Home -> Study Table Design -> Kids Study Table Design -> How does our current Darwinism teachings not hinder science?

How does our current Darwinism teachings not hinder science?

Read all of this before replying. I am not sawing Darwinism is bad nor am I saying that IT is what hinders scientific progress. Darwinism is completely legit and I believe it should be taught in schools. Just so you don't jump to any conclusions. Science is like a market, just like the economy. It, in a sense, "struggles" for people to believe in it. Wonder why religion dominated many olden countries and still many today? Because religion was the only thing that was taught. You believed something else, off with your head. This did hinder the progress of science, but not because of the fact that it was religion, but because of something called "indoctrination." Indoctrination can be defined as "teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically." This is when people are taught to believe something rather than being allowed to think make logically decisions for themselves. Okay, so you may be thinking, "if you believe indoctrination is the problem, then how do we fix it?" Easy. Like I said, science is like a market. Rather than indoctrinating people of one wing of science, you teach them a bunch. So different scientists who believe in different wings of science will, in a sense, "struggle" to improve their scientific evidence and theories in order to get people to believe theirs over others. Darwinism actually brought a great thing to the table. It brought competition towards Creationism. This forced Creationists to become more scientific in order to keep people on their sides. And, interestingly enough, they have. Despite you being indoctorinated to believe that "the Creation Model has no science," it actually does, and a decent amount of it. ICR is a good institution that studies Creation science. http://www.icr.org/ But the problem is, Darwinism has stopped competing with the science of Creationism completely. It just completely skipped over it. Now, you may say, "60% of people in the US still believe in God, so you're wrong." How many of those 60% of people could actually back their beliefs with science? Probably 2% at most. When it comes to the education industry, Darwinism is the monopoly. And monopolies in businesses lead to the ability to be cheap and slack in their research because the know that people will only come to them. And let me ask you a question of logic. The earliest writings of humans goes back thousands of years. The earliest writing found is 5,500 years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/334517.stm So, let me ask you. In 5500 years, only one man managed to come up with a competing theory to Creationism. Only one man. Charles Darwin. 5500 - 2013 = 3487. So it took humans about 3500 years to go from writing to a competitive theory towards Creationism. And let's say Charles really got his theory going around in about 1842. 2013 - 1842 = 171. So, the theory in itself has only existed for 171 years. 171 / 5500 x 100 = 3.11 Only 3.11% of our entire history of writing actually includes the study of Darwinism. Are you trying to tell me that Darwinism is the only credible scientific study that can ever be conjured by man? Are you insane? Now don't give me the argument that "I can't think of anything as good as Darwinism so there must not be anything better." It took MILLENNIUMS for people to go from writing to Darwinism. Are you seriously going to tell me that YOU have the intelligence of all those scientists and philosophers across those 5500 years? Darwinism as we know it was worked on by plenty of scientists. You don't even have their intellect, because new major discoveries require the work of many, many scientists throughout many years. I can guarantee you that if we allowed competition in the science field that we would see a new scientific study for the origin of man to arise. Allowing things like Creation SCIENCE (NOT theology) to be taught along with Evolutionary Science creates competition and drives the force of both of the studies and improves upon both of them. And if a new credible belief arises from this, then we should allow that to compete as well. We need not to indoctrinate our children and should allow them to hear all of the facts and come to a conclusion themselves. And don't give me that crap that "Creation has no valid science" or "Evolution is fact." That just shows that you are ignorant to both studies. Please. be open-minded and research both and decide yourself. @Josheph What the hell are you talking about? Ancient and modern scientists? What the hell? >"Finally, science should be objective and not agenda based like you want." ... Isn't that what you are promoting? Indoctorinating science? That's no difference than a religious cult country. Creationism, like I PROVED with my link to ICR, has plenty of modern science behind it. You cannot deny that without proving yourself to be a narrow-minded bigot. That is a solid fact. @Freethinking Liberal Please become Freethinking and don't disregard mountains of evidence simply because you are bigoted. You do not understand anything about science. I have proven my point with facts and evidence that are IRREFUTABLE. You and everyone who liked you up are no different than religious cults. You behead anyone who posts evidence against your religion. It's disgusting that you people would throw away science and fact that does not support your "agenda" and then have the freaking gall to claim to be a scientists! It's disgusting and insulting to me majoring in Chemistry myself. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528756/science

Details:

  1. "And don't give me that crap that "Creation has no valid science" or "Evolution is fact." That just shows that you are ignorant to both studies. Please. be open-minded and research both and decide yourself." Sorry, by making that statement, you completely invalidate anything you have said because any person who has studied both Creationism and evolution with an open mind cannot but come up with the answers: "Creation has no valid science" and "Evolution is fact." Either that or they do not understand the first thing about science. suggest you read and learn something about science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
  2. Firstly, modern science is a culmination of most previous science and philosophy. Secondly, you are neglecting the obvious advantage modern scientists have over all of the ancient ones combined -TECHNOLOGY! There is no question that the modern scientist knows more about the world than any ancient scientist or philosopher! Finally, science should be objective and not agenda based like you want.
  3. Thanks for your comprehensive, relevant, and compelling thoughts on the issue of Origin of Life and Evolutionary Theory. It's a shame that scientific orthodoxy would rather indoctrinate students instead of teaching them to think critically for themselves. You might appreciate Dr. Rebecca W. Keller's thoughts. She incorporated Intelligent Design concepts in her Real Science 4 Kids curriculum which she developed and she had this to say: “In the sciences, let’s teach what we know, and admit what we do not actually know. Let’s train children to explore authentic inquiry, evaluate the evidence, and decide for themselves what conclusions they might draw. There is nothing more important for children studying science than to learn to ask ‘What if?’ and then to be free to follow the data wherever it leads.” AND I believe intellectual freedom fuels scientific discovery. If we, as scientists are not allowed to question, ponder, explore, and critically evaluate all areas of science but forced to comply with current scientific orthodoxy then we are operating in a mode completely antithetical to the very nature of science." Dr. Rebecca Keller, Biophysical Chemistry Cheers to you for Academic Freedom! :)

Content Source