Slashdot Mirror
Texas Board of Education Supports Evolution
somanyrobots writes with this excerpt from the Dallas News:
"In a major defeat for social conservatives, a sharply divided State Board of Education voted Thursday to abandon a longtime state requirement that high school science teachers cover what some critics consider to be 'weaknesses' in the theory of evolution. Under the science curriculum standards recommended by a panel of science educators and tentatively adopted by the board, biology teachers and biology textbooks would no longer have to cover the 'strengths and weaknesses' of Charles Darwin's theory that man evolved from lower forms of life. Texas is particularly influential to textbook publishers because of the size of its market, so this could have a ripple effect on textbooks used in other states as well."
a victory for common sense.
Things are turning around for the better :)
Finally Intelligent Design is getting the boot it deserves.
This is the sig that says NI (again)
I'm all for teaching evolution but would someone please explain to me what the issue was with teaching the strengths and weaknesses? If science teaches us anything it is that we should always continue to question and refine our studies, not idly stand by and accept them as fact. No one is saying we have to introduce creationism or try to make evolution appear only as a theory (which some might argue it still is), but there is no reason we need to teach our students to blindly accept it as fact, without doubt or admission of weakness. This is not the spirit of science and frankly not in the best interest for those who probably already don't care that much about it. Whats gives?
When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up... reading.-Henny Youngman
Evolution is not the only theory taught in school. Gravity is another theory. I suppose that Texas schools should teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of the Theory of Gravity, too.
I entirely appreciate that this is a debate about I.D. and about religion in the classroom.
But that aside it is a great shame that we teach all science as hard "fact" with little experimentation or room for asking "Why?"
If you've gone though a Science education you know that you learn from the textbook and everything you read is gospel.
God forbid we'd ever want kids actually thinking for themselves or questioning anything, if that happened they might, you know... Push the field forward...
But in the academic world the "geniuses" are those students that can memorise the most trivia (see TV game shows for example). While truly intelligent lateral thinkers get put in the bottom classes and made to feel dumb.
I hope we like the world we made for ourselves...
Official policy really has very little to do with what gets taught in the classroom. Even in Biology, which is the only place that evolution gets mentioned, the textbooks have been very evolution-friendly for years. Of course in that, they have been focused on lots of aspects of evolution that have been disproven, like human fetuses having gills and other similar things. And of course, the real control over this content lies with the teachers, who for the most part teach science and the scientific method, which really doesn't support most of the conclusions that evolution-science come to since they aren't based on observation. Whether or not intelligent design is discussed officially in the textbooks makes no difference in the end, but science does get taught properly in most classrooms.
Welcome to the civilized world.
Yet for some reason Darwin's theory of evolution gets picked out so that teachers must highlight its weaknesses. Why might this be?
The TFA said the scientific community widely accepts Darwin's theory, while biblical proponents reject the theory. Thus, the state board forced teachers to teach pros and cons in the 1980s.
I guess the debate was so serious that the state board had to compromise to satisfy the creationism parties (who can be rich and powerful).
I guess evolution is a really thorny part of religion (specifically, blind belief). If students understand that humans are developed from fish and apes, then creationists have a harder time pushing their own agenda to these students.
Any idea whether churches in Texas in the 1980s actually had to report their income, pay taxes, and donate the proceedings to poor people and worthy causes?
.... Since a monkey can hack a Diebold voting machine.... And Bush has been determined to be the worst US president... There has to be a connection.
Children are impressionable. They are (usually) unable to weigh the pros and cons of arguments and instead defer to authority figures. There are some theories which are not legitimately challenged in today's scientific world.
Should we teach alternative theories to the reason why things fall down? (Intelligent falling perhaps) After all, the Theory of Gravity is only a theory, not a fact.
Or perhaps that "the weight of a body on the surface of a heavenly body is the reaction force caused by the acceleration of the surface of the heavenly body away from its centre."
http://www.copples.clara.net/gravity.htm
This is an alternative theory of Gravity. It may even be true, however, no one seems to be trying to teach kids the controversy... because there isn't one. The science taught in high schools is well supported and, as mentioned above, not challenged by academia in any real way.
We have an obligation to our children to shield them from ideas which masquerade as science because they lack the skills needed for proper scientific inquiry. I can go to an average high school class and, assuming they don't have any smart asses, teach them about the horrible problems associated with dihydrogen monoxide. Chances are I can convince every one of them to firmly assert that they would be willing to ban water.
http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp
86% of freshman supported a ban on water,
12% were undecided
2% correctly identified it as water.
It's not that difficult to dupe the public as a whole, let alone children in an authoritative setting. You teach the best science available and continue to teach it until a better theory presents itself. It may take years for this "better theory" to get from not accepted to partially accepted to almost universally accepted, however, IMHO we shouldn't be teaching it until it gains the support of the majority of the scientific community.
Leave the debate on alternative theories of gravity to the Ph.D's who (probably) know what they are talking about. Teach it in the schools when you've convinced a gross majority of them. Convincing a gross majority of the general public does not make it a scientific theory.
"Dictator Flakes. They WILL be delicious."
I think it would be valuable if schools taught methods and logic. Not just knowledge, but also the way of how knowledge can be arrived at. Teach people what is and what isn't a conclusive argument, point out the factors that complicate deriving valid conclusions from one's observations, and show that how experiments can be set up to minimize those factors. Preferably also teach statistics, so that people can calculate the probability of two things being corerlated vs. the probability that an observation is due to other factors.
All these are valuable skills, not specifically in the evolution debate, but in every aspect of life.
As for my stance on religious issues...I am convinced that we have no conclusive evidence one way or the other on most of them, and I would say that, until we do (which I think will never happen) everyone should be free to believe as they do. Nothing gives me the right to force my beliefs on you, and the same applies in the other direction.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
If proponents of the many Superstring theories have to face this notion, surely religious nutcakes must also fall under the same strictures of Science. And if that was taught in the classrooms, the students would learn far more about Science than what the normal litany of crap usually rammed down their throats from K onwards confers.
But, gasp -- that would be teaching our little young ones how to THINK, and the government could not possibly want a nation of young, inquisitive, aspiring CRITICAL THINKERS on their hands!!! Tough to pull the wool over the eyes of those who actually ASK QUESTIONS and will simply refuse to "just believe". Which would require far more out of our politicans and bureaucrats. Nope, can't have that...
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
Of the impending apocalypse!
Everybody hide!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Any theory has its weaknesses.
There is no reason not to teach them, but there certainly is no reason to single out evolution. There are a lot of theories thought which are far more contested, yet nobody thought it necessary to make a fuss about it...
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Testing gravity on small distances is extremely hard because gravity is so weak. See http://www.stanford.edu/group/kgb/Research/gravity2.html for example. Cosmology is ongoing research, as you can see from the discussion around dark energy. In particular, measuring cosmological distances is a difficult problem. So one cannot say that gravitation were fully understood on cosmological scales.
What exactly makes an organism a higher form of life than another? We had this discussion just yesterday at the university... :p
There is no such thing as a "higher" or a "lower" organism. It all depends on the context of the discussion:
Humans for example, have the most complex nervous system than all other organism. This makes them the "highest" life form when discussing nervous systems. On the contrary, a species of archaea can for example live in underwater volcanic environments. This makes it a "higher" organism when discussing extreme environments.
And no, the size of the genome or the number of genes, are not a criterion for this either. The human genome has 3 billion base pairs, and there's a species of amoeba that has a genome of 100 billion bp.
And I don't want to hear any jokes about amoebas and overlords
I don't mind dating a girl that has been with everybody, as long as she had a good shower afterwards.
Has anybody thought about the fact that this is an intrinsically (north)american problem? I mean, the rest of civilized world seems not to have the same density of fanatic christians among the population so as to need changing official science at school. This, I think, is something to ponder upon (specially when your country thinks that it is the culmination of human civilization).
It's not like a high school freshman is going to be scarred for life by hearing two sides of an argument. "These people believe this for this reason. These other people believe this for this other reason."
They might not be scarred for life, but they won't learn much science. Scientific debate isn't about valuing everybody's opinion - its about objectivity, logic and evidence.
This isn't even about a debate between science and faith: its a debate between science and bogus pseudo-scientific FUD which attempts to dress religious fundamentalism up as science. Even mainstream religion thinks the debate is absurd.
There are almost certainly gaps and weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution. However, it still explains more than any other theory on offer, and you don't throw it out because it fails to dot a few "i"s - at least not until you have a new, better theory.
When Newton's theory of gravitation failed to accurately predict the orbit of Mercury, the scientific community didn't throw Principia on the fire and go back to crystal spheres and epicycles - it went on to make good use of the understanding given by what Newton's theories did predict, until that smart guy with the bad hair came up with a better theory which someone then went out and proved. That's how science is supposed to work.
PS: I'm all for books on evolution having a label in them which points out that its a theory with which some people disagree provided that, in return, every copy of the Bible is required to have a preface by Richard Dawkins. Fair's fair, eh? :-)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Children are impressionable. They are (usually) unable to weigh the pros and cons of arguments and instead defer to authority figures. There are some theories which are not legitimately challenged in today's scientific world.
Maybe in grade school - but I don't think I've ever met a high schooler (myself included when I was in HS) so impressionable.
The whole DHMO thing is really an unfair example, as it involves misleading scare tactics (100% of people who consume it die, for example). That's not presenting an opposing idea and letting people come to their own conclusion, but rather intentionally presenting well-known facts in extremely misleading and overcomplicated ways in an attempt to trick them - it's more of a trivia test and social experiment than anything else. While I don't support teaching creationism or intelligent design in schools by any means, they're not really leveraging those tactics in order to make people believe in them (aside from the whole "do as I say lest you burn in hell for all eternity" thing, anyways).
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
I think they are headed the wrong direction with this.
Evolutionary theory is vastly unimportant compared to a lack of Scientific Method. I see the requirement of showing weaknesses in Darwinian Evolution as forcing the employment of Scientific Method on difficult, emotion laden, and controversial issues. Beating the method into young impressionable skulls is far more important than whether they believe in creation by amoeba or creation by God. Teach them to think, don't tell them what to believe.
Just IMO.
-D
In the context of this hot-button topic, this is an important and necessary decision, but it's probably in general a good idea to impress upon students that scientific theories are never perfect, they all have strengths and weaknesses and even the most successful (e.g., evolution, Newtonian mechanics) leave plenty of room for refinement. Scientific theories have their own kind of Darwinian evolution, and while I don't necessarily want introductory classes to undermine everything they're teaching, it might be helpful if a part of science education were to provide better insight into the nature of the scientific enterprise than they do currently.
Lol!
ID is a hypothesis that states that an unknown alien race that left no evidence of their visit to this planet created all life. Exactly how they did this is completely ignored. It provides no possible reason for the dozens of different eye designs, or different means of locomotion, or the fact that similar species seem to be located in regions that are geographically close to each other.
It also logically suggests that life is designed not to adapt to changes in the environment, and thus will, by design, result in a gradually decreasing number of species, eventually resulting in just one.
That's not presenting an opposing idea and letting people come to their own conclusion, but rather intentionally presenting well-known facts in extremely misleading and overcomplicated ways in an attempt to trick them
Congratulations, you've just summarized creation science, intelligent design, or whatever they're calling it at the moment.
"Creationism" is as simple an idea as "water". To fool people into thinking it's science, its proponents rely on the unfair DMHO trick you object to.
I just wish they'd stop asking "Do you believe in evolution?" when some stupid journalist questions a politician. It's just makes people think evolution is a belief. Really, valid ways to put in effect get the same info would be questions like "Do you think evolution is valid?" or "Do you accept that evolution is a valid scientific theory?" I mean when you ask the first question my impression is that you don't really get science. (Not a surprise since I think alot of journalists are basically scientifically illiterate.) What it actually makes me think is that the person asking it isn't so much pro evolution because they're really for science but because conservatives hate it. (Which is a stupid reason to be for a scientific theory.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
The whole DHMO thing is really an unfair example, as it involves misleading scare tactics (100% of people who consume it die, for example). That's not presenting an opposing idea and letting people come to their own conclusion, but rather intentionally presenting well-known facts in extremely misleading and overcomplicated ways in an attempt to trick them.
Which people do, sometimes intentionally, sometimes just because of the natural bias people have to look at what pleases them. I think it's necessary to teach people to actually think about not only what their being told, but how their being told it. A fact not only has to be true, it has to be meaningful.
that the most fit science education survives in the long run :-) at the moment that is the one taught everywhere else on the globe than in the south states of US.
Most adults are that impressionable. If you don't think the kids in your high school are that impressionable, then you too are that impressionable. As for the ID, the problem is that there is nothing to the theory other than "We don't know how this step happened - insert god's work". Try watching Ben Stein's movie and tell me what you learn about creationism and why it should be taught, and you'll have a short list. The entire movie is fear mongering based on lies and half-lies.
Everybody seems to think I'm lazy I don't mind, I think they're crazy
If they were willing to speak truthfully with an honest heart about where the facts lead, a requirement to point out the weaknesses of evolution wouldn't be a bad thing. I read a fascinating article at New Scientist yesterday, Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life, on how hibridization is rampant in life. It would be a fantastic thing to discuss in class.
But here's what would happen. Jim Bob would use that article as his talk on the weaknesses of evolution. No later than about two days he would be called to the principal's office and the discussion would go something like this: "Jim Bob, there have been some concerns about your commitment as a teacher. Do you feel you have the sort of character and motivation for teaching our youth?" And next round of contracts Jim Bob is asking whether you'd like fries with that. _That_ is how our honorable principal would handle the problem of Jim Bob bringing up actual science in discussion of Darwin.
Which comes to the second problem America has in this area: local control. Unfortunately, local control is a sacred cow in our society but as long as a couple crazy parents can sit outside a principal's door every day driving him crazy with their demands for this or that curriculum addition, we will have problems with American education. If we had a national curriculum like so many other countries at least much of the discussion would be above-board.
Texas as far as I can see takes no position on what specifically currently is accepted by scientific community as science, leaving that once again as it had always been before, up to publishers of science books. That seems a wise choice.
And Texas likewise makes no limitations on what may be presented in courses on history, literature, comparative religion, anthropology, and so on. That also seems wise. The only problem was teaching religion in a science course. That problem is now solved.
It's this sort of thinking which doesn't help.
Understood with thanks. I get your point: People don't like being associated with the "lowly" gorillas and the "stupid" fishes.
Maybe our Science Depts should also team up with the Marketing Depts. It's easier for people to identify with the strengths of gorillas (uprooting trees), the grace of fishes (gliding through water), and so on.
Indeed, NASA has strong Marketing-like Depts that do a lot of multimedia work and press conferences. They have the ability to make people feel excited about space exploration, altering people's perceptions, making them feel that the money is well-spent.
Holy shit i must have been drunk, i don't remember doing that!
FRA: STFU GTFO
Which is a stupid reason to be for a scientific theory
But an excellent reason to be against a candidate. As a scientific question it's deeply flawed, but it does zero in on candidates who have an insufficient understanding of science and cannot be trusted (in my opinion) with an office where science is supposed to inform their actions.
Nearly all complex theories are poorly understood by non-scientists (and even scientists in a different field). Which is OK; I don't have to be an automotive engineer to drive a car, either. We accept the work of the experts and get on with our lives, knowing that we could go back and verify their work if the impulse moved us. So a person who believes that they know better than the experts (in any field) is either wildly brilliant or seriously deluded, and it's vastly more likely to be the latter.
Suddenoutbreakofsense ?
404: Prayer Not Found
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I'm a solid supporter of the theory of evolution, but in a way this is too bad.
Too many people are taught evolution as if it were incontrovertible fact, but the reality is that it really is only a theory. The core ideas of the theory are pretty much indisputable, but many of the details are open to debate, yet we go around teaching our students whatever details are currently most popular as if nothing else were possible.
For example, the standard theory taught in schools is that genes are the only mechanism for inheritance, yet this isn't necessarily true. I'm not proposing that we teach creationism in school, but it seems to me that focusing on the weaknesses of a theory can help students develop critical thinking skills, and can only be good for the theory in the long run.
ID is a hypothesis that states that an unknown alien race that left no evidence of their visit to this planet created all life.
Ur, no. Intelligent Design purposely skirts around the issue of who the designer is. Why? Because it's really more of a political movement, a trojan horse designed to slip creationism into the classroom through the back door. If they admit that the designer is the Christian God, that can be used against them.
That isn't to say that its defenders won't admit that the designer is God. They do, believe me. However, the people that are working "seriously" in the field (e.g.,, David Behe, William Dembski, and the other folks at the Discovery Institute) generally maintain the pretense that the designer is not God for plausible deniability.
Nor is this to say that there aren't some folks who say that the designers were aliens. Those folks (and I can't think of any examples) are definitely at the fringes of the ID movement.
Woosh?
This is so sad, all ID says is we don't know how the universe was created, but it didn't evolve on it's on on this planet.
Really, is that the hypothesis of ID? Okay, what experiments have been performed? What predictions about new data has it made that have then been found to be true and did not falsify it?
Everyone should watch Expelled. It's sad how uneducated most of the people that read are, they just take what the media says and believe it.
I watched Expelled. I noted that for being a documentary about the supposed persecution of ID proponents in the scientific community it somehow failed to ever state the falsifiable, hypothesis of ID or mention any experiments. Those are requirements for ID to be science. I'm not taking what the media says and believing it. I'm looking at what appears to me to be a media propaganda campaign promoting ID, and seeing nothing behind it. There is a reason ID is not taken seriously in scientific journals. It has the same scientific backing as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That is to say, there is no formal, agreed upon hypothesis and have been no useful predictions made by it. It isn't science, just speculation that tries to disguise itself as science in an attempt to discredit what science has determined to be the most likely truth, because many people find the most likely truth to be inconvenient to their religious beliefs.
I actually support Evolution and Thunderbird. Each has its virtues and downfalls. Evolution's integration with Exchange systems saves me from the horrors of OWA, while Thunderbird's extensibility makes it extremely flexible.
So, what does the Texas Board of Education use as a back-end for their mail system?
Wait, what was the summary again??? And why is Evolution capitalized in the article's title???
:%s:work:/.:g
Even the Texas board of education can evolve!
IMHO we shouldn't be teaching it until it gains the support of the majority of the scientific community.
Leave the debate on alternative theories of gravity to the Ph.D's who (probably) know what they are talking about.
Hear, hear, leave it to the Science Lords. They will tell us what is true.
That's so not what science is about and is precisely the problem with the whole stupid creationism debate, namely who gets to say, who is the authority. Sagan makes that point well in one of his books (The Demon Haunted World?). When it gets reduced down to a choice of authorities, science loses. Science has to be more than that, a philosophy and a method, and it needs to be introduced early, in elementary school.
Loose lips lose spit.
Texas has schools? And textbooks?
On a more serious note, someone I know went to primary school in Texas. They learned that the USA are the _only_ country with courts and democracy. Said person is under 50 and trustworthy.
Children ... are (usually) unable to weigh the pros and cons of arguments and instead defer to authority figures.
Right. Which explains why the War On Drugs(tm) is such a resounding success.
Evolution is about the origin of species, not the origin of life.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
I recall the day evolution was covered in my Texas public school, years ago. The regular science teacher left and a substitute came in to give a 30-45 minute lecture on Lamarck. His conclusion was that scientists were often wrong and that eventually the idea that "we are descended from monkeys" would also be rejected. I had wanted to laugh, but after looking around at my classmates I decided it was just too sad.
I don't see that this decision would help that sort of thing in the small, rural districts in Texas where this (along with bible study as "literature" these days) is much too common. I'd figured at the very least that discussing strengths and weakness would have more value.
I agree with all posters who think critical thinking should be the goal of teaching. Unfortunately, given the lack of accountability for teachers (who continue to fight against standardised testing wherever possible), the lack of motivation of most students (and certainly, at my local high school, the fact that 25% of the kids were stoned most of the time), and the utter callousness of the school trustees (in Toronto, we've recently seen cases where trustees used their official funds to pay for vacations, home decor, etc.), I think the system is broken all the way through.
What we need is for the schools to evolve, but I fear we don't have enough time.
What was once true, is no longer so
until that smart guy with the bad hair came up with a better theory which someone then went out and proved. That's how science is supposed to work.
Nitpick: science can't prove anything, by definition. You can demonstrate that an experiment happens a certain way 1,000 times in a row, but that's not proof that it'll work again the next time you try it. The best you can do is fail to disprove a hypothesis.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Nitpick: science can't prove anything, by definition.
Who let the bloody mathematicians in here? :-)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
As a biologist, I'm not aware of any "weaknesses," in terms of inconsistency with the evidence. I've read those promoted by ID/creationists, and all are false or downright fraudulent.
But there are certainly areas of evolutionary theory where unresolved questions remain. These are appropriate for discussion in classes at the appropriate educational level--graduate courses, or high-level undergraduate college courses--where students have the educational background to understand the issues.
Any scientist will tell you that evolution is a theory, just like gravitational theory, or atomic theory. ALL scientific explanations and generalizations are theories. The only facts are observations: "I dropped a pencil and it fell to the floor" may be a fact. "Dropped objects fall toward the ground" is a theory.
As a result, it is never acceptable to single out some area of scientific knowledge as "only a theory," because this conveys the false impression that it is less well established than all of the other theories that make up the rest of the body of scientific knowledge.
No, the equations of Newtonian physics are always wrong. Sometimes they are wrong by such a small amount that the error is not practically important, but being only a little bit wrong is not the same as being right.
Who let the bloody mathematicians in here? :-)
Hey, it's true, though! People say things like "scientists haven't proven evolution, so even they admit it's not a fact" without understanding that nothing in science is proven. At most, you can say that no one has found evidence disproving a given theory, but that's not the same as proving the theory. It's a very important distinction and a fundamental aspect of science.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Except that the theory isn't about man being the ultimate goal of evolution, or simpler life forms being "lower". Each life form is suited to its environment.
Hmm. So, if faith is one of the highest virtues, and therefore God has hidden his existence intentionally as a test of faith, then all of the ID folks that point to various things as "irrefutable proof" of God's existence are therefore calling their God imperfect, non-omnipotent, and flawed. Or they are implicitly admitting that their observations are unprovable and rely on faith, and are therefore tacitly unscientific - thus NOT a scientific theory/fact.
This is one of the biggest problems I have with ID. I am an athiest, but if I were religious I would prefer Evolution over ID. The thought of a clockmaker God, one who has built a beautiful and intellectually engaging existence for us, challenging us with infinite puzzles and opportunity to view the beauty and complexity of His Creation is considerably more compelling than one who just took the easy way out and made a bland universe that simply is, and has no deeper meaning.
I guess that's just me. I'm a scientist at heart - I love the challenge, the discovery, the layered complexity of the world I live in. That is true beauty. I guess the ID folk just prefer to have all the answers given to them so they don't have to think.
This post is contentious, to be sure, but I have karma to burn...
Oh, was that my outside voice?
Texas is particularly influential to textbook publishers because of the size of its market.
What do they use them all for? I was fairly sure hardly anybody in the state could read.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
FYI, I was thinking along the lines of the two biggest beliefs at present: Creationism and Evolution. Intelligent Design, I agree, is ridiculous marketing-speak.
Creationism is in the bible used by multiple major world religions; there's nothing wrong with saying "this is what these people believe" or "this is what these texts say." In point of fact, while separation of church and state is generally a good thing, knowing the beginning of religious books that have had major influences on world events for millenia would seem to be useful educationally regardless of whether you approach academics from an atheistic, agnostic, or religious perspective.
--- Thousands are enslaved every day.
It is most disappointing that it was ever possible for religious prejudice to limit or control what is taught in any school. Strictly speaking, any attempt by any religious minority (yes all people of any religious leaning are a minority of the over all population of any nation and the world) is an abuse of the freedom of the majority. In a democracy the law and government is supposed to be representative of the people. Since no 2 people are likely to share the same religious beliefs, even if they both call themselves christian, religion cannot be allowed a place in any laws. By the same measure religion is personal, some people go to church and chose to join their religious belief to that of others, that is their choice. But doesn't mean they have any right to attempt to influence the teachings, thoughts or minds of others, not to mention attempting to âoeattack the more vulnerableâ. Targeting younger individuals is a common and well known tactic for those intent on indoctrination, they probably find it easier to manipulate the minds of those who are yet to forge their own views / ideas / philosophy fully.
Well thought, clean clear delivery, and there are many Christians that agree with you. The same ones are often ashamed to be associated with ID proponents. That is why you rarely hear from them.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Your argument is both a red herring and a troll. The discussion is what we teach in high schools, not government policy or media spin. I will, however, reply.
It's generally logical fallacies which are used to justify drug use: Appeal to unqualified authority, appeal to common practice (or appeal to popularity) and the genetic fallacy. There is also a general lack of scrutiny to ulterior motives.
A good example of a typical conversation, he speaks first:
"My buddy Jack says it's totally natural. It can't be that bad if it doesn't have crazy chemicals and shit in it."
"Who is Jack?"
"My dealer... but he like knows and stuff; he went to college."
"What about snake venom or poison ivy? These are natural substances."
"Well those are poisons! Those aren't like good for you and stuff."
"Any idea where he went to college?"
"ITT Tech... he's was a computer technician."
"How does learning how to solve computers help you understand the safety of complex molecules in humans?"
Obviously, this does not represent every drug user, however, my personal experiences with users generally turns up an inability to logically defend their choice.
I get these arguments from my friends who are as old as 21. They show an acute inability to weigh the pros and cons of arguments. As much as I hate testimonial arguments, I would expect that at least half of my high school graduating class (2006, FYI) could be easily duped into a DHMO-type scam.
Children do not have the tools necessary (and, unfortunately, are not being given them) to make informed decisions on... pretty much anything. Since there is no magic adulthood epiphany which occurs at 18 or 21, most adults lack this skill as well.
"Dictator Flakes. They WILL be delicious."
It's not like a high school freshman is going to be scarred for life by hearing two sides of an argument.
You really want to go with that?
Should we waste time in science class teaching "two sides" of the solar system argument? We spend only half the time teaching the standard science that the earth orbits the sun, and then we spend the other half of the time teaching students that the earth is the center of the universe and that the earth does not move? Shall we we spend time teaching students the "two sides" of chemistry vs the four earth/air/fire/water elements? Shall we we spend time teaching students the "two sides" of astronomy vs astrology?
Teaching students the four element earth/air/fire/water idea won't scar them for life. No, it won't make their heads explode. And it is a really really lousy way to try to get them to "think about opposing ideas".
That's exactly what's happening here. That's exactly what you are proposing and defending.
In science there is no more argument over evolution than there is over the solar system. These are science classes. We teach science in science class. That really should be the end of debate. These are science classes and we teach science in science class.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
At most, you can say that no one has found evidence disproving a given theory,
Not quite: you can find evidence that strongly supports a theory too, e.g. by making and testing a prediction (which is what I really meant when I carelessly used the word "prove").
People say things like "scientists haven't proven evolution, so even they admit it's not a fact"
But lets get the argument right: that is that its a disingenuous statement which deliberately confuses the colloquial meaning of "proven" (i.e. supported by strong evidence) with its strict mathematical meaning. If, say, the law used "proof" in the mathematical sense, then it would be almost impossible to prove someone guilty of a crime because any possible defense, however unlikely, would refute the proof. (Oh, and since none of the laws of science have been absolutely proven, you have no way of determining whether something is "possible").
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Not quite: you can find evidence that strongly supports a theory too, e.g. by making and testing a prediction (which is what I really meant when I carelessly used the word "prove").
But even that only demonstrates that the theory supports that specific set of conditions. Now, given wide enough coverage, you can make a strong case that the theory is accurate and useful.
For the record, I'm 100% pro-science. I'm also not hacking at this from a mathematical point of view. The scientific method works by trying to disprove ideas and keeping the ones that don't fall to experimental data.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I think failure to separate the concepts of "fact" and "theory" are step one in allowing anti-science to sow confusion.
Evolution is a FACT. Then there is THEORY about how it comes about. Details of the theory are what scientists still discuss, not the fact (and not the core of the theory). Weaknesses in the details of the theory *should* be up for discussion, or you're not teaching science.
That things fall is a fact. The theory of gravitation is still an active area. That the earth is a ball, rather than flat, is a fact. Theory about how planets form is still an active area. Etc...
Are you married by chance? *hopes for the best*
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
I don't see a problem with teaching ABOUT differing schools of thought -- it's better to know they EXIST, and what they believe (and why), than to be ignorant of them.
When I was in school, we were taught various scientific disciplines, and we were taught ABOUT various unscientific dead ends. Frex, we were taught chemistry, AND we were taught *about* alchemy. Knowing chemistry demonstrates why alchemy doesn't work, and knowing about alchemy helps demonstrate why chemistry works. And we therefore can't be snowed by someone claiming to know the miracles of alchemy, because we know that boiling lead ain't never gonna make it into gold.
We also learned about not only the solar system as it really is, but also the various cosmologies tried and discarded through the ages, and WHY they don't represent reality.
In my observation, being ignorant about snake oil tends to make one MORE susceptible to falling into it, rather than less. Look at any group of new-agers to see that -- most are well-educated people, but were never taught why some stuff DOESN'T work. What people are ignorant about, they tend to believe in as a sort of magic, even if they should intellectually (and educationally) know better.
But one does have to take care not to confuse teaching *information* with teaching *belief*.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I agree completely, with the note that the earlier poster wanting to teach students "two sides of an argument" didn't exactly mean teaching his voodoo as an "unscientific dead end". Chuckle.
I'm sure he actually intended to teach that evolution was an unscientific dead end, and was merely playing the teach-the-controversy charade.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Yeah, I noticed that... seems to be a common tactic in such arguments.
The very first thing I can remember learning in any science class is the "Scientific Method", which makes no statements about right or wrong, correct or incorrect, but does require that one collect and examine all relevant evidence (not just carefully selected evidence), without preconception or bias. It was taught akin to what's presented here: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
Of course, when all your evidence is hearsay that's been through multiple sessions of Chinese Whispers, it's a little hard to get it to pass muster for the Scientific Method ;)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?