Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Texas GOP opposes teaching critical thinking skills, says creationism is science

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
From their 2012 platform (page 12):


Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.


so there it is - indoctrination by parents is more important than being able to think for yourself according to the Texas GOP.

It looks like whoever wrote this paper has already not been taught critical thinking - as evidenced by this on the same page:


Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.


teaching creationism or intelligent design (let's face it - that is what they are talking about!) as "challengable scientific theories" is impossible - someone forgot to think critically about exactly what it is science is and what it is creationism is - it is not challengable, not falsifiable, and therefore not science - to say it has to be taught as a scientific theory shows some serious ignorance.

edit on 27-6-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I just started a thread about a similar topic in that Christians believe the country is theirs by God's will and they should be the ones who run it.

I listed a lot of videos you might want to use in your own thread. S&F from me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 
Hmmm. Curious - how exactly is evolution challengable or falsifiable, exactly?

And how exactly can you have a problem with "We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind"?

No concept should be put on a pedestal as unassailable or merely assumed true, whether it is creation or evolution. Let the facts be presented openly, let conflicting opinions and arguments be presented, and let the chips fall where they may. The constant deconstruction of the various (punk eek and gradualist) view by those on the other sides as regards their conflicting opinions is quite telling, but the very good points brought up by both sides were never addressed in any of my biology courses, let alone the other valid concerns I have with evolutionary theory.

Equally, creation theory should be every bit as easy (or difficult, as you will) to shoot down as evolutionary theory - as fact continue to come out, these should continue to be presented, and if appropriate, let creationism die.

Your disbelief a the allowance of competing theories that are no more unfalsifiable or challengable that evolution baffles me, as is your reticence to allow these teaching to develop as new evidence comes to light.

Mountain out of a molehill, I believe is the proper phrase...and even that might be excessive.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeterWiggin
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 
Hmmm. Curious - how exactly is evolution challengable or falsifiable, exactly?


find an organism for which there is no evolutinoary path.


And how exactly can you have a problem with "We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind"?


did you not bother to read my post??


Here is the relevant bit again:


teaching creationism or intelligent design (let's face it - that is what they are talking about!) as "challengable scientific theories" is impossible - someone forgot to think critically about exactly what it is science is and what it is creationism is - it is not challengable, not falsifiable, and therefore not science - to say it has to be taught as a scientific theory shows some serious ignorance.



No concept should be put on a pedestal as unassailable or merely assumed true, whether it is creation or evolution.


and yet those 2 things only given those characteristics by creationists.

Scientists understand that evolution is challengable, and creationsits refuse to accept that the bible is challengable.


Let the facts be presented openly, let conflicting opinions and arguments be presented, and let the chips fall where they may.


Indeed - what facts are there abbout creationism?


Equally, creation theory should be every bit as easy (or difficult, as you will) to shoot down as evolutionary theory - as fact continue to come out, these should continue to be presented, and if appropriate, let creationism die.


you completely miss the point


Your disbelief a the allowance of competing theories that are no more unfalsifiable or challengable that evolution baffles me, as is your reticence to allow these teaching to develop as new evidence comes to light.


that is because you start from a position that evolution is not chalengable, and that is wrong. Indeed it is a common creationist tactic to try to justify putting creationism and science on the same level.

common, obvious, transparent, and wrong.


Mountain out of a molehill, I believe is the proper phrase...and even that might be excessive.


Well now you know better - I am happy to have helped deny your ignorance
edit on 27-6-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 
*chuckle* And to think, I don't even have a horse in this race...ok then.


find an organism for which there is no evolutinoary path.

Unicorns! Asking someone to prove a negative is ridiculous. Any example presented would just be met with "We haven't found it yet" and similar movings of the goalposts. Can you find me some proof that unicorns, or any other mythical creature for that matter, doesn't exist? Of course not. You can just say we haven't found it yet. Conversely, even finding an example that can't be explained under current evolutionary theory - such as the monotremes - merely results in "we don't know...yet!" Anything might possibly be explained, ad infinitum, given infinite time and infinite supposition. And regardless, this doesn't prove that anything evolved, this just proves that you can't disprove that something evolved.


Here is the relevant bit again: (reference your quoted bit)

Yes - I read the post, and I wasn't all that impressed. I hold the same qualms about evolutionary theory as you do about 'creationism'. They both suffer from too many of the same problems, and in my opinion, the both fall into the same philosophical category. They are both merely differing interpretations of the same evidence, with arguments on both sides carrying as much weight. I have no problem with supposition either way, I merely have a problem with assumption that one has somehow been proven more valid and more "scientific" than the other in light of an honest evaluation of the facts.


and yet those 2 things only given those characteristics by creationists.

Scientists understand that evolution is challengable, and creationsits refuse to accept that the bible is challengable.

Scientists *claim* that evolution is challengable, while elevating it against such by imposing such requirements as people ridicule in those support their religious faiths.

And I don't know that I'd consider myself a creationist - at least in this regard, I would say I'm more agnostic - but I would acknowledge that some aspects and accounts, and interpretations of both and more, of it are challengable.

BTW - what's the proper word for that? It's obviously not challengable. Would it be challengeable, like serviceable"? I'm getting tired of my computer telling me it's wrong. Is there even a word for it, or do we have to fall back to "subject to challenge" or the like? Annoying...


Indeed - what facts are there abbout creationism?

What facts are there about evolution? There is merely supposition and interpretation - conflicting, as always - of the evidence. And let us clarify the differences in things usually called evolution. I have no problem with natural selection/"micro-evolution" which is nothing more than the presentation of variations withing the existing genetic code of various organisms. What I so far take issue with is the assumption that natural stresses and various other factors such as random mutation can introduce new information to the genetic code of organisms so as to result in the development of phylogenetically and morphologically diferent organisms un-akin to their parent organisms (e.g. humans are the descendants of essential pond scum).

Could I be incorrect in my assumption? Sure - but so far no evidence sufficient to prove that I am has been presented to me. There are yet too many insurmountable hurdles for me to subscribe to this. What's the answer then? I don't know. But evolutionary theory as yet has not passed muster.


you completely miss the point


Please clarify. Both theories seem to suffer from the same defects, and merely differ in their interpretations of the evidence.

[quotethat is because you start from a position that evolution is not chalengable, and that is wrong. Indeed it is a common creationist tactic to try to justify putting creationism and science on the same level.

common, obvious, transparent, and wrong.

Wrong - I don't put creation and "science" on the same level". I put creation and evolution on the same level, and I don't believe that either are truly science under the commonly-understood definition, as I believe they are both equally insufficient under such. Whether you consider that an issue with the 'theories' or with the definition of 'science' is up to you.


Well now you know better - I am happy to have helped deny your ignorance

Well, I'm glad I could help you feel better with yourself
Unfortunately, you haven't done much to address my concerns on the matter or anything that I've said regarding this post.

Take care!



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


this seems related:

How American fundamentalist schools are using Nessie to disprove evolution

www.heraldscotland.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PeterWiggin
 


If microevolution occurs then why can macro-evolution not occur?

You answer my question "what are the facts about creationism" with a question of your own "What are the facts about evolution?"

OK - since you do not know here is an example of some of the facts surrounding each:

One fact about creationism: the only supporting evidence for it is the bible
One facts about Evolution: there is a large body of research supporting it (clearly you do not think the research support it, but it is a fact that the research is there, and that the vast majority of scientists think they do support it)

That you consider these 2 bodies of supporting evidence to be at the same level of each other tells me you really have no idea about evolution or science at all, despite your protestations otherwise.

The reason it is difficult to falsify evolution is because of the vast amount of information that supports it - not because I cannot prove unicorns do not exist.

the ease with which it can be shown that creationism is not falsifiable and therefore not science is also not relevant to whether evolution is science or not.

I gave a simple answer to illustrate what would prove evolution incorrect - you chose to argue agaisnt that with an argument about unicorns, so here's the expanded version:


....... any of the following would destroy the theory (of evolution):
-If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
-If it could be shown that, although mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
-If it could be shown that, although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
-If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
- from here

are these easy to do? I doubt it.

But there is nothing about falsifiability that says it has to be easy. Theories that are easy to falsify do not stay theories for very long precisely because of that characteristic! Evolution is difficult to falsify precisely because it has a mountain of evidence supporting it.

Creationism is not falsifiable. The whole creationist evidence is "the bible tells us it is so and the bible is gods inerrant word so it must be true" - effectively "you can't show it isn't true" - andyou have already pointed out that that is a non-argument.

The idea that the world was created 6000 years ago IS falsifiable - and has been as far as science is concerned - eg by evolution, despite your wish otherwise.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 
Ah... bait taken.


If microevolution occurs then why can macro-evolution not occur?

I don't recall ever saying that macro-evolution can't occur, I've only implied there is no solid evidence that is HAS occurred. Sure, it COULD - but then again, pink elephants could rain out of the sky and kill us all.


OK - since you do not know here is an example of some of the facts surrounding each:

One fact about creationism: the only supporting evidence for it is the bible
One facts about Evolution: there is a large body of research supporting it (clearly you do not think the research support it, but it is a fact that the research is there, and that the vast majority of scientists think they do support it)

Wrong - there are various evidences, which are subject to varying interpretation by both (and likely OTHER) sides. If you want to claim the evidence supports macroevolutionary theory, you'll need to substantiate that and prolong this discussion - which, to reiterate, I have no solid stake in either way. Evidence for Darwinian evolution will not damage my faith to any degree as it by no means limits the creative capacity of a creator. I just have yet to see anything sufficient supporting it to a degree to outweigh its flaws.


That you consider these 2 bodies of supporting evidence to be at the same level of each other tells me you really have no idea about evolution or science at all, despite your protestations otherwise.

Apparently you've misunderstood, as I've only referred to *the evidence*, that being which is observable and documentable, being interpreted under differing paradigms.


The reason it is difficult to falsify evolution is because of the vast amount of information that supports it - not because I cannot prove unicorns do not exist.

Incorrect - it is every bit as falsifiable as creationism. Which is to say, "Not much", despite claims to the contrary to support how "scientific" it is under the commonly-accepted scientific method.


the ease with which it can be shown that creationism is not falsifiable and therefore not science is also not relevant to whether evolution is science or not.

Incorrect, if evolution fails to the same degree. Two things that stand or fall to the exact same measure should be judged accordingly and equally.


I gave a simple answer to illustrate what would prove evolution incorrect - you chose to argue agaisnt that with an argument about unicorns, so here's the expanded version: (insert off-site quote here)

Unfortunately, your off-site quotes do not address the differences between the different tiers/definitions of 'evolution' such as micro-evolution/natural selection and 'macro-evolution' as we've already discussed.

As well, they are ridiculous:
#1 no one disputes.
#2 most people don't dispute, and doesn't address much. It also doesn't account for the fact that most mutations are detrimental, do not add any new information to existing genetic code, or the fact that the number of beneficial mutations and the rate at which the occur compared to the corresponding amount of lethal detrimental mutations that outweigh them would require many more billions of years of natural mutation than have existed in the life of the universe to mean anything useful here.
#3: Unicorns - prove they don't exist!
#4 Micro-evolution/natural selection and variation within the existing genetic code without modifying it. Non-disputed and inapplicable for this discussion.


are these easy to do? I doubt it.

I thought you were here to deny ignorance? I'm about 100oz. OE malt liquor in so far tonight, and I don't think I'm far off-track yet...


But there is nothing about falsifiability that says it has to be easy. Theories that are easy to falsify do not stay theories for very long precisely because of that characteristic! Evolution is difficult to falsify precisely because it has a mountain of evidence supporting it.

No...it's difficult to falsify because it's essentially as unfalsifiable as creationism. They are merely differing interpretations of the same evidence, dispute that however vociferously you like. One is definitely more popular than the other - especially from a naturalistic standpoint, but that doesn't mean much.


Creationism is not falsifiable. The whole creationist evidence is "the bible tells us it is so and the bible is gods inerrant word so it must be true" - effectively "you can't show it isn't true" - andyou have already pointed out that that is a non-argument.

Neither is evolution, by any realistic means - and the same applies to 'scientists' who subscribe to the theory. Fair game.

Con't...



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

The idea that the world was created 6000 years ago IS falsifiable - and has been as far as science is concerned - eg by evolution,

That's funny...I don't recall saying anything in support of young-earth creationism - which I shouldn't be expected to in light of my views on Genesis 1 and the hebrew language therein.

Not sure what your point here is, exactly. I would take it you erred in assumption here?

Then again, just for the sake of fun, I suppose we really could take up the matters of issues of radiological dating, stratigraphy, lensing, the gravitational effects on light speed, and all sorts of other issues...but I have no interest in doing so for multiple reasons, regardless of how long they might prolong this discussion. I have no personal qualms here despite the fun disputes that might arise.

edit on 27-6-2012 by PeterWiggin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeterWiggin
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

The idea that the world was created 6000 years ago IS falsifiable - and has been as far as science is concerned - eg by evolution,

That's funny...I don't recall saying anything in support of young-earth creationism - which I shouldn't be expected to in light of my views on Genesis 1 and the hebrew language therein.

Not sure what your point here is, exactly. I would take it you erred in assumption here?


I am not sureprised you missed the point, because the point was to provide an example of somethign that is falsifiable, and we have already established that you do not know what that means.


Then again, just for the sake of fun, I suppose we really could take up the matters of issues of radiological dating, stratigraphy, lensing, the gravitational effects on light speed, and all sorts of other issues...but I have no interest in doing so for multiple reasons, regardless of how long they might prolong this discussion. I have no personal qualms here despite the fun disputes that might arise.


Hey far be it from me to spoil your fun -- go for it



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by onecraftydude
 

I just started a thread about a similar topic in that Christians believe the country is theirs by God's will and they should be the ones who run it.

Oy...hell, I wish you'd say "SOME christians"...even I'll shoot that one down in general. This world is under different ownership, and most of the people who claim that name are a bunch of - god bless them... - friggin' jerks.

In general, we should stay out of most secular matters, and we should never assume that 'god' has planned for us to take over this world as the general idea from the bible itself is that we'll be a shrinking remnant of a minority that barely survives everything being destroyed.

Crikey. Butt-tards...



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

I am not sureprised you missed the point, because the point was to provide an example of somethign that is falsifiable, and we have already established that you do not know what that means.

Clarify, please - otherwise I'm forced to assume that you are merely continuing your bloviations.


Hey far be it from me to spoil your fun -- go for it

Nah...that's just arguing for the sake of arguing, however fun it might be.


I'm not a young-earther and definitely believe in an 'old' universe. That being a matter of perspective, of course.

Take care, Aloysius. No hard feelings here, we just disagree and you haven't done much to validate your opinions for me. Your supposed clarifications of falsifiability regarding one topic but not applying to the other fall flat, but I suppose well all have the same problems in different regards when discussion various other matters with all sorts of people.

You have yourself a fantastic evening, and I'mma go top 120oz. and have another smoke. Be well!



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by PeterWiggin
 


so what are the "various evidences" for creationism other than the bible?

there is plenty of evidence that macro-evolution has occured - both naturally and in the laboratory - saying there is no such evidence is either dishonest or a sign of laziness (in that you didn't look for any).

Eg as an example some cases are noted here

You dis evolution because you see no "realistic means" of falsifying it merely because you see that there is no actual prospect of that happening - again you demonstrate that you do not understand what you are talking about in this respect. Perhaps you could look at this and varius links from it to see if you can come up with some original reasoning that hasn't been shown as bunk already?

Let me explain it to you more simply - being difficult to falsify is not teh same as being unable to falsify at all. It is a subtle difference, but an important one.

It would probably save you a lot of time so you can have more fun instead
edit on 27-6-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeterWiggin
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

I am not sureprised you missed the point, because the point was to provide an example of somethign that is falsifiable, and we have already established that you do not know what that means.

Clarify, please - otherwise I'm forced to assume that you are merely continuing your bloviations.


So you still do not understand what falsifiability is?

Well in that case I'm sorry - I can't explain it more simply



Take care, Aloysius. No hard feelings here, we just disagree and you haven't done much to validate your opinions for me. Your supposed clarifications of falsifiability regarding one topic but not applying to the other fall flat,...


Of course they do - you have already said you think a mountain of evidence for evolution is no more valid than the bible on creation - I wasn't trying to convince you - just point out the obvious and egregious errors in that idea.

thanks for allowing me the chance to do so.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Your really need to enlarge your field of possibilities about how human life came into existence. Yes, there seems to be a certain chain of lifeforms that go up to a certain point. But at that certain point there is a drastic change. So I suggest that you enlarge your frame of possibilities that you surely must have experienced before here on ATS to include the intelligent manipulation of pre-human life forms into what we current are.

Certainly, you cannot say with any degree of knowledge that we are nothing more than a naturally evolved animal. You may want to believe that as much as the creationist want to and must believe their position, but you cannot emphatically claim that is how it all happened. If you are at all open-mined about this affair, you must allow, excuse me, an almost god-like inntervention in the creation of man as one possibility.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


Of couerse I can say with some degree of knowledge that humans are an evolved animal.

I have to laugh at thinking like yours - I am completely open to the possiblity that her is a god who created life. I do not beleive it is the case because the vast preponderance of evidence does not support that conclusion - but I acknowledge that is is a possibility.

Just like I acknowledge that life could have been created by the flying spaghetti monster or aliens.

Or yuo could jsut be a figment of my imagination or vice versa - I can imagine all these things.

Being able to imagine something does not mean I have to accept that it is as likely as something for which there is actual verifiable evidence.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


First of all, I would like to request that the whole of part twelve of this document be displayed in thread, without reference to a downloaded pdf. Not everyone has the capacity to download things, especially in my case. I use works computers and my sisters PC, and there are things that one does not do, no matter how clean a file is, when using others equipment, one of which is downloading documents that could just as easily be displayed in their wholeness by the OP.

Second, I cannot see from what HAS been presented, that the GOP opposes teaching critical thinking. Critical thinking does NOT by implication mean that creationism is out of the _ In fact some of the most prodigious thinkers in physics and what have you, insist that the markers of intelligent design are evident throughout not only our composition as humans, but throughout the entire universe. This, in and of itself, suggests a creation, and by extension a creator.

Whether or not one chooses to accept that view or not, based purely on logic, is neither here or there. The FACT is that critical thinking does not mean closed mindedness, and since intelligent design has its merits (which are arguable, which is precisely the point) as an argument, it is only right that its implications are discussed as a part of a rounded education in critical thinking.

There is no bloody mention of creationism being science in the statement or part thereof, which has been offered up in this thread.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
intelligent design has its merits (which are arguable, which is precisely the point) as an argument, it is only right that its implications are discussed as a part of a rounded education in critical thinking.


Depends what one means by 'intelligent design'. In the states, at least, its shorthand for a total refutation of evolution, and the belief that jebus lived with dinosaurs.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Well, I do not know about the states, but here in England, we speak English, and in the English language intelligent design is a term which implies deliberation in our arrival as a species, rather than it having been an utterly random, nay mathematically improbable event.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


First of all, I would like to request that the whole of part twelve of this document be displayed in thread, without reference to a downloaded pdf.


you mean page 12??


Not everyone has the capacity to download things, especially in my case. I use works computers and my sisters PC, and there are things that one does not do, no matter how clean a file is, when using others equipment, one of which is downloading documents that could just as easily be displayed in their wholeness by the OP.


Sounds like you have chosen your path - well that's your hoice - I don't really feel any obligation to pander to your self imposed limitation.


Second, I cannot see from what HAS been presented, that the GOP opposes teaching critical thinking.


then you did not read the OP, where it is on the 2nd line of the first extract - here it is again, highlighted for you:


Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.



Critical thinking does NOT by implication mean that creationism is out of the _ In fact some of the most prodigious thinkers in physics and what have you, insist that the markers of intelligent design are evident throughout not only our composition as humans, but throughout the entire universe. This, in and of itself, suggests a creation, and by extension a creator.


sure - so what?

That is irrelevant to the point I was making. Creationism is not, and cannot ever be SCIENCE precisely because of it being creationism. Attempts by creationists to suborn science to include creationism are dishonest.

By all means teach, learn, believe cerationism.

But stop trying to say that it is science.


There is no bloody mention of creationism being science in the statement or part thereof, which has been offered up in this thread.


Ah yes - let's ignore the last 20 years of creationist "shorthand" - "teach all theories equally" doesnt' actually mean teach creationism as science at all....honest....


Well that is BS - "Teach the controvery", "teach the alternatives" and their ilk are thinly disguised attempts to put creationism, intelligent desing, creation science, whatever you want to call it, on the same footing as science.

It is a deliberate and dishonest programme by creationists to fool the public.

You may have been caught by it, or maybe you are willingly unable to see it when it suits you - but either way it is still a conspiracy to lie!

edit on 1-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join