4th Grade Quiz in SC

[Chimera]

I wonder which group of stupid people numbers more: those who believe "this stuff," or 9/11 truthers

[R0CKnR0LLA]

I know for a fact that dinosaurs lived with people because I have a pet velociraptor.

What? You guys don't have one?

[Happy Panther]

I know for a fact that dinosaurs lived with people because I have a pet velociraptor.

That is what my wife calls her massive dildo.

[cookinwithgas]

[PhillyB]

[Cat]

I wonder which group of stupid people numbers more: those who believe "this stuff," or 9/11 truthers

46 % of Americans believe young earth creationism according to a June 2012 Gallup poll

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

This specific test might be fake but believe me when I say this stuff is quite common.

[Chimera]

46 % of Americans believe young earth creationism according to a June 2012 Gallup poll

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

This specific test might be fake but believe me when I say this stuff is quite common.

that poll has nothing to do with what Mr. Ham believes.

Surely you can understand the difference between the belief in human creation, and the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old?

e: sorry, what Mr. Ham teaches. I'm not so sure he actually believes it.

[Cat]

that poll has nothing to do with what Mr. Ham believes.

Surely you can understand the difference between the belief in human creation, and the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old?

e: sorry, what Mr. Ham teaches. I'm not so sure he actually believes it.

You didn't read it did you? Read it again

46% believe "God created human beings pretty much in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so"

[Chimera]

You didn't read it did you? Read it again

46% believe "God created human beings pretty much in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so"

yes i read it.

One thing i couldn't read, however, were the actual questions. I only read the mobile page; maybe that link is on the full page?

Gallup isn't above putting a little bias in it's questions.

[pstall]

when does the actual, accurate age of the earth come into play on a practical level?

[PhillyB]

when does the actual, accurate age of the earth come into play on a practical level?

on a practical level you have people legislating to teach religious mythology of the earth's age in public school science classes.

on a practical level you have private/christian schools denying children the ability to think critically and analyze data with the scientific method.

on a practical level breaking open the bible as interpretive rather than concrete and literal (which is what understanding genesis as a literary framework does) also calls into question a great many mores extrapolated as a mosaic cosmogony and the impact in legislating morality is far and wide.

[pstall]

does the % wanting to teach "religious mythology" create such a watershed moment that its a tipping point that bismirches practicality?

every day schools at times impede critical thinking outside of the young earth stuff as well. some teachers are better than others at allowing open mindedness instead of group think. which many schools fall into a trap of. no matter their leanings.

anytime you have the book of Genesis to look at you are going to have that battle of literalism to contend with. ironically,the first and last book of the bible get equal treament/consternation on the lense its viewed within.

this is why i have always said when it comes to evolution or intelligent design, you either do both or none. honestly, based on how bad most kids are at in the basics of education and reading comprehension etc, it seems that there is more diminishing returns on either subject. not saying kids can't learn to be objective when the topic is taught, rather, it seems that if we can help kids truly master the basics, the ability to teach the more hot button issues should be a breeze.

the book Outliers talks about i think like 10k hours on a subject or doing it is a barometer of you fully mastering that topic.

[PhillyB]

this is why i have always said when it comes to evolution or intelligent design, you either do both or none.

wait are you saying if a school won't teach intelligent design (an untestable philosophy in a science class where the underlying methodology is testability) that they shouldn't be allowed to teach evolution either?

i don't want to comment on how mind-meltingly idiotic that is if it's not what you're actually saying. please correct me

[lightsout]

does the % wanting to teach "religious mythology" create such a watershed moment that its a tipping point that bismirches practicality?

every day schools at times impede critical thinking outside of the young earth stuff as well. some teachers are better than others at allowing open mindedness instead of group think. which many schools fall into a trap of. no matter their leanings.

anytime you have the book of Genesis to look at you are going to have that battle of literalism to contend with. ironically,the first and last book of the bible get equal treament/consternation on the lense its viewed within.

this is why i have always said when it comes to evolution or intelligent design, you either do both or none. honestly, based on how bad most kids are at in the basics of education and reading comprehension etc, it seems that there is more diminishing returns on either subject. not saying kids can't learn to be objective when the topic is taught, rather, it seems that if we can help kids truly master the basics, the ability to teach the more hot button issues should be a breeze.

the book Outliers talks about i think like 10k hours on a subject or doing it is a barometer of you fully mastering that topic.

When it comes to evolution or creationism, you do whichever is an accepted scientific theory. You don't teach kids that evolution is as likely as creationism or vice versa. If there were ANY shred of evidence that has been peer reviewed and published and accepted in the scientific community, then MAYBE you would make sense there. However, that is not the case. You don't teach kids, when educating them in science, that an idea that is believed and could be possible (given evidence for the existence of the extraordinary claim that a supernatural being exists) is as likely as ACTUAL science. That is nonsense. Why not teach them that the sun is kept so hot because dragons that live in space breathe fire on it? Using your argument, when it comes to the science that explains the sun, you either teach both nuclear fusion of hydrogen and helium as well as fire-breathing dragons, or nothing at all.

The only reason why people don't accept evolution is because they think evolution means that their god isn't necessary. In my opinion, right, because god is not a necessary element, but you can rationalize it into your religious beliefs (I know plenty of people that do). Also, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution from all the anti-evolution crowd that I've come across. This is why it should be taught. People misunderstand science and think that science is "just another belief".