The battle for the teaching of Evolution in schools heats up

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say we had to teach Creationism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't say it directly, but then why did you say "Doesn't excluding Creationism from being taught amount to limiting peoples' choices?"


Anyway, the point is that everything in science is a theory. Nothing is 100% certian, but we do not go out of our way to put a disclaimer before every single science lesson. The theory that evolution has occurred is as certain as the theory that mass is attracted to other mass. There is no reason to make a special exception for evolution that requires a disclaimer that it is just a theory.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't say it directly, but then why did you say "Doesn't excluding Creationism from being taught amount to limiting peoples' choices?"

[/ QUOTE ]
I was responding to a post that said offering the theory of evolution is giving people choice and pointing out the irony that that poster wished to exclude the choices of others. I wasn't taking a position on it.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, the point is that everything in science is a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. If something has been proven, it is a law. Like the laws of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason to make a special exception for evolution that requires a disclaimer that it is just a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is if most of the people in our country believe in Creationism. I don't agree that Creationism should be taught in science class along with the theory of evolution, but that doesn't mean we should teach this theory as if it were a law. It isn't.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The theory of evolution is just that. A theory. It isn't a proven fact. It isn't a law. We don't have to teach every theory out there. Just make sure kids learning about evolution realize that this isn't necessarily the way the world works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong - in all counts. (Ah, where does one begin with conservative ignorance? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

1. Every state of human knowledge in History represents the march towards the ultimate knowledge, i.e. the knowledge of everything. (Note that reaching the state of ultimate knowledge is not considered as a certainty or even a possibility. That fact does not detract from the query.)

2. Every such state is reached through and inside a combination of social conditions, prevalent political ideology, prejudices, and, yes, scientific knowledge - grounded to an extent on past achievements.

3. Some times knowledge acquired in the past is completely discarded, due to newer findings or theories. This does not detract from the query, either.

4. The current state of human knowledge is not perfect and we know it.

5. Physics, Biology, Archaeology/Palaeontology, Astronomy, and the rest of the sciences provide us currently with a state of knowledge that is based on theory, findings and experiments. (In other words, the contention that "Evolution" --there is no such scientific field by the way-- is "just a theory" is severely uninformed.)

6. Although, our current state of human knowledge regarding the Cosmos is not perfect, it is, by far, more robustly constructed and proven, in scientific terms, than any serious alternative. ("Creationism", like most beliefs outlined in religious texts does not qualify as a serious alternative.)

7. For all intents and purposes, we have reached a state of knowledge about "how the world works" and we have a moral obligation to transfer that state of knowldge to our children as best as we can. (The implicit hope is that the children will grow up and carry that knowledge further. Maybe even discard most tenets of our knowledge.)

There's a ton of arguments that could be opened up here about the human educational system itself, but, please, let's not digress.

...In conclusion, there is as much place to teach Creationism in a school of science as there is place to teach Painting in a school for the blind.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. If something has been proven, it is a law. Like the laws of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between things that are called laws and things that are called theories is meaningless. A law is not necessarily more correct than a theory and nothing can be proven absolutely.

It is interesting that you mention the laws of gravity. For hundreds of years physicists accepted Newton's "law" of gravitation which said that F = Gm1m2/r^2. However, in the 20th century is was proven that this "law" breaks down for very large masses and short distances. Einstein's "theory" of general relativity has replaced Newton's "law" of gravitation. Thus, the fact that something is referred to as a theory rather than a law means nothing. Furthermore, even though all scientists accept Einstein's theory of general relativity, no scientist would ever say that the theory is 100% certain to be correct.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong - in all counts. (Ah, where does one begin with conservative ignorance? )

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, that was a waste of time. There was nothing ignorant about what I said. All I've said is that the Theory of Evolution is just what it says it is.

[ QUOTE ]
In conclusion, there is as much place to teach Creationism in a school of science as there is place to teach Painting in a school for the blind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please quote me saying anything to the contrary. In fact, I believe I said as much by saying that I don't think Creationism should be taught in science class.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
the·o·ry
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
law
n.
12. A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.

[/ QUOTE ]
If there were no differences between laws and theories, than why use these different terms?

Here's an interesting article I found while poking around the internet. Most applicable to the current discussion would be this part:
[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionists bristle at the accusation that evolution is ‘just a theory,’ not a fact. Indeed, this is the very first example of ‘creationist nonsense’ that Scientific American lists and answers in its ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.’

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain. [SA 79]

Unfortunately, some creationists actually do argue that ‘evolution is just a theory.’ What they usually mean is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ (Therefore, that is what they should say.) The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s theory of relativity and Newton’s theory of gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

Scientific American’s comments about the scientific study of subatomic particles, however, miss the point—these cloud chamber experiments are still observations in the present and are repeatable. A dinosaur turning into a bird 150 Ma (million years ago) is neither observable in real time, directly or indirectly, nor repeatable. Chapter 1 of this book explained this confusion about the difference between ‘operational science’ and ‘origins science.’

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I'm saying. Evolution is a theory, not a proven fact, so don't promote it as a fact.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
There was nothing ignorant about what I said. All I've said is that the Theory of Evolution is just what it says it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah ...nope! Here's what you said, actually, in your post:

[ QUOTE ]
I just offered the option of emphasizing that the theory of evolution is just that. A theory. It isn't a proven fact. It isn't a law. We don't have to teach every theory out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Every theory out there"??

The latest tactic of Conservatives (the Religious Right, in the case of Creashionism) is to render the scientific version of the evolution of the Cosmos (which includes more than one possible turn of events) into "just another theory" that's no more valid what the Voodoo preachers of Haiti are preaching or whatever.

Which is why I had to rebutt that silliness at some length. But, apparently, you are still trying to make the case for Evolutionary Theory being some kind of unproven, untested, mumbo-jumbo speculation.

Well, it won't wash! We teach our children (supposedly) the best of our knowledge And science says happened in the Evolution of the Cosmos is simply the best of our knowledge. Not just a little better, the best by far -- it wins by a light year.

Creashionism belongs in the school trashcan. (Or the church.)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's an interesting article I found while poking around the internet. "Some creationists argue that ‘evolution is just a theory.’ What they usually mean is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ "

[/ QUOTE ]

I already explained that we are not teaching our children facts; we are imparting to them the best of our knowledge. And that's the scientific version of events and nothing else -- otherwise we turn back the clock five hundred years, and go to a time when the Christian Church laid down the "facts"! (You'd have to travel awfully fast to go back that far in time!)

[ QUOTE ]
(contd.) "Scientific American’s comments about the study of subatomic particles, however, miss the point—these cloud chamber experiments are still observations in the present and are repeatable. A dinosaur turning into a bird 150 million years ago is neither observable in real time, directly or indirectly, nor repeatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pseudo-empiricist crap. The article you are quoting from would dearly love to have humanity experience only two things: those that we can feel through our senses, here and now, and the Untouchable, Spiritual Lord.

I.e. crap.

If the progress of human knowledge was to march along the lines that those religious fundamentalists wanted, we would still be harping on about the sex of angels, instead of examining sub-atomic particles.

[zaxx19]

Let me be the first "right wing looney" on this board to say-

Evolution SHOULD be taught in public school and Creationism has NO place in a biology textbook unless said textbook has regularly been providing students with backgrounds on the evolution and history of scientific understanding.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The latest tactic of Conservatives (the Religious Right, in the case of Creashionism) is to render the scientific version of the evolution of the Cosmos (which includes more than one possible turn of events) into "just another theory" that's no more valid what the Voodoo preachers of Haiti are preaching or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]
I swear some people here have trouble reading.

The person I was responding to asked me why (if we were to allow other theories in) we shouldn't just let anyone with a "theory" on how the universe was created teach. I said we didn't have to let just any theory, be taught. Clearly you made a mistake in processing what I said.
I also believe I said that I think evolution should be taught and that Creationism probably shouldn't (not in science class). So you can stop knocking down strawmen that I'm not arguing.

[ QUOTE ]
But, apparently, you are still trying to make the case for Evolutionary Theory being some kind of unproven, untested, mumbo-jumbo speculation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I've never uttered any of these things. Are you sure you're not hearing voices in your head? Why are you arguing things that I'm not? All the pro-evolution people have been making up things about what I've said that aren't true, and are often the opposite.
Learn to read.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it won't wash! We teach our children (supposedly) the best of our knowledge And science says happened in the Evolution of the Cosmos is simply the best of our knowledge. Not just a little better, the best by far -- it wins by a light year.

[/ QUOTE ]
This may be. But it doesn't take away from the fact that evolution is not proven 100% and shouldn't be taught that it has been. Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

[ QUOTE ]
Creashionism belongs in the school trashcan. (Or the church.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that creationism shouldn't be compulsorily(probably not a word) taught. It should stay in private schools that choose to and churches. I wouldn't want a teacher trying to teach me something that they didn't want to, especially not something as important to me as Creationism.

Now can we act like grown ups and actually argue the points the other side is making or are you guys just going to continue on attacking strawmen?