me here - thanks!) I keep saying I don't really know that much on this topic (as you guys evidently do). My point is my personal observation of my children's textbooks from a while back. For example, I will re-re-reiterate: I read a chapter on evolution in a biology text book for junior high that presented evolution as a fact, and mentioned no other view points. I do remember, in the very 1st paragraph I believe it did say "theory" one time - ONE TIME. OK, so you are right. It did mention that evolution is a theory, but then in the other 25+ pages there was no mention of a theory. None - zip - zilch - nada. Will young minds pick up one word in thousands? Maybe textbooks do a better job now, and say "theory" more than once, I dunno. In any case, I do hope the pendulum is swinging the other way, and some mention of other ideas, even a paragraph or two, would seem to further the open "scientific" discussion. (better get off here before the broadband police show up!) |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 28 2006, 11:15 AM Post #198 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Are you saying the textbook claimed evolutionary theory was a fact? Or that was your impression? Oh, wait, it did state clearly to begin with it is a theory. You say "mentioned no other view points." What other BIOLOGICAL view points? Biology is science. So religious and philosophical views are irrelevant. What other view points? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 28 2006, 11:54 AM Post #199 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Chris - My perception was that it was barely mentioned right at the beginning, not in a prominent way. The word "theory" was not in any bold print, title, etc. Maybe you or I would pick up on this brief mention, but my opinion is that kids would remember the rest of the chapter as fact. I think they had to purposely not allude to it being a theory in the rest of the chapter! The language was such that it was just an assumed fact. Is this enough of this now (since it is hard to argue with what I personally observed & my perceptions)? Look, you & Eric think there is no other valid "viewpoint" other than evolution. Fine. I think there are other viewpoints, that just because they don't have the amount of research in them . . . Let's say that at the beginning of the text book I had observed, they made it clear that evolution was a theory (more than a single, rather obscure mention). And they devoted a page to some other competing ideas, such as ID. They can say that there has not been as much research towards ID, but that its supporters think it may fill in some yet unexplained areas. End the discussion with the reiteration that they are all theories, and then say something like, "Now let's delve into the theory of evolution, which has occupied the bulk of research in biology in the past century." And also present it in a way that shows there are many unexplained areas yet to discover, etc. |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 28 2006, 12:12 PM Post #200 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Teryt, but it was clearly stated that evolution is a theory. How can such a clear statement be obscure? "I think there are other viewpoints, that just because they don't have the amount of research in them...." I just asked what these alternative biological, scientific view points were. Amount of research is not the important point, biological, scientific research is. Remember, the question is, what should be taught in a science classroom. "Let's say...." What you ask for fits every biology textbook I have seen except one point I'm curious about in you suggestions. The textbooks I've seen mention other theories of the origins of life: panspermia, ID, and abiogenesis. Evolutionary theory, because it does not deal with beginnings, is treated in other chapters. Why do you suggest ID and evolution be conflated? Wouldn't that confuse the young students? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 28 2006, 12:54 PM Post #201 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
This is YOUR viewpoint on the matter Chris. It seems extremely valid to you, and that's fine! Evidently you don't accept my perception that one mention of evolution being associated with a theory, in this textbook, is not enough - especially for young, non-analytical minds. Fine! Yes, other ideas may "confuse" young students. So let's just stick with evolution. In fact, why even mention it's a theory at all!? Just state it as fact, and this will be less confusing, because they won't have to consider anything else! Lastly, maybe textbooks you've seen do a better job - great! I hope that's the case these days - maybe the pendulum is swinging back. |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 28 2006, 01:05 PM Post #202 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Yes, I believe clear statement evolution is a theory is sufficient. I would also assume the same textbook elsewhere discusses the nature of science and that the scientific views presented are scientific theories. "Yes, other ideas may "confuse" young students. So let's just stick with evolution. In fact, why even mention it's a theory at all!? Just state it as fact, and this will be less confusing, because they won't have to consider anything else!" What's that about? It has no relationship to anything I have said. In fact, it just repeats your accusations about highschool textbooks. Can I repeat my question? "Why do you suggest ID and evolution be conflated? Wouldn't that confuse the young students?" Putting ID alongside abiogenesis and panspermia is understandabile, they all deal with origins. But wouldn't putting ID and evolution together in a textbook be misleading? ID is about origins, evolution is not. We've established that fact. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 28 2006, 09:26 PM Post #203 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Chris & Eric: I can't think of anything else to say to clarify my viewpoint - my communication skills must be sorely lacking (nothing new here). Hasta otro discusion! |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 28 2006, 09:30 PM Post #204 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
I think your view point is clear. Otherwise I couldn't ask questions of it. There's no requirement here to answer. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 30 2006, 04:36 AM Post #205 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
OK, Eric, it took a bit of research, leading to Leonard Susskind and this interview, A Talk with Leonard Susskind:
So to say it is ordered says little, other than it is. But isn't the unknown of pre-inflation disordered since there is no information available? And, by the second law of thermodynamics, isn't the inevitable uniformity of entropy just as uniformative and disordered? Or is that too a matter of perception rather than conception? Perhaps we can't conceive disorder. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 30 2006, 08:17 AM Post #206 |
![]()
Jane
|
this made me think of something my son told me not long ago when we were talking about one of the recent "sightings" of Jesus' face (on toast, walls, etc) He said that it is a common trait.... seeing human faces in things like rock cliffs, trees, clouds, etc. and it seems to me he is right. I've got an old oak tree out back that has a "face" in it. So maybe it's not that we can't conceive disorder but we can't PERceive disorder because it's in us to make orderly that which we see. ??? But I dunno if this is always true. When I walk into my kitchen after my DIL has been cooking something, I can see disorder for sure.
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 30 2006, 10:50 AM Post #207 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
It gets complicated, and I don't know enough to easily express it. As I understand, we cannot know what was what pre-inflation, or even if there was a what. And entropy is not necessarily disorder. It could be considered uniformity. Now to me uniformity means no information is available, no useful information, just as no useful energy is available. But is that uniformity disorder? Not sure this is making sense. Just trying to... |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | May 30 2006, 11:17 AM Post #208 |
|
Member
|
From dictionary.com: Order:
Funny thing is, order implies inteligence, yet we ascribe it to evolution. I just don't get how anyone can talk about order and evolution at the same time. I think the reason is, you have to. You cannot talk about caos or accdental occurances with evolution because of the massive probabilities involved. Also, the evidence of order in nature is compeling. Seems to me, evolutionists want it both ways, order, and the forutitous event (I would say the accidental event) that caused life to appear on the earth. To me these terms are contradictory and illogical. People must remember that you can take garbage and re-arrange it into "art". (don't believe me? Go to the Brooklyn Musium of Art) IMHO, the garbage called evolution wrapped up in scientific biological terms becomes "The Theory" or the art. It seems that people are ignoring that it is really illogical or "garbage". |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 30 2006, 11:25 AM Post #209 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
I agree, Alan, your straw man argument is "contradictory and illogical". Evolutionary theory is about the process of life, not its purpose, Alan. It's you who conflate the two confusingly in your post. Evolution is not accidental as you seem to keep repeating erroneously. Intelligence does not imply purpose anymore than evolution does. No one here denies order in nature. But some impute more significance to it than is compelling. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | May 30 2006, 11:51 AM Post #210 |
|
Member
|
Sorry Chris...but I think this is intelegently designed "spin" (no pun intended!) Evolution is defined as a natural process (no inteligence involved), happening automatically, to what appears to be an orderly universe. How do you personally answer this? You may be able to divorce the evidence of evolution from the orderly universe, but most people don't. To them, evolution means the earth was not designed. You said "Intelligence does not imply purpose anymore than evolution does." Yes it does, because we are living in the results of the designer's purpose. One purpose is obvious, a world where life could flurish. There may be others, but then we get into religion. Evolution seems to have a purpose also, the survival of the fittest. Even this seems to imply intelegence. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |









1:28 PM Jul 11