tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post8711748037567988678..comments2024-03-16T21:32:23.088-04:00Comments on A Sure Word: Why even teach evolution?RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-50229205240487955282017-05-28T08:38:28.428-04:002017-05-28T08:38:28.428-04:00Steven J,
I think you're missing the point. ...Steven J,<br /><br />I think you're missing the point. Did you know that there have been 6 KY Derby winning horses whose names began with “A” since 1960? What if schools made that required learning for students? Some parents might object to their kids learning about race horses on the grounds that it promotes gambling. Furthermore, it's rather trivial information. It doesn't matter if it's true or not I'd say it's a waste of our time to teach it and it causes more trouble than it's worth. If Churchill Downs sued any school that stopped teaching it, I would say it's Churchill Downs that are the zealots. <br /><br />Evolution is trivial and controversial. I don't believe it's true but, even if it were, it's more trouble than it's worth. The zealots who insist that we teach it have an agenda besides educating our kids.<br /><br />God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-81056862146084968742017-05-27T18:47:54.397-04:002017-05-27T18:47:54.397-04:00... if many parents would prefer their kids not le...<b>... if many parents would prefer their kids not learn it, and if nearly ½ the population doesn't believe evolution is true anyway, why does your side still insist on teaching it?... Evolution is the only scientific theory that seems to have its own political lobby.</b><br /><br />If there were many parents (rather than a handful despised even by their fellow creationists) who objected to heliocentrism in astronomy, it would have its own lobby as well. Ditto for germ theory, atomic theory, etc. You answer your own question, assuming that you accept, at least in principle, that truth is not settled by majority vote, or scientific theories accepted based on the consensus of people who don't understand either the theory or the facts it seeks to explain.Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-46124182105754997642017-05-26T08:47:14.746-04:002017-05-26T08:47:14.746-04:00Steven J,
It's funny because my son (who is 1...Steven J,<br /><br />It's funny because my son (who is 14) was just saying to me the other day that he wishes schools would teach things like buying a house, applying for a job, and other real-life skills. I gave him this hypothetical example: if you're buying a house for $110,000 and the down payment is 5%, how much would you need to save? He was able to do that math in his head. I explained that the math he's learned does apply to real world situations. I then asked him if he could multiply 9x47 in his head. I could tell he was trying to do the math but I told him he was taking too long. It's a lot easier if you make it an algebraic express like 9(40+7) or 47(10-1). Even in my down payment example, a person might use algebra; if I already have $750 saved, how much more would I need to save for the down payment? X = (110,000 x .05) – 750. <br /><br />Music and art might not seem practical when finding a job but they are more practical than you might think. Our society consumes art. We go to movies, we decorate our homes, we listen to songs on the radio, we read books, and there have to be people who produce these things. What's more, a case could be made that teaching art and music also sparks imagination and creativity which are useful to many other areas of life. Certainly, I'm not against students learning these things in order to be well rounded.<br /><br />In any event, what you've failed to address is the controversy. There's been much debate over public funding of groups like the NEA or PBS but I doubt there is much concern over kids learning arts in school. There may be an occasional uproar over a school using a particular book or questionable songs but I've never heard of a parent suing a school simply because it taught music or reading! On the other hand, some parents strongly object to the teaching of evolution – especially when it's done by zealots like the FL teacher I quoted in my post. If evolution is of such questionable utility, if many parents would prefer their kids not learn it, and if nearly ½ the population doesn't believe evolution is true anyway, why does your side still insist on teaching it? It sounds much more like indoctrination than education.<br /><br />One thing I didn't mention in my post is that scientists don't get to write the school curriculum. Parents, teachers, and local school boards decide what is taught. Evolution is the only scientific theory that seems to have its own political lobby. Any attempt to down play evolution or soften the “evolution is FACT” rhetoric is met with a subpoena. Go ahead and teach science, teach biology, teach math, teach geology, just stop teaching evolution. What's wrong with that?<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-81560696551138520572017-05-25T23:47:15.777-04:002017-05-25T23:47:15.777-04:00Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious dur...<i>Stand firm in your refusal to remain conscious during algebra. In real life, I assure you, there is no such thing as algebra.</i> -- Fran Lebowitz<br /><br />Of course, there are a lot of engineers who need algebra on a daily basis. But there are huge numbers of good jobs where you can get by for decades without it, even for people who sat through algebra classes (when their teachers weren't discoursing on eschatology).<br /><br /><b>If evolution is so ancillary to science ...?</b><br /><br />I would say (and of course you would not) "to the <i>rest</i> of science." The test of science is not that it raises the gross national product, provides gadgets for Apple to market, or kills obnoxious foreigners. It is that it provides testable explanations for natural phenomena. The value of these explanations to aircraft engineers, farmers, or dress designers is not a measure of their truth.<br /><br />Evolution does provide such testable explanations. Evolution is part of science. It is worth noting, I think, that you do not assert otherwise in this post. Your argument is not "evolution is false," but "come on, our preferred delusions about Earth history are harmless; why do you insist on teaching facts that contradict or at least raise questions about them?" Or at least, you are taking a belt-plus-suspenders approach: "we have these arguments against evolution, but if they fail, couldn't you just please leave us in blissful ignorance of the subject anyway?"<br /><br />As the wife of the Bishop of Worcester probably didn't really say, "My dear, descended from the apes! Let us hope it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known."<br /><br />Is covering evolution in biology class strictly <i>necessary</i> from a utilitarian view? I suppose you could raise similar questions, for most students, about music, art, and large swaths of history (how many people will ever need to know about the manorial system in medieval Europe?). Traditionally, education is supposed to be distinct from vocational training in that it equips you with a broad sense of how the world works and what people have thought about it. From fossils to comparative genomics to biogeography, there is abundant evidence that evolution is part of the way the world works.Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.com