Classes in Darwinism and Intelligent design (Near Darwins home)

[Plane]

Just don't call the religious formulation "science," and don't teach it in public schools.

How would you feel about children being taught some science that you felt was untrue?

Or even if true, objectionable?


What if a child of your own was beng taught Eugenics?

[Xavier_Onassis]

What if a child of your own was beng taught Eugenics?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making changes on the species by selective breeding is not a false science. People do this all the time in animal husbandry classes.
The difficulty with what was called 'eugenics' is that it was based on false notions (such as the idea that blond hair, blue eyes, and fair skin are in some way related to physical strength and mental ability, which they are not).

Nazi eugenics was a bogus science -- something like intelligent design.

[Plane]

What if a child of your own was beng taught Eugenics?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making changes on the species by selective breeding is not a false science. People do this all the time in animal husbandry classes.
The difficulty with what was called 'eugenics' is that it was based on false notions (such as the idea that blond hair, blue eyes, and fair skin are in some way related to physical strength and mental ability, which they are not).

Nazi eugenics was a bogus science -- something like intelligent design.

Eugnics was not first developed by the Natzis , the Natis got it from us!

It had all the trappings of real science and was justifacation for steriliseing children that seemed deficient to American Doctors.

Why wasn't it science ?

[kimba1]

I`m neither blond or blue eyed but and fairly dark
but I used to be a triathelete and have near total recall of movies(i`ve proven here many many times)
except for my crappy immune system you can`t do much better with me in the gene pool.
the problem with eugenics is nobody what raits true are inherited.
the virginia experimented sterilized one lady because her parents were substandard intelligence even though she got perfect scores
we are in no position at this time to even try .
also it will require arrainged marraiges for it to work.
and physical attraction will be factored out.
I don`t want to be paired with andrea dworkin
brrr.

[_JS]

Why wasn't it science ?

Eugenics isn't science, it is a social philosophy. It is the thought that it is right or good to selectively manipulate traits through human breeding. Once you make that judgement ("right" or "good") then you've left the realm of science.

Evolution isn't about "right" or "good." It isn't philosophy or sociology. It isn't religion. I think that is where many people have problems with it, especially American Protestants of the fundamnetalist persuasion. There is no judgement in evolution, it just is. Just like gravity. There is no judgement in gravity, it just is.

If you want a good example of this, take a world where there are no humans. We aren't integral to the natural processes of the world anyway. On that world evolution would exist (just as chemical elements and gravity would exist). There would be no judgement or classification of these processes, but they would move along at their gradual rate through time.

Eugenics was an introduction of human arrogance to make selective breeding (and it still exists today). Some of it was just plain error, where diseases were considered genetic that were not (poor science were other variables weren't seriously weighed). Some of it was racism, as with the Nazis, but not just the Nazis. It was an attempt to use science to justify social policies.

Look at your question:

Or even if true, objectionable?

Think about that. You would prevent children from learning scientific truth because you find it objectionable (and keep in mind Eugenics was not science)?

[Plane]

Look at your question:


Quote
Or even if true, objectionable?

Think about that. You would prevent children from learning scientific truth because you find it objectionable (and keep in mind Eugenics was not science)?



Imagine it is 1925 , and you are trying to make the point that Eugenics is not science , there would be dozens of doctors in lab coats and mortorboards to contradict you , and you would not have the unhpleasant learning experience of the next ten years to make your point with.

Is evolution the absolute truth? I question the governments right to declare it so and to teach this to children whose parents may disagree.

After all learning evolution is extremely unimportant , or so my freind JS tells me.

"Do you beleive in evolution so well that you try to participate in it?"

"Again, that's like asking someone if they participate in gravity."

[Universe Prince]

Is evolution the absolute truth?

No. It's science.

I question the governments right to declare it so and to teach this to children whose parents may disagree.

So, are you against public education then? Or do you propose setting aside teaching that the planet is (mostly) spherical and that Earth is not the center of the universe? How much science do we set aside to keep from offending people? Or, getting back to my first question, do we finally get around to eliminating public education and have all schools run privately? (Not that I am opposed to all private schools, but I don't see how one can be for public education and against public schools teaching science.)

[Plane]

Is evolution the absolute truth?

No. It's science.

I question the governments right to declare it so and to teach this to children whose parents may disagree.

So, are you against public education then? Or do you propose setting aside teaching that the planet is (mostly) spherical and that Earth is not the center of the universe? How much science do we set aside to keep from offending people? Or, getting back to my first question, do we finally get around to eliminating public education and have all schools run privately? (Not that I am opposed to all private schools, but I don't see how one can be for public education and against public schools teaching science.)

Is Science more than truth?

I do not think tha Children are creatures of the state and that they should not be taught a truth that their parents think false.

In the struggle between an indiiduals right to raise his child in his own way , and the governments desire to standardise the product known as "citizen" the rights of the parent should trump.

Even if they are not beleiveing the orthodox and approved truth.

[Universe Prince]

Is Science more than truth?

No. What a silly question.

I do not think tha Children are creatures of the state and that they should not be taught a truth that their parents think false.

In the struggle between an indiiduals right to raise his child in his own way , and the governments desire to standardise the product known as "citizen" the rights of the parent should trump.

Even if they are not beleiveing the orthodox and approved truth.

That sounds nice and all, but you're not answering the questions. How much science do we set aside to keep from offending people? Or do we finally get around to eliminating public education and have all schools run privately?

[_JS]

Imagine it is 1925 , and you are trying to make the point that Eugenics is not science , there would be dozens of doctors in lab coats and mortorboards to contradict you , and you would not have the unhpleasant learning experience of the next ten years to make your point with.

You overestimate how popular Eugenics was. Again, it was never science. It was social philosophy, and flawed at that. Science doesn't make judgements Plane. Science doesn't judge whether or not two mentally challenged individuals should have children. That is a question for social philosophy, ethics, religion. You seem to very much want to mix the two. I don't understand why.

Is evolution the absolute truth? I question the governments right to declare it so and to teach this to children whose parents may disagree.

Is there descent with modification? Yes. Scientific theory isn't equivalent to Joe's theory on UFO abduction. Evolution is essential to understanding the basics of biology, botany, ecology, habitat, and many other life sciences. To that extent it must be taught as science. Why do you question this, and not gravity? Why don't you question Guass' Law, Ampere's Law, and Faraday's Law, which are all based on electromagnetic theory? Why don't you raise a stink about probability theory?

It doesn't make sense. On one hand you wish to challenge basic precepts of science, essentially basic truths to which the foundations of science are built. Yet on the other hand you wouldn't dare be labeled a relativist. Essentially, you wish to be an absolutist in ethics and a fundamentalist in Biblical reading (if I'm incorrect, please let me know) - but on science you wish to be a nihilist and destroy its very foundation. It honestly makes no sense.

After all learning evolution is extremely unimportant , or so my freind JS tells me.

If that is what you infer, then you have not read what I have written very well. Learning evolution is essential as a building block to learning biology and all life sciences. It would be analogous to attempting to learn Calculus without learning algebra. Impossible. The best you could do is take algebra, dress it up differently and give it another name.

Honestly, I really don't understand why it so difficult for people of faith to understand evolution. The "Big Bang Theory" was discovered by a priest. I am very faithful to Christ and I have no problem with evolution. Who are we to challenge God's methods of creation?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Science is not the truth, nor is it more than the truth.

Science is a method by which we arrive at the truth.

It is true that the eugenics movement originated in the US, but it was based on attitudes rather than scientifically established principles. The assumption was that Europeans were superior to 'lesser races' in all things: physical ability, endurance, longevity, intelligence,and of course physical attractiveness.

The latter is of course mostly a value judgment, but most of the others are not related to race at all.

The techniques behind eugenics were similar to the techniques behind breeding dogs, horses, and livestock, which are largely valid: horses run faster now than 100 years ago, border collies are far better at herding sheep than other canines, pigs get fatter faster, chickens mature in half the time it used to take, and much of this is due to breeding.

Selective breeding works. What made Nazi selective breeding bogus was that it was based on the false premise that height, blond hair, fair skin and blue eyes were attributes that were directly connected to strength, intelligence, longevity and such, which they do not seem to be.

Now that they have mapped the human genome, true eugenics (by which I mean breeding children that are actually superior to the average) is a definite possibility. It is now almost certain that selective breeding could be done, and perhaps is being done right now: wealthy parents paying large sums of money to furgle Junior's genes so that he will be smart and tall and free of congenital diseases like Tay-Sachs, sickle cell, mongolism or Reyes' syndrome.

If I were a doctor that could do this, I would not make it public. If I were a parent who paid to do this, I would never make it public either. Robert Heinlein understood the possible public antipathy to this extremely well, and described it in the Lazarus Long series of sci-fi novels.

As to whether science, even 'offending' science to children, of course the answer is 'of course'. Science is as close to factual knowledge as can be established (though it will never be the absolute truth).

Intelligent design is bogus science, because (like Nazi eugenics) it is done by starting with the conclusion (God is the author of Creation) and works bass-ackwards toward the causes.This is not true science, but the method used in Biblical 'scholarship', in which the fact that Elijah was a prophet is assumed to be true, and the scholars investigate HOW he was a prophet, for example.


Science investigates phenomena and proceeds towards whatever conclusions are indicated: even the idea that apes and humans obviously have or had a common ancestor.
 

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not think tha Children are creatures of the state and that they should not be taught a truth that their parents think false.
=============================================================================
Children are members of society, and public education should be aimed at making them capable and competent members of society.

How about the people knowsn as "the Travelers", who are some sort of Celtic Gypsies and live by traveling about and bilking others with bad home improvements, 'boojum' scams, incompetent auto dent repair and such? They (as well as some Romany Gypsies) believe that they should pass this criminal lifestyle on to their children.

Basically, they believe that people like you and I are suckers who deserve to be bilked by them. Is it really their right to pass their larcenous ways on to generation after generation?

How healthy is it to teach children that God will come in a fit of rage and destroy all but the holiest of believers any day now? Do parents really have a right to turn their children into ranting neurotics?

[_JS]

How about the people knowsn as "the Travelers", who are some sort of Celtic Gypsies and live by traveling about and bilking others with bad home improvements, 'boojum' scams, incompetent auto dent repair and such? They (as well as some Romany Gypsies) believe that they should pass this criminal lifestyle on to their children.

That is a bit of a biased account of the Travellers and the Roma. It sounds like something The Sun might print.

In fairness though, it is a good question. Where does education of children stop becoming a priority for society and the sole domain for individuals? This is a serious question (among others) Britain faces with the Travellers and Roma. 

[Universe Prince]

Where does education of children stop becoming a priority for society and the sole domain for individuals?

I might try to address that (probably next week), but my first response is to suggest the question be asked somewhat differently. When does education of children stop becoming the sole domain for individuals and become a priority for society? Which makes me think of another question. When, if at all, do the priorities of society trump the non-rights-violating priorities of the individual?

[Plane]

Where does education of children stop becoming a priority for society and the sole domain for individuals?

Somewhere near where it stops being volentary. It is human nature to want ones children to thrive , but is this really reflected as strongly in society as it is in most individuals?
The Government has a strong moivation to make students into a standard product , malliable and usefull to the state.

"Evolution is essential to understanding the basics of biology, botany, ecology, habitat, and many other life sciences. To that extent it must be taught as science. Why do you question this, and not gravity? Why don't you question Guass' Law, Ampere's Law, and Faraday's Law, which are all based on electromagnetic theory? Why don't you raise a stink about probability theory?

I tell you something , a lot more people can make a good liveing by Guass' Law, Ampere's Law, and Faraday's Law, and electromagnetic theory or even probability theory? Why are these things not taught ?  There is a lot of emphasis on evolution and makeing the children beleive the orthodox version of truth but who is raiseing a stink about the lousy state of math teaching  or that Guass' Law, Ampere's Law, and Faraday's Law, and electromagnetic theory or even probability theory are hardly taught at all? Very few people indeed object to better math instruction , so what is keeping it fom happening ?

Experience shows that people who do not beleive in the truth of evolution live normal lives and can understand other sciences well enough to garden , breed horses , or become MDs or Lawyers.But people who do not understand Kerchoffs therom cannot design a decent circuit. Why is it that everyone graduates high school knowing  about Darwin but  not Farqaday , Maxwell or Weber?