Slashdot Mirror
First Russian Anti-Evolution Suit Enters Court Room
sdriver writes "If you thought it was only the US giving Darwin a hard time, Russia has its own problems starting with evolution. A student has 'sued the St. Petersburg city education committee, claiming the 10th-grade biology textbook used at the Cervantes Gymnasium was offensive to believers and that teachers should offer an alternative to Darwin's famous theory.' The suit, the first of its kind in Russia, is being dismissed out of hand by the principal and teachers. The teacher of the science class had apparently even taken the step of stating at the start of the school year that there were other theories on the origin of life."
If you don't like Darwinism, you're welcome to try Lysenkoism. It's got a long, if not exactly proud, history in Soviet Russia. It's been pretty thoroughly proven false, but unlike Creationism, it's at least a falsifiable theory.
"The biology textbook generally refers to religion and the existence of God in a negative way. It infringes on believers' rights,"
I don't know anything about Russian law, but do religious groups have the right not to be dissed? Would that go for all religious groups, and non-religious groups too? Considering how insulting it is to have someone claim theirs is the only right way and everyone else is going to hell, I would think this a precedent that 'believers' wouldn't want to set.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
In Soviet Russia...
They didn't have this problem.
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
A giant meatball slipped off that plate and thus our earth was born.
*DrugCheese rants*
Sweet! It looks like Russians have caught the frivolous lawsuit virus. I guess we must have won the Cold War after all.
Evolution does not claim that man evolved from apes, but that man and apes share a common ancestor, as do all creatures. Just man and the ape's ancestors were a little more recent that, say, the common ancestor between man and jellyfish.
Disclaimer: I'm a Christian and believe in ID myself. However, I feel that "Darwinism" should be taught in schools. Who am I to say how God created man. I feel that evolution is more of a miracle than Him simply saying "Let it Be" anyway! Just my $0.02
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
If your faith is so weak that you need the courts to help you believe, then maybe you need to look in the mirror for the problem?
Yup, gotta get rid of those tempting "ideas" out there in the big bad world. Might lead a person to think.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
Cervantes Gymnasium. Am I the only one that thought "that must be where the Soul Calibur people go to train."
I sincerely apologize for any pain the above pun may have caused.
Monstar L
Darwin's theory says nothing about how life got started. Darwin only talked about how life evolved once it got started.
I guess the teacher needs to go back to school to present the correct information.
Nitpick time. The last line of the synopsis is not what the teacher said. From the article:
"When starting the course on the matter, the biology teacher said that there are other versions of humanity's origin," she said.
That's different than saying how all life began, as the submitter suggested.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Come back Commies! All is forgiven!
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Are you frick'in kidding me?!?!
The biologists had ALL of the best supplements for building muscle and speen! And those guys were FAST!!! No way, man! The Biologists are SCARY: they are not geeks!!!
Don't mod me down: I was joking!
Correction: the other proposals for the development of life on earth are conjectures, not theories (scientific or otherwise). Further, Darwin proposed natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. That hypotheses has well withstood credible scrutiny and attempts to disprove it, and so is considered a theory (mind you, the modern understanding of the theory is quite more involved than Darwin would have imagined). Darwin never created a theory for the origin of life.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Soviet Union was never a "brutally secular state" - it was always a very religious state. State religion was weird there - it promised "Communism" in the "near future", not the afterlife, but it still was very similar. Now the table has turned, and the CPSU (or in Russian) is replaced by Russian Orthodox Church and there are definite advances to bring religious studies (only Orthodox, nothing for other Christians or Muslims) to schools in Russia. Disclaimer: I've spent most of my life in the USSR.
As a creationist, I'd be content with a statement saying that evolution isn't proven, with no specific reference to creationism...most of us just have a problem with it being taught as a fact instead of a theory.
In Russia, the theory evolves you!
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
It is modded funny, as it probably also was meant to be, but I'd also give it in "Insightfull".
Why stop at biology. I suggest an alternative to physics. Magic. Specifically the evocation school. Man a 4d6 fireball would do wonders for the worlds energy problems.
Here, start with this simple formula - "In Soviet Russia, [direct object] [transitive verb]s YOU!"
Insert words relevant to evolution or intelligent design. Bam! Instant humor. Be the envy of your friends and coworkers.
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
Deleted
Oh... you mean, it's only the god-given right of you creationists to present your "theory" as a fact? :-)
Which is completely irrelevant since no theory is every proven (how many times does this need to be said?) See the Wiki on what a theory is. Pay particular attention to the first four sentences under the Science heading.
Pick a theory. Any theory. Newton's Theory of Gravity? Not proven. Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Not proven. The Big Bang Theory? Not proven. See the point?
Saying that Evolution is not proven shows a very basic lack of understanding of the scientific process. But hey, don't let me, or anyone else, stop you from continually making a fool of yourself everytime you say a theory isn't proven.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Want to bet on the chances that when the onion is peeled back, Focus On The Family or some other famous US-based evangelical organization is behind the suit? "Send us your dollars so we can do God's work in Russia and force their schools to teach Creationism rather than the Devil's work, Evolution!"
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
(from Jesus Camp)
MOM: (reading from "Exploring Creationism with Physical Science") One popular thing to do in American Politics is to note that the summers in the United States over the past few years have been very warm. As a result, global warming must be real. What's wrong with this reasoning?
KID: It's only gone up 0.6 degrees.
MOM: Yeah, it's not really a big problem, is it?
KID: No. I don't think that... it's going to hurt us.
MOM: It's a huge political issue, global warming is, and that's why it's really important for you to understand...
KID: Is evolution too?
MOM: Um, not really. On a much...
KID: Creationism?
MOM: Um, it's becoming one now. What if you had to go to school where the teacher said, "Creationism is stupid, and you're stupid if you believe in it?"
KID: I think they should...
MOM: Well, or what if you had to go to a school where the teacher said "Evolution is stupid, and you're stupid if you believe it?"
KID: I wouldn't mind that.
MOM: You wouldn't mind it. If you look at Creationism, it's the only possible answer to all the questions. It's the only possible answer.
KID: That's exactly what dad said!
MOM: Mmm hmmm, it's the only possible answer to all the questions.
KID: Oh, yeah...
MOM: Oh, yeah.
MOM: Did you get to the part on here where it says that science doesn't prove anything? And it's really interesting when you look at it that way.
KID: It is?
MOM: It is.
KID: (reading further) I think, personally, that Galileo made the right choice by giving up science for Christ.
(later)
MOM: We know when things started changing, you know, prayer got taken out of school, and um... the schools started falling apart. And now the rest of us are going, wait a minute, where is my country? Our firm belief is, there are two types of people: those who love Jesus and those who don't.
For those who require the greater challenge, who have open minds, and the strength to question and see beyond the well-worn path:
Track A: The four basic elements, Roman numerals, epicycles, alchemy, leeches, phlogiston, aether, UFOs, WMDs, Great Poets, Atlantis, etc.
For the blinder loving set,
Track B: Calculus, Diff Eqs, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Western Civ, etc
By not putting all the eggs in one basket, there's a better chance of success.
Am I the only one who thinks that, even if ID was 100%, beyond a doubt, true, that it STILL wouldn't have place in a biology class? Biology is (not the exact definition, bear with me) the science of how organic stuff works. Organic stuff can evolve, period. Whats unclear is how it originaly got jump started. If its some superior being that jump started it, and you know that at 100%, the only thing that changes, is that we'd stop talking about how it all got jump started (beyond maybe a quick mention in 1 sentence in the intro of the book). The intelligent design stuff would still belong to another class, and the explaination of how complex organics change with each iteration (generation) would still be in the biology class.
So, since biology is a science, and thus only teach plausible theories (since everything in science is -always- open to debate. Thats the very definition), if in its current form, the evolution theory is not fit to be taught, -GRAVITY- isn't fit to be taught either. Should we stop teaching about gravity in physics classes? The hell?
i wonder if this girl (or her father) has had any contact with nutcase american missionaries?
they're a plague spreading their lunatic fundamentalist versions of christianity all over the globe. no-one else cares that much about evolution, no-one else has much difficulty reconciling their christianity with evolution, no-one else insists on such a tiny simpleton god.
No.
Evolutionists do not believe it started randomly.
They have seen evidence of natural selection.
They have fossil records that coordinate with geologic and other records showing a lack of human fossils fairly recently in history. Predictions made based on plate theory and other models of historical geology have been tested successfully.
The fossil record shows various waves of complex creatures but once you get back far enough, the creatures become simpler and more primitive.
Natural selection provides a reasonable explanation for how creatures can change from a mouse type creature to an elephant type creature in only about 10,000 years. We have observed new species to come into existence in our life time. We have strong evidence from dna that humans had severe pinch points in the very recent past and that we only existed as a species for a couple million years at most.
However-- evolution theory says NOTHING about the start.
Basically it only says that creatures who reproduce more have more children and so their children eventually become the population.
Given random mutations which have no affect in reproductive fitness, the random mutations will be carried.
Given random mutations that lower reproductive fitness, they will disappear (at a speed relative to how harmful they are).
Given beneficial mutations that increase reproductive fitness, those creatures with those mutations will rapidly come to dominate a population.
Looking at the record the best you can say is "it's likely that creatures were very simple before the earliest hard records.
However- it directly confronts religious text since it pretty much says man did not exist and "near men" did exist in pre-religious times. Just like a religion that says the earth is the center of the universe is provably WRONG, any religion that seriously says man only existed for under the last 10,000 years is provably wrong.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
No, there is only one theory about the origins of life. The theory is called the theory of evolution. Creation is based on old testament fables passed down from generation to generation by the tribes of Israel and put to text by scribes. The stories are supposed to teach deep lessons to the unwashed masses about what it means to be a person, not offer a theory on the creation of life. To come away from the book of genesis with the idea that God created the earth in 7 days means you completely missed the lessons the author was trying to teach. This is the reason why I think Christians are way off track, they have a totally wrong interpretation of Jewish texts. Maybe they should ask a Rabbi for help.
They had no less than what they have now unless you're talking about overpriced "luxury" items which only those that used to already be rich back in the USSR days can afford. Things haven't gotten better for nearly any of the people I personally know that have chosen to remain in Russia. But one thing the USSR certainly didn't have but Russia has now, is a populace whose belief in Communism has been substituted by a belief in the teachings of the Russian Orthodox church.
I like basketball!!1!
The makers of Airplanes and Zeppelins are usually on a tighter schedule than evolution is.
For sake of succinctness, in my experience, most of our scientific theories are presented as fact. Have we proven that photosynthesis takes place in the mechanism we believe it does? How about that cells have a phospholipid bilayer? That the universal law of gravitation is universal? All of these are presented as facts, but, in reality, we have simply made repeated observations that imply they are true, and none that imply they are not.
im in ur
"most of us just have a problem with it being taught as a fact instead of a theory."
Congratulations... you're officially the millionth person to misunderstand the use of the word "theory." Those who would like to read along can type "dict theory" into their Firefox URL bar:
The "theory" in "theory of evolution" refers to the first definition of the word:
A lot of people are tripped up by the second definition of the word:
When people are boggled by the apparent contradiction when it's explained "evolution is both a theory and a fact," it's because they're trying to apply the 2nd definition of the word "theory." If that's what were being used here, then yeah, it'd could be seen as contradictory. But it is vital to understand that the word "theory" is being used per the first definition, as in "theory of gravity" et al.
Yeah, the English language can be confusing at times; it would have been better if that word didn't have multiple definions, but it does. I hope this has cleared things up for you. Evolution is both a theory and a fact.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
And I demand that gravity is presented as a theory and not fact.
Why don't you campaign against that? All those teachers teaching that things fall down as fact
The difference is that there is actually physical, experimental, and historical evidence for evolution. Intelligent design is a completely imaginated explanation for un explained questions. Just like man created the air plane, they created the concept of god too.
If you want to equate believing in something based on evidence to believing in something based on a 2000+ year old book, then obviously you like to simplify the matter until it fits in your narrow, ignorant view of reality.
You're mixing and matching. The Theory of Evolution is not, and will never be, proven. But evolution itself, is proven. We have the fossil record to show how various creatures have evolved over time. It is only the mechanism(s) that cause or influence this process that is not proven. The act itself is a fact.
Same thing with gravity. We know gravity is real. We can measure it, we can experience. However, the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Relativity are not proven and will never be. All these theroies do, as the Wiki indicated, is lay out a testable, verifiable process which best explains how these facts come about.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The study of evolution is deals with how the changes in life occur. Scientists dealing with the origins of life are in the field of biogenesis, a field related to evolution but it is *not* evolution.
This "adaption" you mention is what is sometimes referred to as micro-evolution. This is a controversial theory, often used by advocates of Creationism (and to a lesser extent, intelligent-design) to allow them to accept minor changes (such as differing breeds of dogs, etc) while still allowing them to deny that "macro-evolution" or speciation, can occurr. There is no distinction between the two however - both are evolution, slow change over time.
Your understanding of the word "theory" is mistaken in your above usage. When a scientist says "theory", he usually means a scientific theory. When most of us were growing up, we learned about a certain hierarchy of certainty going from guess->theory->fact, but this theory does not sit inside that tree. When a scientist talks about the Theory of Gravity, for example, he is not expressing reservations about its validity. The Theory of Evolution is not a statement that evolution occurs, it is our current best understanding of *how* evolution occurs. We already know that evolution occurs, as we can observe it in labs. In that sense, evolution is a fact. The theory is an explanation of how that process happens that fits with all our present knowledge about the subject.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
Of course not. Darwinian evolution was a non-issue during much of the Soviet Era, thanks to Lysenko and his influence with the highest levels of government.
Mass starvation ensued. Ignore Mr. Darwin at your own peril, folks.
Obligatory karma whoring Wikipedia link.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
I simply do not understand why this issue is always brought up. The "theory of Intelligent Design" has a place where it is taught, and that is in church (or synagogue or temple). This, to me, is as inane as myself taking my priest to court because he talks about Adam and Even which "offends" my right to believe in evolution. Yes I know that a school is a public institution (and a church a private institution) but there is absolutely no credence behind "Intelligent Design" and really has no place in any institution that inspires learning and developing ideas. Creationsim is just too much of a dead-end theory to be in school.
"God created the world as it is today. Pay no attention to the fossils behind the curtain"Leave creationsim in church. At least that way you are presented with two opposing alternatives and you can use your brain to choose between the two.
Another thing I wonder about: why does evolution disprove God(s) existence? How do we know he didn't design life to be this way, to adapt and spread? I never could understand why religion doesn't take hold of the theory and run with it."Look! God is so awesome he designed life to create the most complex creatures from the most basic of matter!" I guess it just goes against the flattering of the human ego to think that perhaps we are not created in the image of some diety.This can easily go either way. You could instead have "Crusader" christians and "Allah is peace" muslims. It depends on the convictions of those behind the movement.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
Actually, I got the idea that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is kind of a state religion after moving to Utah and watching similarity in many of the small everyday things. Different ideologies and goals, but visible features looked very similar to me. Authorities in the USSR never claimed to have communism - it was just a religious goal, an unreachable desire - and the people treated it accordingly, the reality of the communism was similar to the reality of the Heaven - you have to have faith in it.
It would mean the joke was evolving, rather than being intelligently designed.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It makes you a fool and it makes you a liar.
In fairness to the fool, he is not necessarily a liar. He may just be dumb. He may quite plausibly not be smart enough to understand the difference between the fact of evolution, and the theory of evolution. I'd find that quite plausible based on my experience of the large percentage of not so bright people in this world.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Capitalism is sort of a religion, everybody treads the mill hoping that one day someone will notice what a hard worker they are and promote them. Predictably, you are rewarded with more work, and your motivator is instead compensated for a wonderful job. Don't talk shit about capitalism though or the wealthy will tear into you about the day or two they had to actually do something and broke a sweat. You'll never hear the end of it.
Frankly, some religions need to be insulted.
(personally, I think ALL religions are frauds... but that's just me).
But all religions aren't beyond criticism. Do you think EVERY religion, regardless of what it teaches, is worthy of repect and tolerance?
Sorry, bub... but some religions and religious nuts need to be called out for their kookiness and insulted to the n-th degree.
Scientology, for one, is worthy of NO respect whatsoever... it's not even a real religion. It's creator came up with it on a cocktail napkin on a bet...
Frankly... some of the shit people believe needs to be ridiculed. They need to be completely embarrassed out of their blind stupor.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
and so the _blatant_ non-atheist bashing commences. not that there wasn't plenty in the earlier posts, yours just had the most "oomph" to it.
//just don't wanna be first in line for the lions
///darwin never said life came from inanimate matter, which is the crux of the creationist argument IMHOP, regardless of which form of it one chooses. regardless if it was 7 days or 7 billion years i just don't buy it that a bunch of muck and volcanic ash suddenly sprang to life and formed cells totally randomly.
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
The reason your analogy is laughable is that nobody's proposing that today's science books are the word of God. They're just condensations of the current knowledge related to a certain field.
We know that science is fallible. Indeed, that's what makes it science. In 2000 years, the science books will be updated to reflect new understanding about the world based on evidence and tests of hypotheses. Nobody's editing the bible to keep up with the world.
MRSH-Recording device, corned beef sandwich with kraut, seafaring bird, and the foamy top of a beverage.
Actually, dogs prove ID, since they've been bred for specific purposes by humans.
The problem is that creationists and ID folk want not just their own opinion, but their own facts. They keep saying that evolution has never been witnessed, that there are no transitional fossils, that evolution is impossible because it violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, and so on. And if you read only creationist literature and have a general distrust of mainstream science, those arguments may seem tenable. But creationst thought only thrives when it's isolated--when you read mainstream literature about evolution, you find that these seemingly burning, portentious questions have been answered time and time again, usually decades ago. This would be like me reading only atheism books to learn about the Bible.
My point was that you are a true asshole for insulting someone's religion and their intelligence for believing in that religion. That makes you a grade-A, class 5 asshole.
Hardly. If the specifics of their religion contradict reality, then reality wins.
Failure to realise that is stupid. Don't blame me for that fact.
You are no more right than anyone else, and it shows your terribly misplaced conceit to think otherwise.
Depends on the subject. I'm much more right than most people on some obscure topic that I know about but most people don't care in the least about, for example.
Any religion more specific than "God created the universe and hasn't been back since" is silly because it has as its fundamental belief that God is great enough to create the entire univers but he's too pathetic to deliver a simple message effectively.
Living in denial about that fact doesn't help anybody.
You have no right to force your beliefs on others, just as others can not force their beliefs on you. That's what the freedom or religion is all about. I'll kill or die defending that right, and any true patriot will do the same for the Constitution. If you have a problem with that document, I hear Cuba does not have such backwards ideals as a freedom or religion. I also hear it's quite nice this time of year.
I'm not trying to force my beliefs, or lack thereof, on anybody. That's generally the realm of the religious. In fact the extremist Christians are currently taking over America with the *stated* goal of the destruction of the constitution and its replacement with a Christian theocracy.
So, clearly, my sort ain't the threat.
Of course, you fail to even understand what freedom of religion is all about since you're hideously misusing the concept.
You're welcome, as far as I'm concerned, to believe whatever ridiculous nonsense that you want.
You are not welcome to be free from people pointing out that what you do believe is, in fact, ridiculous nonsense.
So, maybe Cuba or Saudi Arabia or somesuch place where criticism is banned would be better for you? You're the only one who has a problem with people speeking freely.
In other words, that makes you a pussy. See, it takes no courage to sit there behind your keyboard and type your drivel. However, if you had real guts and conviction, you'd go a bar that serves the a nearby military base and tell them how you think it's patriotic to murder Republicans, and I assume anyone else that has different views than your own.
And again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the difference between "different views" and "treasonous action".
I don't condone killing Republicans becasue of what they believe, it's for what they do. And what they do is launch savage assaults on America. Setting up death camps is an action, not a belief.
Of course, you have knowledge and belief inextricably muddled in your head, so I don't really expect you to be able to make sense of such simple ideas.
This "adaption" you mention is what is sometimes referred to as micro-evolution. This is a controversial theory, often used by advocates of Creationism (and to a lesser extent, intelligent-design) to allow them to accept minor changes (such as differing breeds of dogs, etc) while still allowing them to deny that "macro-evolution" or speciation, can occurr. There is no distinction between the two however - both are evolution, slow change over time.
Which is such a cop-out, when evolution-skeptics try to create the distinction. They try to do it because among scientifically minded and aware folks, saying species don't change over time is a sure way to be laughed at. They're trying to get their creationism-based beliefs to be accepted scientifically, so they create the whole "macro-evolution" red-herring, but it doesn't work. So they agree that "micro-evolution" occurs. Alright. Take a population, split it in two such that there is no cross-breeding. Over time each experiences "micro-evolution". Eventually one of these "micro-evolutionary" changes modifies reproductive mechanics, such that were you to bring the two populations together again, they would be unable to interbreed. Bam, you have speciation.
You can't accept "micro-" without "macro-". As you say, they're really one and the same.
The enemies of Democracy are
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Sometimes there were crop failures, due to a wide range of competence problems with "scientific socialism", and the war obviously led to starvation as well as deaths from bombs and guns, but the main events of mass starvation during the Stalinist period were deliberate - groups of farmers that didn't cooperate with collectivism, or were rich enough that the Communists were jealous of them, got deprived of their animals and land, and either killed, sent to Siberia, or left to starve. Wikipedia article on kulaks.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Where can I buy one of these Anti-Evolution Suits?
Will it protect my DNA from evolving and prevent my offspring from, say, developing a 3rd eye?
Religionists might have it a bit easier if they weren't so provably dopey. But that's what happens when you lock yourself into the notion that a parable that's meaningful to living a good life is a description of reality.
As a believer, it pains me to see so many people giving Faith a bad name with this kind of dopiness.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Er, the "failure of the broken political system" was a direct result of the fact that the political system was based on and promoted adherence to acceptable ideological dogma as the bases of policy, even where that dogma concerned matters of empirically verifiable fact and was contradicted by systematic investigation of fact.
Lysenkoism and the associated marginalization of Darwinism was a symptom of that problem.
Understanding what was broken about the system is important.
Yes, I think creationists in general have totally misunderstood the point of science. As much as all scientists would love to know the absolute truths in the universe, wouldn't anyone, the point of science is to find explanations that fit the observations and use them to our gain. Darwinism and evolution isn't there to compete with religion or prove creationists wrong, it is there to help us understand the progression of life, which might then be used to perhaps improve our own genetics, find other planets that can harbor life, save animal species, etc. Science helps us do things on Earth. Removing evolution from schools because it doesn't feel right is like making the hunter hunt without a weapon and with a blindfold on. All it does is slow the process and make it more random, more dangerous and less effective.
No one makes you teach evolution in church. Because evolution belongs in a science curriculum. Just like creationism belongs a long way away from a science curriculum. There is no point mixing the two. Evolution is a scientific theory, like everything taught in science. It is based on observations, and used by people. Like you know the sun will come up in the morning because you observed that process occured on previous mornings. You can't guarentee that it will come up in the morning, but it is better to use the knowledge that you have than be shocked every morning when it rises and never learn the process.
Slashdot is powered by your submission.
In Soviet Russia, GOD makes YOU!
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
It depends what you mean by "proven". The scientific method can't technically prove anything. However, it can give overwhelming evidence in favour of something. For example, we have no proof that the sun will come up tomorrow. What we do have is enough evidence to convince any sane person. This preponderance of evidence is often referred to as a "proof". Another example: suppose a man is on trial for murder. Seventeen people say they saw him do it, the police have a bloody knife covered in his fingerprints, and the first words out of his mouth when he was arrested were "I'm glad I killed the bastard". Again, technically, we have no proof that he was the murderer. The witnesses could be lying, someone else could have used the knife to murder the victim while wearing gloves, and the "bastard" he was referring to may have been an irritating housefly. But can you see why, in the absence of other evidence, we may colloquially refer to this as a "proof" in the interests of clear communication?
As I understand it, the Theory of Evolution has been "proven" at about that level of certainty. The problem with the statement that creationists want teachers to read (that it hasn't been 'proven') is that it implies that alternative theories (e.g. creationism) have a non-negligible chance of being true, and that evolution has substantially less scientific evidence than, for example, gravity. This would be utterly false, regardless of whether you believe there is philosophical evidence for creationism. We should not endeavour to teach our children massive falsehoods, either explicitly or implicitly, so your statement fails.
I would, however, welcome a separate mention on the curriculum of the philosophy of science - the differences between the reasons for accepting a scientific theorem and the reasons for accepting a logical proof, details of the scientific method and so on and so forth. As long as it is made clear that these issues affect the whole of science, and that students may reject individual theories on the basis that they "haven't been proved" only by rejecting the whole of science, then I feel children can only benefit from exposure to them.
To know recursion, you must first know recursion.