Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Georgia v. evolution

  1. Jan 30, 2004 #1

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here they go again.
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/striking.evolution.ap/index.html

    Maybe we should change "superintendent" to "political administrator who proposes silly things"
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 30, 2004 #2

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I never realized that e*******n is a dirty word.. maybe Greg should consider including it in the forum filter silly people..
     
  4. Jan 30, 2004 #3
    That is b/c you were not raised in the bible belt. And yes, it is a dirty word.

    Nautica
     
  5. Jan 30, 2004 #4

    adrenaline

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It's so stupid, even the conservative creationists know it's stupid.
    Let's call gravity "the weak force between matter" if they like.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2004
  6. Jan 30, 2004 #5

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    I read someone wanting to replace the word science with "the way things are."

    Actually, the proposal isn't that bad. It would be useful against creationists who try to obscure the issue by setting up strawmans. Evolution is just biological changes over time.
     
  7. Jan 30, 2004 #6
    About the controversy as stated in "Evolutionary Analysis" by Scott Freeman

    "During a discussion about whether material on evolution should be included in high school textbooks, a member of the Alabama State School Board named David Byers said, "It's foolish and naive to believe that what children are taught about who they are, how they got here, doesn't have anything to do with what they conclude about why they are here and what their obligations are, if, in fact, they have any obligations, and how they should live." (National Public Radio 1995). This statement suggests that, for some creationist, the controversy is not about the valadity of the scientific evidence or its compatiblity with religion. Instead, the concern is about what evolution means for human morality and behavior."

    Nautica
     
  8. Feb 1, 2004 #7

    Another God

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Great point. So the real problem is that Evolution strikes a glaring hole through their current 'ethical curriculum'. There is now an issue with saying "you evolved, so you have to do what god said" because it doesn't really follow.

    Haha, they have to go out and actually figure out what ethics is for the first time...

    Why is ethics so hard for people to grasp? it really isn;t such a difficult concept when u allow youself to look past all of the social indoctrination.
     
  9. Feb 4, 2004 #8
    When I was in school I learned about ethics and morals in religion class and classes that could be translated to something like 'society' class and other crap.

    Maybe they could stick to biology in their biology class and try to get the other message through in other classes.

    or is that too simple?
     
  10. Feb 4, 2004 #9

    adrenaline

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    great idea!
     
  11. Feb 4, 2004 #10

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    FWIW, this issue in Georgia goes further. Some more quotes from Superintendent Cox...

    FWIW, Sup. Cox used to be a social studies teacher.

    There has been a big public debate in Georgia since this announcement. It doesn't seem to be flying too well with anyone in the school system (particularly, college). Even x-president Jimmy Carter is slamming it...

     
  12. Feb 4, 2004 #11

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The Governor at first said he would stay out of it. Now he's elaborating. Ug, once again with the "just a theory" idea (at least he's against changing the word evolution)...

    Smacks of the Catholic's Church historic position toward Galileo, no? (i.e., it's useful in an academic sense to think about the solar system as if the planets went around the sun, so long as you don't say that is actually the case)

    Of course we all know that there are the facts of evolution and then there is a theory that explains how it happens and what it's history has been.

    Turns out that this is not just a debate about one word...

    Another scary tidbit...
     
  13. Feb 4, 2004 #12

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Together with banning religious symbols from public schools.. what is this world coming to?
     
  14. Feb 5, 2004 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Thats a big pet peve of mine too. Perhaps we need to get rid of the word "theory" and just say "idea well supported by evidence which makes accurate, testable, and repeatable predictions."
     
  15. Feb 6, 2004 #14
    Yep. What really bothers me is that the general public calls every idea a theory and never differentiate between the 2. But, all of the sudden every becomes an expert on the term when speaking of evolution.

    Nautica
     
  16. Feb 6, 2004 #15
    The number of homeschoolers/unschoolers keeps rising. This means that there are more and more ppl. ever year who just laugh watching these monkeys in the schooling realm scratching their monkey head like Homer Simpson, "wadda we do, wadda we do?" and are grateful they're outside of it.
     
  17. Feb 6, 2004 #16
    I dont guess I understand what you are saying. Are you being sarcastic or do you believe that religous symbols should be allowed at schools? Do you not believe in separation of Church and state or are you only referring to an indivuals rights to wear religous symbols. Or maybe I am just to dumb to understand your statement.

    Nautica
     
  18. Feb 6, 2004 #17

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I am talking about little silly rules that are being made up.
     
  19. Feb 6, 2004 #18

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Monique, is this in the European context? Like the head scarves in France?

    In the US, the problem is a little different. France is trying to enforce no visible signs of religion on the students to promote its secular ideal. In the US he battle is more likely to be between secular students (and their parents) and a religious local school board. US education is the way it is because the people have been sold the proposition that control of the school by small time local polititians is good, while control by big time national politicins is bad.
     
  20. Feb 6, 2004 #19
    That was why I was confused about her statement. I guess I need to remember, this is on the "World Wide" Web.

    Nautica
     
  21. Feb 6, 2004 #20

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :) the comment was in any context where unnecessary measures are taken. For instance the head scarfs and crosses in France (other countries are considering it too), why don't we reintroduce school uniforms at the same time? That would be a better idea than only disallowing certain groups to express themselves. But that's another discussion :P

    About the science lingo, I think the following is a fun demonstration how science jargon can go wrong in real life :P

    True or not, they certainly could be :P
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Georgia v. evolution
  1. Hogzilla in Georgia (Replies: 4)

  2. About Evolution (Replies: 5)

  3. Defeating evolution (Replies: 16)

  4. Human Evolution (Replies: 5)

Loading...