Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[JimC]

You don't think the past is responsible for the present? That's part of the point I thought you were driving at.

No, not in the slightest. We are all responsible for the present. The present is all there is.

The word "responsible" in this context could be mis-leading...

Few would deny that past events lead to causal effects on the present in a variety of ways. You can consider such effects without assuming a robotic determinism from past to present...

Perhaps you are implying that people ought not be weighed down by past traditions, expectations and events, and take personal responsibilities for their decisions in the here-and-now.

[Exi5tentialist]

You don't think the past is responsible for the present? That's part of the point I thought you were driving at.

No, not in the slightest. We are all responsible for the present. The present is all there is.

The word "responsible" in this context could be mis-leading...

Few would deny that past events lead to causal effects on the present in a variety of ways. You can consider such effects without assuming a robotic determinism from past to present...

Perhaps you are implying that people ought not be weighed down by past traditions, expectations and events, and take personal responsibilities for their decisions in the here-and-now.

The context was Charlou put it to me that I wanted to re-capture past Religious Education in schools as a contrivance to liberate people from religion in the present, mainly because I'd said I don't think school students take much notice of religious education anyway. Of course I deny trying to recapture the past; somehow this got turned into a a philosophical discussion about the way the past affects the present. Personally I wouldn't see any need to take past Religious Education into account the present. Past RE was based on one-sided and very dull; I am proposing varied contributions in schools from all kinds of communities, not just religious ones. If people are worried about 'proselytising' they needn't, as we know young people don't take a blind bit of notice of being told how to think anyway. Adults flatter themselves by thinking they can control young people's opinions through a class.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gee, you just said advertising doesn't work.

[Exi5tentialist]

You don't think the past is responsible for the present? That's part of the point I thought you were driving at.

No, not in the slightest. We are all responsible for the present. The present is all there is.

The word "responsible" in this context could be mis-leading...

Few would deny that past events lead to causal effects on the present in a variety of ways. You can consider such effects without assuming a robotic determinism from past to present...

Perhaps you are implying that people ought not be weighed down by past traditions, expectations and events, and take personal responsibilities for their decisions in the here-and-now.

Well, as I said, we are all responsible for the present.

[Magicziggy]

Here in South Australia, where creationism is not allowed to be taught in science:
The Non-Government Schools Registration Board is a statutory body responsible for the registration and review of non-government schools in SA.
Policy document:
http://www.ngss.sa.edu.au/files/links/P ... B_12_0.pdf

From it's polcy:

B4. The teaching of Science
The Board requires the teaching of Science as an empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/educatio ... -pgjb.html

We have Sunrise Christian School:
http://www.sunrise.sa.edu.au/index.php?PID=33

Teaching

Science

Science is taught in a similar way to all other curriculum areas. A firm foundation is laid in the Junior Primary years. This is built on in the later years effectively becoming a cyclic pattern with year by year reinforcement.

The foundation for our teaching of science is Creation. Students are directed to Genesis, not as a scientific textbook but as a book of beginnings.

The use of a Junior Primary Science Curriculum and the A Beka science text form the foundation for Grades 3-7 and provide a logical and orderly approach to the teaching of science at Sunrise.

Students are taught to explore, discover, question, predict, evaluate, review, examine and learn.

Individual interests of students are fostered and encouraged while the set curriculum is consistently taught.

Areas explored in Science include the Solar System, Space and Travel, The Atmosphere, Weather, The Ocean and its Creatures, Chemistry, Geology, Volcanoes, Rocks, Minerals, Weathering and Fossils, Waves and Sounds, Light and Colour, Magnetism, Electricity, Vertebrates and Invertebrates and Dinosaurs.

Using
http://www.abeka.com/ABekaOnline/BookDe ... sbn=115509

Description
Students are introduced to the scientific method and encouraged to apply it throughout this Christian life science text. They investigate fields such as botany, anatomy, zoology, microbiology, and ecology with the goal of discovering the thoughts of the Creator through the ingenious structure and orderly function of His creation.

Alien Rubbish

[JimC]

You don't think the past is responsible for the present? That's part of the point I thought you were driving at.

No, not in the slightest. We are all responsible for the present. The present is all there is.

The word "responsible" in this context could be mis-leading...

Few would deny that past events lead to causal effects on the present in a variety of ways. You can consider such effects without assuming a robotic determinism from past to present...

Perhaps you are implying that people ought not be weighed down by past traditions, expectations and events, and take personal responsibilities for their decisions in the here-and-now.

Well, as I said, we are all responsible for the present.

That is one of those trite New Age statements that evapourates when analysed...

There are many aspects of the present reality which would be unchanged, whatever decisions "we" make now...

If you simply wish to point out a worthy aspiration for people of the present; to be responsible for their current actions, and to act with care and forethought, you could say so...

[charlou]

Alien Rubbish

Ayep.

Students are taught to explore, discover, question, predict, evaluate, review, examine and learn.

My impression is they're taught to do this within the limitations of their belief ... confirmation bias. Similarly, when doubts about the belief itself arise, they're directed to the text of their belief for 'answers'.

[Coito ergo sum]

No. That would only be the case if you assume that people left free to think whatever religious thoughts they like will naturally choose to be non-religious or secular. A secular government, however, doesn't mean that the people themselves won't organize around religious or other belief systems.

So it doesn't really matter what people are taught in schools, then? They don't automatically swallow the 'indoctrination'.

That conclusion doesn't follow at all from my statement.

What I said was that if people were left free to think whatever religious thoughts they like, they won't necessarily choose secularism. People form religions without any help from governments.

How you concluded from that that "it doesn't really matter what people are taught in schools" is beyond me.

[Coito ergo sum]

Your post indicates to have not read what I wrote. I am in favour of introducing students to the concept of free speech. You seem to think I am advocate absolute free speech in schools all the time. Please could you read my posts again, and re-work your post on the basis of what I have actually said. Thank you.

You asked me if I'm in favor of free speech in schools. Of course I'm not, not totally free - and not even mostly free.

I am, of course, open to the idea of teaching children government, civics, history, etc., and the idea of "free speech" would certainly be expected to come up in those curricula.

Good then we are in agreement. School students hearing a variety of messages from different religions would fall nicely within that criterion; in fact censoring them would be the antithesis of free speech; again, we both agree on 'limited' free speech in schools.

We are in agreement that the concept of free speech would be appropriate to teach in classes about government, law, civics, history, etc.

We are not in agreement that students should hear a variety of different messages from different religions, and that would not fall nicely within the criterion of teaching the concept of free speech in classes about government, law, civics, history, etc.

You are all over the map here.

The idea of "limited free speech" in schools is not the same thing as teaching about freedom of speech (or any other fundamental right) in schools. I am also in favor of teaching about the right to bear arms in schools, in a civics, government, law or history class. I am not, however, in favor of students EXERCISING the right to bear arms in schools.

Similarly, teaching about free speech in schools does not mean that students are, as Buffalo Springfield wrote, "singin' songs, and carryin' signs - mostly sayin' hoo-ray for our side..." They're learning a subject. So, like when you go to engineering school and take Thermodynamics as a class, you don't have any freedom of speech there - you follow the teacher's instructions who has the absolute right to shut you up in class and you can even be ousted from the class. The same goes for algebra class in high school, and "reading" class in grammar school.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gee, you just said advertising doesn't work.

[Exi5tentialist]

Your post indicates to have not read what I wrote. I am in favour of introducing students to the concept of free speech. You seem to think I am advocate absolute free speech in schools all the time. Please could you read my posts again, and re-work your post on the basis of what I have actually said. Thank you.

You asked me if I'm in favor of free speech in schools. Of course I'm not, not totally free - and not even mostly free.

I am, of course, open to the idea of teaching children government, civics, history, etc., and the idea of "free speech" would certainly be expected to come up in those curricula.

Good then we are in agreement. School students hearing a variety of messages from different religions would fall nicely within that criterion; in fact censoring them would be the antithesis of free speech; again, we both agree on 'limited' free speech in schools.

We are in agreement that the concept of free speech would be appropriate to teach in classes about government, law, civics, history, etc.

We are not in agreement that students should hear a variety of different messages from different religions, and that would not fall nicely within the criterion of teaching the concept of free speech in classes about government, law, civics, history, etc.

You are all over the map here.

The idea of "limited free speech" in schools is not the same thing as teaching about freedom of speech (or any other fundamental right) in schools. I am also in favor of teaching about the right to bear arms in schools, in a civics, government, law or history class. I am not, however, in favor of students EXERCISING the right to bear arms in schools.

Similarly, teaching about free speech in schools does not mean that students are, as Buffalo Springfield wrote, "singin' songs, and carryin' signs - mostly sayin' hoo-ray for our side..." They're learning a subject. So, like when you go to engineering school and take Thermodynamics as a class, you don't have any freedom of speech there - you follow the teacher's instructions who has the absolute right to shut you up in class and you can even be ousted from the class. The same goes for algebra class in high school, and "reading" class in grammar school.

It sounds to me like you're against all free speech in schools, except as part of a "subject" to be taught in certain lessons, where teachers talk about it and students sit silently and listen, asking questions and making comments only when invited.

What a hideous way to run a school

[Coito ergo sum]

I've never said that students need to only sit silently and listen. However, when a teacher tells them to sit silently and listen, then they don't have some "right" to protest or to speak out. There needs to be order in the classroom.. There are times when questions are appropriate, and there are times when it's not. If a teacher is in the middle of a lecture, for example, it's rude to interrupt. You wait until the lecture is over, and the teacher say, "any questions?" If a teacher is explaining something, it's not o.k. to interrupt.

I gather you're being purposefully obtuse. All schools have to run that way. Be quiet in the halls - why? Because others are studying and learning. Be quiet while doing your classwork. Why? Because others are trying to do THEIR classwork.

It's not a free-for-all where anybody can shout out whatever they like, whenever they like. It's not the public square.

[Exi5tentialist]

I've never said that students need to only sit silently and listen. However, when a teacher tells them to sit silently and listen, then they don't have some "right" to protest or to speak out. There needs to be order in the classroom.. There are times when questions are appropriate, and there are times when it's not. If a teacher is in the middle of a lecture, for example, it's rude to interrupt. You wait until the lecture is over, and the teacher say, "any questions?" If a teacher is explaining something, it's not o.k. to interrupt.

I gather you're being purposefully obtuse. All schools have to run that way. Be quiet in the halls - why? Because others are studying and learning. Be quiet while doing your classwork. Why? Because others are trying to do THEIR classwork.

It's not a free-for-all where anybody can shout out whatever they like, whenever they like. It's not the public square.

WE OBEY!!!

[Coito ergo sum]

I've never said that students need to only sit silently and listen. However, when a teacher tells them to sit silently and listen, then they don't have some "right" to protest or to speak out. There needs to be order in the classroom.. There are times when questions are appropriate, and there are times when it's not. If a teacher is in the middle of a lecture, for example, it's rude to interrupt. You wait until the lecture is over, and the teacher say, "any questions?" If a teacher is explaining something, it's not o.k. to interrupt.

I gather you're being purposefully obtuse. All schools have to run that way. Be quiet in the halls - why? Because others are studying and learning. Be quiet while doing your classwork. Why? Because others are trying to do THEIR classwork.

It's not a free-for-all where anybody can shout out whatever they like, whenever they like. It's not the public square.

WE OBEY!!!

What do you suggest? That 12 year old children come and go as they please - head to McDonalds during English class? Or, perhaps they just interrupt the teacher whenever they feel like it with fart noises and quotes from South Park?

[Exi5tentialist]

WE OBEY!!!

What do you suggest? That 12 year old children come and go as they please - head to McDonalds during English class? Or, perhaps they just interrupt the teacher whenever they feel like it with fart noises and quotes from South Park?

No. I suggest a programme of visiting speakers, with question-and-answer sessions included.

Now stop being silly and get on with your work.