Cyprus-Forum.com

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Sun May 27, 2012 1:40 am

bill cobbett wrote:
Bananiot wrote:Here, a biologist tells us that teaching evolution is tantamount to indoctrination. What's the difference Bill?

All three of us are scientists koumbare, sciences based on evidence from such things as repeatable experiments and observations and building on these through logical reasoning on the results to reach some conclusions, so that we might get a better description of the world around us. A better description cos Science, unlike doctrine, is and always will be a work in progress and there will always be refinements to theories to get better descriptions...

If we follow this then scientific method can't therefore be a doctrine cos science is inherently open to change with the results of new experiments and observations, with old theories thrown out and new theories which offer better descriptions than current ones adopted, so it really is a nonsense to claim it as a doctrine.

Scientific theories change, doctrines don't.

Spot on, bill.

Reinventing the wheel, he fears? Clearly, he has never had to do Nuffield Chemistry!

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Sun May 27, 2012 1:44 am

Bananiot wrote:Here, a biologist tells us that teaching evolution is tantamount to indoctrination. What's the difference Bill?

Your level of understanding is why I don't think the average high school biology teacher is capable of teaching evolution. You seem incapable of grasping the necessity for a good foundation base of knowledge. Without that, you are asking people to have "faith" in what you say, rather than infer from the evidence.

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Sun May 27, 2012 1:55 am

Bananiot wrote:So, we should teach the basics, and let them invent the wheel from the beginning, for the fear of being accused (by whom?) of indoctrinating our pupils. This is basically your contribution in this thread. I take it you are all for Noah's ark example of how to preserve biodiversity too. Then again, the thousands of pupils that do not choose biology as their major, I suppose they have to make do with Adam and Eve, which has nothing to do with indoctrination, I suppose. And if someone cannot understand the second law of thermodynamics, or gravity or any other physical law, we should hand him/her gift-wrapped to the creationists to mess up their short lives for good.

What's wrong with squaring the circle?

The reality is that I don' give a monkeys if Mr and Mrs Average believe in Adam and Eve or Apollo and Aphrodite. I don't have to know how to change a car wheel thingy. I phone a man who can. For most careers and everyday situations it's irrelevant. What's more important is the respect of human rights and animal rights, as appropriate. You don't have to have a Ph.D. in quantum physics to be a social being - the Church can tell you how to behave in a humane and respectful way, just as well.

by **Bananiot** » Sun May 27, 2012 7:50 am

So, evolution shouldn't be taught to Cypriot students because the "average" high school biology teacher cannot teach it and this can lead to accusations of indoctrination. Since GIG considers the teaching of science to be tantamount to indoctrination (for a manufactured reason) I would ask her if she is prepared to go public on this. A public debate at one of Cyprus's academic institutions would be ideal and I cannot see any problems in arranging it. Are you in on this one Bill?

by **Anna_gr** » Sun May 27, 2012 8:18 am

Well I think indoctrination works the other way and it usually involves religion. This is the case in Greece as well.

The Education System has a responsibility to teach proven Scientific facts to students. Religion can be obtained by those who desire it from a Sunday liturgy.

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Sun May 27, 2012 11:15 am

Bananiot wrote:So, evolution shouldn't be taught to Cypriot students because the "average" high school biology teacher cannot teach it and this can lead to accusations of indoctrination. Since GIG considers the teaching of science to be tantamount to indoctrination (for a manufactured reason) I would ask her if she is prepared to go public on this. A public debate at one of Cyprus's academic institutions would be ideal and I cannot see any problems in arranging it. Are you in on this one Bill?

Bananiot, there are many who believe the basics should be taught thoroughly and primarily to avoid indoctrination (you still have not understood the simple difference in 'attitude' which is in danger of damaging the scientific approach). If children are taught to think and question and given the results of experimentation and discovery - they would receive in this way the building blocks to draw their own conclusions. This is the basis of the Nuffied Foundation science teachings and nothing to do with me and bill - from my experience, decades ago, this was how Chemistry was taught (in some schools). I found it really hard at the time and just wanted the "right" answers. But it taught me to question rather than accept as gospel any pre-formed theories. It became my preferred approach later in life - not a smooth ride.

Years later I also had to read Karl Popper; he pretty much expressed the scientific method (bill, c. reminded me).

by **bsharpish** » Sun May 27, 2012 11:31 am

Absolute answers are dangerous whatever your stance on the whole creation/evolution debate.

I'm a confirmed sceptic who ,in general, leans towards the scientific answer........ However -

Demonstrate to me empirical evidence for pools of hydrocarbons,amino acids and other assorted "gloop" suddenly transforming into DNA carrying, self replicating, chromosome bearing life.

Show me the "missing link" - even the "celebrity" finds ( Turkana boy , Lucy , zinj and ardi) are approximately 50% complete with most others comprising a few parts of the skull and the odd longbone ...... It's been postulated that the entire "catalogue" of hominid remains would not fill the back of a 20 year old "mountain village double cab"

This is probably due to the fact - that we evolved from a non dominant ( in the modern sense) species with a small population PLUS we don't fossilise that well.

I'm in no way suggesting that evolution does not occur, nor that the earth is approximately 5700-10000 years old ( silly sky pixie believers) - what I'm trying it say is that science should not preclude the fact that it may not have all the answers YET, god may exist and there is room for people to have " faith" ...... I'd add I don't

Or do I

ON A SIDE NOTE

read the bill bryson book - A short history of Nearly everything as a start on your route to scepticism , then move on to the Lack of consensus on climate change , take A sneak peak at the lack of calibration curves for carbon dating ( the lack of calibration data past 26-50000 years introduces dramatic errors ...... Would you regard anything with an error marging above 15% as a valid method of measurement) and issues regarding Cosmic radiation and natural " sinks" of carbon 14.

Again I'm not suggesting that science is wrong..... Just that the "little fellows in white lab coats" often go from A to C skipping B or determine that 1 + Y = 10 therefore .........Y must equal 9 ( which it must) however it could be the square root of 97 - 43 \ 2 x 3 ....... Where ,In this context, 97 may the be the data that's important.... If you catch my gist .