They want to forget Darwin ... [help]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Giaguara

Chmod 760
Staff member
Mod
http://www.repubblica.it/speciale/2004/appelli/scuola2/index_eng.html :

New school programme detrimental to scientific culture

The new teaching programs developed for secondary schools do not include Darwin's "Theory of Evolution".
This means that subjects such as "The Evolution of the Earth", "The Evidence of Life on Earth" "Structure, Function and Evolution of Living Organisms" and "The Biological and Cultural Evolution of Mankind" aren't taught any more to boys and girls aged 13-14.

In the new programme, established by legislative decree on February 19th 2004, there is no trace of the history of man's evolution nor of the relationship between mankind and other species. Ignoring the theory of evolution is a cultural limitation sacrificing the scientific curiosity of youth. It's unquestionably fair to point out that Darwinism and the theories that derived from it show gaps and unsolved problems, but the link between the past and the present of mankind shoudn't be completely ignored. We urge therefore the Italian Ministry of Education to review the secondary school's programmes and to rectify an oversight which is detrimental to the scientific culture of the new generations.

You can sign in that link. I think it is amazing they thought about removing the theory of evolution in the Italian schools. :eek:
La Repubblica is (as I've probalby said too many times) the biggest newspaper in Italy, and so far this thing has nearly 40,000 signatures. Would you like to sign? The move people sign, the more likely the politicians are to figure out that it was not a smart move.
 
Yea. As you are American you are International and Important Person as you care about what they teach in Italy. ;)
 
Ok, I signed.

I think. (I entered my name etc., but the links were, naturally, in Italian. I hope I clicked 'submit' and not 'cancel'.)
 
I've never understood the reasoning for not teaching eveultion. If they aren't teaching it because the don't belive in eveultion, then why are they teaching the current atomic structor? (I'm asumming that they teach them the same things in Italy that they do over here.)

I mean, get down to the sub atomic level, and those therorys fall apart, but the teach it anyways because it is the easyest way for people to even start to grasp it. I find it interesting that they pick and choose what 'flawed' theorys they teach.

(I signed, incase you can't tell. :p )
 
I find this idea rather perplexing.I was under the impression Europeans were more forward thinking than this.Yes this is in Italy I know with a different set of sensibilities than other members of the EU.With that said isn't it likely to assume that educational standards across all the members of the Union will eventually lead to a cirriculum handed down from the headquarters of the EU.How else can you have a hegemony?
 
The Italian Ministry of Education thinks that teaching Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" in secondary schools is too hard to students aged 13-14 ...

Now I think: now it's too hard!, but when I was 13-14 it was not??? :confused:

Byez :cool:
 
From 'Dictionary.com':

This word is employed by English writers in a very loose and improper sense. It is with them usually convertible into hypothesis, and hypothesis is commonly used as another term for conjecture. The terms theory and theoretical are properly used in opposition to the terms practice and practical. In this sense, they were exclusively employed by the ancients; and in this sense, they are almost exclusively employed by the Continental philosophers.'' --Sir W. Hamilton.

Evolution is, in fact, a theory in this sense:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

So next time you hear someone deride evolution as a "mere theory" point out that:

A) they don't know what "theory" actually means and
B) creationism does not even rise to the standard of a "theory".
 
Even most of the explanations or .. well, theories in Physics and every otehr science are theories as well. The atom is composed so and so - and one day they will find a new particle in the atom that untill know has been unknown. It may or may not change the theory.

I think the evolution theory is pretty simple. And does not go to so many details either.

Today's Repubblica had a news about this topic (here) in Italian, but basically the minister (Moratti) of schools and universities is saying that they will continue to study the evolution theory again "back from the elementary school". In a few days the online appeal has / had got over 44,000 votes.
 
Giaguara said:
I think the evolution theory is pretty simple. And does not go to so many details either.
I think the evolution theory is pretty simple too: mathematically impossible.
 
I think the evolution theory is pretty simple too: mathematically impossible.
That's a pretty interesting statement coming from someone who believes god is one and three at the same time ... ;) :D
 
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate....It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect ...higher intelligences...even to the limit of God...such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific." (Sir Fred Hoyle, well-known British mathematician, astronomer and cosmologist)
Well, Sir Fred Hoyle was an athiest.

If you believe in evolution, you do not have to believe in the Bible or supernatural things. There is a scientific way to explain everything. So do the math.

A (Bible-believing) Christian's beliefs are in stark contrast to the athiest who does not believe in silly things angels or demons, or God or a soul. I believe nature to be the "normal" way God intended the universe to run. However, since I can rationally conclude that God exists, I have no problem believing that God might use supernatural things to get his point across.

I think I can make a pretty good case that the Bible is incompatible with evolution, but I'd be wasting my breath on anybody who categorically dismisses the Bible as myths and legends.
 
brianleahy said:
I just read your blog, and I think it's pretty well thought out. However, I think I can turn the tables on you a little bit:

Take Bible prophecy: Prophecy is one of the Bible's greatest testimonies to its truth. By nature, prophecy is supernatural. When one is stumbled across in the scripture today, the scientific method becomes unsuitable, and other explanations must be given. How many times do liberal theologians change the traditional date of a book based on the seeming impossibilty of what is read?

I don't have specific examples, but no doubt you would have no problem adjusting the dates of a prophecy to after the foretold event occurred, because of course a man could not have predicted it. He must have made it up!

Well, I logically believe in supernatural things so I don't have a problem with supernatural ideas. This is the core of my belief system. The core of your belief system does not include supernatural things.
 
MDLarson said:
If you believe in evolution, you do not have to believe in the Bible or supernatural things. There is a scientific way to explain everything. So do the math.

I don't think this is true. You can believe the Bible without taking it literally word for word. Just because you don't agree with everything Genesis says doesn't mean that you don't take the rest of the Bible seriously.
And even if you take a Creationist's stand, that doesn't mean you don't take the idea of evolution too. After all, the theory (or not, now) of evolution has been all but 'mathematically proven' :)D)

A (Bible-believing) Christian's beliefs are in stark contrast to the athiest who does not believe in silly things angels or demons, or God or a soul. I believe nature to be the "normal" way God intended the universe to run. However, since I can rationally conclude that God exists, I have no problem believing that God might use supernatural things to get his point across.

I think I can make a pretty good case that the Bible is incompatible with evolution, but I'd be wasting my breath on anybody who categorically dismisses the Bible as myths and legends.

I think the Bible is more of a set of guidelines (to paraphrase Jack Sparrow) than actual fact.
If 'nature', then, is the 'normal' way, why cannot 'nature' contain evolution? It seems 'natural' to me.
And I would very much like to hear your case against evolution, using the Bible as a base. :)
 
I was wondering MDLarson do you take the Bible literally? I mean for example an actual hand of God literally comes out of the sky to smite someone.A manifestation that all people can see with their physical eyes.
 
Well, I agree the Bible is incompatible with evolution. There's no need to argue that. You would be wasting your breath, though not for the reasons you give.

The thrust of my argument is that when science and the bible butt heads, science must win, and that not even the very pious can make a cogent rebuttal of this idea. Science stands as a direct and ongoing inquiry of the universe (which tradition holds is God's direct handiwork) and no ancient book, however cherished, can hope to compete as an accurate representation of truth.

I do not categorically dismiss the entirety of the Bible; there are things in the Bible that are clearly true, are that are supported by other sources, and even do well under scientific scrutiny. The reason that (unless you are a devoted bible scholar) you don't hear about these parts more often is that nobody argues about them! There's no controversy there, so they don't make the news.

Being partly true proves little, though. The film "Amadeus" is partly true, but contains large doses of exaggeration, speculation and outright fabrication. Even so, the movie contains some valid, worthwhile messages (in this case, the dangers of envy and obsession.) My opinion is that all of this can also be said of the Bible. That is, of course, only my opinion, but I can't imagine - (unless you further suppose that God personally oversaw every word in every edition in every version of the Bible from first to latest) how you can call that anything but inevitable.

You are correct though, Hoyle was an athiest, thanks for catching my error. I am familiar with Hoyle's challenge, and welcome it. His arguments don't impress me because most of them are what author Richard Dawkins termed "The Argument from Personal Incredulity". Hoyle finds the likelihood of life arising by chance to be "absurd" and refers time and again about his own difficulty in accepting the various tenets of evolutionary theory.

This frankly says as much about Hoyle's knowledge, vision and imagination as it does about the subject he is discussing. It is incredibly difficult (and for Hoyle it seems, impossible) for the human mind to grasp the scope of the time over which evolution operates, and to appreciate the scale of the parallelism (to borrow a computer term) at which it functions. Consider also how only a single success is required, amongst the (billions of years * millions of chemical reactions per year * quadrillions of parallel instances at once) that took place in the primordial oceans.

Speaking personally, I have no trouble believing in those odds at all. You clearly feel differently, as is your right.
 
As for Bible prophecy? Well not to be too argumentative, but if you can't produce examples **I** sure as heck can't help you there.

As I have said, I tend to think of the Bible as myth, but the actual CASE I have made is that it when the Bible contradicts the testimony of the universe itself, it can't win. While I don't put personal stock in Bible prophecies, I have not (at this point) tried to argue against them.

And if some of them have come true, (by whatever means, be it luck or divine inspiration) I would again cite the "Amadeus" example of my earlier post -- partially true does not preclude also being partially fiction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top