American History

» Brian Tubbs - Not true, Pink

In response to Christian Conservatives posted by pink101:

Most Christian conservatives that I know want evolution taught in the public schools, because it is the prevailing theory of modern science. However, they (and I put myself in this category as well) want it taught AS A THEORY -- and one that has some problems and controversies intrinsic to it.

Most Christian conservatives I know would like Creationism or Intelligent Design offered up as an alternative theory - either in science class or philosophy class in our public schools. I agree with this.

And...most Christian conservatives that I know -- SIMILAR TO SOMETHING YOU SAID -- want ALL the major religions of the world taught in our public schools - Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc. Religion shouldn't be a taboo subject in our classrooms. Kids should be taught the basic beliefs of the different religions.

I know of no secret meetings or conspiracies whereby Christians are plotting to take over the United States and impose the kind of draconian theocracy that you keep conjuring up.

» pink101 - Not true, Pink

In response to Not true, Pink posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I know of no secret meetings or conspiracies whereby Christians are plotting to take over the United States and impose the kind of draconian theocracy that you keep conjuring up.
.
I didn't think you were in on any of the secrets that might be involved--any more than I am privy to their affairs. But, I have eyes to see and ears to hear.
.
"Most Christian conservatives that I know want evolution taught in the public schools...AS A THEORY"
.
So, I suppose that's why they have it taught in their private Christian Schools?
.
Go to this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
.
Check out the sixth paragraph that starts out, "The theory of evolution by natural selection was first put forth in detail in Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species."
.
Of course it's a theory. Did someone say that it was a ideological belief?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Creation v. Evolution

In response to Not true, Pink posted by pink101:

You know as well as I do that evolution is ASSUMED TO BE TRUE and FACTUAL in virtually every public school, museum, research center, etc. in the industrialized world. It is assumed to be as authoritative as the theory of gravity. Christians, and frankly many Muslims, Jews, and other theists have a problem with this. We (and I put myself in this category) feel that evolution has enormous problems and many unanswered questions that strike at the heart of the theory's credibility. The reason that it is universally embraced is because of two things...

1) Science's predisposition toward NATURALISM - meaning that the very possibility of something outside of nature (i.e., God) is ruled out of bounds and beyond consideration - thus any alternative to evolution is rejected out of hand!!!

2) Uniformatarianism - the assumption that things generally have always been as they are (I'm oversimplifying to keep this post short) **Again, this stems from naturalism.

What I and others are trying to get across to society is that these assumptions are PHILOSOPHICAL -- NOT scientific. Thus, the theory of evolution makes, in essence, a self-fulfilling claim to superior standing and credibility. The rules are stacked completely in its favor.

» Brian Tubbs - Science based on Philosophy

Right now, public schools in America teach science based on naturalism (a philosophy). The evolutionists then have the audacity to tell Christians that their "science" is based on religion. Well, in my view, religion and philosophy are close cousins - one stems from humanism (philosophy) and the other from the divine (religion). Evolution is a scientific theory based on PHILOSOPHICAL assumptions.

» Brian Tubbs - HOWEVER....

I still say: Teach evolution!

The Christian school that I was a part of taught both. I was very close friends with the science teacher, and I can tell you that he was nothing like the caricature you have in your mind of Christians. My friend is a scientist - a physicist in fact. He knew his stuff. He presented both theories fairly.

I don't expect PUBLIC schools to give equal time to Creationism. Biblical creationism is a religious/philosophical interpretation and explanation of the origins of the universe. It is not appropriate for the public school science classroom, although I think it IS appropriate for public school students to learn of it in a religion or philosophy class. I understand AND accept that evolution will hold the high ground in public school science classrooms. But...I expect there to be more humility and honesty in its treatment than what is often the case. Evolution is a theory with a lot of problems. It's the best (I would say ONLY) NATURALISTIC explanation for the origin of the universe, and that is exactly how it should be presented!

» Brian Tubbs - Off course

We're way off course. I'll let you, Pink, have the last word on Creation v. Evolution. Anything else I have to say on the subject, I'll do so over in Protestantism - I am doing a series of articles on the subject, after all.

Let's bring this back to how we should teach and appreciate US history. Is Howard Zinn a good model for the proper teaching of US history?

» pink101 - Science based on METHOD

In response to Science based on Philosophy posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Brian! I know that an educated person such as you is well aware of the scientific method. I am not a member of the choir. With all due respect for the differences people have in their ideas about creation, reason seems the best policy to me.
.
You wrote, " Evolution is a scientific theory based on PHILOSOPHICAL assumptions."
.
From Wikipedia:
.
SCIENTIFIC METHOD
.
(You can get much more at this link from which I took the information that follows it.)
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...
.
.
The scientific method involves the following basic facets:
.
* Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.
* Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).
* Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.
* Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.
* Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.
* Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions.[attribution needed] Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:
* Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
* Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.
* Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.
.
--------------------------------------------------
.
You might be accused of trying to make it appear as though anyone who teaches evolution is a demon possessed nut of a philosopher who is bent on mocking the God of Creation.
.
That makes YOU look bad, Brian.
.
We KNOW that viruses and germs evolve through the application of the Scientific Method outlined herein.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Science based on METHOD

In response to Science based on METHOD posted by pink101:

Pink, I'm done debating this with you here. I never said anyone was a "demon possessed nut." You're going way off the deep end (again) with me in this discussion. I can't seem to have a rational, constructive debate w/ you w/o you bringing in super-charged labels and incendiary vocabulary. Anything further I have to say on evolution/creation will be over in Protestantism.

» pink101 - Science based on METHOD

In response to Science based on METHOD posted by BrianTubbs:
.
So, will you continue this discussion in the Protestantism site?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Back to Zinn

In response to Science based on METHOD posted by pink101:

I have no problem with Howard Zinn writing whatever he wants to write. My problem is with public school teachers and everyday Americans seeing and understanding Zinn's work as being somehow comprehensive, objective, and authoritative. It is an INTERPRETIVE work of American history which makes virtually NO attempt to be objective or balanced. As long as people see that and understand that, I have no problem.