Teachers take a stand against anti-evolution teaching order

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MikeH
There is only one correct answer to this problem:


Evolution is an incomplete theory with some evidence to support it as well as problems.

Intelligent design is an incomplete theory with very little evidence to support it and some much bigger problems.

Therefore at the current time we should probably accept evolution as the more likely explanation, whilst, as with all science, keeping an open mind to other explanations.

close enough

[MikeH]

So they should teach that. *shrug*

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Theben

... the vast majority of ideas that most scientists have ever had have been wrong. They have been refuted; they have been disposed of. Further, at any point in time, most ideas proposed by most scientists will ultimately be refuted and disposed of... Science, in other words, undermines scientism.

Uh, not to end your quest, but that in fact only helps prove the validity of science.

I wasn't questioning the "validity of science", I was crtisizing the attitude that most people have where, when presented with something outside of their percieved "scientific truth" simply laugh and shove it away, isntead of allowing for an open forum.


When discussing the origin of life, why not mention creationism aswell as evolution? The more theories the merrier. When you close out discussion and teach theories as being infallible truth, that is when science loses it's validilty - because it ceases to be an open forum and becomes an ivory tower. It's basically priests in lab coats at that point.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by General Ludd


I wasn't questioning the "validity of science", I was crtisizing the attitude that most people have where, when presented with something outside of their percieved "scientific truth" simply laugh and shove it away, isntead of allowing for an open forum.


When discussing the origin of life, why not mention creationism aswell as evolution? The more theories the merrier. When you close out discussion and teach theories as being infallible truth, that is when science loses it's validilty - because it ceases to be an open forum and becomes an ivory tower. It's basically priests in lab coats at that point.

Unfortunately, this attitude is also more common amongst 'scientists' than one might expect.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by MikeH ---
Evolution is an incomplete theory with some evidence to support it as well as problems.
---

Sorry, but I must have missed something here. What are the problems with Evolution? What observations from nature don't fit into the ToE?

[Boris Godunov]

SpencerH: UR provided a link that shows observed instances of speciation above the micro-organic level. So your claim that it hasn't been observed is baffling.

UR: When you incorrectly edit a person's message, it's good form to edit it back to the original form, old bean.

[Urban Ranger]

D'oh, Boris beat me to it.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


Sorry, but I must have missed something here. What are the problems with Evolution? What observations from nature don't fit into the ToE?

Observations fit as far as I know (although evidence isn't available). I meant more that there were some currently unsolved problems to do with connecting it all up with biochemical processes.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by General Ludd

When discussing the origin of life, why not mention creationism aswell as evolution? The more theories the merrier. When you close out discussion and teach theories as being infallible truth, that is when science loses it's validilty - because it ceases to be an open forum and becomes an ivory tower. It's basically priests in lab coats at that point.

You teach alternative scientific theories if there are any available. Like in Physics, you can say that the laws of Newton are a good approximation for most problems, but the laws of Einstein are closer to the truth.

There are no scientific theories that conflicts the ToE. Creationism is a religious belief, not a scientific theory and doesn't belong in a science class.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by General Ludd
When discussing the origin of life, why not mention creationism aswell as evolution? The more theories the merrier. When you close out discussion and teach theories as being infallible truth, that is when science loses it's validilty - because it ceases to be an open forum and becomes an ivory tower. It's basically priests in lab coats at that point.

The origin of life isn't the domain of evolution, that's abiogenesis.

And as for why not mentioning creationism--well, I'm drawn back to my scenario of the hypothesis that aliens came down and built the pyramids. Why not discuss that as well in history classes?

Why should creationism get special consideration over the the 1,000,000,000 crackpot ideas that people want to insinuate into science, history, math, etc.? Just because it would take up a every minute of class time discussing the pseudoscientific or psuedohistorical alternatives is no reason not to do it, eh?

Education is about presenting mainstream views of what the experts believe, not about giving fair time to every idiot's whim. Science courses are about presenting science, not religious ideology gussied up as "theories," despite their having no evidence in their favor.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MikeH
Evolution is an incomplete theory with some evidence to support it as well as problems.

Intelligent design is an incomplete theory with very little evidence to support it and some much bigger problems.

It seems that evolution is a complete theory, that is, there's nothing that in the intended sector it cannot explain. Remember, evolution is broader than Darwinism or PE.

There is also overwhelming evidence for it. Theodosius Dobzhansky said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

On the other hand, Intelligent Design is not a theory, not in the scientific sense anyway.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
UR: When you incorrectly edit a person's message, it's good form to edit it back to the original form, old bean.

Sorry, I couldn't find it back.

[MikeH]

OK, I stand corrected.

[Whaleboy]

and equally close to being disproved

Actually no. The burden of proof is on the detractors of evolution, since evolution now has a vast body of correlating and mutually-supporting evidence behind it. It would be far more difficult to prove evolution than disprove it in the sense the concept was originally used (which I disagree with since it's always ultimately provisional).

So now you're saying that proof isn't necisary for a scientific theory to be accepted?

Again one accepts theories contingently, that are tested against empirical observations.

I'm not making an argument for creationism, I'm making an argument for an open forum, and against this ivory tower attitude.

Very well. But saying it is a theory does not equate evolution to other theories like creationism, since an accepted scientific theory is different from a fairy tale.

I wasn't questioning the "validity of science", I was crtisizing the attitude that most people have where, when presented with something outside of their percieved "scientific truth" simply laugh and shove it away, isntead of allowing for an open forum.

Yes I agree. THeories should be judged on their merits and not on how far they are from the mainstream. In that respect, creationism warrants very little respect by its merits, let alone be taught as scientific fact, or even an internally or externally consistent scientific theory.

When discussing the origin of life, why not mention creationism aswell as evolution?

Well like I said above, time devoted to teaching should be proportional to the theories scientific merit, hence we don't spend time teaching children that bodied of different mass will fall at different rates, which Galileo proved wrong, or that 2+2=3. The two theories may well be just that, theories, but one is worthy of far more praise than another, based upon its merits of internal reasoning and external compliance with empirical observation.

Now science does prove it's earlier theories to be wrong, but look at what actually happens there. When a theory is dogmatic, traditionally a church-held one, say the Aristotolian model of geocentricity, proving it "wrong" occurs in revolutions, whereas provisional scientific concepts, such as Newtons model, are not so much proved wrong as augmented... the model is improved upon, as is the case with relativity, or indeed Darwins evolution meeting the work of Francis and Crick in the field of genetics . Again this is demonstrative of the provisional nature of scientific fact, meaning it omits the need for faith completely (though faith in empiricism/rationalism is a different matter but irrelevant here).

[the_ceebs]

Actually, this reminds me of a quote from a book I've read recently:

If you want a solid grounding in how scientific ideas change over time try reading 'Against Method' by Paul Feyerabend