http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... t-6-hours/

Isn't that just lovely?

I'm thinking more and more that Evolution and Big Bang should get equal time in Sunday School

Except, that's not the point of Sunday School, just as teaching un-scientific shit is not appropriate for a science class. But, it is easier for us non-religious people to understand the concept than it is for these people for some reason.

Since when is The Big Bang proven scientific law? Not that I particularly give a shit either way, but it's an educated guess. Hypotheses are proven wrong all the time.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

lol-- the Big Band theory is far more than a mere hypothesis.

What's that, "the Big Bang theory"? Theory did you say?

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

I love it when the ignorant schmucks come out and start talking about "it's only a theory." Just shows how little they understand the use of the word in a scientific context.

_________________

You're an ignorant Georgia hick cunt yourself. Pot, kettle nigger.

Way to miss the point, hauss.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Someone doesn't understand scientific terminology.

DarkOmen, in an astronomy class there's no room for anything else other than scientific theories. There's no room for learning about non-scientific alternatives.

I don't get what it is so hard to understand about that, but, it apparently is, and that might explain why shit like this gets passed into law once more.

It's a theory, sure. But we're more certain of it than of the Earth's age being measured in thousands.

So don't put it in science class. Teach it in social studies. With some 80%+ of the world being religious, I have a hard time buying that such an important issue should be completely ignored in a subject that is geared towards teaching worldwide human behaviour, history, and the general human social/cultural experience.

If schools were to start teaching the various creation myths, there'd be no time for the important stuff that isn't already covered by every church in the world.

By that standard, you're ruling out any number of things that happen to be social norms(or practiced, taught in certain circles) in society. "If it's already covered elsewhere in certain segments of society, don't teach it" isn't quite the epitome of impartial, broad-based curriculum.

Just because someone is from Mexico and knows the cultural importance of Cinco De Mayo doesn't really mean it shouldn't be taught. It's not as if teachers don't explain or at least expound on cultural aspects here in the U.S. to ordinary American kids, either.

Theory in science doesn't mean what 'theory' means in common english any more than 'Depression' medically means the same thing as 'depression' in common english.

Please fucking use your brains. PLEASE.

And for the gazillion-th fucking time...science does not and cannot address WHO OR WHAT is 'behind it all'. Science doesn't address the concept of a diety because it cannot. It cannot because there IS NO EVIDENCE.

If you can come up with some evidence, you can use the scientific method to evaluate it. Until then it's called faith for a reason.

_________________

I am doing absolutely no such thing. If teachers want to cover the fact that certain groups of people have various myths regarding the beginning of existence, that's great. It's factual, and it does not place one system of beliefs before another.

Teaching the creation myths themselves should never be part of public education though. It does not prepare the children for adulthood, nor does it give them a foundation which they can use to better themselves. It serves absolutely no value except to make religious people feel better about themselves that their fucked up anti-science is being taught as though it actually had value other than as entertaining moral lessons. That's not even taking into account the vast time expediture it would take to teach the creation myths unless you're willing to arbitrarily decide which creation myths are worth teach and which are worth being pushed aside.

Churches on the other hand do have that time, and it allows people to choose for themselves which myth they will learn.

Thank you for posting this. It pisses me off when I hear these religious idiots saying "IT IS JUST A THEORY!"

Before some moron uses that line, I suggest they look up what a "theory" is as defined by the scientific community.

For example, I could start teaching that there is no such thing as gravity. Instead, I believe it is Satan trying to pull us all to HELL. We should teach that in schools, why? Because GRAVITY is just a THEORY!

SATAN IS WHAT PULLS US TO EARTH!!!

In fairness Orme, it's not just religious idiots who don't get the difference. I blame some piss poor science classes in school. Most people who only have a high school education in science do not have a good understanding of the scientific method, scientific terms, or how stuff works in general.

I've listened to NON religious people, people who believe in evolution *wrongly* and oh so wrongly talk about what evolution is...or rather what they think it is. And I'm not being nit picky like "AHA no it's THIS!" but rather for them ... well it's as much a belief as Jesus because they have no fucking idea what it is.

Even some with a college education are piss poor in this area too.

That's why dorking with the education system in this area is such a BFD. These are not easy concepts, and they are IMPORTANT concepts. Understanding the scientific method, how it works, WHY it works, and WHY IT IS ESSENTIAL...leads to good critical thinking skills that people need in life today.

How many goddamn morons buy products that there's later class action lawsuits on because they're bunk bullshit stuff. Lots. LOTS OF PEOPLE.

Hell, I will share with you a sexy story to explain the scientific method.

I bought a waterproof vibrator recently. I even wrote up a review on it (one you people will never ever see. ). I did not assume that it was truly waterproof merely because it said so, or because other people said so.

Anything I'm going to stick in my cooter with electricity is something I'm going to test for myself.

I submerged it for about 20 minutes. The unit and the battery casing flooded with water.

Now, yes, I understand that 'waterproof' in sex toys often refers to liquids that one normally encounters during regular sex. (I won't get more graphic than that kids!). However this device was specifically marketed for use in bathing and hot tubs, etc.

It may be that it's still safe, even though those areas flooded. I seriously doubt it, once the battery area has been exposed, it's dangerous and water is (if you recall your science lessons) a GREAT conductor.

So being skeptical where one can be injured, is a great asset. Understanding the basic scientific method of conducting experiments (even if it's not lab perfect) is important.

And at the very least, avoided a potentially serious problem. Sure they won't use that in a classroom, but it kept your interest

_________________

Unless it uses batteries other than alkaline (NiMH, etc) you're safe. It's just poorly made.

It would be unsafe if it somehow involves a second attachment to the breasticles though.

Or that fossils millions of years old were planted there by the devil to mislead people
Or that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark with him.

_________________
Larreth Wolfsong (long retired)
Lanys T'vyl, Everquest

Zinky, Lvl 60 Warlock
Thunderhorn, WoW

The way the story is presented the big bang theory is the *only* theory presented, be it of scientific or otherwise.

It is great that some of you assume what I believe.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Okay, what other 'theory' do you think they should present besides the big bang?

_________________

Last I remember there are numerous theories regarding the beginnings of our universe, and multiple theories based off of the big bang theory that explain the aftermath in many different ways.

The most prevalent theory at one time was the flat earth theory, that doesn't make it anymore right then any other widely accepted theory.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

jesus fuck

Name one, that exists TODAY, Dark Omen.

Or are you suggesting that we should give equal time to a flat earth theory as the current slightly stretched spherical theory?

Actually, strictly speaking, water is a terrible conductor.

The only time when you will mention two theories or hypothesis is when both have about the same data to support them.

For example, a few years back when I was taking a biological anthropology class we learned about two hypothesis that tried to explain where modern humans came form. One said that humans came from Africa, while the other said that humans started evolving from more than one place at the same time. And, whenever evidence came out to support one it weakened the other, but there was not enough evidence to invalidate either one (that's the beauty of science, all you need is evidence to invalidate our guesses ). Now, when it comes to something like the Big Bang (silly name), that's not the case. You have two options, something came from nothing, or something came from something. And, well, based on what we know we can't really claim something came from something. And really, all you need to consider the alternative is evidence, which we don't have. So you can't consider it.

Really, it is not about someone just refusing to teach alternatives. It is about science not working the way some people want it to work.

pure h2o is a rather shitty conductor, it's the impurities in it (such as salt, chlorine, etc) that are the conductors.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

The point is, it's as far as we know, at best. I never went into my own personal beliefs, this is entirely about the solitary presentation of the big bang theory alone.

If they're going to teach any of it there seriously needs to be a look at the early works of Georges Lemaître and Einstein and the other prevalent theory at the time. It needs to be more then a blurb. There's no need to do a large scale examination of quantum theory but a little time covering the background isn't much to ask.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

You're assuming that they're just saying "the world was created by the big bang" and then moving on, Hara.

That's not what any science class I've ever taken has done at all, even in High School.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I seriously doubt it goes much beyond that. Until perhaps a high school astronomy class.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

I think I said I submerged it in a bathtub...I'm too lazy to reread, if so then you'd know the water in there would absolutely be a great conductor. There's enough salt in tap water to make it a fanfuckingtastic conductor.

And yeah Van, other impurities too, but salt is the biggie.

I've only ever worked with pure water in a lab setting, where it was plumbed in because of the necessity of it for certain types of work. (Tastes like water , cause someone always asks ). I think it's pretty much a guarantee that any tap is going to be impure (from storage, to piping, to home plumbing to your dishes...if nothing else).

The toy has 4 AAA batteries, each being 1.5V. There's probably enough amps in that to kill someone under the right conditions. Unlikely, but 'possible'. More likely just a shock, doubt it would even cause burns.

Still...eek. Which is why I tested it rather than assuming the veracity of the claim.

_________________

I know you said bathtub!

Nevertheless, my comment holds true. <3

It could make the affected muscles seize up if there's metal contact, but it could only kill if a loop were formed across the heart. Hence my nipple clamp caveat. Water is a good conductor, but copper is much better.

Inside the body, 80 microamps can kill.

Not nearly as dangerous as, say, the flash in a disposable camera. That can kill the shit out of a person. The trigger transformer tops out at about 15kV. You can spot weld with it.

Wow, I'll never look at my camera flashes the same way. XD

It's turtles all the way down! Even to the beginning of the universe.

First, you're acting as if there is only one length and depth in which to teach it, which is false. How long would it take to tell kids one sentence's worth of, "There is a popular notion among most humans in the world that there is a monotheistic god." You can go from that, to lengthy multiple-day explanations or even further... with plenty of ground in between. A simple explanation of ID could be as easy as: "There is a popular belief in the United States and other countries of 'Intelligent Design', which many in the scientific community dispute in favor of the Big Bang. It suggests that because the world and the universe appears to be naturally complex, it follows that there must be a designer."

I mean, with an explanation as simple as that, I don't see where you're getting that it would take a massive amount of time to teach it. Take that and mulitply it by 4 or 5 to include all major world religions with such simple explanations, or just include beliefs similar to ID that go along with those religions, and it's really not going to take any longer than it would for any normal cultural curriculum. That's as little as what, 15 minutes of class time if you take it to that extreme?



Then explain the difference between teaching basic concepts and historical facts about religion with teaching general history and cultural traditions. Assuming you are not against that, of course. If you are against teaching cultural traditions and history in a social studies classroom setting, then you're consistent at least.

I think you'd at least need to eliminate history altogether, though. Considering how massive a role religion has played throughout human history, it'd be a little inconsistent to teach so many aspects of the human experience and history and completely ignore one of the biggest commonalities between humans and one of the biggest if not THE biggest shaper of human history to date.

In addition, most churches aren't going to be extremely impartial. Kids go to school to gain impartial, factual knowledge.

If we assume a "myth"(Scientifically speaking of course, since we're eliminating possibilities without reproducible evidence) changed the course of human history to that degree, then it's even more important to teach because it would be a rather large blunder on the part of human development that we could only hope to correct in the future.

I'm not gonna say give it equal time, but hell, it's most definitely worth of a mention. Explain that this was a particularly popular belief hundreds of years ago before modern science. Explain to them why they didn't think about it, tell them to look outside and say what they see. It's a fantastic opportunity for kids to realize that it's important to think outside of the box - Just because it LOOKS flat doesn't mean we should jump to that conclusion, and the rather important lesson of "needing more data".

Sounds good to me to at least include it as a rather important history lesson.

The point was that if we followed Dark's logic to it's conclusion, we have to give equal time to all theories, regardless of their relative merit. This is quite obviously silly.

Your comments simply don't have anything to do with that point, and you even admit you are talking about history, not science.

It's interesting to note that the Catholic Church taught, for centuries, the idea of geocentrism. That the Earth was the center of the universe, and the stars, sun, and other planets revolved around our planet. Anyone stating otherwise was a heretic, because the idea of a heliocentric system didn't jive with scripture.

Fast forward to today, and hardcore Christians still can't get it through their fat skulls that they might not have a complete understanding of the Bible, and taking it as literal truth is going to bite them in the ass again and again until their religion adapts or dies.

_________________

I never said it had to do all that much with what Darkomen was saying, I was responding to Devyn and Gosthok's comments.

And while I wouldn't specifically categorize either as such, it's more or less targeted at anyone who might blindly accept that religion should never be mentioned in school(even in the context of broad general explanations) based on nothing more than popularized and accepted liberal Teacher's Union-style doctrine.

How would anyone know? You quoted me, not Devyn or Gosthok.



As a liberal teacher, and a member of my teacher's union, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. In fact, if you think our agenda is to remove all religion from school, than you are just about as ignorant as the folks who push a 6000 year old earth. That impression you are getting is coming primarily from the demonization of public schooling by the Religious Right, not from any liberal teacher union.

I never said that religion should not be mentioned. That would be pretty much impossible. I said that religion should never be taught in public school, including their creation myths (even my own, obviously).

I do not see how teaching that a person who was murdered and later rose (or will rise) from the dead or that a being who cannot be perceived in any way somehow created the universe in a set amount of time is worthy of being taught in school.

I do see the merit in teaching subjects that may involve religion such as Constantine I, Salem, Israel and Palestine.

Now see, I don't agree with you there, Devyn. To not teach about the history of Christianity, based on said person you bring up, would be ignoring the HUGE impact that religion had on our culture and history.

You can teach ABOUT christianity without TEACHING christianity.

_________________

Right.

It's funny you wrote that because I was going to make the point myself.

Evolution and the big bang were never taught as absolutes in my high school either. And, it's worth noting that while the fundies lump them together they are wholly different topics. Also, neither theory is as definitive as the creationists want to accuse them of.

The religious right are the only ones who have absolutes.

Well, for one I've been saying don't teach non-science in science class.. and for another, I said don't give it equal time. I figured I made it pretty plain that there were some differences there. I didn't really say anything about following your point about "all theories being equal" to its conclusion, it was merely a comment about the importance of teaching human mistakes in history(which sorta followed what I had just said about religion).



I don't think school administrators get up every day and say "Hey, how can we further remove religion from school?" but I think it's plainly obvious that there's a pre-emptive doctrine that is against any inclusion of religion in school material. It may vary from district to district, but I sure as hell never saw a mention nor had my friends in other schools heard any mention of religion in any context whatsoever(with a possible exception of late High School here and there). It's something that's generally been frowned upon, often with ill-cited references to the separation of church and state.

And that, of course, doesn't really apply if you give impartial treatment and representation to all religions - and, most importantly, as stated - teaching ABOUT religion, not teaching a religion itself.

How many schools do you know with general background religious curriculum in the public school system?

But Venen, this is simply false. I can't really say it any other way. It would be impossible to teach history or current events, for example, without including religion. In my area (the arts), it would be impossible to teach band, choir, or art classes without including religion. What you are saying is simply false.



Every school I've ever attended or worked for. /shrug. Hell, our public school just added a third class, "Biblical literature." Are there some schools without such classes? Sure. But it would be my guess that every class in the country, or close to it, on Western Civilization includes information about Western religions.

You just sound to me like someone who doesn't look closely enough at what's going on in the schools, and just started to believe the "omg they took prayer out of schools they all hate religion!" mantra that the Religious Right have pushed on us over the last 25 years. It's just bull.

High school is the only place I've seen teachers dare touch it, and there it's usually offered as a very specific course(yea, something akin to "Western Civilization" would have to have it). Apparently middle schoolers and junior high kids have minds that are simply too fragile to tackle this slightly more grey area.

I distinctly remember one of my high school history teachers avoiding ANY mention of religion at every turn(just a general American History class as I recall). Maybe a brief mentioning at best, with little to no elaboration on religion's impact.

Maybe I just had bad teachers then, but I was only witness to serious in-depth discussion on religion when college came around.

I'll agree that my question is a bit extreme though, there are indeed courses taught in public high schools. But, I do believe from what I've seen that the subject is avoided where possible(with the exception of those specific courses), and only topical engagement at best. They have those courses available separately so parents can make a choice to what their kids are "exposed" to.

Western Lit in college typically will cover the Bible in some or fashion. There's no denying it's an influential book at least.

Around here kids start getting to pick the classes they take around 5th grade, so no, I can't say I particularly give a fuck if a school was to offer a Biblical Literature class.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

A little devil's advocate argument (rebuttals invited!):

The Big Bang theory is a relatively recent development in physics, but one that is well supported by a variety of cosmological evidence. It's also fairly well understood from the theoretical framework of general relativity (although, to be fair, there is a lot we still don't know about the early universe). The problem is that the general relativity is hard -- most physicists don't even learn it in depth until the second year of their PhD studies.

So it's not feasible to teach the Big Bang rigorously in high school... and when you teach the results of science without giving an understanding of the theory they're based on, and the observations that support them, you're asking students to take those results on faith.

Which isn't so different from teaching the Biblical creation story, really.

...In one case you're asking students to believe something because it's the Word of God; in the other case you're asking them to believe something else because it's the Word of Stephen Hawking.

No, you're asking them to believe it because it's tested and retestable. And if they don't want to take it on faith that you're telling them the truth, with science they have the ability to acquire the information to test it themselves.

But do we provide them with the tools to access that information?

My high school physics courses certainly didn't.

Fair points.

Also, a few people asked earlier what some alternatives to the Big Bang would be. What about Steinhardt and Turok's theory that the universe goes through a constant cycle of expansion/stalling and heating/cooling? If such were true, it potentially changes the age of the universe by innumerable years.

Like the Big Bang, it's not the simplest thing to explain in completely accurate terms to the degree where one fully understands it, but it sounded like a few people wanted to know of an alternative theory.

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/02/0506 ... iverse.htm

So uh, there ya go! =p

No. Please, no. Don't do this, it makes me so sad to see people do this.

I'd estimate that 99 percent or more of the population takes most of science on faith. How many people pop open their lab sets when told the boiling point of magnesium is 1363 Kelvin?

It's moreso for harder to grasp concepts, though. At some partial point along the line of understanding relativity, people will stop and say "ok, sounds good!".

Still, you have to start somewhere. Well-known and undisputed facts are pretty safe... if you're teaching something that requires conceptual understanding, though, it's rather important to be able to reproduce results.