Not teaching evolution
ROB-B-Q
harm to the students, they will learn about from other sources anyway.
To back me up, The Learning Channel had a show on the air the other day
called "when dinosaurs ruled"
It was a hour long educational show on evolution, and how birds are
descended from dinosaurs. They had nice computer graphics and presented
evolution as a fact. If one community doesn't mandatory teachings
evolution, so what the children will no miss out on the information
For all you people getting ready to reply to me for saying "....and
presented evolution as a fact". Relax, I happen to believe in evolution, and
feel it was a tool of God. Happening in a mount of Gods thought, so don't
post crap about the prove of evolution.
And for the people who always ask " what about the dinosaurs, how does that
fit in to your God theory?"
well I guess TLC answered that after watching that show I now think that God
created and killed the dinosaurs so I can listen to the birds sing in the
mooring.
Later Rob
Chuck Sommers
ROB-B-Q <fin...@bestweb.net> wrote in message news:0SFx3.119$dn.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
> I have said it before on this group. Not teaching evolution will do little
> harm to the students, they will learn about from other sources anyway.
>
> To back me up, The Learning Channel had a show on the air the other day
> called "when dinosaurs ruled"
> It was a hour long educational show on evolution, and how birds are
> descended from dinosaurs. They had nice computer graphics and presented
> evolution as a fact. If one community doesn't mandatory teachings
> evolution, so what the children will no miss out on the information
Some of what you say is encouraging in that you seem to accept that evolution
has occured, yet troubling in showing your clinging to a desire to avoid it ...and to
"shelter" your children from knowledge of it...or at least to "protect" them
as long as possible from their inevitable "corruption".
A few problems with your idea.
1.There are so many fantasy and pseudo-science shows that it is very unlikely kids can tell
the difference. Those which utilize actual facts mixed with fiction are the most damaging.
Eventually it leads to a situation in which people think there is no reality - that everything
is subject to "opinion" and "cultural assumptions" and thus no reason to pursue a search
for the "truth" about nature.
We hear over and over statements such as "well, you have your opinion and I have mine" -
implying "all opinions are equal".
If they are being told at home and in church that evolution is "wrong" and "bad" (to over-simplify),
they and that in some cases, the supernatural over-rules the natural, they will be even more confused.
To expect kids to be able to differentiate is short-sighted.
2. There is the very real problem of all of religion being rejected and suspect.
Those kids who are bright enough to listen to the evidence on such shows will eventually have to deal
with the conflict between the "outside world" and their parents'/church's world. It is very natural they
will assume that if the latter is wrong about something as important as evolution, they must be wrong
about any/every thing.
Of course this means religion must "evolve" too; it's role as a forum
for analysis of morality, communality, meditation, etc. will become more clear as it
separates itself from its former role as "explainer of nature".
I have read the opinion of some psychologists who describe the parental/child "credibility gap"
caused by discovery of the "Santa" hoax - that is tiny compared to this.
I suppose this is more an argument for the parents and churches to change their teaching, but if schools
are teaching evolution the teachers may be able to help kids resolve these conflicts better than they
can on their own.
3. The "random -smattering" approach to learning about something as complex as evolution is a very
poor way to form one's own understanding.
Virtually none of the opponents of evolution in this forum or others really understand the theory, presumptions,
or data involved. When evolution is incorporated into all science classes K-12 and above it can be developed
thoroughly and correctly. More important, it will be integrated and correctly related to all the child's
knowledge rather than being thought of as something "separate" and irrelevant.
I think in your own statements you treat it is something separable from the rest of science-but it's
not. It is absolute truth that "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution". And, you could
add "geology" as well.
You simply can't teach something this important as a "unit" or separate topic in school, or anywhere.
It is far too important to be picked up in bits and pieces. A child who doesn't thoroughly
learn it is missing out on the most profoundly valuable discovery of humanity.
4. A thorough grounding in the concept of "evolution" is so important in the whole thought- process.
It spreads to other areas of thought - history, cultural growth and development, art, music, architecture,
and, even religion. It causes students to think about change as something natural and incremental, and
based on earlier ideas. This is, afterall, how we justify the teaching of history, art history etc.
It provides a connnection to the past and an understanding of the importance of leaning about the past-that
can only understand the present by understanding the past.
An understanding of biological evolution literally helps students
realize their connection to the rest of the universe and to all other life forms. This affects their
attitudes toward other life and gives them an understanding of our place in the "grand scheme".
I'm sure my enjoyment of my dog is far more rich than otherwise because of my
constant realization of how "he" came to be so similar (yet different) from his wolf ancestors
and how and why we are both similar and different. I visualize the centuries of selective breeding
to make him desirable and suitable for his amusing and surprising mix of elegant "lap-dog"
and energetic "ratter" in the palaces of the European aristocracy.
(He is a Papillon, for those who are curious.)
I think about the fact that his ancestors undoubtedly lived in better conditions than my German
peasant stock did, which in turn helps me reflect on how I (and other humans) came to be the way
we are. It gives me pause to realize that without the benefit of modern medicine,and in the cold, filthy
peasant huts of my ancestors. I probably would have died at a young age of respiratory disease or asthma.
It is impossible to correctly understand human behavior, racial differences and similarites,
cultural difference etc. without an evolutionary basis. (Can't you see the profound difference between
believing deep skin pigmentation is a "curse by God" vs understanding it's role as protection from
the sun in hot climates and that the "unnatural" , and minority variation is "white" skin?)
Another example: In the discussion of AIDS the good Rev. Falwell (I think it was he) pronounced
that the disease was "God's punishment for homosexuality" as has been done in the past when
plagues of other kinds have been described in similar terms.
Just think of the damage that could be (and has been ) done by an unquestioning acceptance
of His pronouncement - something which isn't possible in someone with an evolutionary world-view.
Very few people understand the significance of the "origin" of diseases - their having evolved from
domestic animals' parasites/symbionts. I would urge everyone to read
Diamond, Jared
Guns, Germs, and Steel - The Fates of
Human Societies
(New York:Norton, 1997)
It's a fascinating exposition of the reasons for the cultural and military dominance most of the rest
of the world by Western Europe; it makes clear that it is not due to "racial superiority".
The pervasiveness of the "evolutionary worldview'" is also shown in a couple other of my recent
reads:
Dennett, Daniel C.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution And The Meanings Of Life
(New York: Simon and Schuster,1995)
Fabian, A.C. (ed)
Evolution: Society, Science, and the Universe
(Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge U. Press, 1998
The latter demonstrates the importance of "evolution" in all areas of thought.
In the newsgroups, for example, I have seen people trying to use dictionary
definitions of words to "prove" ideas - indicating that they don't realize how
temporary and evolving language is, especially English.
The etymology of words is a perfect analogy for the mutation, natural selection,
hybridization etc. of organisms. One who is infused with the "evolutionary" paradigm
will instinctively understand this.
>
> For all you people getting ready to reply to me for saying "....and
> presented evolution as a fact". Relax, I happen to believe in evolution, and
> feel it was a tool of God. Happening in a mount of Gods thought, so don't
> post crap about the prove of evolution.
"Crap"?? I get your point re relevance to this discussion, but this is hardly
terminology which is either constructive or conducive to an acceptance of your ideas.
>
>
> And for the people who always ask " what about the dinosaurs, how does that
> fit in to your God theory?"
> well I guess TLC answered that after watching that show I now think that God
> created and killed the dinosaurs so I can listen to the birds sing in the
> mooring.
Well, I guess the good news is that you, at least, accept their existence, the "old world" viewpoint,
and that evolution has taken place.
The "bad news" (in my opinion) is that you may not have quite grasped the correct view
of humans in the scheme of things. To suggest that the extinction of a vast set of species
(which dominated the earth for a couple of hundred times longer than we have existed) took
place for our auditory enrichment is naive, at best, and overwhelmingly arrogant, at worst.
You are still looking at the universe through the eyes of a pre-Copernican - you probably
know the earth is no longer is the center of the universe, but you still think humans are.
Ironically, this arrogance is what is most likely to lead to OUR demise.
Had you been thoroughly grounded in Evolution, you wouldn't make this mistake.
In the hope that you will continue to evolve...
chuck
--
Chuck Sommers
csom...@chorus.net
>
> Later Rob
>
>
>
>
ROB-B-Q
disagreed with me.
You are so closed minded that in all of our corasponance you never listen to
me.
>Some of what you say is encouraging in that you seem to accept that
evolution
>has occured, yet troubling in showing your clinging to a desire to avoid it
...and to
>"shelter" your children from knowledge of it...
I have always accepted evoultion, it is a fact.
>A few problems with your idea.
>
>1.There are so many fantasy and pseudo-science shows that it is very
unlikely kids can tell
>the difference. Those which utilize actual facts mixed with fiction are
the most damaging.
>Eventually it leads to a situation in which people think there is no
reality - that everything
>is subject to "opinion" and "cultural assumptions" and thus no reason to
pursue a search
>for the "truth" about nature.
You underestimate your kids, Pluse I am talking about older kids 10-18, I
think some sicenices don't start at kindergarden
>We hear over and over statements such as "well, you have your opinion and I
have mine" -
>implying "all opinions are equal".
If you are trying to say that the opion og God is not equal to any other
opion your wrong.
Some of the Points or stories may be arugmentaitve but the exist of a God is
an opion the almost all people share in some way or another, Even you,
belive in a God.
>I have read the opinion of some psychologists who describe the
parental/child "credibility gap"
>caused by discovery of the "Santa" hoax - that is tiny compared to this.
ou read too much, People can always make a good point about anything if they
want. Regilous and non-regiolus alike. Do you give your father less
credibiltiy for tell you their was a santa. You getting thin here.
>3. The "random -smattering" approach to learning about something as
complex as evolution is a very
>poor way to form one's own understanding.
>Virtually none of the opponents of evolution in this forum or others really
understand the theory, presumptions,
>or data involved. When evolution is incorporated into all science classes
K-12 and above it can be developed
>thoroughly and correctly. More important, it will be integrated and
correctly related to all the child's
>knowledge rather than being thought of as something "separate" and
irrelevant.
Please all that means nothing. We are talking about the concept of evoultion
for kids the facts for adults, I don't even know half that shit and I belive
in Evo;ution.
All a kid needs to know about evoultion is that it says "man came frm ape"
if they want more it's the nintys they can gat it.
>I think in your own statements you treat it is something separable from the
rest of science-but it's
>not. It is absolute truth that "nothing in biology makes sense without
evolution". And, you could
>add "geology" as well.
I have never once said anything to impill that
>
>4. A thorough grounding in the concept of "evolution" is so important in
the whole thought- process.
>It spreads to other areas of thought - history, cultural growth and
development, art, music, architecture,
>and, even religion. It causes students to think about change as something
natural and incremental, and
>based on earlier ideas. This is, afterall, how we justify the teaching of
history, art history etc.
>It provides a connnection to the past and an understanding of the
importance of leaning about the past-that
>can only understand the present by understanding the past.
Please, Speak for yourself
>An understanding of biological evolution literally helps students
>realize their connection to the rest of the universe and to all other life
forms. This affects their
>attitudes toward other life and gives them an understanding of our place in
the "grand scheme".
>I'm sure my enjoyment of my dog is far more rich than otherwise because of
my
>constant realization of how "he" came to be so similar (yet different) from
his wolf ancestors
>and how and why we are both similar and different. I visualize the
centuries of selective breeding
>to make him desirable and suitable for his amusing and surprising mix of
elegant "lap-dog"
>and energetic "ratter" in the palaces of the European aristocracy.
>(He is a Papillon, for those who are curious.)
Yea, yea, yea, rember YOU do NOT respent ALL people, What you just said is
definnty a personal thing with you and your dog, and really should not be
used here and now. I wonder how many people shar that feeling.
>Another example: In the discussion of AIDS the good Rev. Falwell (I think
it was he) pronounced
>that the disease was "God's punishment for homosexuality" as has been done
in the past when
>plagues of other kinds have been described in similar terms.
That is just one crazy mans opion, No other christian I know shares that
opinion
>Just think of the damage that could be (and has been ) done by an
unquestioning acceptance
>of His pronouncement - something which isn't possible in someone with an
evolutionary world-view.
I agree.
>> For all you people getting ready to reply to me for saying "....and
>> presented evolution as a fact". Relax, I happen to believe in evolution,
and
>> feel it was a tool of God. Happening in a mount of Gods thought, so don't
>> post crap about the prove of evolution.
>
>
>"Crap"?? I get your point re relevance to this discussion, but this is
hardly
>terminology which is either constructive or conducive to an acceptance of
your ideas.
Why? If there is a God?, if he can creat a univerise why put a limit on how
fast he can do it.
You say crap because your small human mind thinks that 4 billion has to be
four billion years, Why can't a God pass four billion years in a mounent
thought.
That is what happened.
Rob
Michael Klewinski
Ralph Wereik
Follow the bible not these so called Benny Hinn types who do not do anything
but gather crowds who bring in money.
Turtle
>how does a 100 ton reptile turn into a 1 oz. hummingbird ?
>
--Turtle
(Millenium, Schmillenium.)
To respond Email, remove ns from address
Chuck Sommers
Michael Klewinski <jam-...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:21636-37C...@newsd-113.bryant.webtv.net...
> how does a 100 ton reptile turn into a 1 oz. hummingbird ?
>
Your question shows you don't have the foggiest idea about evolution.
That, of course, is not what happened.
It is a bogus premise the anti-evolution propagandists through out to
confuse people.
Why do assume all reptiles weighed 100 tons?
Do they today?
Did they in the past?
Of course not.
Why do you assume the earliest bird was the size of a hummingbird?
It wasn't.
The explanation is very logical, and there are fossils which illustrate the process.
If you are really interested in learning about the process of speciation, I can explain it.
However I suspect no matter how much time I took, you would refuse to admit you accepted it.
--
Chuck Sommers
csom...@chorus.net
Yochannon
lpjen0
It is a bird and bird is a bird.
End of discussion
Yochannon wrote:
Does anyone think Tweetie bird {Evolved} from T-Rex ?
NANCY A LARSEN
I'm glad he talked about his dog.
ROB-B-Q
Yochannon wrote in message <20824-37...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>...
Michael LoPinto
with you and know that the lord jesus christ is your savior!!! Pray with
and to god and your prayers will be answered.....
Michael LoPinto -- WebPage:
http://community.webtv.net/Shaazzam/