Top home-schooling texts promote blatant lies to students (punishment, believe, brainwashing)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, all those years of studying epistemology in Philosophy classes, reading Kant, Plato, Popper, etc. - what a waste! I could have just read an internet article to learn what is "true".
The ignorance on both sides of this debate is equal. Two sides of the same coin.
Religion should be in religion textbook; science should be in science textbook.
Is creationism science? Why is it biology text?
And epistemology should be in philosophy books. Oh, but let's not talk about philosophy, everyone knows that with Science here to answer all questions about "truth" philosophy, along with religion, is no longer needed.
Wow, all those years of studying epistemology in Philosophy classes, reading Kant, Plato, Popper, etc. - what a waste! I could have just read an internet article to learn what is "true".
The ignorance on both sides of this debate is equal. Two sides of the same coin.
Make the claim as many times as you want...That's what the religious do, but you are still wrong. They are not in any way equal. If they were there would be as much evidence for creation as there is for evolution...I think you did waste your time, if you think creation stands on the same level as science.
And epistemology should be in philosophy books. Oh, but let's not talk about philosophy, everyone knows that with Science here to answer all questions about "truth" philosophy, along with religion, is no longer needed.
I don't see how this in any way relates to evolution. Science is based on the scientific method which uses rigorous testing then drawing conclusions based on the consequences of the test. Evolution is science because it is based on evidence gained through use of scientific testing. Creationism is not science because it is undetectable and there is no evidence to support it which makes it an invalid claim. Science should be taught in science class, therefore evolution should be taught and creationism should not, at least in science class. This doesn't mean philosophy is invalid, it just means that nonscientific claims should not be taught as scientific. This is where the problem with alot of parents whom home school their children is. It is a blatant lie to teach their children creationism as scientific because it is not scientific and all the evidence points toward evolution.
Science should be taught in science class, therefore evolution should be taught and creationism should not, at least in science class.
As long as Creationism is the religious-based OEC or YEC and literal bible stories version . . . Agreed.
Quote:
This doesn't mean philosophy is invalid, it just means that nonscientific claims should not be taught as scientific.
I agree with this as well. So . . . why are nonscientific claims being taught as scientific by implication and default?
Quote:
This is where the problem with a lot of parents whom home school their children is. It is a blatant lie to teach their children creationism as scientific because it is not scientific and all the evidence points toward evolution.
This is where the disingenuous and deceptive "rubber meets the road." The specific religious beliefs and absurdities in Creationism can be called untrue . . . ("lie" incorrectly implies the speaker knows them not to be true . . . atheists seem to enjoy using implications for those things they cannot possibly know) . . . and they certainly cannot be taught as science. BUT . . . a Creator cannot be called untrue NOR IMPLIED to be untrue under the mantle of science.
As long as Creationism is the religious-based OEC or YEC and literal bible stories version . . . Agreed. I agree with this as well. So . . . why are nonscientific claims being taught as scientific by implication and default?This is where the disingenuous and deceptive "rubber meets the road." The specific religious beliefs and absurdities in Creationism can be called untrue . . . ("lie" incorrectly implies the speaker knows them not to be true . . . atheists seem to enjoy using implications for those things they cannot possibly know) . . . and they certainly cannot be taught as science. BUT . . . a Creator cannot be called untrue NOR IMPLIED to be untrue under the mantle of science.
You're probably right that lie is maybe not the right word, it's just disturbing that some people are so incredibly willfully ignorant.
If this was Europe it would make sense to discuss what is taught in schools.
Home schooling is not common here and parents who teach their children have to open up their homes for inspection and provide an annual "statement of their intentions" for the child's education that year.
Quote:
American pupils lag behind their counterparts in European nations. The only change that can be expected is that the gap will widen. And for all I care, let it all happen. America will reap the 'benefits' of christian 'education' in future generations.
And epistemology should be in philosophy books. Oh, but let's not talk about philosophy, everyone knows that with Science here to answer all questions about "truth" philosophy, along with religion, is no longer needed.
Some of us accept the science of evolution and still have a place for religion. Does science answer all the questions? No, but neither does the bible.
Why is it that "creationists" need to get sarcastic when the conversation does not go the way they want it?
Some of us accept the science of evolution and still have a place for religion. Does science answer all the questions? No, but neither does the bible.
Why is it that "creationists" need to get sarcastic when the conversation does not go the way they want it?
Some of us accept all science and still have a place for God (not religion). Does science answer all the questions? No . . . but God does for theists ("Nature" does for atheists).
As a THEIST (NOT Creationist) "pot" speaking to all "kettles" . . . the perfectly "natural" tendency to denigrate one's opponent's intellectual skills with generic categorizations (stereotyping for those in Rio Linda . . . an example of same ) can have no other effect than to generate sarcasm (or worse) in response. Unless of course the respondent is truly Christ-like.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.