Join Us @:
Free email alerts!
That doesn't make textbooks dangerous, it just means people should also learn to think!
are meant to be absorbed and parroted. It's implicit that everything in them is 100% correct. This is most certainly not the case with current textbooks, as a simple internet search will show you. Much of what humanity has been taught about the universe, throughout the history of humanity, has turned out to be incorrect. It is the height of arrogance to presume that everything we now think to be true (scientifically) is, in fact, true.
A good textbook will present controversy. A good teacher will explain to students that textbooks summarize our best thinking on an issue currently, but that every sentence in them is a stand in for thousands of pages of research and debate and further questions. In the sciences, a good teacher will also explain that by the time a textbook comes to print, some of the information in it will already be out of date, and so a good teacher will also show students how things have changed and where the textbook is wrong.
You can't do that with a warning label, because the label will quickly be out of date too!
in any class I have taken over a variety of disciplines, has a teacher put such disclaimers on the textbooks they are using. I find it hard to believe any teacher does such a thing.
I do as well.
So I guess that's at least two of us.
You're being kind. I'd be surprised if there were two who actually made such disclaimers!
We're two. At that point, given the number of teachers in the world, wouldn't it be more surprising if we were literally the only two in the whole world who did it? While we're discussing probability...
Teachers have way too much material to cover in too short a time. They should say that, but in all honesty I say it once at the beginning of a semester and by week three most students probably can't remember a word of it. There are so many things other than just scientific facts that I would love to have time to teach in a science course, but you can't fit it all in.
I certainly hope you aren't implying I was told such a thing and forgot it. For goodness sake why do you assume we are all idiots?
I asked my daughter who just finished her freshman year about this. She laughed and said "What?" No such disclaimers were made.
I'm not saying you don't make them, I'm saying I've never heard such a thing before, meaning I doubt anyone else does.
Seriously, what is wrong with you people?! That was a mea culpa, not a snide comment about your memory. I think I'm pretty clear when I'm insulting people. If I think someone is being an idiot, I say "You are being an idiot." The reason I spend a lot less time insulting you and Brunette than the two of you spend insulting me is because I DON'T think you are idiots. In any case, "idiot" would be tame in comparison to what you guys explicitly and clearly call me during many of these conversations.
Ever the show "Everybody Loves Raymond"? Just like Marie Barone on the show, you have the art of saying something that's supposed to be kind but is actually insulting. How many people have to tell you about this before you accept it?
Discerning what is "good" and what is "bad" right up until someone brings morality into it. Then suddenly "good" and "bad" become subjective terms open to interpretation.
WB has the supreme ability to use stories from the Bible to warm the hearts of even the most hedonistic atheists. GG does it too. Stinkin' conservatives! : }
You utterly mistake the character of God. He didn't create us in order to be mysterious and unknowable to us, He created us to be His friends. If you take the time to open the Bible, you'll find that God walked with Adam and Eve in the garden in the cool of the day. We are created in His image not in a physical sense, but in a spiritual sense. You will never, ever, ever see an animal stop to watch the sunset. No animal will attempt to capture the sunset in a painting or a picture, or write a poem about it, or propose to his lady love in the glow of it.
Men are the essence of the character of God. Women are the essence of the character of God. God is bold, brave, and daring. He is tender, faithful, and loving. He gave us the freedom to reject Him, and when we did He set about saving us and winning us back to Himself. There is no greater love story than the one God emblazoned across the universe when He loved us, lost us, and saved us.
G.K. Chesterton wrote a bit on the character of God that I think applies here..
"Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, "Do it again"; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening, "Do it again" to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we."
— G.K. Chesterton
That's a beautiful passage, and I really like that conception of God. I just can't use it to cure diseases.
But scientific theories are. Why not let evolution stay in the science classroom if it is a useful tool to make predictions and learn things about the world? Why insist that God show up in the science classroom if he isn't a useful tool to make predictions and learn things about the world? God and science can coexist perfectly peacefully if religion would stop insisting that it has to stick its finger into everything all the time.
You speak as if the universe exists solely to be understood by you and your fellow pseudo-intellectual hacks. I'm sure you and your compatriots would have drawn and quartered Copernicus for his presumption.
Human life is vastly improved by what science has learned about our lives, our bodies, our vulnerabilities. Botanists find medicines, physiologists find mechanisms, geneticists find links, ecologists discover relationships. This isn't about what the universe needs to exist, it is about what human being needs to live long, healthy lives.
But beyond that, human beings crave knowledge about the world. Maybe not all of them, but many of them. Many people look to religion for answers, including many scientists. But there are some questions that religion can't answer. Just like there are some questions science can't answer. Is it really so harmful to religion to think that different spheres of knowledge can be useful for different things?
As you know Darwin thought the cell was just a blob.
The only reason ID is even on the minds of folks now, is due to the advancements in the way instrumentation can see into smaller and smaller places. The scientists are basically, reverse-engineering, shredding the cells, part by part.... Asking lots of questions.... and finding even more, smaller parts, piston like proteins to run the proton motors..Fun.
Western Science, as outlined by Dinesh D'souza..
D’Souza reveals: Why Christianity explains the universe, and our origins, better than atheism does
Why Christianity and science are not irreconcilable, but science and atheism might be
Why the alleged sins of Christianity—the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Galileo affair—are vastly overblown
Why atheism is a demonstrably dangerous creed—and a cowardly one
Why evolution does not threaten Christian belief
Why atheists fear the Big Bang theory
Why Christianity is the ultimate defense of man’s free will Why ultimately you can’t have Western civilization—and all we value from it—without the Christianity that gave it birth
You Didn't Build That.
Is it really so harmful to religion to think that different spheres of knowledge can be useful for different things?
No one said it was. That's your passive-aggressive way of implying that religion (Christianity in this instance) is rigid, narrow, and exclusive. If you're talking about Islam, you're right. If you're talking about Christianity, you're dead wrong.
Nothing in Christianity says that knowledge is a bad thing. As a matter of fact, the Bible repeatedly exhorts us to seek wisdom..
My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
Then why does religion needs to be involved in science?
You're far more religious than I, in the sense that you understand the word "religion". Your religion is 'science', your definition of which is a state of being sane, pragmatic, and open-minded to facts. The irony is that you're a slave to "current thinking" and "evidence" and "the scientific method". Your religion tells you what cannot be, mine tells me that with God all things are possible.
You wonder why some snakes have one lung and some two, and forget to marvel that there is such a thing as a snake in the first place. You think that if God in fact made snakes, he would have made them all alike. No two snowflakes are alike, but all snakes should be constructed alike, apparently. What a narrow, rigid way of thinking. How very......dogmatic.
"There are two kinds of people in the world, the conscious dogmatists and the unconscious dogmatists. I have always found myself that the unconscious dogmatists were by far the most dogmatic."
— G.K. Chesterton
This isn't about personal qualities, this is about what works and doesn't work. Lots of scientists are slaves to evidence in their work, but spiritual in other aspects of their lives. Scientists are not different from other people, they just have a method that they use because it works. Other methods don't work. Doctors cannot go to the Bible to find out how to cure diseases, because it doesn't work.
And most natural scientists do this work because they do marvel at the world. I find animals fascinating, I laugh out loud every day learning something new about animal life. When you read that passage by Darwin that bkeyser quoted below, you can hear the awe that he felt thinking about the intricacy of life and evolution. I find evolution immensely comforting, almost in a spiritual way. When I think that an unbroken chain of life connects little old me all the way back to the first living cell, 4.5 billion years ago, I feel lifted, supported. I love the idea that I am the result of billions of years of tweaking and changing, and evolving. I love the paradox that I am a unique snowflake among billions of other snowflakes just as unique as I am. We are the same in our uniqueness.
At the end of a lecture on the hormonal cascade that drives labor and birth in humans, the professor showed a picture of his own kids. He said a friend of his had asked him if being there for the birth of his children had been less magical because he knew all of the nitty gritty details-- surges of oxytocin, elastin, prolactin. He said that it made it even more magical, to really know just how intricate and complicated a process it was. I think that's how most scientists feel about the world. We express our appreciation by seeking more knowledge, not just standing back and taking the world at face value.
Doctors cannot go to the Bible to find out how to cure diseases, because it doesn't work.
That's like saying a book on the function of the lungs is a failure because it doesn't tell you how to remove warts.
Actually, in the Bible you'll find the only cure for the disease called the human condition.
Exactly! The Bible is a book about different things-- not science but morality, history, spirituality, religion. So why does the Bible have to be involved in the study of nature and evolution?
Why does the sun have to be involved in the study of light, heat, or the cosmos?
If there is no nature without God, then there is no disease without God. So why is it silly for a doctor to go to the Bible for guidance on how to find a cure, but not silly for evolutionary scientists to get their answers from the Bible.
You said the Bible was the wrong book for the job in one case, but not the other. Why? They are both scientific explorations of life and attempts to find causes and mechanisms. Why one but not the other?
You ask the dumbest questions I've ever seen. I didn't say the Bible was the wrong book for any job, I said you were approaching it with incorrect assumptions that lead inevitably to incorrect conclusions.
I know you didn't say it was the wrong book for any job. I asked a SPECIFIC question-- why is it the right book for the evolution job but NOT the right book for the disease job? You said it was the wrong book for the disease job, but when I asked if that meant it was also the wrong book for the evolution job, you disagreed. So I'm wondering what distinguishes those two jobs, making the Bible useful for one but not the other. You said nature, but that would include both evolution and disease, so that doesn't answer the question.
I know you didn't say it was the wrong book for any job.
You said it was the wrong book for the disease job
Seriously? You teach at a college level? I hope people reading this thread are gleaning something from what I'm saying, because I'm obviously wasting my time talking to someone whose thought processes are so muddled she contradicts herself, not just from one post to another, but within one post!
They say two different things.
Do you partake of illegal chemical substances?
You said it was the wrong book for the disease job, so I asked why. You responded that you didn't say it was the wrong book for any job. I know that, that's not what I asked. I asked why it was the wrong book for the specific job you said it was the wrong book for. The disease job. There's nothing contradictory in my questions. You responded to something different than what I asked, so I asked again.
We express our appreciation by seeking more knowledge, not just standing back and taking the world at face value.
Implication: Christians are simple-minded dolts who eschew knowledge.
Over and over and over and over you imply that believing in God excludes all knowledge of His Creation. That's the part that makes you too thick to talk to. It's like talking to someone who says, "You think blue is red".
"No, blue is blue. Indigo blue, in this case"
"If only you didn't think blue is red this would be easy to explain"
"Blue isn't red; blue is blue."
"See, people who know that blue isn't red are far more enlightened than you rubes"
"Blue is blue, you blithering idiot"
"What do you have against blue, anyway? What's the obsession with red?"
"What are you talking about? No one said blue was red! No one even mentioned red!"
"See, we're seeking knowledge, and science says that blue is blue and not red, like you claim"
"I'm going to punch you"
The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge.
The beginning of wisdom is: Acquire wisdom; And with all your acquiring, get understanding.
Give thought to what I say; for the Lord will give you wisdom in all things.
The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding
The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on folly.
You accuse me of not marveling at nature, and when I explain to you that scientists do marvel at nature, you accuse me of claiming that because we do it by seeking knowledge, I must also be saying that everyone else doesn't seek knowledge. I did not say that you, or anyone else, takes nature at face value. Clearly, by your own words, you are marveling at the snake. My point was simply that my way of marveling is to learn about it instead of taking it at face value. That was a comparison to a possible alternative, not a comparison to you.
For f's sake, I'm trying really hard NOT to take offense at all of the "you don't really appreciate the world, look at how cute the butterflies are" stuff you keep throwing at me, as though I am somehow unable to appreciate cuteness or beauty or love, because I'm a scientist. I am very specifically NOT making the same accusations. I am NOT calling you a slave to your religious dogma, the way you are calling me a slave to evidence. I am NOT calling you dense, lacking in interest or knowledge. I am simply pointing out that those things are my equivalent of spirituality.
See if anyone else reading this gets the impression that you're saying that Christianity is opposed to "science", and therefore the province of ignorant simpletons.
Failure to address this old post.
That a good place to start.
but that post reads like an advertisement for some guy's book. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to address it without reading the book-- all you say is that he shows those things, but not how or why. If you've read the book, perhaps you could be a little more informative.
Yea da-kine guy selling BOOKS, Duh.
You the collage gal. Do you have any books?
Not one soul in your liberal green land, carries it. So much for diversity.
Ten bucks used and delivered.... Gawd you are cheep.
It would be more fun to have you fumble around in a reply to to his statements, quoted TWICE here on this thread waiting, waiting but no! we get homework assignments.
You have the gall to request for customized information, you can't possibly afford the research expenses..
So, I'm lazy and cheap because I'm not reading a whole book in order to respond to one of your posts. You're ridiculous!
Fine then...Take a FREE look inside....
To read only a few pages at a time, but it looks like an interesting book. If I have time this summer, I'll check it out. Based on what I did read, he seems to see his book as a response to "militant atheism," and talks a lot about how atheists are trying to drive religion from the world. Most atheists aren't trying to do that. Dawkins and Hitchins are, but more aren't. And he acknowledges that for a long time atheists have been a completely dismissed and sidelined minority. Want to know the one characteristic that effectively bars someone from holding national office? Being an atheist. You can be gay, christian, muslim, an adulterer, a tax cheat, but you can't be an atheist. So now a few people are standing up for "atheist pride" and saying it's okay to be atheist, and your author apparently thinks you need to shut that down immediately!
I couldn't read the part where he explains why Christianity explains science better than science does, but I imagine I'll find that very interesting.
I read about a book a month outside of work.
All of Creation is filled with evidence of the Creator. Trying to separate "science" from God is like trying to separate sunlight from the sun. For in Him all things live and move and have their being.
He tells the number of the stars, and calls them all by name.
That was a beautiful post -- so true, which is what makes it so beautiful. Thank you.
And this really IS my last post on this thread... because it's the perfect ending.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
Is this thread still "evolving"? Sorry. Lame. ^_^
I just had a few comments:
1) I just realized the Vet's troll references have a Norwegian connection. Kinda cool! Okay, probably nobody cares that you find it cool, GG.
2) The sunglasses on the dog are kinda cute. Okay, probably nobody cares that you find it cute, GG.
3) BK must be exhausted -- sprawled out on a beach somewhere -- God bless him.
4) WB WILL hunt bear.
As for me, THE END.
And was banned from that theater until, and I quote, "the day you die".
Even now, he is afraid of the link to the trailer. Time to change your diaper again Another Angry Black Zippers.
Here is the channel of the most feared man in trollietown.
It is all kinds 'o fun! Troll bashing makes for good times!
She was pooped that day after a visit to the vet. No, not you Vet. The place you take sick pets. They gave her a sedative because, as we were told, she is like a child with ADD. Nevertheless, I had fun with it.
Editor at Large
Michael M. Bates
P. J. Gladnick
D. S. Hube
Julia A. Seymour
Dialog New Media
Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.