[+Donny]

Sorry Brooks, I fell to the temptation of stealing your response. I am weak, forgive me.

Is heliocentrism an ideologically biased education? Shoudl you be expected to know that the earth goes round the sun to get into college? If 99% of the astronomers believe that the earth goes round the sun and that this concept is important for kids to know before they enter college, should colleges hold incoming students to that standard?

That depends on what degree they are going into. Being an idiot probably also detracts from college entrance. But this is because no one disagrees(yes, a generalization; I'm sure some wacko in Pennsylvania disagrees). Creationism is a big movement, so it would be very arrogant to exclude all creationists.

Welcome to the oppressive world of college. Did I want to take calculus? Do I use it today? No, not really. At least with biology, it's everywhere. And if you think that biology won't become even more important in the coming years, you're fooling yourselves. It's obvious that bio-technology will be the next big thing. Taking biology shouldn't be an option in high school or college. And you can't exactly excise evolution from biology, any more than you can excise heliocentrism from astronomy.

Why does an economist need to know biology?

Kids have to be brainwashed into believing in the bible because there is no objective evidence to support it. Evolution, on the other hand, has both objective evidence and, most importantly, falsifiability.

Stop being an _______. I was not brainwashed, and neither were the majority of Christians.

Plus, you don't have to study evolution. You don't have to go to college.

Not all colleges require study of evolution to get a degree, so I don't where this statement is coming from.
But you are right, you don't have to go to college to be successful.

[JerryLove]

Bad analogy. In this case, there is a widespread controversy over a scientific theory. If there was such a controversy over certain aspects of mathematics (I'm sure there are, somewhere), then no, I think it would be stupid for colleges to allow only students that agreed with them.

There's controversy over math... from a realistic standpoint, the two are equally contentious. The only real difference is there's not major religiosu bias against math.

Evolution is proven and accepted. I'm completely unaware of even one person with an actual, emperical objection to evolution (one not based on a religious preconception that it's false before looking). Though even if you wanted to assert that there's a greater degree of resistance, you have not disputed the principle (that we may require knowledge and functional acceptance of a body of knowledge in order to enter college).

If I was going for a degree that didn't have anything to do with history, then, yes, I'm sure I could get a degree believing that.

There's actually a word for a school that teaches that way... it's called a "trade school" or "vocational school". They would not care what an electrician though of evolution or an auto-mechanic thought of history.

Colleges are not structured that way. College degrees [are supposed to] create a rounded body of correct knowldge. Don't like it? Don't go for a college degree.

And it's interesting that you are okay with the government forcing beliefs on its people. What next? You must believe in evolution to hold citizenship, or to vote? This is absurd statist nonsense, Jerry, and I can't believe you hold to it.

Of course I support the government requiring true knowledge in order to graduate school; I can go down the promote the general welfare = education = standardized knowedge requiremet, but I'm hoping you won't make me waste the time.

[JerryLove]

That depends on what degree they are going into. Being an idiot probably also detracts from college entrance. But this is because no one disagrees(yes, a generalization; I'm sure some wacko in Pennsylvania disagrees). Creationism is a big movement, so it would be very arrogant to exclude all creationists.

Appeal to popularity, and one quickly countered by the fact that, within the actual fields of study, creationism is essentially non-existant (<1% in fields biology, geology, and physics).

Why does an economist need to know biology?

What is "need"?

Stop being an _______. I was not brainwashed, and neither were the majority of Christians.

Actually, "indocterined into a dogmatic ideology" is probably not incorrect... but I digress.

Not all colleges require study of evolution to get a degree, so I don't where this statement is coming from.
But you are right, you don't have to go to college to be successful.

I believe that you were arguing aginst colleges requiring it; the worst-case version being if all colleges required it.

In the lesser case "you can go to other colleges"... but the issue was "are you forced to believe" and the underpinning "are you forced to go" came up.

[JerryLove]

BTW, there are a large number of people who believe that the president is elected by the popular vote, and are not aware of the electoral college.

Should we not require people to state a belief that the president is elected by the college (for example, in answer to "how is the president elected" on a test) in order to pass his government class? Should we offer classes on the "opposing viewpoint" that the presidentis elected by a vote of the people when we know it's factually incorrect?

[Qingu]

[QUOTE=JerryLove]Colleges are not structured that way. College degrees [are supposed to] create a rounded body of correct knowldge. Don't like it? Don't go for a college degree.[QUOTE]
Alas, Jerry, this seems to be less and less the case. Even my alma mater is slowly carving away at its core requirements....

But Jerry is right. There are many colleges where it would be impossible to get a degree if you don't believe in evolution (or at least very hard, and involving quite a bit of lying to yourself). At the University of Chicago, for example, you have to take biology and geology courses to graduate.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Qingu

For example, Nate said he was educated about evolution by his mom (KFBsmom, on this forum). With all due respect, here is a woman who is ignorant about most of the evidence that supports the theory she is teaching, as has been shown on this forum.

But, that's not at all what I said.

I said my mom taught me biology from a biased (read: creationist) perspective. Read what I wrote again: "I never really studied evolution in highschool."

In His love,
Nate

[+Donny]

There's actually a word for a school that teaches that way... it's called a "trade school" or "vocational school". They would not care what an electrician though of evolution or an auto-mechanic thought of history.

Colleges are not structured that way. College degrees [are supposed to] create a rounded body of correct knowldge. Don't like it? Don't go for a college degree.

Once again, I'm sure someone could get through college believing that Napoleon discovered America. They could CLEP out of that history course and, from then on, be fine.

Of course I support the government requiring true knowledge in order to graduate school; I can go down the promote the general welfare = education = standardized knowedge requiremet, but I'm hoping you won't make me waste the time.

Assuming evolution to be "true". That's the whole point, though.

Appeal to popularity, and one quickly countered by the fact that, within the actual fields of study, creationism is essentially non-existant (<1% in fields biology, geology, and physics).

Yes, it is an appeal to popularity. Creation vs. evolution is a big modern issue; heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is not.

What is "need"?

Why is it important for a economist to know biology? And don't ask me what "important" means.

Actually, "indocterined into a dogmatic ideology" is probably not incorrect... but I digress.

Thank you.

BTW, there are a large number of people who believe that the president is elected by the popular vote, and are not aware of the electoral college.

Should we not require people to state a belief that the president is elected by the college (for example, in answer to "how is the president elected" on a test) in order to pass his government class? Should we offer classes on the "opposing viewpoint" that the presidentis elected by a vote of the people when we know it's factually incorrect?

This is different. Many people believe so because they simply don't know the facts. If someone was presented with proof that the president is, in fact, elected by the electoral college, and maintained that no, he is not, then yes, if I ran a college, I would not let that person in. Being ignorant of facts and believing false despite being shown the facts are two different things.
And, of course, this is assuming that evolution is proven as simply as the president being elected by electoral college is; you and I both know this isn't a fair comparison.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Nate

But, that's not at all what I said.

I said my mom taught me biology from a biased (read: creationist) perspective. Read what I wrote again: "I never really studied evolution in highschool."

In His love,
Nate

Ahh, sorry, I think I confused you with what someone else said.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Ahh, sorry, I think I confused you with what someone else said.

It was probably due to Donny's comment on never having met a homeschooler who hadn't studied evolution. That comment was the main reason I posted; just to show that there were, in fact, some homeschoolers who hadn't, in fact, studied evolution. Guess I'm supporting the "wrong side" in this debate. Heh.

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by Nate

It was probably due to Donny's comment on never having met a homeschooler who hadn't studied evolution. That comment was the main reason I posted; just to show that there were, in fact, some homeschoolers who hadn't, in fact, studied evolution. Guess I'm supporting the "wrong side" in this debate. Heh.

Nate is a jerk.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Yes, it is an appeal to popularity. Creation vs. evolution is a big modern issue; heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is not.

It is not an issue at all in the educational system. Are you saying that scientists and professors at universities should not teach what they teach because there is a lack of consensus among the uneducated general populace?

Why is it important for a economist to know biology? And don't ask me what "important" means.

I think it's important for all people to be well-educated, at least enough in any given subject to have an intellectual discussion about it. In many cases, understanding something in one subject makes it easier to understand something in another subject.

Let's take your example. What does economics have to do with biology? Did you realize that Darwin's theory came out at a time when many were incredibly interested in the new idea of capitalism? Capitalism posits a "natural selection" which predates Darwin's ideas. It is undeniable that economic ideas at the time greatly influenced Darwin's theory of evolution. It is also helpful to look at a single concept--the idea of natural selection--and see how it applies both to organisms and corporations.

When I think of a profession with an "-ist" at the end, like economist or biologist, I generally think of a person who is capable of forming theories and expanding the way we look at his or her field. Economists don't just plug numbers into equations. Accountants do, and there are trade schools for that.

This is different. Many people believe so because they simply don't know the facts. If someone was presented with proof that the president is, in fact, elected by the electoral college, and maintained that no, he is not, then yes, if I ran a college, I would not let that person in. Being ignorant of facts and believing false despite being shown the facts are two different things.

So what would you call someone who does not believe in evolution despite the many cases of observed speciation? Or who does not believe in evolution because "the eye can't evolve," when it has been shown that it can? There are no facts that point away from evolution and there are copious facts that support it.

And, of course, this is assuming that evolution is proven as simply as the president being elected by electoral college is; you and I both know this isn't a fair comparison.

I think it's a perfectly fair comparison. If I wanted to argue that the president is elected directly, I would likely employ the exact same techniques that opponents of evolution employ:

1. We don't know the exact process of how the electors choose the president (it's a secret ballot) so it doesn't happen.
2. The president is chosen by electors but that is just "micro-election." We all know that macro-election (whatever that is) does not happen and that the populace elects him directly.
3. It's impossible that the president isn't directly elected by the populace: how come the person with the greatest number of votes always wins? (Puts fingers in ears when someone points out the 2000 election).

[+Donny]

It is not an issue at all in the educational system. Are you saying that scientists and professors at universities should not teach what they teach because there is a lack of consensus among the uneducated general populace?

Oh, of course not. I don't even have a problem with a college requiring a biology course that teaches evolution. What I have a problem with is the suggestion that the government make sure private and homeschools teach evolution and that knowledge of evolution should necessary for entrance into college.

I think it's important for all people to be well-educated, at least enough in any given subject to have an intellectual discussion about it. In many cases, understanding something in one subject makes it easier to understand something in another subject.

Let's take your example. What does economics have to do with biology? Did you realize that Darwin's theory came out at a time when many were incredibly interested in the new idea of capitalism? Capitalism posits a "natural selection" which predates Darwin's ideas. It is undeniable that economic ideas at the time greatly influenced Darwin's theory of evolution. It is also helpful to look at a single concept--the idea of natural selection--and see how it applies both to organisms and corporations.

When I think of a profession with an "-ist" at the end, like economist or biologist, I generally think of a person who is capable of forming theories and expanding the way we look at his or her field. Economists don't just plug numbers into equations. Accountants do, and there are trade schools for that.

Actually I agree, which is why I chose the school I did for my undergraduate degree. However, that is our opinion; not everyone thinks that way, so I fail to see why it should be mandated by the state or every single college in the country. Does my dad, a carpenter, need to know geology? Is it important that he know chemistry? Not really. Is it good? Would it be beneficial? Sure, but that's true of any discipline, and we don't have time in our short lives to learn every discipline.

So what would you call someone who does not believe in evolution despite the many cases of observed speciation? Or who does not believe in evolution because "the eye can't evolve," when it has been shown that it can? There are no facts that point away from evolution and there are copious facts that support it.

Assuming you are correct about the scientific facts surrounding the debate, and that they are simple and obvious, a person that has been shown such evidence and just plain ignores it would be in the same boat as the conspiracy theorist who thinks Bush was really elected by popular vote.

I think it's a perfectly fair comparison. If I wanted to argue that the president is elected directly, I would likely employ the exact same techniques that opponents of evolution employ:

1. We don't know the exact process of how the electors choose the president (it's a secret ballot) so it doesn't happen.
2. The president is chosen by electors but that is just "micro-election." We all know that macro-election (whatever that is) does not happen and that the populace elects him directly.
3. It's impossible that the president isn't directly elected by the populace: how come the person with the greatest number of votes always wins? (Puts fingers in ears when someone points out the 2000 election).

Fine, I get your point; you think it's that obvious.

[cuziamthecaptai]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Oh, of course not. I don't even have a problem with a college requiring a biology course that teaches evolution. What I have a problem with is the suggestion that the government make sure private and homeschools teach evolution and that knowledge of evolution should necessary for entrance into college.

I think if the govt mandates high school education, it should mandate biological sciences. And you can't have high school biology without teaching evolution. You might as well attempt to teach chemistry without the periodic table of elements. I believe all high schoolers should have at least one class in biology.

Originally Posted by +Donny

Actually I agree, which is why I chose the school I did for my undergraduate degree. However, that is our opinion; not everyone thinks that way, so I fail to see why it should be mandated by the state or every single college in the country. Does my dad, a carpenter, need to know geology?

If your father is a carpenter, he doesn't need to be in college.

Originally Posted by +Donny

Is it important that he know chemistry? Not really. Is it good? Would it be beneficial? Sure, but that's true of any discipline, and we don't have time in our short lives to learn every discipline.

Why have him go to high school at all? Why not just send him to a trade school that teaches carpentry?

Originally Posted by +Donny

Assuming you are correct about the scientific facts surrounding the debate, and that they are simple and obvious, a person that has been shown such evidence and just plain ignores it would be in the same boat as the conspiracy theorist who thinks Bush was really elected by popular vote.

[Max Bialystock] assume away [/Max Bialystock]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Fine, I get your point; you think it's that obvious.

So does everyone who isn't brainwashed into thinking the world was made in 6 days. You know they're laughing at us, right? The people in the other countries. It would be as foolish as if the germans decided the holocaust didn't exist. If 99% of historians say it did and the only ones who deny it are those who happen to be modern day nazies, well it doesn't take a genius to realize who is being brainwashed here.

Originally Posted by +Donny

Yes, it is an appeal to popularity. Creation vs. evolution is a big modern issue; heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is not.

Whatever makes you feel better. Most biologists feel as strongly about evolution as astronomers feel about heliocentrism.

Make no mistake, this cultural war isn't between scientists, with an evolution and creation camp. They are all (>99%) in the evolution camp. The war is about the brainwashed fundies attempting to subvert the findings of the scientists, and the seculars fighting against it.

course that's just my opinion

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by cuziamthecaptai

So does everyone who isn't brainwashed into thinking the world was made in 6 days. You know they're laughing at us, right? The people in the other countries. It would be as foolish as if the germans decided the holocaust didn't exist. If 99% of historians say it did and the only ones who deny it are those who happen to be modern day nazies, well it doesn't take a genius to realize who is being brainwashed here.

Way to bring up the nazis and automatically lose the argument, dumb@$$.

By the way, there actually is a sizable segment of Arab scholarship that denies the holocuast. They aren't neo-nazis. It's actually an interesting (and disturbing) phenonenom. The point being: you are not allowed to bring up the Holocaust on an online discussion.

[cuziamthecaptai]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Way to bring up the nazis and automatically lose the argument, dumb@$$.

By the way, there actually is a sizable segment of Arab scholarship that denies the holocuast. They aren't neo-nazis. It's actually an interesting (and disturbing) phenonenom. The point being: you are not allowed to bring up the Holocaust on an online discussion.

heh heh right! what am I demoted to, 3rd private?