Study: Majority of muslim students training to be teachers in Germany deny evolution

[Runenwächter]

It simply doesn't makes much sense to focus on one group that denies evolution, when you have another much larger group that denies evolution.

Please do explain how much % you expect before focus should be shifted. Can this % be reached and upon what basis is this expectation considered reasonable?
Since this also eludes me: Why should discussion focus only on one, the numerically biggest, group at the time?

Thats like disregarding black poverty in the US (group most strongly affected) because the majority of poor people are white. It would be inhumane, unethical and ultimately meaningless because different communities require different approaches for what seem to be superficially the same problems. I can only give so many examples for the same argument. Feel free to have your own oppinion about this and thanks for having a conversation with me.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

Then the same should apply to those who believe in evolution. Classes dealing with evolution should never be mandatory. Have them as optional classes.

You guys didn't learn about religion during history class?

[Maximus Testiculos]

Muslims do not care about your science, humanitarian laws or tolerance. They are told they are right no matter what happens even when they sell slaves so dont defend this. They will only ruin your own kids.


[Infracted]

[Thepersona]

Muslims do not care about your science, humanitarian laws or tolerance. They are told they are right no matter what happens even when they sell slaves so dont defend this. They will only ruin your own kids.

And here we learnt that christian conservatives are the same breed as these type of nuslims, to the surprise of no one

[Runenwächter]

You literally called for more authoritarian forms of teaching based on beliefs and religion. Those were your words, if you want proof, just scroll up.

As for discrimination, that is the definition of the word. You may not think it is, but that is exactly what you called for.

This is also why you didn't want to talk abut other countries, or other religions, because you clearly have an agenda in all of this. You didn't like comparisons, because it took away from the narrative you were trying to push.

I see you are stuck in imputation mode. Please let me know when you find the exit, I'll be there to have a conversation when you do.

[JohnBrown1917]

I mean, what do you expect? I'd be more concerned with Mudslimes becoming teachers to indoctrinate students into militant Islam than I would be about them not believing in evolution. Never forget, Islam is more than a religion, it's a political movement whose end goal is to institute Sharia worldwide. It cannot be reasoned with, it must be eradicated.

I mean, what do you expect? I'd be more concerned with white christians becoming teachers to indoctrinate students into militant christianity than I would be about them not believing in evolution. Never forget, roman Catholicism is more than a religion, it's a political movement whose end goal is to institute roman Catholicism worldwide. It cannot be reasoned with, it must be eradicated.

[Etselion]

Muricans and muslims finally agree on something: Jesus and Muhammad rode dinosaurs together.

[Deleted]

Muricans and muslims finally agree on something.

There are actually a lot americans who are muslims. Sorry, if that is new to you.

[micwini]

They need to teach what they are told to teach. What they believe doesn't matter. Frightening to see an increase in muslim teachers though. This could begin a decline of intelligence and education in the west.

[W1sp]

Say what now?
Do you even know what scientific theory means?

The theory of gravity is obviously false, it's just a theory

[Deleted]

Please do explain how much % you expect before focus should be shifted. Can this % be reached and upon what basis is this expectation considered reasonable?
Since this also eludes me: Why should discussion focus only on one, the numerically biggest, group at the time?

Thats like disregarding black poverty in the US (group most strongly affected) because the majority of poor people are white. It would be inhumane, unethical and ultimately meaningless because different communities require different approaches for what seem to be superficially the same problems. I can only give so many examples for the same argument. Feel free to have your own oppinion about this and thanks for having a conversation with me.

I'm not the one who focuses on only 1 group, I see scientific denialism as a problem no matter what religion or lack of religion that person might be. You are the one that for one reason or another wants see the problem only by discussing 1 specific group, even though the problem is universal.
Let me quote you:

"It is hard for me to find socially acceptable words for the feelings of disappointment and worry I feel when I think what such a generation of people who strive to become educators and people in positions of relative power and influence over youth means for the future of my country and the civilisation I live in as a whole."

If that's what you are worried about, you should mostly be worried about the christian evolution deniers because they are more than 3x as many as the muslim evolution deniers, but you are worried about the muslims...

[darkwarrior42]

As long as you evolution believers keep referring to it properly as a "theory", its all good.

Educated Christians believe in "micro-evolution" but not macro. Yes, things adapt and modify to their surroundings. But under no circumstance did a beetle evolve into a hawk or a crab evolve into a person.

Sadly for you, the word "theory" when used to describe a scientific theory (such as the theory of gravitation) doesn't mean what you think it means. There are a lot of different ways of explaining how it's used, but ultimately, a "scientific theory" isn't a guess, or a hope, or something we're not sure about; it's a model and an explanation, and more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Has some good discussion, including quotes from outside sources. My favorite is the one from the United States National Academy of the Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed

So yes, we will properly refer to it as a scientific theory, and you will wrongly assume that means it's somehow less factual and continue to substitute personal opinion and belief for fact and evidence.

[Thepersona]

The theory of gravity is obviously false, it's just a theory

Also the theory of relativity is not proven, it could be false (apart from all of the times that it was proven true)

[Machismo]

I see you are stuck in imputation mode. Please let me know when you find the exit, I'll be there to have a conversation when you do.

You are denying that you said something that you said. You are not even ready to have a conversation about your own words...

You claim to want to push more authoritarian forms of education for certain students. That is discrimination, go look up the definition of the word. I cannot talk to you, if you don't understand the basic meaning of words. Heck, I'll chalk it up to a language barrier. If that's the case, maybe you should try having this conversation in your native tongue, or on a German forum. As it stands, you are clearly trying to say something, then get upset when we bring up exactly what you are trying to say.

[Deleted]

Also the theory of relativity is not proven, it could be false (apart from all of the times that it was proven true)

But it was proven.

http://www.ubspectrum.com/article/20...-of-relativity

[Thepersona]

But it was proven.

http://www.ubspectrum.com/article/20...-of-relativity

I know, i was trying to be sarcastic to all of the stupid creationist who cabt understand what does theory mean in the scientific verse

[Flurryfang]

It is kind of wierd really. As a teacher, you have ALOT of power over how children evolve and grow up. Even if you are not a biology teacher, you will still get questions about everything. If you get asked in class "i have some questions about our teachers use of evolution", you can't have a teacher go to their religious beliefs and say "Well fuck all that. I personally believe that human evolution is a lie and my great god would never work like that. So don't worry Timmy, you are not a monkey".

[Jotaux]

Except nothing you've just said is actually true. I know, it's hard for dumbass liberals to keep emotion out of debate, but at least try. Put your big girl pants on, you can do it. Even if what you said was applicable at one time, hundreds of years ago, what's linear time? Derp. Try to keep up, you're outclassed.

You would be very surprised by how the demographics of terrorist acts in the US turns out.

[JohnBrown1917]

Except nothing you've just said is actually true. I know, it's hard for dumbass liberals to keep emotion out of debate, but at least try. Put your big girl pants on, you can do it. Even if what you said was applicable at one time, hundreds of years ago, what's linear time? Derp. Try to keep up, you're outclassed.

Except nothing you've just said is actually true. I know, it's hard for christians to keep emotion out of debate, but at least try. Put your priest robes on, you can do it. Even if what you said was applicable at one time, hundreds of years ago, what's linear time?


p.s I'm not a liberal

[Runenwächter]

I'm not the one who focuses on only 1 group, I see scientific denialism as a problem no matter what religion or lack of religion that person might be. You are the one that for one reason or another wants see the problem only by discussing 1 specific group, even though the problem is universal.
Let me quote you:

"It is hard for me to find socially acceptable words for the feelings of disappointment and worry I feel when I think what such a generation of people who strive to become educators and people in positions of relative power and influence over youth means for the future of my country and the civilisation I live in as a whole."

If that's what you are worried about, you should mostly be worried about the christian evolution deniers because they are more than 3x as many as the muslim evolution deniers, but you are worried about the muslims...

But not one word in the sentence even implies that. The conversation naturally turned towards the group these attitudes are most strongly represented in, not the group that is numerically the largest. Especially when I phrased it as an "influx of people with attitudes like these". Obviously this refers to influx of people with anti-science bias into education, not immigration as a general topic although the two are undoubtedly strongly related. I think I mentioned this in a reply to someone else, the data in this study is very unlikely to include any people that have arrived as refugees in 15/16 (a popular hot topic) and have neither the knowledge of the german language or qualifications to attend university. Rather this data represents attitudes found in students who live here as the maybe 3rd or 4the generation, which is the reason I find this so particularly worrying.

I made a point where different groups need different approaches to attain a single common goal, I think I reached you with that one at least.