Are our kids being brainwashed?

[gopunk]

<<

<< did you you think of that all by yourself or did you get that from some book published by a reverend who decided to study biology in order to "devote my life to destroying darwinism"? >>



Yes, you got it right except that it wasn't written by a "reverend". I believe that the author is Dr. Jonathan Wells. >>



well... he's considered a "reverend" by the unification church (the one he's a part of)...

 

[gopunk]

<<

<< i realize it's sounding like i'm trying to discredit the author, but seriously, the questions may be valid, but lets not kid ourselves about the intent. >>



Why does the intent matter? If the allegations are true, don't you think academic fraud and misrepresentation is a serious issue? >>



i seriously doubt that even 1% of the people here have the knowledge to determine whether these allegations are true or not. the most people can do is argue according to their pre-existing beliefs. i'm going to leave this debate up to those who actually know something about the topic at hand.

 

[Maetryx]

The Theory of Evolution is taught as fact in as much as NO OTHER theory is allowed in school. It's not like it's illegal to teach about a copper Statue of Liberty. Your argument is a strawman. Riprorin didn't even say that there was no such thing as evolution. He asked why it is being taught as an established fact when it is shot full of inconsistencies. The inconsistencies are NOT pointed out in a regular classroom, and NO other theory is presented.

Now, I'm not disengenous. We all know that Christians are on the forefront of publishing material that is critical of macroevolution. But, again, science should be mindful of what is real: what actually happened? what is the truth of the matter? Instead we find the science curriculum dogmatic in its religious convictions that there is no supernatural and that we must all have a common ancestor no matter what problems there are in the current evidence.

I'll say it again: science curriculum is religious dogma. It is not open to debate within the education system. It is based on the religious assumption that there is no supernatural component to cosmology. It ignores the philosophical, ethical, and other problems that are inherent to its dogmatic assumptions.

 

[EpsiIon]

<<

<< I fail to see how that invalidates these questions... If they're valid, they're valid, regardless of the source. >>



It doesn't invalidate the questions. However even if all the 10 statements were true (that the textbooks were wrong in those cases) it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Evolution could exist even if all 10 of Riprorin's arguements are valid. Evolution could be completely wrong even if Riprorin is wrong on all 10 claims.

Textbooks are notoriously error prone. One study found an average of 1.5 known errors per page in science textbooks. Those were errors that can be proven, not counting ones that cannot be proven.

For example: many history and chemistry textbooks list the Statue of Liberty as made of bronze. Suppose Riprorin made a thread that our kids are being branwashed because: 1) The statue is not made of bronze, 2) Bronze certainly wouldn't discolor in the way that copper would, 3) The poem written on the statue has gramatical errors, 4) The teacher told the kids that the statue is bronze even though many of the teachers statements are misreprestations of facts. Now since Riprorin found these errors, I guess that means the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist. That would be silly! An error in a textbook doesn't prove or disprove anything.

I can disprove one claim easily (number 10). It is called the theory of evolution. The word theory means that it isn't known fact, but our current best guess. Thus we aren't told that it is a fact, we are told it is a best estimate. >>




I understand what you're saying, but this thread (I believe) wasn't created to *disprove* darwinian evolution. Where in the world did you get that idea? Riprorin's post says nothing about "disproving" darwinian evolution. 10 statements are obviously NOT going to "disprove" a theory, but they might make people think about what they're being taught.

Again, if I'm correct, then this thread was created only to bring up important points that are commonly ignored.

And about number 10. You're right, it is the theory of evolution. But it is very, very often taught as fact. When textbooks and teachers speak about evolution, they often say "blank [insert whatever you want here -- I'll insert "evolved into"] blank" NOT "many scientists think that blank [evolved into] blank."

 

[gopunk]

anyways, here is one of the responses...

 

[Riprorin]

<< For example: many history and chemistry textbooks list the Statue of Liberty as made of bronze. Suppose Riprorin made a thread that our kids are being branwashed because: 1) The statue is not made of bronze, 2) Bronze certainly wouldn't discolor in the way that copper would, 3) The poem written on the statue has gramatical errors, 4) The teacher told the kids that the statue is bronze even though many of the teachers statements are misreprestations of facts. Now since Riprorin found these errors, I guess that means the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist. That would be silly! An error in a textbook doesn't prove or disprove anything. >>



Amusing, but I don't see the connection.

If the points are true, the writers are woefully ignorant or they are knowingly diseminating falsehoods to perpetuate their materialistic world view.

By the way, did you know that a survey of all 517 National Academy of Science members in biological and physical sciences (with one-half responding) showed 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% were agnostic, and only 7.0% beleive in a personal God. The unbelief is far higher that the percentage among scientists in general, or in the whole US population.

Connect the dots.

 

[b0mbrman]

<< b0mberman, if I may be so bold, I think you missed the point. If I interpret the purpose of this post correctly, it's not to prove creation theory, it's to raise important questions about evolutionary theory. >>


You could be right...

You'd have no problem convincing me that there are holes in the evolution theory as we see it (that's why it's a theory )

But I've heard religious types try to use these holes as a basis exactly what you just said, namely prove creation theory...anyhow, I'll back off if that's what the discussion is really about as I have no stake in whether or not evolution theory is true.

 

[IGBT]

You forgot one..we never landed on the moon..gawdalmighty get a life.

 

[gopunk]

By the way, did you know that a survey of all 517 National Academy of Science members in biological and physical sciences (with one-half responding) showed 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% were agnostic, and only 7.0% beleive in a personal God. The unbelief is far higher that the percentage among scientists in general, or in the whole US population.

Connect the dots.


for which picture? there are 3:

a.) the scientists hate christians and are trying to "brainwash" everybody away
b.) the scientists are there for the pursuit of truth
c.) the people smart enough to be scientists happen to be atheist

 

[b0mbrman]

<< By the way, did you know that a survey of all 517 National Academy of Science members in biological and physical sciences (with one-half responding) showed 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% were agnostic, and only 7.0% beleive in a personal God. The unbelief is far higher that the percentage among scientists in general, or in the whole US population.
Connect the dots. >>


Okay...one last comment.

Not accusing you of doing so...but don't get confused with the direction of causation or correlation

Are they scientists proving things against religion because they're not religious -or- Are they not religious because of the stuff they've learned in their science studies?

Or does some other underlying factor lead them to be both interested in science and non-religious?

 

[Riprorin]

repost

 

[Riprorin]

<< But I've heard religious types try to use these holes as a basis exactly what you just said, namely prove creation theory...anyhow, I'll back off if that's what the discussion is really about as I have no stake in whether or not evolution theory is true. >>



bOmbrman, the point of the thread isn't to prove creation theory, but to raise the issue of academic fraud. Why can't evolutionary theory be taught on the basis of scientific data without blantant misrepresentation of the facts?

 

[glen]

Riprorin,
If you have serious questions, and aren't a troll, read one of Richard Dawkins's books such as the Blind Watchmaker or The Selfish Gene.

 

[gopunk]

bOmbrman, the point of the thread isn't to prove creation theory, but to raise the issue of academic fraud. Why can't evolutionary theory be taught on the basis of scientific data without blantant misrepresentation of the facts?

which is more likely: scientists deliberately skew their findings to satisfy their own beliefs and brainwash society into following them

OR

textbooks take shortcuts to save money

 

[Spudd]

You assume both cannot exist equally. LOL.

 

[EpsiIon]

<< bOmbrman, the point of the thread isn't to prove creation theory, but to raise the issue of academic fraud. Why can't evolutionary theory be taught on the basis of scientific data without blantant misrepresentation of the facts?

which is more likely: scientists deliberately skew their findings to satisfy their own beliefs and brainwash society into following them

OR

textbooks take shortcuts to save money >>





Both happen. You can't deny that. So what's your point? That one happens more often than another? That doesn't mean it's ok for scientists to misrepresent data.

 

[Riprorin]

gopunk, you missed my point completely. There are some other scenarios you missed.

The fact of the matter is that academia typically snubs intelligent design researchers and other critics of Darwinism. Take the case of Dr. Patrick Briney. While pursuing his doctorate at the University of Arkansas, professors told him that if he wanted to earn his degree, he should stifle his opinions on creation.

Don't you think that many scientists are afraid to follow the evidence where it leads?

The scientific community has an "unwritten rule" which limits science to naturalistic explanations only. Claiming science cannot look at design because it's outside the realm of naturalism, it won't even allow intelligent design a foot in the door.

 

[gopunk]

Both happen. You can't deny that. So what's your point? That one happens more often than another? That doesn't mean it's ok for scientists to misrepresent data.

my point is that perhaps, instead of viewing this as some evil scientists trying to brainwash kids, we should be viewing this as *textbook companies* not printing the right material.

 

[AzNmAnJLH]

kids cannot be brainwashed.... their heads are partially empty vessels eager to be filled with knowledge....

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

<< bOmbrman, the point of the thread isn't to prove creation theory, but to raise the issue of academic fraud. Why can't evolutionary theory be taught on the basis of scientific data without blantant misrepresentation of the facts?

which is more likely: scientists deliberately skew their findings to satisfy their own beliefs and brainwash society into following them

OR

textbooks take shortcuts to save money >>



I pick option C, you will never find a 'perfect' example of anything in real life. Instead of explaining that the rate of survival of different peppered moths depended on 15 independant factors all of which require a lot of time to explain properly, the book just skips straight to the conclusion because high-schoolers can't understand some of the more subtle aspects of the theory. They leave the detailed explanation to scientific papers aimed at an audience that can appreciate them

-Ice

 

[gopunk]

Don't you think that many scientists are afraid to follow the evidence where it leads?

no, i do not. first off, i believe that more than 7% of scientists believe in a god. that number strikes me as unrealistic. secondly, i believe that evolutionary biology scientists do not subscribe to creationist theory not because they are afraid of it, but because they don't believe in it.

 

[b0mbrman]

<< Don't you think that many scientists are afraid to follow the evidence where it leads? >>


I think many *people* are afraid to follow evidence where it leads...anyhow...where does the evidence lead?


<< I'll say it again: science curriculum is religious dogma. It is not open to debate within the education system. >>


Awesome...now there's a very good starting point for discussion.

 

[sandorski]

Creation vs Evolution: the problem

There would be no problem if the theory of Evolution didn't exist, but the theory of Evolution does exist and here's why: After a few centuries of overwhelming success with the scientific method, Darwin decided to apply that method to the origin of life. In order to do so, he chose to dismiss any pre-conceptions, traditions, or explanations. Using as many scientific tools as he could, observation basically, he formulated his Theory of Evolution.

The reason science continues to hold Evolution in high regard, is simply because it is the only theory that attempted to answer the question in a purely scientific manner. It could be totally wrong, but until someone comes up with a better theory, evolution will continue to be at the forefront of scientific understanding of the begining of time/life.



As for the 10 points listed, I have no idea whether they are presented in the way the original person(s) intended for them to be. Were each of these things merely mentioned or shown as possibilities or facts? Has the critical reader of these things taken the pictures/points out of context and twisted them to further their own agenda?

 

[Maetryx]

<<

<< I'll say it again: science curriculum is religious dogma. It is not open to debate within the education system. >>


Awesome...now there's a very good starting point for discussion. >>



Thanks! (in the voice of the mercenary that you hire in Act 2 of Diablo II when you give him a healing potion)

A better education system would allow 3 or 4 learned people to come in and give the best argument they could for their life origin theory. Some people might scream because invariably one or more of those theories would involve the supernatural. But freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. Besides, atheism is not the opposite of religion. It is competes with the other worldviews, like theism, pantheism and deism.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Excellent link, gopunk. Thnx.

Instead of explaining that the rate of survival of different peppered moths depended on 15 independant factors all of which require a lot of time to explain properly, the book just skips straight to the conclusion because high-schoolers can't understand some of the more subtle aspects of the theory. They leave the detailed explanation to scientific papers aimed at an audience that can appreciate them

1996 Article on the Effect of Teacher Training on Student Performance

Typically less than 1/3 of science and math teachers hold advanced degrees in their discipline. Elementary, middle, and most high schools do not have the resources for expert instructors that KNOW the discipline AND can communicate it on a level appropriate to the audience. Anybody could be a creation instructor . . . God did it . . . read Genesis . . . test on Friday.

The fact of the matter is that academia typically snubs intelligent design researchers and other critics of Darwinism.

No, we snub intelligent design researchers b/c they start with fact (the designer and his work) and attempt to explain away the necessity of evolution. Intelligent design RUs smear evolution by associating it with materialism and naturalism. I've NEVER heard any scientist say The materialist says: "If you can't see it, touch it, smell it, taste it or reduce to something you can, it doesn't exist." For the consistent materialist, human beings are merely complex machines and not spiritual beings or significantly free moral agents. as a justification for evolution.