Metaphysical Beliefs » education

The teaching of the theory of evolution in schools

admin — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:16:04 +0000

Many scientists are at a loss for words when a lay person presents arguments which question the validity of evolutionary processes. Usually, these arguments fall into one of a few basic categories which highlight the users ignorance of science in general, or evolution in particular. Getting flustered when someone is jeering at you is easy to do, and it’s one of the reasons most scientists refuse to take part in debates on this subject. Learn to recognize these ill-found arguments and politely explain why certain words or assumptions present in the argument require a challenge or further examination. Teachers need to do a better job defining scientists, theories, and why scientists know evolution is real.

Scientist – One who’s education is in a particular scientific field, and who works to further the collective knowledge in that field of study. For example, someone with a degree in biology, but who works in public relations, bookkeeping, or at a bicycle shop is not a scientist. A bicycle shop owner is not working to advance the science of biology. A bachelor of science degree in biology gives one a basic understanding of general principles, and indicates one was able to pass a few tests on the subject. To call oneself a scientist, one must actually work to advance their field of study. Someone who works in a microbiology lab doing cancer research might be a scientist. Someone who studies salamanders or earth worms might be a scientist. Someone who works the lecture circuit for a conservative think-tank is not a scientist, no matter what their degree implies. Educators working to teach science in the K-12 environment aren’t really scientist’s unless they have worked as a scientist in a previous career.

Children must evaluate the credibility of someone lecturing them on evolution. They need to understand that however well-meaning the speaker may be, if they haven’t spent their adult life trying to advance scientific knowledge in some way, they aren’t qualified to evaluate or criticize those who have. Scientists are however, qualified to evaluate certain aspects of metaphysical and spiritual concepts.

A theory is the highest form of scientific understanding. Part of the problem with this word is that it has other meanings in everyday language. We’ve all heard someone say “In theory, this should work.” Sometimes this is spoken moments before a computer program crashes, the garden shed collapses, or a turn of the ignition key fails to start

Should schools be allowed to teach creationism alongside evolution as part of their science curriculum? – Part 2

admin — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 04:21:56 +0000

the arguments against treating Creationism as a true science are mostly around the issue of faith.

The bible states the Living God created the universe and everything in it. He started the stars, formed the land and seas and filled them with creatures. Then He created Man and gave him dominion over the creatures and the Earth.

Scientists say this is too metaphysical, that there is no proof this occurred. To them there is no evidence in the physical record to reflect Creationism as fact.

This might be true but there are equally valid arguments on the other side.

First, there were no unbiased witnesses present at the beginning to prove that it DIDN’T happen the way the bible records it.

Next, the record of existence is subject to interpretation. A scientist who publicly states that the Universe is not as old as accepted is ostracized and sees his funding dry up. That person has bucked the system.

That is THE critical point of the argument. Science requires more faith than religion, requires greater conformity than religion and most telling, is less tolerant of heresy.

Science isn’t infallible. It has changed “facts” thousands of times in my lifetime. New “discoveries” put old theories into the trash. Old evidence is reinterpreted and text books are rewritten. Professors in the past gave expert testimonies about why we will never go to the Moon.

The bible says, “The Universe declares His glory!” and science has never proved it wrong. Around 1934 a man discovered Pluto. God knew it was there all along. Recently, scientists demoted Pluto from planet to something else, planetoid, binary moon, whatever.

God knew what Pluto is long before we built telescopes to look at it.

Science is no more accurate than religion. If a scientist tests the age of something old by radiocarbon dating, he will get a wide range of results. If he gets a number he doesn’t like he discards it and retests. Eventually, he gets the number he likes and publishes his findings as “facts.”

Since Evolution is truly Theoretical and full of holes requiring faith to bridge the gaps, it is no more valid than Creationism. Students should be given a solid grounding in both ands permitted to decide for themselves which is closer to the truth.

Creationism isn’t threatened by science. Is Evolution so weak that it can’t stand up to rational scrutiny?

Should schools be allowed to teach creationism alongside evolution as part of their science curriculum? – Part 1

admin — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:58:13 +0000

Everything important in the Bible, as I understand it, is based on divine revelation from God. There are no theories in the Bible, or any other monotheistic text, because no Monotheistic God ever reveals himself or his creation by the vehicle of theories.

Assuming any being that created the universe doesn’t know how to reveal his own creation appropriately, seems a rather unreasonable assumption. We may not understand why God would utilize revelation and prophets etc., to bring knowledge of himself to the world; but the faithful have to assume that God thought the mechanism of theory, might be a tad inappropriate to groups of people, not in the least acquainted with the normal procedures of empirical science…

One must also remember that “intelligent design,” which is the general form that creation “theory” adheres to, goes back at least as far as Aristotle’s “unmoved mover;”

Its origins were completely metaphysical in nature, utilizing reasoning techniques without experimental verification. therefore, to claim it as an alternative scientific theory, is in fact, historically inaccurate.

Finally: I have seen no movement among the religious community,to share the Big-Bang theory along with Genesis, from the pulpit every Sunday. One would think that the stifling uniformity of belief, engendered by the monopoly of non-materialistic theories in religion, would welcome in an atmosphere of open-minded debate, a materialistic alternative. Seems to me fairness would require it, no matter what God has to say…

Should schools be allowed to teach creationism alongside evolution as part of their science curriculum?

admin — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:11:50 +0000

I shall begin my examination of this subject by assuming the intelligence and honesty (or common sense and fairness) of my audience, without which no debate, court-case or scientific investigation stands much chance of credible outcome. Hopefully, in that environment, logic will speak as we examine the evidence, and truth will emerge.

Most of the heat generated by this question results from a misunderstanding of the real issue. If the “no” side is trying to keep religion out of the science class we have no argument. However, a look at the facts will reveal a shocking surprise.

It is commonly assumed because of their associations, that evolution is scientific, and creationism is merely religious, and that they should therefore be relegated to mutually exclusive disciplines.

It is further assumed that theories, findings or “facts” that qualify as scientific, have been justly accorded that status as a result of successfully weathering the rigorous scrutiny of unbiased, critical examination, by accurate, expert analysis and testing of the processes involved. In other words, these “facts” enjoy the reputation of possessing concrete proof which establishes their invincibility. Conversely, in the popular mind, ideas, beliefs and conclusions about less tangible realities that do not readily lend themselves to physical analysis or measurement, are considered to be metaphysical, ethereal or religious. That is to say, because they lie outside the confines of laboratory methods and tools, they are not capable of physical proof and the prestigious endorsement of science, and must depend on the questionable exercise of faith to defend them.

To many western minds that means religious “truths” are seen to lie in an inferior position when confronted by the unassailable bastions of scientific proof. Faith is often condescendingly smiled upon as the pathetic fortress of the weak and less enlightened classes.

What I propose to demonstrate is that evolutionists have not, do not and can not meet the criteria for claiming to be logical, transparent or scientific. I further intend to show that what is labelled as the “religion” of creationism is, in very fact, an empirical and research-based science. It is far superior to evolution, offering a much more credible explanation of origins and providing a more intellectually satisfying mechanism for speciation and complexity, as seen in the light of the overwhelming evidence now available from DNA research and molecular

The missing ingredient in education

admin — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:33:16 +0000

Learning to Become A Part of the World, Not An Enemy of It

“Quality! Virtue! Dharma! Not pristine “virtue.” But aret: a respect for the wholeness or oneness of life. Before the Church of Reason. Before substance. Before mind and matter. Those first teachers of the Western world were teaching Quality, and the medium they had chosen was that of rhetoric.

…Now he began to see the unbelievable magnitude of what man, when he gained power to understand and rule the world in terms of dialectic truths, had lost. He had built empires of scientific capability to manipulate the phenomena of nature… but for this he had exchanged an empire of understanding of equal magnitude- an understanding of what it is to be a part of the world, and not an enemy of it…”

High school students around the world investigate pragmatic, theoretical, and even metaphysical conflicts such as the later in the course Theory of Knowledge. Since it is central to the educational philosophy of the International Baccalaureate Programme, which aims towards developing of the powers of the mind to operate in various of ways of thinking, this course allows students to explore the nature of knowledge across disciplines, to obtain an appreciation of other cultural perspectives, and to frame their own perspective with international awareness and recognition of the impact of knowledge on the world. To impede students from leaving high school with a non-intellectualizing, non-conceptualizing view of the world and their place in it, Theory of Knowledge courses should become mandatory.

Firstly, making the theory of knowledge course mandatory would be beneficial because by establishing a fusion between two divergent educational traditions, one pragmatic and the other placing importance on philosophy, it encourages reflection, discussion, critical thinking, and awareness of ways in which knowledge is constructed and the implications of knowledge for issues of global concern. Using a philosophical cast of mind students in this course discuss the nature, purposes, strengths and limitations of particular knowledge systems and reflect on knowledge and experience gained inside and outside the classroom. For example, they are encouraged to consider the nature of poetic truth in literature and contrast it to other truths obtained in systems of knowledge such as history, science, and mathematics. By reflecting about knowledge in this way students are led to understand how they know what they know, value the strength and weaknesses of different knowledge systems, an! d develop habits of reflection, which they can bring to other subjects. For these valuable practical purposes this course should become mandatory.

Furthermore, it should become mandatory because it helps students form moral, political, and aesthetic judgments and obtain a greater appreciation of other cultural perspectives. By encouraging students to frame their own views when examining the grounds for judgments that individuals from different cultures and backgrounds make daily, this course leads them to explore various cultural traditions and obtain international awareness about the impact of knowledge on the world; it allows them to come to understand “what it is to be a part of the world, and not an enemy of it.”

Quote from: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values (1974) by the American philosopher Robert M. Pirsig

Comparing the SAT and ACT

admin — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:18:44 +0000

This year, I entered my junior year of high school. Almost everyone I told this to cringed just at the sound; in most high schools, it’s the real push year. Two things are on everyone’s minds: to get grades as high as possible, and to take standardized tests.

I’m a good student and put a lot of hard work into my study, so the first wasn’t necessarily foremost in my mind, because it was something that I was focusing on all the time. However, the issue of standardized tests concerned me. The SATs and the ACTs are SO important on the college application…but which one is valued more? My cousin, a high school college advisor, encouraged me to take both. He said that colleges can get a broader perspective on what kind of student you are if you give them as much testing information as possible. I heeded his advice and made the decision back in November to take both the SATs and the ACTs.

Before taking either test, I admit that I knew almost everything about the SATs and almost nothing about the ACTs. From what others told me, the SATs were “impossibly hard” and the ACTs much more reasonable. The SATs are what my (and most) high schools really focus on as far as college prep. We’d do practice problems for an hour and a half every week in both English and math classes for the entire year so that we’d be adequately prepared. On top of that, I took outside SAT math tutoring for 5 weeks, as the math instruction I’ve gotten in every school I’ve been in for the last 10 years has been pretty shaky. By the time I took the test, I was dissecting literary passages and solving algebra problems in my sleep. All the hard work paid off; my scores were much improved from every practice test I had taken up to that point.

The ACTs, on the other hand, were more of a mystery to me. Besides the math, English, reading and writing section (all of which were par for the course on standardized tests) there was also a science section. While I’ve taken science classes this year, admittedly, it wasn’t very in-depth. I had focused more on the humanities and artistic electives (I’m planning on going to film school and figured that abstract metaphysical theorems weren’t going to be as important in directing films as, say, photography.) The superficial Chemistry and very basic Biology I received in freshman and sophomore years didn’t help at all with the complex Physics and statistics present on the test. I immediately dismissed the idea that the ACTs were more

Spabeautyschools.com Featured School of the Week July 15, 2007: American Institute of Holistic Theology

admin — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:05:37 +0000

Ever wondered why unexplained events happen in the cosmic theme of things? As a distance learning institution, the American Institute of Holistic Theology (AIHT) offers adult learners educational opportunities to earn their Bachelors, Masters or Ph.D. in five separate areas of holistic studies, including divinity, holistic health, holistic ministries, Metaphysics, and parapsychic sciences.

Students pursuing an education in holistic health at AIHT can achieve their degree in as little as 60 hours of study. The holistic health program entails ethical and legal issues surrounding holistic healthcare, stress management, reflexology, prayer, light and music therapy, color therapy, vision therapy, therapeutic Nutrition, introduction to herbology, natural health techniques, and basic macrobiotics. In addition to its bachelor’s and master’s programs in holistic health, the American Institute of Holistic Theology also offers a Doctor of Philosophy program in holistic health where individuals learn about Ayurveda, vibrational and psychic healing, basic techniques in therapeutic touch, Shamanic journeys, transpersonal psychology, crystals and gemstones, advanced herbology, homeopathy, general theology and business management.

Find metaphysical studies fascinating? Then the metaphysics degree programs at AIHT may be right for you. In the metaphysics course, students will learn how to comprehend dreams; an introduction to past-life regression therapy, Edgar Cayce (a renowned prophet), and Jungian psychology (based on Carl Jung’s philosophies); and sound, mind and body healing, among other studies. The American Institute of Holistic Theology’s master’s degree program in metaphysics incorporates an overview of yoga, an introduction to the Kabbalah, the exploration of hypnosis, spiritual healing, meditation, and chakra therapy.

The exploration of near-death experiences (NDE) may be of interest to those drawn to the paranormal. This course of study, as well as esoteric astrology, stars and constellations, introduction to psychic intuition, angel studies, dream interpretation, and other associated subject matter is extended in AIHT’s parapsychic science program.

The American Institute of Holistic Theology conveniently provides five payment options to prospective students, including customized finance plans, as well as interest-free plans. Accredited by the Certification and Accreditation Board of the American Association of Drugless Practitioners (AADP), AIHT graduates have the option to join both the American Holistic Health Association and the American Association of Nutritional Consultants.

SpaBeautySchools.com recognizes the American Institute of Holistic Theology and applauds its dedication to providing comprehensive education in diverse holistic and metaphysical studies. If you would like more information about this unique school, please visit American Institute of Holistic Theology today.

Featured School the Week: American Institute of Holistic Theology

The CollegeBound Network

NOTICE: Article(s) may be republished free of charge to relevant websites, as long as Copyright and Author Resource Box are included; and ALL Hyperlinks REMAIN intact and active.

What to consider when choosing a major

admin — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:36:31 +0000

You should choose a major according to your interests, talents, and abilities.

Because this is also a practical world, with practical money-making needs, you must also consider the practical applications of that major. How can that major be translated into the material world of money-making, if necessary.

You can also have a double major at colleges, which could be a major that is your principle interest and another major that connects you to the practical world.

Intellectual and metaphysical types of majors find that they must have some type of practical work, which is problematic. Usually teaching or writing or businesses that allow them to work as the “idea” people, the creative consultants, the business consultants, etc.

Many people find in the world of work they cannot make use of their majors or their interests.

These are things you must consider.

However, your interests, your talents, your abilities must be first.

Then you can work on how to make practical use of these.

Work-study should be included in the major as a manner of learning how to make practical use of your knowledge. This work can be at the college, and/or you might work in the practical world of work while at college.

This should be something that you also learn in the elementary and high schools. Yes, we need all the intellectual work, the idea work. We also need to know the practical types of work. The types of companies that recognize and work directly with intellectuals and “metaphysical” are great. Few in the world of work recognize thse people without the practical resumes and practical credentials.

Yet again, put your interests, talents, abilities first, then think, along with your mentors, if you have them, how to translates these into the practical world, including the ownership of your own business, which allows you to make use of your major-interests, talents, abilities.

Is competition in school helpful or harmful to the students?

admin — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 06:23:39 +0000

In order to answer this question of how to educate children, with or without competition between pupils, it becomes obvious that society must answer a metaphysical question of “why do we educate our children?” Why educate them in general? We don’t ask why do we educate our children the way we do, before we ask why we do in general. Having first answered the metaphysical “why” we can see that competition is indeed vital to the education of our youth.

Throughout the course of human history we have been learning, improving, inventing and refining the ideas and artifacts that came before. Before the helicopter, there was the airplane. Before that, the glider. Before the compact florescent lightbulb to light our homes, there was the revolutionary incandescent lightbulb, before that, the lantern. There is a constant march forward. Yet, are we at the end of invention? Likely not. At no point in our prior history did we as a species reach the end of what is possible. What has been created to this point is not perfect and perfection is likely unachievable in a terminal sense. Yet, perfection, understood as a normative goal is completely achievable. Normative perfection is understood to be the most invention and the most innovation possible in a given lifetime. How to create a foundation conducive to this normative end?

In order to push forward, one must understand the past. Harry Truman’s legendary aphorism is particularly important here, “Those who do not read and understand history are doomed to repeat it.” This is unbelievably imperative to each citizen in a democracy, as a vote cast in a booth on election day was informed in the classroom and has relevance on the world stage. So, the question is then, does competition help, or hinder the education of our nation’s students?

If we posit that the point of education is to continue as quickly as possible the normative goal of perfection in invention and innovation, both in artifact as well as policy how does competition affect student performance?

Neil Postman, in his work The End of Education, emphasizes that some gods, previously thought infallible, in fact, fail. What if that was the only idea, or god, on the playing field? What if there really were nothing there to fill the void? How would the next idea come along?

In Ayn Rand’s work Anthem, a society developed by committee, without competition finds itself powerfully stifled by inefficiency. The protagonist, euphemistically named Prometheus, finds

Metaphysical Beliefs » education

The teaching of the theory of evolution in schools

Related Articles

Should schools be allowed to teach creationism alongside evolution as part of their science curriculum? – Part 2

Should schools be allowed to teach creationism alongside evolution as part of their science curriculum? – Part 1

Should schools be allowed to teach creationism alongside evolution as part of their science curriculum?

The missing ingredient in education

Comparing the SAT and ACT

Spabeautyschools.com Featured School of the Week July 15, 2007: American Institute of Holistic Theology

Related Articles

What to consider when choosing a major

Related Articles

Is competition in school helpful or harmful to the students?

Related Articles