Schools Req'd to notify parents before teaching evolution

[peter12]

Originally Posted by mustache ride

Come and worship at the church of evolution. This is a commission based religion so you get what you put in. Looking for people to hate, we can help.* Looking for others to ridicule, we have those too. Why not start your own inquisition now. Never has being non inclusive been so fun. Come before the dogma of evolution and bow down.



*Currently it is only acceptable to ridicule white christian types. We are working on it but it might take some time before we can hate the non white Christians openly. Thanks for your patience.

Kent Hovind, is that you?

[troutman]

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Dinosaur Adventure Land is a creationist theme park in Pensacola, Florida, constructed in Kent Hovind's backyard in 2001. The park's theme is "Where dinosaurs and the Bible meet!"

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-11/hovind.html

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by mustache ride

Come and worship at the church of evolution. This is a commission based religion so you get what you put in. Looking for people to hate, we can help.* Looking for others to ridicule, we have those too. Why not start your own inquisition now. Never has being non inclusive been so fun. Come before the dogma of evolution and bow down.



*Currently it is only acceptable to ridicule white christian types. We are working on it but it might take some time before we can hate the non white Christians openly. Thanks for your patience.

If I want to start a hate group, I will start a religion. Then I can say what I want, and be protected because of my right of religious freedom.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I draw the line to the parents. They have ultimate say in what is being taught their children.

I meant at what subject. Would you allow parents to refuse their children to be taught how to read? In my opinion that's child abuse.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Age appropriate? Approved curriculum? Who decides? Those are parental decisions.

Of course they are parent's decisions. Parents decide these things currently through thinks like the school board, electing governments, participating as teachers and as parents throughout the process to decide the curriculum and such.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Also, teachers like scientists don't live in a bubble. They have biases just like you and me. Even if they try to put them aside and just present the required facts it will show through.

Well that's true, but they're also professionals. Maybe we should let parents pull their kids from a classroom because their liberal or Islamic or Mormon or non-holocaust denying teacher is letting their bias through.

The difference between teachers and scientists and regular parents is both scientists and teachers are trained to recognize and avoid their biases in their work.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I love how you coined that phrase: "the reality of current scientific understanding". The fact is "current scientific understanding" is different than past scientific understanding and certainly will conflict with future scientific understanding.

So what, you want to teach the inaccurate past understanding? Or you want to teach the future understanding?

Of course science changes, that's its strength (though to you that's a weakness I know).

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You can't say that it is evolving either because things that used to be part of scientific reality have proved to be categorically wrong.

Sure, better to change your position in light of new evidence rather than dogmatically stick to your position and go "la-la-la-la" in light of new evidence isn't it?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Certainly some things that today are part of the reality of current scientific understanding will tomorrow meet a simular end.

Of course they will, that's part of science.

You do realize that you teach that too right? You don't just teach the current scientific consensus, you also teach the process of science, so that kids also understand that scientific knowledge changes and they can avoid the "I don't believe this because I don't like it" pitfall you have fallen into.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

My problem with you teaching my kids would be that you would fail to explain or they would fail to grasp the difference between "reality" and "the reality of current scientific understanding". I'm not even sure that you grasp it yourself.

So explain it.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I want my boys to question current scientific understanding; not use it as their final authority.

Final authority on what? Science doesn't claim to be an authority on anything other than what its talking about, and even then it never claims to be a final authority, you know that whole part about science being able to change and all that.

And the entire enterprise of science is to "question current scientific understanding". That what every scientist does every day.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I claim that scientists and especially scientific educators are both closed minded and hostile to anyone who questions certain aspects of their current scientific understanding.

First you say science changes then you say it's closed minded, you can't have it both ways.

In actual fact, science has demonstrated endlessly over centuries that it's open minded, that it will change in light of new evidence, without fail.

The closed mindedness and hostility you see is directed at people who pretend their ideas are scientific when they are in fact not. Bring evidence and well formed scientific arguments, science listens (you admit that yourself by saying science changes). Bring poorly formed arguments with no evidence and expect to be told "No, try again though". Keep bringing the same poorly formed arguments with no evidence while lying about the "persecution" to the public (see Expelled, better named Lying for Jesus) and what else can you expect but hostility.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Evolution and Global warming come quickly to mind as examples. In their minds the debate is over. Their minds are closed.

But you already said yourself science changes, so no the debate isn't over. Every single biologist, paleontologist, geneticist, physicist, cosmologist (or any of the other dozens of disciplines which all support evolution independently) would LOVE to disprove evolution, win the Nobel prize, and have their contributions change science forever. That's what they live for.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes.

Well I disagree, you don't own your child, you're just a steward. They own themselves, and when your actions as a parent are seen by society to harm the child, then questions have to be raised. I would never support your "right" to raise your child illiterate for example.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

In recent years many homeschoolers have faired very well on SAT's in the states. Many of these students were taught creation right along side evolution in their homes. Again they recieved the facts of evolution along with the questions that evolution fails to answer.

That's fine, I have no problem with that. That supports what I'm saying, teach evolution in schools, and if parents want to teach something else at home they can.

(As an aside, I wouldn't use the US education system as any great measurement of education, or our own for that matter)

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I know a women in her 30's who has a doctorate in immunology(sp) and is currently working in that field who believes in a young earth and a Creator. She just had to be silent about her beliefs and toll the party line with most of her Professors. She was educated in the States and encountered many who where hostile towards Christian beliefs in general and certainly about the idea of a Creator. If your worried about educational opportunity you should concern yourself more with the state of our Colleges and Universities. They should be a place where a Christian or practicing Jew feels as comfortable as an Atheist.

Well if I worked at a computer store and believed that computers were run by gnomes and fairies, I'd have to be quiet about that too. If I have to hide what I think, there's a possibility that that's because what I think is stupid.

She had to be silent about her beliefs in a young earth because they're foolish and based on a desire to believe instead of evidence, where she's in an industry that uses logic, reason and evidence. I doubt she tries to apply the principles of creationism in her work, I don't think she'd get far by praying and waiting for a vaccine to appear.

In science, what you think is irrelevant, what you can demonstrate matters. Unlike religions faith that can never be questioned or changed, science asks questions and lets the answers fall where they may.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mustache ride

Come and worship at the church of evolution.

Most Christians accept evolution, so what you say makes no sense.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Mommy and Daddy made little Johnny and Jane. They invest vast chunks of their lives and wealth in raising Johnny and Jane. They do their best for Johnny and Jane. There is no way the State should force these dedicated parents to attend any training or educational class that they are opposed to. If any of you have better ideas on how a child should be raised get your own!

The problem most parents have with some one they don't know teaching things like the origin of life or sexuality is the way it will be presented. Micro evolution doesn't prove macro evolution. Nor does it explain chemical evolution or the vast gaps in the fossil record. If Photon is your teacher you won't here such things. As a parent I have a big problem with that.

By Alberta legistating notification of parents when these hot button issues come up they are allowing many parents a comfort level which might allow them to leave their children in public school. This benefits Alberta because the declining enrollment rates (due to people having less children) effects schools abilities to offer educational choices. Homeschoolers which are growing in numbers compound enrollment problems. It's a good compromise.

If you know better than the scentific community then why not let the public school teach your children the accepted theories and then teach them on your own or through an alternative means whatever it is you believe to be correct and let their brilliant minds arrive at the truth? Why is it so necessaary to have children not even learn the theory accepted by the scientific community?

Is this another one of those "The 15 year old brain isn't as developed as an 18 year old adult brain and therefore children should be shielded against the world until they have been exposed by enough of the 'right' propaganda as to be strong willed enough to reject the 'wrong' propaganda when they become adults?

[icarus]

Originally Posted by troutman

Diplomas should not be granted to people that have not studied evolution. It is fundamental.

Ah but you miss the elegant beauty of it. Keep the evolution questions on the diploma exams and who will get filtered out? The students whose families were so foolish as to not allow them to study evolution. That, my friend, is Darwinism.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

If you know better than the scentific community then why not let the public school teach your children the accepted theories and then teach them on your own or through an alternative means whatever it is you believe to be correct and let their brilliant minds arrive at the truth? Why is it so necessaary to have children not even learn the theory accepted by the scientific community?

Is this another one of those "The 15 year old brain isn't as developed as an 18 year old adult brain and therefore children should be shielded against the world until they have been exposed by enough of the 'right' propaganda as to be strong willed enough to reject the 'wrong' propaganda when they become adults?

Because teachers and scientists are not as professional as you and Photon seem to think. They have biases and that will effect what they communicate to my children. How about letting me teach my kids evolutionary theory and sex education and anything else where I have a lack of confidence in the teachers ability to teach it with proper objectively. If the school system is so worried about my ability to teach these subjects they are welcomed to provide educational materials.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Because teachers and scientists are not as professional as you and Photon seem to think. They have biases and that will effect what they communicate to my children. How about letting me teach my kids evolutionary theory and sex education and anything else where I have a lack of confidence in the teachers ability to teach it with proper objectively. If the school system is so worried about my ability to teach these subjects they are welcomed to provide educational materials.

You can teach those things to your kids if you desire already, you can home school them, or you can put them in a private or charter or separate school.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Because teachers and scientists are not as professional as you and Photon seem to think.

And teachers are not nearly as hopeless as you seem to think.

If I thought teachers couldn't be trusted to teach my kids the basics (and evolution is one of the basics) I wouldn't send to them anywhere near a school. I think learning to read is more important than learning biology. If I didn't think they could teach my kids biology, I wouldn't trust them to teach 'em how to read.

As for scientists, how far does this distrust go?

You know that thing you are staring at right now? Who do you think invented that? A preacher? Do you talk on the phone? Fly in airplanes? Use the AC? Take medicine? Drink pasteurized milk? Put gas in the car? Where does all that stuff come from? Who made it up, found it, invented, discovered it?

"Oh suuuuuure, they got all that other stuff right, and I trust their discoveries and inventions with my life every day I am alive, but they are completely wrong about this biology stuff".

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Because teachers and scientists are not as professional as you and Photon seem to think. They have biases and that will effect what they communicate to my children. How about letting me teach my kids evolutionary theory and sex education and anything else where I have a lack of confidence in the teachers ability to teach it with proper objectively. If the school system is so worried about my ability to teach these subjects they are welcomed to provide educational materials.

What's proper objectivity? Come on why don't you tell us about how it happened? Point out where we're wrong and why. Offer an alternative theory other than "It's so complex that only a supernatural being could have created it" How can what's said in Genisis be exactly how it is? Why does Genisis not have to be upheld to a better burden of proof?

[onetwo_threefour]

I just wanted to say that you have to be the most patient guy in the world photon. How you manage to keep explaining the same concepts over and over again to the same people who clearly are either deliberately obtuse or simply incapable of grasping the the ideas is beyond me. I have very little patience for explaining the same thing repeatedly to someone who is clearly not willing to set aside their biases.

I find it hilarious that calgaryborn constantly throws scientists and teachers biases up when it's his own biases that won't let him accept that even if scientific information may need to be updated and revised, it should still be taught. What are we supposed to do... Wait for absolute proof (which is impossible to provide anyway) before we start teaching scientific theories to students?

Parents can misinform their children at home all they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to restrict a child's exposure to mainstream curriculum based on arbitrary belief systems. I know I'm only rehashing what others have said, but that's just because I'm to weary to take photon's approach and challenge the full on ignorance of the arguments made in favor of this law.

[photon]

Sometimes I get impatient, though I think I try to be patient for two reasons.. first is I'm doing to him as I would have him do to me . Second is I used to BE him, I read his posts and I know what's behind them because I myself could have easily written them in the past. So I have sympathy.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

I meant at what subject. Would you allow parents to refuse their children to be taught how to read? In my opinion that's child abuse.

I think the term child abuse is thrown around too loosely. When a parent is acting in the best interest of their child and it doesn't bring observable physical or mental damage to said child it isn't child abuse. I'm not sure how a parent could ever come to the conclusion that learning to read isn't in the best interest of the child.

Originally Posted by photon

Of course they are parent's decisions. Parents decide these things currently through thinks like the school board, electing governments, participating as teachers and as parents throughout the process to decide the curriculum and such.

Take a survey of parents and ask them if they believe that by voting for political canadate or schoolboard member that they had surrendered their right to final authority on what their children were taught.

Originally Posted by photon

Well that's true, but they're also professionals. Maybe we should let parents pull their kids from a classroom because their liberal or Islamic or Mormon or non-holocaust denying teacher is letting their bias through.

Wasn't there an issue a while back in Alberta where a professional teacher denied the holocaust. I guess you see it only as a problem for a "professional" if they don't hold to your ideology.

Originally Posted by photon

The difference between teachers and scientists and regular parents is both scientists and teachers are trained to recognize and avoid their biases in their work.

If I didn't know better I'd say your biase is shown. In the real world you have good objective teachers and you have the other kind.

Originally Posted by photon

So what, you want to teach the inaccurate past understanding? Or you want to teach the future understanding?

Of course science changes, that's its strength (though to you that's a weakness I know).



Sure, better to change your position in light of new evidence rather than dogmatically stick to your position and go "la-la-la-la" in light of new evidence isn't it?

The theory of Evolution is like a mathematical formula being developed to explain the origin of life and non life in the absence of a Creator. Darwin came up with his adaptation theory which became a primary plank in this massive expanding equation. On that has been added layer upon layer of theories on how different things began and the processes of their changes. Every new fossil or discovery is added to confirm these various theories and when they conflict someone takes an eraser and a piece of chock and modifies the formula just enough to let it seem plausabily right again. The problem comes from the fact that the formula is never complete. It remains always a work in progress and therefore the math is never checked.

Someone points out that the space dust on the moon collects at constant rate and it could have been collecting there for at the most ten thousand years to be only an inch thick. That is answered by another theory on what happened to all the dust that should have been collecting there. Your formula grows a little bit larger but, still no closer to being complete. Somebody else points to the rate the oceans are becoming saltier and suggests that if the world was anywhere near the age being proposed no life could exist in the oceans today. Somebody else comes up with a theory on how the Oceans have failed to become too salty and that is added to the equation. It never ends and the base theory is taken for truth because it has the weight of so much science upon it. Sure it can't be proven; you don't know everything yet. But you believe it because so much is invested in it.

Originally Posted by photon

You do realize that you teach that too right? You don't just teach the current scientific consensus, you also teach the process of science, so that kids also understand that scientific knowledge changes and they can avoid the "I don't believe this because I don't like it" pitfall you have fallen into.

No you don't. You teach the scientific method and pretend that evolution is undisputably true even though it can't be measured by the scientific method. You see the "reality of current scientific understanding" as the nearist you can come to truth and couldn't teach science without that biase leaking out.

Originally Posted by photon

Final authority on what? Science doesn't claim to be an authority on anything other than what its talking about, and even then it never claims to be a final authority, you know that whole part about science being able to change and all that.

Science is your final authority.

Originally Posted by photon

And the entire enterprise of science is to "question current scientific understanding". That what every scientist does every day.

I think most scientist seek to expand scientific knowledge. Questioning certain current scientific understandings will only get you ostricized and labled as a kook. It certainly won't get you published or grant money.

Originally Posted by photon

First you say science changes then you say it's closed minded, you can't have it both ways.

In actual fact, science has demonstrated endlessly over centuries that it's open minded, that it will change in light of new evidence, without fail.

The closed mindedness and hostility you see is directed at people who pretend their ideas are scientific when they are in fact not. Bring evidence and well formed scientific arguments, science listens (you admit that yourself by saying science changes). Bring poorly formed arguments with no evidence and expect to be told "No, try again though". Keep bringing the same poorly formed arguments with no evidence while lying about the "persecution" to the public (see Expelled, better named Lying for Jesus) and what else can you expect but hostility.



But you already said yourself science changes, so no the debate isn't over. Every single biologist, paleontologist, geneticist, physicist, cosmologist (or any of the other dozens of disciplines which all support evolution independently) would LOVE to disprove evolution, win the Nobel prize, and have their contributions change science forever. That's what they live for.

As I said above science is willing to change the formula but, not the theory. The theory has become their world view and they come up with as many theories as it takes to make their world conform to it.

Originally Posted by photon

In science, what you think is irrelevant, what you can demonstrate matters. Unlike religions faith that can never be questioned or changed, science asks questions and lets the answers fall where they may.

Actually you are wrong. The theories you support will make or break your career; ask anybody who studies climate change.

[MarchHare]

How about letting me teach my kids evolutionary theory

How about not, because you're not qualified.

Students should be taught be those who are highly knowledgeable of the subject matter. Your posts have made it abundantly clear that you don't have even a rudimentary understanding of the theory of evolution despite numerous attempts by photon, myself, and others to explain it to you.

[MarchHare]

I'm not sure how a parent could ever come to the conclusion that learning to read isn't in the best interest of the child.

In many countries where womens' rights don't match those of what we have in the West, young girls are denied an education, including being taught how to read.

The theory of Evolution is like a mathematical formula being developed to explain the origin of life and non life in the absence of a Creator.

That's not at all true. Darwin didn't set out to devise a system where life could exist without being created. He made observations from nature and then formed his theory based on those observations. That theory has then been tested countless times over the last 150+ years, and while the Theory of Evolution has certainly been modified to incorporate new knowledge since Darwin's time, it has yet to be falsified.

Darwin himself was a Christian, fyi. Before embarking on his famous voyage on the HMS Beagle, he studied theology at Cambridge with the goal of becoming a clergyman of the Church of England.

No you don't. You teach the scientific method and pretend that evolution is undisputably true even though it can't be measured by the scientific method.

No scientist would ever claim that something is "undisputably (sic) true". The scientific method doesn't work that way.

Questioning certain current scientific understandings will only get you ostricized and labled as a kook.

Yeah, no scientist would ever want to be compared to "kooks" like Galileo and Einstein, each of whom challenged the conventional knowledge of their time.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

You can teach those things to your kids if you desire already, you can home school them, or you can put them in a private or charter or separate school.

Yes I can. But if I lived in Alberta I would have the third option of sending them to public school and being notified and offered a choice when things come up I might be concerned with. The school gets higher enrollment which might mean enough funding for a second language teacher or something like that and the children who would have been homeschooled get a fuller education. I don't see the down side. Why must parents conform to the school or be left completely out. Why is Alberta not being seen as progressive by allowing a simple compromise that will probably bring more Albertain children into the public system?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes I can. But if I lived in Alberta I would have the third option of sending them to public school and being notified and offered a choice when things come up I might be concerned with. The school gets higher enrollment which might mean enough funding for a second language teacher or something like that and the children who would have been homeschooled get a fuller education. I don't see the down side. Why must parents conform to the school or be left completely out. Why is Alberta not being seen as progressive by allowing a simple compromise that will probably bring more Albertain children into the public system?

Here's the problem: if not every kid has to learn about evolution then they probably won't be able to put it on the tests.

What will nut-bars decide they don't want their precious little snow flake hearing about next because it may go against something in their personal view of their religion? Geometry? Gravity? Long division? Geology? History? Fractions? Seriously - where do you draw the line in watering down education standards?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think the term child abuse is thrown around too loosely. When a parent is acting in the best interest of their child and it doesn't bring observable physical or mental damage to said child it isn't child abuse. I'm not sure how a parent could ever come to the conclusion that learning to read isn't in the best interest of the child.

That's my point, take an obvious case like reading. What if there was a parent who thought reading would let their kids learn new ideas so didn't want them to read? Would you support that?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Take a survey of parents and ask them if they believe that by voting for political canadate or schoolboard member that they had surrendered their right to final authority on what their children were taught.

They still have the final authority. Governments can be voted out, members changed, the process can be readdressed, curriculums change, get engaged in the process.

You seem to be proposing an alternative where there is no curriculum. Anything goes, teach kids whatever?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Wasn't there an issue a while back in Alberta where a professional teacher denied the holocaust. I guess you see it only as a problem for a "professional" if they don't hold to your ideology.

History, like science, isn't an ideology.

Of course there will be teachers who aren't professional and let their personal views influence their teaching, just like there's YEC scientists who allow cognitive dissonance and let their faith influence their reasoning. That's a staffing issue, not a reason to throw out the whole education system.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If I didn't know better I'd say your biase is shown. In the real world you have good objective teachers and you have the other kind.

How does that disagree with what I said? I said they're TRAINED for it, I didn't say they were all perfect.

Again, if you see bias in the teachers, you have the option of home schooling, or alternative schools. No reason for this silly administrative nightmare.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The theory of Evolution is like a mathematical formula being developed to explain the origin of life and non life in the absence of a Creator. Darwin came up with his adaptation theory which became a primary plank in this massive expanding equation. On that has been added layer upon layer of theories on how different things began and the processes of their changes. Every new fossil or discovery is added to confirm these various theories and when they conflict someone takes an eraser and a piece of chock and modifies the formula just enough to let it seem plausabily right again. The problem comes from the fact that the formula is never complete. It remains always a work in progress and therefore the math is never checked.

Your analogy is incomplete.

What you don't take into consideration is that it's more like dozens of mathematical formulae which all come to the same answer. Each one is independent of the others and arrived at through completely separate methods and disciplines.

And again you miss the whole point of science, changing the theory is a good thing, not a bad one. The theory of evolution has changed significantly since Darwin because of mountain of transitional fossils that have been discovered, DNA evidence, developmental biology, etc..

But what you seem to miss is it isn't evolution that's changed, it's the theory of evolution. Evolution is what is observed in nature, descent with modification, or more recently change of frequency of alleles in a population over time. The theory of evolution is what changes; the how what is observed happens. Natural selection, mutation, gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer, etc etc are all parts of the theory.

But the basic premise has not changed, and has only been more and more well supported over time.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Someone points out that the space dust on the moon collects at constant rate and it could have been collecting there for at the most ten thousand years to be only an inch thick. That is answered by another theory on what happened to all the dust that should have been collecting there. Your formula grows a little bit larger but, still no closer to being complete. Somebody else points to the rate the oceans are becoming saltier and suggests that if the world was anywhere near the age being proposed no life could exist in the oceans today. Somebody else comes up with a theory on how the Oceans have failed to become too salty and that is added to the equation. It never ends and the base theory is taken for truth because it has the weight of so much science upon it. Sure it can't be proven; you don't know everything yet. But you believe it because so much is invested in it.

Again your characterization is flawed.

For the moon dust thing, for example, someone claimed that about the moon dust, based on an observation. So it wasn't "answered by another theory", it's more observations that are made to confirm or refute the idea. In this case measurements from satellites (rather than on top of a mountain like the intial measurement) and with better instrumentation (rather than a smog detector used in the original). The new data shows the original was 3 orders of magnitude out. Further studies such as metoric dust found in sediments confirm the newer data.

This is how science works, studies are open and transparent, if you want you can analyze the work done and duplicate it, refute it, or corroborate it.

Interestingly enough this is also an example of how creationists will misrepresent fact to advance their view. Morris, who published the moon dust thing, claimed that the super high dust value was the "best measurements".. but they weren't, there was far more accurate data available, he just picked the one that lead to the conclusion he wanted. At best incompetent, at worst an outright lie.

You can do the same thing with the salt idea.. based on simple measurements sure it seems like the ocean would become too salty. But science is about answering questions, and it's not a hypothesis that's just made up out of thin air, it's measurements and observations of the proceses that remove salt and seeing if those line up with the predictions.

You use the word theory incorrectly as well, a theory isn't an idea or an hypothesis. If something is a theory, it means that it's made predictions about future observations, and those observations have been confirmed.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

No you don't. You teach the scientific method and pretend that evolution is undisputably true even though it can't be measured by the scientific method.

Why can't it be measured by the scientific method? Detail the scientific method, and how evolution can't be measured by it.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You see the "reality of current scientific understanding" as the nearist you can come to truth and couldn't teach science without that biase leaking out.

You use the word "truth". This is the problem, you see things in terms of absolute truth. Without omniscience science can't make any claims to absolute truth, and it doesn't claim to.

There's no bias. All knowledge in science is provisional. It's written right on the wrapper. If you complain about it it's because you don't like it, not because there's something wrong with it.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Science is your final authority.

How so?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think most scientist seek to expand scientific knowledge. Questioning certain current scientific understandings will only get you ostricized and labled as a kook. It certainly won't get you published or grant money.

If that were the case then there'd never be a revolution in science. No Einstiens. No Newtons.

The thing is those guys could actually do something with their crazy ideas, like predict future observations, or explain currently unexplainable phenomenon.

Evolution is hotly debated all the time, do a search on PubMed. Things that have merit get attention, things that are unsupported disappear.

History proves this, that you don't accept this is just you holding a view because it's necessary for the way you want to believe.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

As I said above science is willing to change the formula but, not the theory. The theory has become their world view and they come up with as many theories as it takes to make their world conform to it.

History disagrees.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Actually you are wrong. The theories you support will make or break your career; ask anybody who studies climate change.

I really don't know much about it or its scientists so I can't really speak to it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes I can. But if I lived in Alberta I would have the third option of sending them to public school and being notified and offered a choice when things come up I might be concerned with. The school gets higher enrollment which might mean enough funding for a second language teacher or something like that and the children who would have been homeschooled get a fuller education. I don't see the down side. Why must parents conform to the school or be left completely out. Why is Alberta not being seen as progressive by allowing a simple compromise that will probably bring more Albertain children into the public system?

The downside is that it's an administrative nightmare, and undermines the system. There's no way to enforce it. There's no way to even notify parents.. sure they can tell them when the evolution section is coming up, but what if its brought up in class? Pull the fire alarm? Ask Billy to leave so it can be discussed? And it opens the door for parents to pull kids out for everything. Why should you be allowed to opt out of evolution when I can't take my kids out of learning about World War II because I'm a conscious objector (or because I'm a holocaust denier)?

What is wrong with learning about something you don't believe?