You have to understand evolution to understand science? Who knew? How did science EVER advance before the late 19th century? And you aren't going to get the right answers about WHAT? Surely not anything related to medicine or biomedical sciences. Evolutionary biology is absent from the MCAT, medical school curricula, and biomedical science graduate programs because it's nearly useless as far as advancing medicine and biotechnology. Sorry, but that's the truth.Nye said that while many adults may believe in creationism, children should be taught evolution in order to understand science. Absent a grasp of evolution, he said, "You're just not going to get the right answers." And he called evolution the "fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology."
Teaching children the building blocks of science is essential for the country's future, he added, saying, "We need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future."
Pwns wrote:This is where I have a serious problem with the Darwin fanboys...
You have to understand evolution to understand science? Who knew? How did science EVER advance before the late 19th century? And you aren't going to get the right answers about WHAT? Surely not anything related to medicine or biomedical sciences. Evolutionary biology is absent from the MCAT, medical school curricula, and biomedical science graduate programs because it's nearly useless as far as advancing medicine and biotechnology. Sorry, but that's the truth.Nye said that while many adults may believe in creationism, children should be taught evolution in order to understand science. Absent a grasp of evolution, he said, "You're just not going to get the right answers." And he called evolution the "fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology."
Teaching children the building blocks of science is essential for the country's future, he added, saying, "We need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future."
And that second statement is a joke. As I've said before, a lot of people that whine that intelligent design is going to ruin science education usually don't give a s*** about how bad math, physics, and computer science (i.e. subjects that actually MATTER) education is. There's a growing movement to remove algebra from schools, but no one ever screams "Nazi! Fundamentalist! Anti-Science!" at those people.
It's disappointing that a guy who is an engineer doesn't understand this.
1) I'm no scientist but I think he wasn't just referring to evolutionary biology. I think he was also speaking to idea that the entire universe is evolving.Pwns wrote:This is where I have a serious problem with the Darwin fanboys...
You have to understand evolution to understand science? Who knew? How did science EVER advance before the late 19th century? And you aren't going to get the right answers about WHAT? Surely not anything related to medicine or biomedical sciences. Evolutionary biology is absent from the MCAT, medical school curricula, and biomedical science graduate programs because it's nearly useless as far as advancing medicine and biotechnology. Sorry, but that's the truth.Nye said that while many adults may believe in creationism, children should be taught evolution in order to understand science. Absent a grasp of evolution, he said, "You're just not going to get the right answers." And he called evolution the "fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology."
Teaching children the building blocks of science is essential for the country's future, he added, saying, "We need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future."
And that second statement is a joke. As I've said before, a lot of people that whine that intelligent design is going to ruin science education usually don't give a s*** about how bad math, physics, and computer science (i.e. subjects that actually MATTER) education is. There's a growing movement to remove algebra from schools, but no one ever screams "Nazi! Fundamentalist! Anti-Science!" at those people.
It's disappointing that a guy who is an engineer doesn't understand this.
It's a shame most conks aren't.kalm wrote:1) I'm no scientist but I think he wasn't just referring to evolutionary biology. I think he was also speaking to idea that the entire universe is evolving.Pwns wrote:This is where I have a serious problem with the Darwin fanboys...
You have to understand evolution to understand science? Who knew? How did science EVER advance before the late 19th century? And you aren't going to get the right answers about WHAT? Surely not anything related to medicine or biomedical sciences. Evolutionary biology is absent from the MCAT, medical school curricula, and biomedical science graduate programs because it's nearly useless as far as advancing medicine and biotechnology. Sorry, but that's the truth.
And that second statement is a joke. As I've said before, a lot of people that whine that intelligent design is going to ruin science education usually don't give a s*** about how bad math, physics, and computer science (i.e. subjects that actually MATTER) education is. There's a growing movement to remove algebra from schools, but no one ever screams "Nazi! Fundamentalist! Anti-Science!" at those people.
It's disappointing that a guy who is an engineer doesn't understand this.
2) I'm very happy that science has driven past the late 19th century.
You have to understand evolution to understand science? Who knew? How did science EVER advance before the late 19th century? And you aren't going to get the right answers about WHAT? Surely not anything related to medicine or biomedical sciences. Evolutionary biology is absent from the MCAT, medical school curricula, and biomedical science graduate programs because it's nearly useless as far as advancing medicine and biotechnology. Sorry, but that's the truth.
And that second statement is a joke. As I've said before, a lot of people that whine that intelligent design is going to ruin science education usually don't give a s*** about how bad math, physics, and computer science (i.e. subjects that actually MATTER) education is. There's a growing movement to remove algebra from schools, but no one ever screams "Nazi! Fundamentalist! Anti-Science!" at those people.
It's disappointing that a guy who is an engineer doesn't understand this.
I really should have said "Algebra requirements" and not "algebra". But the point still stands. Take this editorial as en example.Seahawks08 wrote:
Woah what? That has to be the dumbest idea I have ever heard of (and I've heard a lot). Algebra is what most people use in this world. How the fuck can you justify taking it out? I get maybe calculus since it's less used, but algebra should be the basis for every student in the U.S.
It's not whether you believe it or not, it's whether you teach your kids something else that has no support in the scientific community. If you want to believe that the world is 6000 years old and that Jesus had a pet T-Rex that's fine. But you are doing your kids a disservice if you teach them that as opposed to evolution.JohnStOnge wrote:Ok. I personally believe in the overall theory of evolution. But could some of you please tell me how it matters whether someone believes it or not? How does it "hold everybody back?" As a practical matter, what will this lack of belief inhibit that will have negative impacts?
Let's say someone wants to become a medical doctor. Let's say they want to be a brain surgeon. Does whether or not they believe in the overall theory of evolution matter with respect to how good a brain surgeon they will be? Do they even need to take evolution courses as I did as a biology major? Or do they just need to understand how biology works as it is?
What I'm saying is that it has absolutely no practical significance. You're not going to inhibit the progress of humanity in practical terms by teaching your kids creationism.It's not whether you believe it or not, it's whether you teach your kids something else that has no support in the scientific community. If you want to believe that the world is 6000 years old and that Jesus had a pet T-Rex that's fine. But you are doing your kids a disservice if you teach them that as opposed to evolution.
EXACTLY my point. Maybe Bill Nye doesn't realize that our engineering graduate programs are being overrun with foreign students while biology graduate programs focused on ecology and evolutionary biology are generally a bunch of white Americans. Hardly anyone comes here from another country to study those subjects. They come here to study math, statistics, engineering, molecular biology, physics, and computer science. Changing attitudes about evolution isn't going to do a d*** thing to get more American students into useful sciences.JohnStOnge wrote:I should've watched the video before I posted my last message. What he said was even worse. He said "We need engineers."
Please. Believing in evolution has absolutely nothing to do with being an engineer. Good GRIEF.
Believing in evolution is totally unimportant in practical terms. It really is. Whether one believes or does not believe in evolution or not does not enhance or inhibit any practical advance.
And it's not like believing in or not believing in tectonic plates in geology.
So ecology and evolutionary biology are subservient in the long run? Does a belief system grounded in non-science not hurt scientific discovery?Pwns wrote:EXACTLY my point. Maybe Bill Nye doesn't realize that our engineering graduate programs are being overrun with foreign students while biology graduate programs focused on ecology and evolutionary biology are generally a bunch of white Americans. Hardly anyone comes here from another country to study those subjects. They come here to study math, statistics, engineering, molecular biology, physics, and computer science. Changing attitudes about evolution isn't going to do a d*** thing to get more American students into useful sciences.JohnStOnge wrote:I should've watched the video before I posted my last message. What he said was even worse. He said "We need engineers."
Please. Believing in evolution has absolutely nothing to do with being an engineer. Good GRIEF.
Believing in evolution is totally unimportant in practical terms. It really is. Whether one believes or does not believe in evolution or not does not enhance or inhibit any practical advance.
And it's not like believing in or not believing in tectonic plates in geology.
You are going to inhibit the progress of your children if you teach them creationism. You aren't teaching them critical thinking, you're raising them as stepford children. If you think evolution is wrong, teach your children to challenge it scientifically, don't just make something up because you don't like evolutionary theory.JohnStOnge wrote:What I'm saying is that it has absolutely no practical significance. You're not going to inhibit the progress of humanity in practical terms by teaching your kids creationism.It's not whether you believe it or not, it's whether you teach your kids something else that has no support in the scientific community. If you want to believe that the world is 6000 years old and that Jesus had a pet T-Rex that's fine. But you are doing your kids a disservice if you teach them that as opposed to evolution.
It's not that evolutionary biology is subservient. It's that it has no practical significance in terms of somebody's ability to function in the world as we know it because one can recognize the relationships that exist without having to accept the overall theory of evolution as the reason for the existence of those relationships.So ecology and evolutionary biology are subservient in the long run? Does a belief system grounded in non-science not hurt scientific discovery?
No it does not. You do not have to accept that single-celled organisms can spontaneously become organisms with trillions of cells to study the physiology of Alzheimer's or growth factor regulation in cancer cells. It's like saying you need to know and accept who invented the transistor to learn about or fix computers. If I believe that computer technology came from extraterrestrial beings it won't impede me from fixing computers or doing any research on quantum computing.kalm wrote:So ecology and evolutionary biology are subservient in the long run? Does a belief system grounded in non-science not hurt scientific discovery?
So are you teaching your children critical thinking by telling them to accept something because it's what "the scientists" say?You are going to inhibit the progress of your children if you teach them creationism. You aren't teaching them critical thinking, you're raising them as stepford children.
That is some pretty sad logic right there. I could apply that to almost any course I had growing up. I could be a good biologist without algebra, english, social studies, astronomy, history etc. Let's just do away with school and not teach our kids anything scientific.JohnStOnge wrote:It's not that evolutionary biology is subservient. It's that it has no practical significance in terms of somebody's ability to function in the world as we know it because one can recognize the relationships that exist without having to accept the overall theory of evolution as the reason for the existence of those relationships.So ecology and evolutionary biology are subservient in the long run? Does a belief system grounded in non-science not hurt scientific discovery?
Even in biological fields, belief int he overall theory of evolution is not necessary for good job performance. Examples:
A good fisheries biologist could be a good fisheries biologist without believing in evolution at all and also without having ever even taken an evolution course.
A good researcher into cures for cancer can be a good researcher into cures for cancer without believing in evolution at all and without ever even having taken an evolution course.
A good medical doctor in any particular specialty can be a good medical doctor in any particular specialty...you see what I"m getting at.
Believing the overall theory of evolution simply isn't that important in practical terms.
But if you know who invented the transistor, it would be pretty stupid to tell your kids that transistors were invented by aliens.Pwns wrote:No it does not. You do not have to accept that single-celled organisms can spontaneously become organisms with trillions of cells to study the physiology of Alzheimer's or growth factor regulation in cancer cells. It's like saying you need to know and accept who invented the transistor to learn about or fix computers. If I believe that computer technology came from extraterrestrial beings it won't impede me from fixing computers or doing any research on quantum computing.kalm wrote:So ecology and evolutionary biology are subservient in the long run? Does a belief system grounded in non-science not hurt scientific discovery?
Straw-man.BlueHen86 wrote:
That is some pretty sad logic right there. I could apply that to almost any course I had growing up. I could be a good biologist without algebra, english, social studies, astronomy, history etc. Let's just do away with school and not teach our kids anything scientific.
Before I read any further, I would just like to add mind = blownIt's not whether you believe it or not, it's whether you teach your kids something else that has no support in the scientific community. If you want to believe that the world is 6000 years old and that Jesus had a pet T-Rex that's fine. But you are doing your kids a disservice if you teach them that as opposed to evolution.
The dumbing down of America.JohnStOnge wrote:It's not that evolutionary theory shouldn't be taught in school. It's not that I personally didn't talk to my kids about evolutionary theory and still talk to them about it in times. It's not that I take the Biblical story of creation literally and it's not that I haven't told my kids that I don't think it should be taken literally.
It's just the narrow question, as Pwns said, of whether or not having a large percentage of the population taking the Biblical story of creation literally is going to cause the United States to suffer with respect to its competitive position. It's not. Not believing in evolution is not, say, going to impede some brilliant person's ability to engage in genetic engineering research.
BTW I don't think it's comparable to the question of teaching math in general and algebra in particular. I guess it's possible that one could get a biology degree then end up in a professional capacity that never calls for the use of math. But if you end up in some capacity where you're doing something like managing fisheries or wildlife populations you're going to need it. And you're probably going to need to apply algebra in particular at times. You're going to have to be able "solve for X."
It's different with evolution I think. I don't think there are any situations where, in order to solve a practical problem, you have to believe that the process of evolution is what led to what you see before you. You just have to know about what you see before you. You may have to understand things about how all living things have genetic material in common, etc. But you don't have to accept the idea that evolution as described by the overall theory of evolution is the reason for that. Failing to accept that idea is not going to impede your ability to function like not being able to express yourself effectively in writing or not having some reasonable ability to use mathetmatics will.
I guess one could say that if you are a high school biology teacher or something and you don't believe the overall theory that could cause problems. I think that's the argument made in this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/scien ... onism.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But I don't think it necessarily has to be a problem. I've written before that when I took my evolution course in college the instructor (who was also my major professor) started off the first day of the course by saying that it is a theory and we did not have to accept it. We just had to understand it and be able to answer questions about it on tests, etc. BTW, I'm pretty sure he did/does (if he's still alive) accept the theory. He did not come off as the religous type. Quite the opposite in fact. I think he just did that to put people at ease and I think it worked.
Perhaps. But not nearly as silly as teaching our kids something that has no basis in science just because we don't like the scientific alternative.Pwns wrote:Straw-man.BlueHen86 wrote:
That is some pretty sad logic right there. I could apply that to almost any course I had growing up. I could be a good biologist without algebra, english, social studies, astronomy, history etc. Let's just do away with school and not teach our kids anything scientific.
You CAN be a good biologist without knowing about the rational root theorem, without having red any Charles Dickens, or knowing anything about the Spanish Civil War. No one is saying don't teach evolution because you don't need it if you want to be a certain type of biologist, even most of the ID advocates don't want that.
The point he's making is about Nye saying evolution is to biology as arithmetic is to algebra. That is flat out NONSENSE and it shows how little he knows. Again - evolutionary biology is nonexistent in any pretty much every medical school curriculum, every biomedical science program, and most graduate programs in cellular and molecular biology. It's just not a very practical branch of biology and for him to say that America's competitiveness in the global marketplace depends on mass acceptance of evolution is silly.
Smfh at dumbfucks like Wronge and Pwns.BlueHen86 wrote:Perhaps. But not nearly as silly as teaching our kids something that has no basis in science just because we don't like the scientific alternative.Pwns wrote:
Straw-man.
You CAN be a good biologist without knowing about the rational root theorem, without having red any Charles Dickens, or knowing anything about the Spanish Civil War. No one is saying don't teach evolution because you don't need it if you want to be a certain type of biologist, even most of the ID advocates don't want that.
The point he's making is about Nye saying evolution is to biology as arithmetic is to algebra. That is flat out NONSENSE and it shows how little he knows. Again - evolutionary biology is nonexistent in any pretty much every medical school curriculum, every biomedical science program, and most graduate programs in cellular and molecular biology. It's just not a very practical branch of biology and for him to say that America's competitiveness in the global marketplace depends on mass acceptance of evolution is silly.
We should teach our children to be critical thinkers. Creationism isn't critical thought.
