Slashdot Mirror
Mixed Outcome of Texas Textbook Vote
The Texas Board of Education — as discussed here last week — has voted on the guidelines for textbooks in that state, which represents a large enough market to have influence nationwide. The good news is that the board dropped a 20-year-old requirement that both "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories be taught; score one for the teaching of evolution. The not-so-good news is that in a "compromise," the board also voted to require that students "in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations ... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student." Score one for the Discovery Institute. A Republican board member explained that the words "strengths and weaknesses" have become "code for creationism and [the similar theory of] intelligent design. So by being more clear in the language and using words that aren't seen as code words, we were able to get all of the 15 board members to agree that this is how we'll teach all sides of scientific explanation, using scientific evidence." Reporting on the Texas vote is all over the map, as a US Today blog summarizes. Some reports claim that an amendment was passed that preserves a
requirement that students study the "sufficiency or insufficiency" of common ancestry and natural selection. Other reports claim that the board also adopted language that would have students study the "different views on the existence of global warming."
The not-so-good news is that in a "compromise," the board also voted to require that students "in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student."
How is this not-so-good news?
What's the problem with teaching sciences by presenting theory and showing how evidence supports it?
Pardon me, but I fail to see how not teaching the weakness of a theory, whether it be evolution or gravity or special relativity, is a win for anyone?
I think we should teach how gravity might not exist. After all, it's still just a "Theory" we havn't actually found the particles (or whatever) that cause it. I for one don't believe in gravity.
Ze Atomic Device! It iz Ztolen!
No, score one for science. If one examines all sides of scientific evidence for those scientific explanations, then creationism and ID are left out in the cold because they are not based on science, are not scientific explanations, and thus can not be discussed.
Further, if the goal is to encourage critical thinking, then ID and creationism are in trouble because they do not stand up to critical examination.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
You are wrong. Maybe you shouldn't get your science from your preacher there, dumbass.
The Theory of Evolution makes predictions about the kinds of fossils that should be found, and guess what, we keep finding them. It has been tested and proven itself quite well.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Florida just had a bill to introduce "critical analysis of evolution." That bill just died. http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=975. So right now it looks like the creationists are losing. However, this anti-science agenda has been going on for a very long time and it isn't likely to end anytime soon. Even in Great Britain which has a much smaller percentage of people who are creationist http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/02/charles-darwin-creationism-intelligent-design there are still pushes for creationism.
Moreover, what matters isn't just what is officially in public school curriculum. Many teachers will skip evolution entirely simply to avoid controversy while teachers sympathetic to creationism will add it in even when they have no permission. Furthermore, even if children are taught evolution in schools, if they hear everywhere else (parents, peers, pastors etc.) that evolution is a satanic lie, then what is being taught in school won't matter much.
Overall, this is a good thing. But this particular set of anti-science memes will likely stick around for the expected life times of all Slashdotters (unless Duncan McCloud reads Slashdot).
I can almost hear the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn supporters in Texas gearing up for the campaigns to pressure the school systems into teaching their alternative "scientific" explanations of evolution, cosmology, etc. It should be fun to watch.
And how about the people who think that the mathematicians have make pi far too difficult for kids, and want their favorite alternative value taught in the schools. Wouldn't it be fun to contemplate a world in which engineers could build things using the exact (and rational!) value of pi that was taught to them when they were young ...
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Everyone knows that scientific theory is not scientific fact. A better theory may come along and frequently does in the the sciences. Especially if this criticism examines scientific evidence as the amendment requests and not "biblical evidence" which a lot of creationism is based upon. (Lots of circular arguements that basically end with the bible said so and it's correct because it's the word of god, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.)
Hopefully it would be interpreted that way and not just be a vehicle to introduce creationism. Afterall, scientific dogma is still dogma.
The wording as described in the summary sounds fine in the abstract; I suspect the problem will come in the implementation.
As I see it, the problem with creationism and ID isn't that it's wrong, it's that it's untestable. Anything taught in the science classroom should be testable. There is a place for testable but wrong theories -- I remember learning about the aether, for example -- but things that make no testable predictions have no place. A discussion of how a popular theory (like the Ptolomeic theory of the solar system) gets disproved is quite valuable; if such a discussion was possible about creationism or ID it would have a place in the science classroom. But, as it makes no testable predictions, putting it in the same category as Aristotelean physics or Ptolomean astronomy is wrong.
What is news here?
1. A state acting in its own right to govern per the wishes of its people?
2. Free thinking and speech?
3. Questioning everything?
Would you like to teach children not to question theories or even supposed fact? I have this theory about cold fusion that I want to talk to you about.
Science is based on questions.
I would rant about states rights over the federal government but I'd take too long. Let's just say it's my business if I teach my children that Zeus is God and he'll stick a lighting bolt up your ass if you don't believe me. :)
Stop trying to pretend evolutionary biology is on par with the mythologies they keep trying to push into the non-fiction classes! It isn't a static claim. More than that, it's not a claim with evidence "coming soon!" like its supposed competitor.
Can someone please point out a "weakness"? What is this part of the body of knowledge that makes up evolutionary biology that runs counter to observations in nature that the scientific community refuses to account for? I ask because the telepathic invisible sky deity fans really like to talk about it a lot. Then again, with all their talk you'd think they already derived exactly how many Hail Marys you have to say to consistently cure Parkinsons.
Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
This is why I hate politicians who fuck with what we teach.
People, especially those here on Slashdot, keep blaming teachers for the problems with school. In reality, it's assholes like these ignorant pricks who make us educators look like idiots. What they do in the end only makes schools appear less and less credible.
Requiring students to evaluate every scientific explanation in light of the evidence that supports it will be a monumental waste of time. From the theory of gravity to the theory of the atom, spending time discussing the basis of scientific consensus will prevent students from getting very deep into any topic. I'm just glad that the most likely effect for students outside Texas is that science textbooks will be distributed in two volumes: the part Texas students are able to get through while critiquing the evidence and the rest of the curriculum all other high schools will be able to get to.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
For instance, kids must know that f=ma, even though we know that it is a highly inaccurate expression. In fact f=d(mv)/(dt), a concept not taught at the high school level. The closest students come to this is f=m (v2-v1)/(t2-t1) which is close but still inaccurate as it does not include the mass changing events at high velocity. So, are students to be given all these details they do not need to know? Perhpas after they pass their exit level and are seniors, but honestly if strengths and weaknesses of every law was debated, there would be no teaching going on. I can imagine in third grade discussing the fact that the earth is not an exact sphere, and that there is no reason to believe that the earth is sphere if one does not want to, and perhaps these students who do not believe can even sue the state for not allowing them to pass because the students family believes the earth is flat and so they answered related questions based on those beliefs.
In the end the only thing to conclude, once again, is that that vast majority of Texas students, who seem to have little trouble differentiating between personal belief and scientific fact, and end up passing all their tests with good scores, are much smarter than the people on the Board, who seem to have some deficiency that prevents them from doing the same.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The reason it's not such great news is that phrasing, however subtle, is still meant to appease the fundies. The perception, I believe, is that it still allows for a principal or school board to put pressure on the teaching of evolution by pushing teachers to "examine all sides". The desire is to get ID and/or young earth creationism in here one way or the other. There is nothing wrong with teaching a theory and the evidence to support it - as long as that theory is a valid scientific theory with evidence that is widely accepted by the scientific community as such. ID isn't science (read the Dover transcripts if you are STILL confused on that point) but "examining all sides" is all about trying to get ID snuck into a science curriculum. Scientists are not against teaching weaknesses in any theory. Examining weaknesses is what science is all about. What scientists do NOT want done to "examine" those weaknesses by contrasting observations and facts that led to a theory (evolution) with observations that fit a pre-set fairy tale (creationism in whatever form you want to call it) and then pretend that both are valid science. The language used (above) is vague enough that it will provide the grist for many subsequent arguments between teachers and parents and schools and districts and I'm sure, many others. Nice job. Not.
Seriously, does he not notice how much he's effectively tabloidizing Slashdot?
Seriously, I was concerned I may have been missing something(since the summary's "bad thing" didn't sound all that bad) until I saw "by kdawson".
If they want to redefine the teaching of the Sciences for the purposes of meeting some political and ideological agendas, then the entire curriculum needs a review.
Nominations are:
1. English. Shakespeare is supposed to bring out a great appreciation for the fine arts and literature for students but the annual sales of Coles Notes show a consistent pattern of disinterest in Shakespeare.
2. Politics. The textbook sounds nice but its the reality they leave out. They should introduce essential skills like taking bribes - but don't get caught and How-To manipulate and lie to the public.
3. Business. I think the study of business in high schools is so far away from preparing students to work in the real work. Essentials are how-to "Fudge the numbers", create off-shore bank accounts, setup SPAM servers for Viagra ads (bonus! they learn some IT skills), etc.
In all, a curriculum focusing on the English literature teachings of Sir Coles, Political practices of the majority of successful politicians, and creating new grads with a more diverse business acumen, will certainly help creating the great minds in Texas for the years to come.
No matter how often you read about such stories, I'm always saddened by things like this. "Educators" wanting to impose their own opinions on subjects which they don't understand is bad enough. But to be, as I see it, fundamentally dishonest and sly (in the public eye, no less) in trying to get your way is such a betrayal of the future of the children you should feel responsible for. The big lesson here for kids won't be about science or religion, it will be about how to use political influence to get what you can't justify on its own merits. And how the truth isn't as important as, say, a good Christian might like to think it is.
On a lighter note, they've provided a fantastic example of thinking by committee. The fundamental decision they've made appears to have been to change "strengths and weaknesses" to "all sides". Rather than the outcome of the vote, I'd be more interested in the suicide rates of people forced to endure such discussions...
Ability to evaluate evidence requires understanding it. Understanding is more important than memorization. Hence this is a way to force people to think about what they are learning. I see it as a big positive.
D'oh!
Intelligent design == Creationism.
Hey Einstein, you're right. Gravity, electromagnetism, chemistry, biology, mechanics also happen to be "just theories". They can't be proven either. Show us how enlightened you are by refraining from using the internet.
I don't see anything wrong with teaching students to question authority. If nobody ever questioned basic 'truths', nobody would ever discover anything new. I say teach them to question everything they see.
Who is keeping "score" here? Encouraging students to be critical thinkers is not a bad thing. The summary writer sounds just as bad as the theists he is denouncing; he wants to mind-guard people from the idea of God in the same way they want to mind-guard people from the idea that there might not be a God; they want to prevent people from critiquing religious theory by banning the teaching of evolution. He wants to prevent people from critiquing evolutionary theory by banning religious theory. This isn't a game where you keep score, it's an important philosophical debate of profound significance to our entire society. Don't we value free speech and open debate?
I really don't see a reason to be concerned with encouraging critical thinking or requiring the strengths and weaknesses with evolution. It is a theory and as far as theories go, it's a fairly weak one. We can use it for micro-evolutionary changes but macro-evolutionally changes are far from being supported. Pointing out it's flaw is the only responsible thing to do if we are truly educating students. We do that with all other theories and it doesn't seem to be an issue. Why here? Is the thought of God that annoying to the /. crowd?
Before the rant begins about the Jesus freak from the trailer, this is coming from a Christian degreed in particle physics and nuclear reactor design. In all that I've studied, I have to say science leads me towards God being real. Too many variables for life to exist without Him. I'm also not afraid to mix my science and my faith. Science just explains how He works. I do agree that the Church has historically done a very poor job of dealing with science. I can't find nor do I want to find a defense for the actions in the past. With that said, why have we now decided to ignore the historical social, economic, and scientific influences in public schools if they refer to God?
Yea - I agree that encouraging kids to fully understand both sides of an argument and think critically about a scientific theory is a HUGE STEP BACKWARDS!
Kids should be taught a scientific principle and be expected to believe it without question.
Wait, are we talking about science or religion?
Theory of Evolution was proven? I clearly need to get out more. I didn't know that it is Theorem of Evolution now.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
"Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world"
I like how pro-creationists suddenly revert to nihilists whenever you resort to "burden of proof" arguments. For example, "the Theory of Evolution has been sifting through a mountain of proofs in the forms of fossil records for more than a century." "Yes, but could you say anything is really 'true'? What is 'truth'? It is a mere construction of... *blah blah metaphysical blah*" The truth is, all that metaphysical nonsense aside, the Theory of Evolution has been sufficently proven enough to be a real science where Intelligent Design has not.
It allows Creationist teachers to teach religiously-based claptrap as a bogus alternative to the fact (yes, fact) of evolution.
We have seen the emergence of a new species (ID/Creationist "macro" evolution - as if there was a difference between small changes and big ones when you have millions of years to accumulate the small ones)
Even science takes a few things on faith, only instead of faith, science just says "assume this" then proves how 'if' that's true, then it also explains the below theory.
There's still very large gaps in fossils we should have found were the theory to be true ( yes, i phrased it that way, i'm a creationist :gasp!: ) we should have been finding them, a lot of them, not just a handful, and evolution and adaptation are two separate things. adaptation or mutation can explain a handful, but a handful cannot prove evolution. also, true or not, isn't review a good thing for scientific theories/discoveries.
also, from the above post (way above)
"I think we should teach how gravity might not exist. After all, it's still just a "Theory" we haven't actually found the particles (or whatever) that cause it. I for one don't believe in gravity." replace the concept of gravity with God, and i think the sarcasm makes a good point.
Are the proponents of this move really concerned with science? Do they ever say "teach the controversy" about other subjects? Indeed, whatever the scientific problems (if any) that the theory of evolution has, would they (or the teachers) address them?
Somehow when I first read this, it looked like you have hooligans trying to make scientific decisions. But then (in this context, at least) I guess that isn't very different anyway.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I'd laugh my ass off as if I lived there as I'd argue for the FSM, and see how they spin out of control trying to prove me wrong...happy days in Texas schools!!! Reminds me of the time that I was allowed to write anything about the state of the Catholic religion at my Catholic High school anonymously! You should have seen what was written!!! That was a hap-hap-happy day!
According to the New Scientist:
Excellent! Science is all about the pursuit of the truth of objective reality. Every assumption needs to be questioned otherwise it's not science but rather it's dogma if you're not allowed to question the science.
Utter NONSENSE. These and other anti-science and anti-science-education crowds LOST in Texas: Discovery Institute, Intelligent Designer proponents, Creationists, Religionists, Our-Science-is-Correct-and-we-Don't-Have-to-Prove-It-And-If-You-Ask-Questions-Crowd-You're-Automatically-A-Denier-(anti-science)-Crowd and Delusional of all sorts had a huge loss.
Asking questions leads people to give up their delusions if they get the power of asking questions. Sure some imaginary friend delusionals will use that to attempt to push their religious agenda but in the end what will happen is that the battle ground shifts to critical thinking skills where it belongs!
Sharpen your pencils girls and boys and get ready to educate people who don't know about science, about your field of science, in the ways and means of science, the scientific method and critical thinking skills.
The fostering of asking questions and learning to think that my Roman Catholic parents encouraged in me helped me deprogram their attempts to bring me into their faith. Thank ERG (pardon the expression) for all those science books at home and at school.
Without getting the power of critical thinking anyone is lost in today's world of magical claims, weird fake science, television, government, bogus medical claims, con men of all kinds, parents, friends and family who are constantly attempting to pull you into their delusions.
Every CULTure you interact with has it's own delusions and often those are the very ones that people use to justify their killing of others one way or the other. Do you even know how many different CULTureS you're embedded within? How many? How can you tell? What are the beliefs of your CULTure? How do they blind you?
The Human Belief Engine we call the brain-mind is the culprit not what is in a book and the sooner that people realize that the better. Critical thinking skills are the only path to knowledge devoid of delusions, or at least with minimized delusions, about objective reality.
http://www.pathstoknowledge.net/
http://www.godlessaccident.com/
"According to Peirce's doctrine of fallibilism, the conclusions of science are always tentative. The rationality of the scientific method does not depend on the certainty of its conclusions, but on its self-corrective character: by continued application of the method science can detect and correct its own mistakes, and thus eventually lead to the discovery of truth".
A guiding principle for accepting claims of catastrophic global events, miracles, incredible healing, invisible friends, or _fill_in_the_blank_ is:
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
Sagan's Principle applies to ALL FIELDS OF SCIENCE as well as ALL wacko claims by non-scientists. To say differently is to assert that any part of science should not be questioned! Asking questions is the fundamental core of science. "Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness." - Alfred Korzybski
"Scien
Did anyone else see the recent breakthrough announced by gay scientist research group Pink Tiger, with their discover of the Christian gene? Fabulous send-up...
Gay Scientists Isolate Christianity Gene
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Cassius Corodes wrote:
>Science is about trying to understand how things
>work. If you have already decided that god
>exists then you are not doing proper science.
From your claim, and the fact that Isaac Newton was a Christian theologian and believed in God, it follows that Newton was not doing proper science. Do you agree with that conclusion?
Although the wording is a bit ambiguous "Proven itself" does not have the same definition or connotation as "proved" (as the case of a mathematical theorem) would.
The Theory of Evolution has been proven to be a good predictor of fossil remains, and the manner in which we can observe bacteria conform to their surroundings in a controlled experiment. In other words, the theory's been extensively studied, examined, and tested, and we haven't found any firm basis on which to disprove or refute it.
However, it has not been proved, nor can it ever be -- just like the Theory of Gravity, which though extensively tested and proven on Earth, is thought to be incompatible with some astronomical observations.
Conclusive proofs can only exist in the world of mathematics and logic.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Thinking back to the science classes that I had, it always struck me as interesting how theories in Biology seemed to be treated much differently than theories in Physics.
Within Biology, things were generally presented with "this is the way that we think things are" and that was about it.
Within Physics, the discussion tended to center around "this is how ideas of this subject have developed over time and this is the way we think things are now", at times followed by discussion of where there might be opportunity to better clarify current theory.
Just wondering why it is that lots of introductory physics textbooks include a history of the atomic models (complete with plenty of examples of "hey, we got some parts right and were dead wrong on others, but at least we kept improving our models"), but I can't really recall any biology textbooks that gave serious discussion to shortcomings in evolution that have been identified and how the theory has "evolved" over time.
I agree with those who say it is a good thing that students think critically so as to come to the truth. I just don't agree with the conclusion that Creationism has no scientific evidence in support of it and that it is all theological.
And I was well aware before I even looked at one comment what the majority of posters would think of evolution vs. Creationism. Too many /. articles have already shown me how easy it is to predict the type of responses that'll occur.
However, I would like to ask a rhetorical question or two... For those who insist Creationism has no scientific evidence, that it's hypothetical or slight of hand or based on bad science or misrepresenting science...
How much research have YOU actually put into researching what Creationists have to say scientifically speaking? And I'm not talking about what some Creationist zealot told you about it. Nor am I talking about what the media or some professor told you about it. How much have YOU PERSONALLY researched on the matter from those considered authorities and educated in Creationism?
We all know there are evolutionist zealots who support evolution without really understanding what it says or by their own study of the theory. The same goes for Creationism. So, I implore you to ask yourself honestly and put on your critical thinking caps and ask yourselves if YOU have REALLY researched and used critical thinking skills *OR* if you are parroting what someone else told you. And if you are parroting, is your disbelief in Creationism your own or by proxy? The same goes for evolution... is your belief in it because you KNOW it is truth, or is it a proxy belief?
I say all this because I've seen plenty of people who claim to be Christians, but are little more than Christians by proxy. I have no doubts whatsoever that there are evolutionists by proxy. Now whether you reply to me or not is not the point. The point is do you believe evolution by proxy? Are you being academically honest or not?
If you believe you are not an exact replica of your parents and that you share some traits with your parents you believe in evolution. These two things have been apparent to people for thousands of years (you have you mother's eyes and your father's chin). Evolution isn't a theory it is a fact.
There are 100 cavemen. There is a harsh winter. The cavemen best at hunting get to eat first. The schizophrenic cavemen get killed by wolves. The weak and slow cavemen don't get to eat. At the end of the season there are 10 heroic well fed hunter cavemen and 30 dead ones. The dead ones will be unable to have kids. The heroes will be allowed as many children as they like. The next generation of cavemen will be mostly the progeny of the heroes and will share traits with them (bulgier muscles, faster reflexes, better vision). Clearly the traits of the sickly were not passed on to the next generation.
Please note that I only used two pieces of information that have been common knowledge since long before roman times. How many people respected lineages, royal lines, heirs, 'good family', race? The idea of genetics has been part of our culture since before Christianity or Judaism were even conceived. It's only recently we've been able to undeniably prove it that people have started denying it so fervently.
So long as they do it honestly. If the strengths and weakness of evolution are taught fairly there is no problem. However if the strengths of evolution are downplayed, and areas where more study is need unreasonably used against the theory for political reasons, we have a big problem.
And how many fossils "should" we have found? What is the probability that a dead organism will become a fossil?
Superficially, the decision sounds fine - of course we want students to analyze the scientific evidence! The problem is that the creationists are going to come back with a novel definition of 'scientific' evidence that treats Intelligent Design as a scientific hypothesis, and they're going to demand textbooks that include a treatment of all kinds of nonsensical 'theories'. ID is not scientific. It has no evidence in its favor (pointing out that we lack intermediate fossils showing the evolution of the lesser red-necked Argentinian swamp leech is not evidence that it was designed). But the Discovery Institute does have another bad textbook waiting in the wings for the next round of textbook-buying decisions in Texas.
For more details, see here.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
My thoughts on the matter are this. While critical thinking should always be encouraged, there isn't time to look critically at every issue and get everybody convinced that it is a certain way. So you don't want schools to be forced to have all the discussions about every issue. At some point, you have to just teach that something is a certain way and get on with it.
At the same time, it is important that people understand some core principles. The truth is not what somebody says it is, it is what is actually out there. There are various methods of learning what is out there, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. It is important to know which things are certain and which things are not. So, here, you take a look at argumentation, fallacies, critical thinking, statistics, and the scientific method. Here, you go into detail on various theories that have been proposed and refuted. And here, you explain that what is taught in the rest of the programme is not the truth, but something that, to the best of our knowledge, has not been shown to be false. Or, as the case may be, a simplification that works well enough to be useful, even though we know the Real World is more complex.
This way, you teach both critical thinking and the rest of the programme, without having to get stuck in endless discussions at every turn.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
the one major sticking point for evolution is the problem of abiogenesis-- disregard the domain name for a minute and read this: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html
very valid -scientific- evidence against evolution from abiogenesis
I don't see anything bad here. It is a great idea to have students "...analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations..."
Evolution has been analyzed, evaluated and critiqued for decades, and it has still not been disproved.
This means that Teachers should also be just as free to "analyze, evaluate and critique Biblical explanations. After all we should give both sides equal treatment.
I believe that this is actually a step forward. If Teachers truly do teach both sides evaluating and critiquing every "fact" then I am certain students will come out understanding the truth about our evolving world.
This promotes proper investigation and revision and kills-off Bad Science through attrition.
...he says ALMOST 150 years after Darwin first published origin of species, as creationism/intelligent design is STILL trying to sneak in the back door of the classroom.
More like a crazy glue point.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
It is so sad that people even allow "creationism" as a debate still. Get a real
spine and tell these people to shut up and leave the room.
Here, these words will help:
"Collective, viral mental illness"
"Collective, viral mental illness"
"Collective, viral mental illness"
(keep repeating it...)
They need treatment and counseling to address their illness. There was
no virgin birth. There was no loaves and fishes feeding thousands. There
was no man who came back to life. There was no garden of Eden. It is
grossly ridiculous to discuss the world as 6000 years old. They are stories!
There was no placement of fossils to test our "faith". And most of all, we
have zero observations to support the story of a sentient creator. Personally,
I don't know if there is a God, but collectively teaching blatant falsehoods
should be completely unacceptable and called as such every single time.
Loudly.
Men wrote the bible. It was written long after the historical figure "Jesus
of Nazareth" died. Men created the church, every church. There is absolutely
no space for discussion with "creation scientists". Those with a straight face
who "teach" such extreme views, (see for example here (if you can stomach it
without vomiting): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_CLIGJW6Ic ) are
*mentally ill* and should be offered treatment.
Even if a large group of people are deluded, they are still deluded.
The best class I took at the University of Chicago was one focused at dissecting a number of the scientific papers that were most "worshipped" - they were written by the best and the brightest and were highly referenced in the field. When we read them critically, we found that often (always in the set of papers we looked at) the claims of these papers simply could not be substantiated by the content. Sometimes, it was just not supportable - sometimes even the opposite result from the claim was demonstrated. Critical reading and thinking is hugely important. I have no problem with this. That is what real science is all about. As long as these kids also have the ability and opportunity to question the bullshit that is in these textbooks, then everything will be just fine.
Wouldn't it be fun to contemplate a world in which engineers could build things using the exact (and rational!) value of pi that was taught to them when they were young ...
Something to think about:
There is a rational number x such that if all engineering computations throughout history used x instead of pi there would be no loss of precision or accuracy in the result.
Jesus saves!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This whole argument is the problem with education being run by the state. If the state doesn't like what you teach, you're not allowed to teach it. Whatever the state wants to be taught is fact and whatever they don't want taught is not. All you anti-religionists just wait--the state will eventually choose something you believe in to attack next. American History perhaps? The government doesn't care about what's true, only about what's good for them politically. To think otherwise is naive. To have them in control of education is lunacy.
"O'Connor, smash the window." "Why me, Bigboote?" "It might be boobie-trapped!" "Oh!"<smash> -Buckaroo Banzai
The Theory of Evolution makes predictions about the kinds of fossils that should be found, and guess what, we keep finding them. It has been tested and proven itself quite well.
Technically, those are quasi-experiments (approximately, relying on the experiments already done by nature rather than setting up your own experiment) and they are rightly seen as of somewhat lesser value than controlled experiments -- the reason being that there's a strong temptation to be so selective about what data gets considered that you'll never allow a negative result. Say you were a mad scientist who believed dogs evolved from elephants. So you predict there'll be an almost-dog-almost-elephant fossil out there. You haven't found it? "Well, there's a lot of places to look," you say as you toss the 999,999th almost-dog-almost-wolf fossil away because it doesn't match what you're looking for so you didn't consider it in the study.
I mean if the Bible wasnt true, how would we hear about the magical 'chosen people' and the god that likes them and not his other creations?
Heck, we have a country in the middle east whose sole existence is due to the the fictional stories of plagues of locusts, and spreading seas and bearded hippies talking to burning bushes.
Oh, wait....those imaginary tales we have to believe in.
... Might not get how Loony these Creationist's get and sound!! /. reader to sit through those shows without putting something through or shouting at the TV!! :D
But in the UK, If you want to risk it, you can tune into Sky Ch. 585 "Revelation" an Evangelical Christian Station that has programs all about Creationism!! I dare any UK
I Dare ya!!
Please, mods, employ some thought before modding. "Troll" is not a synonym for "Do not like".
In my comment above, I clearly left too much to implication -- *proper* theologians concern themselves with theology, i.e. the study of God/gods and religions. This is orthogonal to any study of science, as no lesser authority than the Vatican itself has pointed out. Dictating science curricula plainly falls outside the bounds of theology, and therefore, anyone trying to make scientific decisions as within the context of this discussion about the Texas board of education is clearly not a theologian. Moreover, forcing one's views on another is rude, all the more so when those views are inappropriate to the context, which brings us to the epithet of "hooligan" -- a more apt description than "theologian", by a long shot.
Cripes, the mods these days are terrible. The "troll" mod used to be reserved for flagging posts that were actually trolling -- i.e., stirring the pot and trying to rile people up with spurious arguments -- as a warning and courtesy to others that the poster was a pot-stirrer and not really serious. My post above is anything but -- at best, I was trying to be mildly amusing and slightly acerbic, but trolling? Certainly not.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
To some extent that's true, but one of the big brou-hahas in evolutionary biology of the past few decades was precisely over a bunch of predicted fossils that haven't been found, which some evolutionary biologists argue it would be improbable not to have found by now, given the others that have been found. That was one of the cruxes of the debate between proponents of a particularly strong version of punctuated equilibrium, such as Stephen Jay Gould, who argued that standard Darwinian theory was incapable of explaining the observed fossil record; and others, such as Gould's own mentor Ernst Mayr, who argued that some version of punctuated equilibrium might be an observed phenomenon, but was merely a description of certain kinds of dynamics within generally Darwinian natural selection, not a challenge to it. I suppose not many people still side with Gould's original, rather strong claims, but it isn't entirely agreed what ought to be found in the fossil record and what it shows about which theories.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If you're going to seriously ask teachers to evaluate the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the evolutionary theory of human origins, you've got to have them doing the same to the intelligent-design theories and the pure creationist theories. Not sure the creationists _really_ want to go there - examining weaknesses doesn't just mean "saying that creationists don't believe in evolution."
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
He doesn't want anything but his religion taught, and nothing that might show any scientific thought, any genuine science where even firmly-held paradigms are open to examination, to be suppressed. Even the medieval Roman Catholic Church wasn't this hard-core into censorship. kdawson is anti-science.
Why is it that everyone thinks that creation is stupid. It is a legitimate theory with a fair amount of evidence to support it. Scientists defend evolution almost savagely because they realize how weak of a theory it really is. Oh, and I would also like to point out that evolution is every bit as much a religion as creation. Neither one can be scientifically proven and acceptance of either simply depends on what you believe.
How much research have YOU actually put into researching what Creationists have to say scientifically speaking? And I'm not talking about what some Creationist zealot told you about it. Nor am I talking about what the media or some professor told you about it. How much have YOU PERSONALLY researched on the matter from those considered authorities and educated in Creationism?
Let's see. Aside from the obvious personal testimonial of being a former Young Earth Creationist, even post that I've read the works of Behe, Dembski, Sarfati, Ken Ham, and others. And I've read the rebuttals. Many here have likely done so as well.
Your comment about whether there is belief by proxy also misses an important point. Science is terribly complicated. Belief by proxy is necessary all the time when one doesn't have the time and resources to examine a scientific claim. Thus for example, I don't have the time or skill to examine the details of quantum mechanics. So I have belief by proxy that quantum mechanics correctly predicts that decay rates of nuclei will be exponential (for example). In the ideal world we'd all be perfect Baconians and perform every single experiment and calculation for ourselves. But we aren't immortal and don't have infinite time on our hands.
I hate to be the one to break it you all, but it's a cold, hard fact that evolution is basically just a theory at this point.
Aha, but THAT is just a theory! Specifically a wrong one. Where's your intelligent designer now!?!
Part of the problem behind the public perception of a conflict between science and religion is that, until the college level, science classes often teach a somewhat blind belief in a body of results rather than the real methods of science. One big reason why is because really understanding the basis of a lot of scientific advances requires a lot of math, and math education in the US is terribly lacking*. The result is that science is perceived by the average joe as a magic art or a black box that produces oracular truths**. It's then just a question of which oracles you place your trust in, which dogma you select.
Science and religion should be natural allies in the fight against the unthinking superstition, mob irrationality, cult of celebrity, irresponsibility, and self-deception which pervade our culture. People who are sincere in their faith should be able to see this- see where the real threat to faith comes from- and insist on more science education. Science makes thought responsible to the phenomena, forces us to face the limits of our own understanding, and stands apart from the opinions of the mob. When people face the fallacious arguments used by those pushing our society into moral decay, the difficulty of standing for truth when the tide of popular opinion seems to be turning against it, and the kind of sloppy thinking and tripe which often passes for education these days (the Sokal affair is a sad commentary on a lot of the modern university), things they've learned from doing real science can help them hold to their faith.
People from both sides of the spectrum - from the fundamentalist young-earth creationists trying to change the textbooks to Dawkins- who think that sound science and religion conflict understand neither science nor religion. To some extent that's excusable- one doesn't have to understand religion to be a good Christian/Jew/etc but rather one needs to love God and neighbor; one doesn't need to understand science to be a good scientist (cf. the quote attributed to Feynman saying philosophy of science is as relevant to scientists as ornithology is to birds) but rather one needs to press towards better mathematical models of data and of reality. But to criticize either from that kind of a standpoint is inexcusable. Not that I understand science and faith fully, but my experience with both and my study of the philosophy of science and the philosophy of religious experience have helped me have some appreciation for both.
*That people get out of middle school without having had experience with logic and proofs is lamentable; that most people get out of high school without a good understanding of what derivatives and integrals are is unfortunate. We should aim to reach the point where the better students have the math they need for real scientific and engineering work- the basics of multivariable calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations- by the time they enter college.
**One way this view of science as a black box shows up which really annoys me: people either saying "but you have to believe ! It's SCIENCE!" or "evolution's just a theory" (depending on which oracle they trust).
Uh, yeah. So the "we have no evidence that life could have spontaneously arisen, so it must not have" crowd is somehow more right than the "we have no evidence for how it happened, but we think life spontaneous arose" crowd?
I'm not sure that argument really even is that relevant in the discussion of evolution. I never considered evolution to really define where the original cell came from, but more to define how that one cell became us. I find it absolutely astonishing that so much evidence of evolution exists, particularly in the fossil record.
I mean, think about how big the earth is, the constant turmoil from erosion, volcanism, plate tectonics, etc. that afflicts the earth's crust. Now imagine a squishy flesh-and-bone creature (let alone a bacteria or plankton, or whatever) dying, being preserved in whole or part, and being found hundreds of millions of years later, many times purely by chance by some construction worker or farmer digging a hole.
So, for some whiny creationist to come along and say there are holes in the fossil record really just pisses me off. If you want to believe in miracles, think about finding a preserved brain from a hundred+ million year old fossil. To me, that's a f*cking miracle. (Sorry, that's probably somewhat tangent in the context of this reply, but not in the context of the overall discussion.)
And please, the "God put it there to test us" argument is just an embarrassment.
On that last part I wrote 'people either saying "but you have to believe <insert dubious conclusion backed by one or two sociology studies>! It's SCIENCE!"' and forgot to escape the angle brackets.
Wow that was a longer rant than I thought. Time for bed.
Not a chance. That verbiage is meant only for evolution. You won't find any teachers who have an axe to grind over the germ theory or the heliocentric solar system. But you'll find scads of teachers who are eager as heck to teach kids all about the weaknesses of evolution, and maybe carbon dating as well.
Kids are not graduate students working at the edges of science, nor the foundations. Kids have to first learn the basics and then later learn why it is the way it is. Teachers don't have the time or inclination to teach the "holes" in a theory, unless it happens to conflict with their religion. What are the "holes" in plate tectonics or special relativity or quantum mechanics? Not only do creationists not know, they also don't care, because this entire charade is just to give evangelicals an angle to continue attacking evolution.
Unfortunately in the mix there are large groups that have rejected an educated clergy and are opposed to the educated in general. To them Jesuits and Biologists are equally evil.
Ask the questions, and see if they can get answered. I've been dealing with the creationist thing for some time, and I've found that all their questions are rhetorical. Even when they get answered (or were answered decades ago) they just keep getting asked again and again, as if they were some fresh, cutting-edge insight.
I went to school in TX, and I know full well how this will play out. Evangelical teachers will say "evolution can't explain x" and then if a student has the stones to do some research in the scientific literature and shows that evolution has, in fact, already explained x, he'll get a poor grade and be labelled as an attitude case. The point of this is to give teachers the opportunity to teach kids that evolution (and naturalism in general) is riddled with holes, and when kids will be expected to learn that particular lesson. If kids start bringing articles to school refuting the teacher's claims, it won't go well for those kids. This is very much about saving the kids from materialism. It's just another footnote to the Wedge Document.
see http://www.bcmin.us/main/?q=node/31.
Large gaps. Okay, and what happened in Jesus's life between the Manger and adulthood? There is a large gap in the bible where that should be covered. Does that mean that Jesus was called back by God for a few years, then returned when he was fully grown? The more logical assumption would be that he grew up, just like a normal person, but that that information was either poorly documented or left out of the Bible due to lack of relevance. The point is, the Bible doesn't give a complete day by day or even year by year reckoning of the entire 6000 year history of the world it claims, and likewise neither does the available evidence supporting evolution have a piece of the puzzle that covers everything that happened in the last billion and a half years of life on Earth. Gaps in knowledge are expected when dealing with the past, whether you get your info from a divine source or from science. You make logical assumptions about the information that is missing and move on.
If written records from the last 6000 years can get lost, it is reasonable to assume that a pretty special set of circumstances has to take place to preserve many of the types of evidence for events that transpired millions or hundreds of millions of years ago. This, primarily, is the reason for these "large gaps" in the fossil records. In short, it is not proof that they never existed; while that may be, it is also likely that they were subsequently destroyed or have yet to be found, and indeed, the latter two options are the more likely.
With this, let me put into a simple analogy why evolution isn't "proved" and why it can not be. This is not a weakness of science as the creationists (or at least the ID folks) like to claim, it is simply a fact of information gathering when much of the information is lost. In other words, the preponderance of evidence supporting evolution is every bit as valid and unassailable as that supporting quantum mechanics and chemistry or any other theory in a life science field - evolutionists aren't trying to be anti-religious - the religious folk are the ones that attacked evolution, which has no more of an agenda than any other field.
Let's say we have a jigsaw puzzle of Abraham Lincoln, but we don't know that. Due to a fire, much of the puzzle is lost - maybe 90% of it (much more of the evidence for evolution is gone - greater than 99.99% I'd wager). Now, as we look at the pieces we have, we postulate that the picture is that of a man (we found a piece that has his beard), white, aged 50 or so. As we find new pieces, they further support our basic postulates (it is a picture of a man, white, aged 50ish), though they also allow us to refine (probably closer to 55, etc), or possibly prove wrong some of our previous assumptions on the finer points (oh, I guess it can't be a picture of Billy Gibbons of ZZ Top), but the basic theory continues to be strengthened and allows us to continually predict what we should find (we expect to find two eyes, a nose, a mouth, all in black and white, etc) with great accuracy, or at least make useful assumptions about what is missing.
Even if someone theorizes that it is Abraham Lincoln, we still can't be certain that it isn't just a picture of someone dressed up to look like Abraham Lincoln, though that theory would still be as good as true in its predictive abilities and its application to scientific progress.
Again, evolution is supported just like any other field of science. If you attack the process by which the evidence in evolution is gathered and analyzed, then you attack the foundations of the same sciences that made solar power and nuclear weapons and CD players possible. Why is it that ID folk have no problem with astrophysics or geology, but simply can't abide by evolution when they are build upon the same principles of thought? Also, how does one ignore the large deficiencies of the Bible when it omits bus sized carnivores but a nearly complete (85%) skeleton is on public display in the Field Museum of Natural History? Oh, we don't have a hundred percent of the bones, or a complete carcass, or a living specimen, so it must just be an elephant skeleton that we have misconstrued as a Tyrannosaurus in order to undermine the Bible.
Oh, was that my outside voice?
Why is it that this post feels so much like it's going to say the exact opposite of what it does say?
In any case, I agree completely. I've always felt that having "critical thinking" be a required course of study alongside language arts, math, science, etc. from Kindergarten on has the potential to change the world in a significantly positive way. Hell, just giving people the skills to avoid spam/phishing, thus putting an end to it, would make a big difference in most of our lives.
In 7th grade, I learned about Christianity and creationism, as well as Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hindu, and touched briefly on some others. It was quite informative and I'd recommend it to everyone.
This was, of course, done where it belonged -- in Social Studies class, not Science. Perhaps if the people of the school boards of Texas would just agree to teach it similarly, there wouldn't be a big stink about it.
I find this entire debate most humorous. On the one side, you have the ID crowd trying to get a foot in the door. On the other, the Evo people don't even want to entertain any such notions. There is more debate on whether there should be a debate than there has been debate on the actual theories.
I am not a theologist. I'm not even religious. As I see it, intelligent design does not equal Creationism or religion. Why does design have to involve omnipotence or faith? Human, mortal scientists are working in labs at the nano level and beyond, creating new devices by design. Who knows how long it will take before they actually replicate life? But I do not doubt that it will happen.
Yet, when the evolutionists hear "intelligent design", they go on the attack. They took existence away from religion some hundred odd years ago and have been paranoid about religion taking it back ever since. They are so on edge that the mere mention (or the discussion of mentioning) of an alternative idea sends them into a frenzy. Is evolution such a unstable theory that they aren't willing to put it up against anything else for scrutiny?
Of course, ask an evolutionist this and it is preposterous. There is no need for discussion. Their theory has been proven time and time again. Just ask any scientist with half a brain! Of course, the amount of gray matter is directly proportional to the scientist's loyalty to evolution. And if you have to ask, you are just stupid anyway, right?
If anything, it is all fun to watch!
I live in Texas and I have to tell you that the news that makes national and world headlines from this state is never good... outside that one press release on the invention of breast augmentation.,/p>
Not so good. The flat-chested girls were the only ones who would date geeks.
I applaud your general point, that people are generally lazy and prefer dogma to critical thought, but I have to disagree with your prescription for US mathematics education. (at least in practice) Having students attempt to have been exposed to Linear Algebra, DiffEq, Multivariate Calculus, etc... before the end of high school will have the opposite effect of the one that you desire. I have already seen where many of the better students have been pushed through single variable calculus in high school before they have really deeply learned the prerequisite material. Most of the students coming out of this system will have a MORE shallow and mechanical (dogmatic) understanding not less so. I think that a slower and deeper introduction (with a good foundation in mathematical logic) to the more fundamental portions of mathematics will result is a student that is more prepared to appreciate and understand the scientific material that they are being exposed to. *note that all of this requires children to be more mature then most prove to be, how do we deal with that? *
You're assuming that the compromise wording is still code for "excuse to attack science."
It's not particularly hard to find un-biased judges in Texas.
It is, I admit, easy to find biased judges, as well, but that's not a peculiar problem to Texas.
The specific issue here is perhaps the nature of the biases you find.
But the question you're driving at is, without a legal definition of "scientific evidence", you must rely on common law, and common law in a particularly place tends to reflect the common sensibilities of that place.
Being one who believes in that government should be by the voice of the people, even when the people are not perfectly correct, I don't see this as something to be fought on terms of the kinds of us vs. them arguments prevailing in this thread. Us vs. them is wrong, even when "we" believe in "the truth", whether the truth is "science" or "religion".
Unfortunately, much though it might be uncomfortable to you and me as geeks, the best solutions to social problems tend to be social, and this is primarily a social problem.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
'to critique' is not a verb. 'to criticize' is.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
>the one major sticking point for evolution is the problem of abiogenesis--
>disregard the domain name for a minute and read this: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html
>very valid -scientific- evidence against evolution from abiogenesis
The problem with that problem is that the theory of evolution does not even TRY to explain the origin of life. All it tries to explain is how we got from there to here, i.e. how the life which started *whatever way* evolved over time. So any criticism about how the theory of evolution cannot explain how life started on this planet is irrelevant.
That's the thing supporters of ID do not "get" - supporting the theory of evolution and believing that it was God who started life on earth is not mutually exclusive.
Technically, those are quasi-experiments (approximately, relying on the experiments already done by nature rather than setting up your own experiment) and they are rightly seen as of somewhat lesser value than controlled experiments
You have to be careful here. Controlled experiments can also give unexpected results because of a conscious or unconscious bias somewhere. Confounding factors abound.
The classic recent example is HRT. Controlled experiments showed that HRT reduced heart disease. It's now accepted that HRT has a net negative health benefit in the population at large (but that doesn't mean that it's not a benefit for some). There was a selectional bias in the controlled studies even though the researchers took every care to try to avoid any bias.
Another example: cycling helmets. There's an infamous paper by TRT showing that cycle helmets prevent 88% of head injuries. (You'll find that figure quoted all over the place). Unfortunately, using _exactly_ the same data you find that cycle helmets also prevent >80% of knee injuries. The fundamental problem with the paper was that it was really considering the injury risk between white middle class children riding in parks (who predominantly wore helmets) against black poor children riding in the street (who didn't wear helmets).
Every single country that has brought in a mandatory cycle helmet law (and enforced it) has seen the head injury risk _increase_ (most saw a net decrease in injuries but a much larger decrease in the numbers of cyclists post law) and head injury rates are _positively_ correlated with helmet wearing rates.
There's been no good research (to my knowledge) to explain why helmeted cyclists are more at risk. There are numerous hypotheses, from increased risk of rotational injury due to the increased size of the head to risk compensation. I only know of one tiny study (researcher in Bath, UK) who has attempted any measurements at all. His study is much too small (and he was the primary subject) to draw any robust conclusions but he found that cars passed a helmeted cyclist several inches closer than an unhelmeted one. That would imply that if it is risk compensation then it's not all down to the cyclist taking more risks with a helmet and so cannot be (completely) allowed for by the cyclist regardless of what a cyclist might claim.
Tim.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Great, let's test your non-belief in gravity. Go to the nearest tall building or cliff to a height of at least 200 feet, preferably taller... then simply jump off without any parachutes or bungie cords or ropes or --- basically no cheating --- and let yourself fall. Gravity wins over your belief every time.
This works in Texas or in Moscow or anyplace on the Earth for that matter.
Good luck with your non-belief in gravity.
Oh, ever fallen down? Well that's gravity too.
Newton, Einstein, they had theories of Gravity that seem to be quite accurate with Einstein being a wee bit more accurate than Newton. However, Gravity Sucks seems to just about cover the proof for the theory of gravity that most people need.
Something to think about:
No, there isn't.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
After all, that's what these people want in schools. So teach the weakness behind ID. Then go through the weaknesses of Evolution.
When you see how different in kind these weaknesses are, you'll realise that ID shouldn't have been taught.
PS can we demand that churches preach the weaknesses in their theories?
ID only want to look at what makes Evolution wrong. They DO NOT want to look at what makes ID wrong. In fact, they use "some alien did it" so that
a) there is no evidence of any alien available, so it can't be proven wrong
b) it isn't God, no siree, it's an alien
and yet forget that if there's an alien, where did that one come from?
But they don't want thoughts like that and their "theory" ensures that there are no observations available so that their "theory" cannot be shown wrong by any observation.
Your parent poster was saying that scientists DO NOT WANT someone taking only the parts that make an argument (which ID does to discredit evolution) (that's the "fairy tale"), not that the scientists only take the parts that fit evolution.
"until the college level, science classes often teach a somewhat blind belief in a body of results rather than the real methods"
Same with religion. All you're told is the simple one-track history. You don't hear about Lot Shagging his daughters in school.
You don't hear WHY the pope is considered the mouth of god on earth. You don't hear about the giants from the Land Of Nod (who existed at the same time as Adam and Eve).
Why? Because these things make people question the truth in the bible.
So they're left our.
Now, when you do a college course on religion, or study to be a priest, THEN you hear about these things. Why then? Because you now have enough knowledge to be able to accept and ascertain why these things happened. A context in which to place them.
So should we show how God knew there were other gods, how there are TWO creation stories in the Bible, how Lot raped his children and how God killed a man for refusing to shag his dead brother's wife?
From a more pragmatic point of view, it's a victory for religious fanatics for three reasons:
- (1) place
- (2) proportionality.
- (3) initiative
(1) Place
I am very sceptical of the implicit assumption that high-school is the place for a valid and meaningful examination of scientific debate and scientific evidence. Again for three reasons: (1a) level of passive cognitive ability of the attendants, (1b) level of active cognitive ability in attendants and (1.c) time constraints.
(1.a) Level of passive cognitive ability of the attendants
With passive cognitive ability I mean the ability to accurately and completely absorb new ideas and new information, and then to answer questions about what you have learned.
First of all it is my personal belief that high-schoolers are rarely able to think straight (often having trouble with elementary logic) while applying things they've learned, let alone that they could (under their own steam) critique a line of scientific reasoning. They ought to be able to follow a line of reasoning if it were presented to them, but only if it's a simple line of reasoning. But most tellingly, they should be able to reproduce what they've learned, and most of them cannot even do that. Anyone who doubts that is invited to spend a day or two reading actual high-school exam papers. If that sounds as if I look down on the cognitive abilities of the average high-schooler abilities, that's because I do. I've seen too many dimwits who couldn't even follow an elementary mathematical proof when it was put before them in writing and contained only elements they supposedly had been taught about. And too many stupid pupils who couldn't even reproduce the basic physical concept of what makes a reaction engine work (a rocket), although it was in their physics textbook. Or pupils who were unable to apply basic physics they had supposedly been taught about. There are always exceptions, and those exceptions tend to get a degree in Science or Mathematics. We're talking about a few percent of the population though.
(1.b) Level of active cognitive ability
With active cognitive ability I mean the ability to use what you've learned to solve problems about what you've learned which go one step beyond straightforward reproduction of knowledge. I found that high-shoolers typically aren't any good at this, and that those who are able to do this usually go straight on to College.
(1.b) Time constraints From what I hear (I admit I don't have hands-on experience) an ordinary high-school curriculum contains just about everything teachers think that class attendants of median brightness can absorb. And that means straightforward presentation of existing science, maths, and what not. I don't see how you can fit e.g. a meaningful discussion about testing and verifying standard paradigms like evolution in anything less than 6 months with 4 hours of theory and 4 hours of experimental work (e.g. on fruit flies or bacteria) a week devoted to the subject. And even then it will be awfully sketchy. So a scientific discourse on the merits or demerits of a theory isn't going to happen, no matter what. The only thing that *can* be accommodated is reading of a load of (religiously inspired) propaganda.
(2) Proportionality It's hard to impossible for lay people to have a sense of proportionality about what distinguishes Scientific hypotheses (we think there must have been life on Mars) from tentative scientific theories (we think that Global Warming is man-made because we have these computer models that lead is to believe that) to well-established scientific theories (like Plate tectonics, the role of DNA, the periodic table and Orbital Theory, Epidemiology, Evolution, t
I stopped reading at this point: "Scientists not only have been unable to find a single undisputed link that clearly connects two of the hundreds of major family groups"
I really don't think we'll ever find the crocoduck, but that's not a weakness in evolutionary theory. It is a weakness in the thinking processes of creationists though.
Welcome to slashdot, where unscience quashes dissenting views :( For the record, I did not find anything trollish about your statement at all.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
Religion is blindly taught, because there isn't real evidence or causal arithmetic to prove anything. Science on the other hand, when taught properly, doesn't require belief apart from the scientific principles themselves. If a student has the tools to interpret evidence, and is presented with proper evidence, ID and evolution can never be equal because the evidence on one completely outweighs the other. In fact, the more information the better. Nothing and no one needs to be silenced.
Of course, teaching science in a way that allows students to reach their own pragmatically correct conclusions is very difficult, so instead, we resort to scientific bibles - aka textbooks. We then go on to "blindly" insist on whatever written in the books as being fact... all the while criticizing faith based education.
We do not need to believe in evolution. If there is evidence, evolution will always emerge from that evidence regardless of what we believe. It is there. It is not in our head. And that is precisely why science is more reliable. God may not always give you what you want. God requires faith exist. But a bridge will not collapse if built properly on science derived from evidence.
If _only_ this were sincere, and if _only_ a teacher could sue an American school for making him choose between drinking the hemlock or exile for teaching their youth informal logic.
can't we all just get along? think of the children!
Tokyo Robot Lords! Smile! Taste Kittens!
It should be fun to watch.
I suspect it will be about as fun to watch as third party presidential candidates demanding that the rules be fairly applied when they are the only ones who met the state ballot deadlines.
That is, not fun at all, merely depressing/enraging. (pick one)
True experiments have been done plenty of times with fast reproducing organisms (often bacteria and drosophila). There is yet to be any data out of thousands of these true experiments that disprove Evolution generally, or that better support any other theory of creation.
Of course, the modern theory of Evolution is somewhat different than Darwin's theory, and that is in light of those experiments (quasi or true).
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
Sure there is. If you ask around, you'll find that it's fairly common for professional engineers to have pi memorized to 20 or more places. It's extremely unlikely that there has ever been an engineering task (as opposed to a mathematical task) that requires that amount of precision in the value of pi. It's certain that nobody has ever needed 100 places accuracy in the building of a physical object.
But the story is different if you consider just the values typically used in low-level schools: 3.14 and 22/7. It's easy to find objects for which you need more accuracy than that. The mechanism inside your computer's disk drive, for instance. Measurements to 4 or 5 places are fairly routine now when building a number of mechanical products.
It could be interesting to have a list of the highest-precision measurements possible for various quantities. But it's not too likely that we could actually get our hands on such numbers, since many of them would either be proprietary trade secrets hidden by corporations and/or classified secrets of various governments.
Anyone here know of measurements that have been made to more than 10 places accuracy? There are atomic clocks accurate to 10^-14, as a lot of readers here likely know. Is there anything with more precision than that?
(And why doesn't /. allow the <sup> tag? That sorta debunks our self-image, doesn't it? ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Religion is absolutely no threat to science.
Science can be seen as a threat to religion. But it doesn't have to be.
Science happens to make a lot more sense to most everyone. Scientific study of religion makes one way more skeptical.
It threatens those who take a literal interpretation of the Jesus hero allegory. Taking a literal interpretation is ludicrous.
But for those who have a strong faith and healthy skepticism, they believe in god, but not the literal interpretation.
The Vatican astronomer doesn't actually believe in the burning bush and the snake and the rib. It's because he has a healthy dose of skepticism from his scientific research. He's still catholic and still believes in god, but his beliefs are not ludicrous.
You can have both. You should really separate them though. Religion is not science and cannot be taught as such.
They're using their grammar skills there.
I'm not saying we could just bolt that kind of thing on to the current way things are taught- you're definitely right that just pushing people through all of that would not be helpful, and we're in agreement about the need to teach logic at an early stage (though if by "mathematical logic" you mean not just first-order logic plus the basics of dealing with sets but what is generally taught in a mathematical logic course, i.e. the soundness, completeness, and incompleteness theorems etc., that might be a little deeper than is required for high school IMHO).
I also think that it's possible to have too much focus on the traditional prerequisites when (especially with some logic under their belt- a lot of people don't get the epsilon-delta stuff because they don't understand logic and proofs) some basic introduction to the fundamental ideas of calculus etc could profitably be done at a fairly early stage. A lot of students suffer through trig classes in high school without any motivation for what they're doing, promptly forget what they learn, and then end up relearning the material when they find that they need those identities for integration.
As to students' maturity levels, I think the immaturity we see in students today is fostered by adults. People will often live up to higher expectations and live down to lower expectations. The average 17-year-old a hundred years ago was probably more mature in most ways than the average 27-year-old is today.
An even better example (that also addresses sibling-post RE selective data retention) is genetics. You can compare DNA sequences (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLAST as a jumping-off point) and plot relatedness from them. If we understand that relatedness properly, this plot will align with what we already know - if it doesn't, there's a problem with the theory. For example, to the best of my knowledge no-one has yet sequenced the FGFR genes (to pick one set randomly) from star nosed moles, elephants, carp, and blue jays. But I can tell you that if there is enough variability in the sequences to draw a meaningful set of relationships, the star nosed mole FGFRs are not going to come out most closely related to the carp.
This is just off the top of my head - the number of similar predictions you can make is in the millions. To anyone who believes there is any real scientific question as to whether evolution occurs - get together with your buddies, and get some of these experiments done. The tech is cheap right now, degenerate PCR primers for cloning are less than $10 each (http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/life-science/custom-oligos.html), and sequencing can be had for as little as $15 a run (and it's done blind, so the evil evolutionist conspiracy couldn't fake the results to trick you even if they wanted to - http://www.acgtinc.com/). Ask at the university near you if you need help, lots of people have the necessary skills (and can also tell you about stuff like lateral gene transfer, which is particularly important if you want to work with bacteria).
Forget gassing about it on slashdot - get out there and //do the fscking experiment yourself//.
After all, that's the ONLY way to prove 1+1=2. If you don't teach them set theory and how to prove the above, you're just giving them a statement to be taken as TRUTH without teaching them how to see how true it is for themselves.
So teach the kids of 4 years old set theory THEN teach them how to add. THEN teach them commutative addition before you teach them how to multiply.
Think about it, it is non-sense to try to portray creationism as science or scientific theory. Or to try to come up with evidence, and etc. Even if you are religious it is non-sense, it just shows that you are not relying on faith, that you noticed the lack of evidence and it is hurting you so much that have to come up with pseudo science and evidence to justify your beliefs. So, if you go ID you would not be doing that well on science, and not that well on religion either, that sounds like a good idea.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
There is a rational number x that sufficiently approximates Pi such that if all engineering computations throughout history used x instead of pi they would still be sufficiently precise."
This is true enough - IIRC a couple of hundred decimal places of Pi is sufficient to calculate the circumference of the solar system from its radius to a resolution of a few atoms. Yeah, fair call.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Overall drops in intelligence seem to be part of an epidemic which continues to be spread by dogmatic religion. Not any one religion is spared. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism all have dogmatic factions. It is these factions which are the sources of the epidemic attack on the world's intellect. The issue in Texas is that we now have clear, conclusive proof of the direct effects.
*** Don't be dull.***
It has been tested and proven itself quite well.
Theory of Evolution was proven? I clearly need to get out more. I didn't know that it is Theorem of Evolution now.
And if someone recommended a job candidate to you, saying "Over a thirty-year career he has proven himself countless times," would you interpret that as meaning "There is a theorem published in a mathematical journal stating that he is correct an uncountable number of times"?
I am the man with no sig!
HARRISBURG, Pa. - In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching âoeintelligent designâ in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.
So they can demand that students study "strengths and weaknesses" of a theory; but ID is still out because its theology, not science.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
This is a very ignorant statement. Regardless of what you think about the theory of evolution, science is for the sake of knowledge. Saying that its good that they new longer have to teach the 'strengths' AND 'weaknesses' is no better than ignoring it completely.
Scientific theories are quiet often wrong, you think its good that we no longer point out possible flaws in a theory? Basically you're happy that a law that required teach of all knowledge about a subject has no been removed, so now the teacher can only teach the parts they agree with?
I don't care who's right or wrong, you're an idiot if you think its a good idea to go from a 'full informed' type of system back to one where they only tell you the parts to support their argument.
This isn't politics, its science. If your scientific theory can not be considered valid as soon as people hear the bad side of it, then your theory is a pile of crap and needs to be fixed.
Evolution does not need an advantage, it stands perfectly fine on its own, right next to its 'weaknesses'.
However, the proposed change is simply a political move. Changing the law from saying 'strengths and weaknesses' to requiring that teachings be based on 'scientific evidence' is just changing some words for political favor, it won't change the way anyone acts or teachs.
You can't legislate stupidity out of people, stop thinking everytime someone changes a law in an attempt to do so that its a good idea, its not, it just hurts everyone.
Why is it that everyone who feels so strongly about evolution does everything in their power to avoid letting evolution take its course and cull the idiots?
Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, survey finds
A new survey in the UK found that 29 percent of teachers think creationism and intelligent design should be taught as science
More schools teaching biblical creation are to be established across the north east of England.
The cdesign proponentsists are everywhere. The sooner you recognize the problem exists where you are too, the sooner you can fix it.
odd, because Easter bunny science is on the cutting edge in Christian scientific circles.
at least that what Santa Claus told me
"in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations ... "
--um...is that a basic requirement of good science.
Sounds like this person is the one who wants to rely on faith.
If the data/observations show your theory to be wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether or not I have a better theory/explanation of the data.
This is what so many of pro-evolution folks simply miss: early evolutionary theory was *provably false* based on the data it had at the time. It wasn't until further discovery and some brighter scientists came along that the modified theories were actually logically consistent.
It's bad enough that some religions are (claimed to be) not logically consistent, but for science to make the same mistake is even less excusable.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
90% of the people who "believe in evolution" (/.ers are included in this) have never actually read anything about the arguments against or for evolution, aside from what they were told in their 6th grade science class.
And 76% of statistics are made up on the spot. You put the phrase "believe in evolution" in quotes, as though it's something a scientist (or /.er) would say. It's not. Science isn't about belief, and I no more believe in evolution than I believe in my computer, or believe in rocket ships. We say evolution is the best theory because it makes predictions, and so far, those predictions have been amazingly accurate. To note this requires no sort of belief, any more than I need to believe that my computer works in order to program it.
I've never seen a place that is more egotistical than slashdot. The sad thing is, I could actually give good reasoning behind what I accept or believe, but It wouldn't matter.
Have you ever looked in a mirror? That statement is completely egotistical and arrogant.
This is slashdot and there is no way anyone on slashdot could be wrong, unless they think that science isn't perfect, or they like Microsoft. Those are two things that are always wrong, because right now, as humans, because of science, we OBVIOUSLY know EVERYTHING that is possibly known. Right?
No. However, we know that Intelligent Design is not science, because it doesn't make testable predictions, it expresses no falsifiable theory, and it merely pushes the problem into the unknown. What created the creator? Intelligent design is not useful in any way. Intelligent Design science has not produced any antibiotics, or gene therapies, and the fact is that it cannot, because it is not a useful theory to study the natural world.
I mean, Every time someone says something that isn't pro what we know now "science" they get modded down and someone trolling them gets modded 5 for insightful.
Now I'll have 4 people reply to me saying my math is wrong, 2 telling me I misspelled something, and another 6 telling me I've done something grammatically incorrect.
Intelligent design has no math, so if you're advocating for that, your math is not wrong, just non-existent.
The only math I've seen associated with ID 'science' is math explaining how improbable our existence is, which is terrible reasoning. Using the same logic, I could say that you are impossible.
Your dad had to meet your mother, and have sex with her. Let's say they grew up in a small town, be generous, and set the probability of that at about 1000:1. Next, your father released 500,000,000 sperm into your mom's vagina, only one of which became you, odds against, 500,000,000:1. Your mom starts with about 2 million eggs in her ovaries, only one of them became you, so the odds of that are 2,000,000:1.
Therefore, you are too improbable to exist, because the odds against you are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000:1.
I used to be in the business of producing school textbooks K-12, both for another company and my own. Textbooks go through an adoption process, where they are evaluated by a board and, if approved, made available for purchase with state funds.
In some markets the process really dumbed down the material. We used to have to produce special editions for places like Texas and Florida. There was a lot of material changed or removed. Fig leaves were placed over pieces of fine art, cross-curricular activities involving the Alamo were added in, etc.
It is a big deal to get your books adopted, and it was disturbing to watch the compromises made throughout the whole process. I would say it would be difficult to get a worthwhile education from books produced for Texas, Florida and some of the other conservative markets.
Not on point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Read the first paragraph.
Oh, never mind, I'll copy it for you:
"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time."
I don't have to read the fucking website and I don't have to post as an AC
You could spend an entire semester teaching dissenting views from all the religions of the world and they would be equally valid...but none of them would be science. It's a cold hard fact that all the scientific data to date tells us evolution happens. The THEORY part is now all about the process itself. Just like gravity. It's a theory. Newton didn't understand relativity and that new knowledge has modified our theory of gravity just as genetics greatly modified our theory of evolution, but nobody with a full set of neurons firing wonders if gravity or evolution are true except those with religious requirements that force them to believe in their holy book and treat it like it contains "the truth". Your idea that "it's a cold, hard fact that evolution is basically just a theory" is ignorant because your use of the term "just a theory" implies it is almost whimsically true or untrue and it's really no more than an idea that needs to be checked out. If there is any fact floating around, it is that the basic concept of evolution has been shown to be true by prediction after prediction and data after data after data. Religious fanboys that want evolution to be "just a theory" are simply ignorant. Mod this "offensive to the uneducated".
This is a good thing. Teaching the strengths and weaknesses of a evolutionary theory is not good, because although evolution is scientifically very strong, it is politically and theologically weak. And this is where creationist try to get a hand hold in the class room. By changing the language to "examining all sides of SCIENTIFIC evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student" it takes politics and religion out of the equation. And I'm like to point out for the hundredth time ABIOGENESIS IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTION.
...of the people who believe in heliocentrism haven't read the arguments for or against geocentrism. Most of the people who believe in the Germ Theory of Disease have not read the arguments by members of the Christian Science movement who claim that diseases are caused by not praying enough. Most of the people who believe the world is round have not read the arguments by Christians, Muslims, and Hindus (whose arguments involved the stars traveling through tunnels) about why the world is flat.
You can't expect people to vigorously study every bit of kookery that appears on the radar just because a bunch of primitives want you to dance naked around a fire shouting "Woo woo" at the invisible spirits.
If people want to believe in nonsense, that's fine. This is a free country. However, I draw the line at presenting nonsense as fact to everyone else's children.
You will have some problems trying to specify the solar system's center to within a few atomic diameters. ;-)
A fun fact that I've run across a few places is that it turns out that Copernicus was actually wrong: The sun isn't actually at the center of the solar system. By "center" we obviously mean the barycenter, aka the center of mass, and that point turns out to be a few thousand km above the sun's surface. This is because Jupiter has about 1/1000 the mass of the sun, and the distance between them is greater than 1000 times the sun's radius. If you look up the distances and their masses (to 4 or 5 places) and do the standard calculation, you can quickly determine where the barycenter is along the line between their centers.
There's also the problem of just where the edge of the solar system is, but that's would probably produce an endless thread if we started it here, so we can hope that nobody else reads this. Especially since Pluto got demoted from full planet status.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Hey guess what young earth creationists make predictions that there should be all kinds of fossils in the ground, and guess what, we keep finding them. Maybe you should stop listening to your preacher.
Of course I think that we, mathematics teachers, often doom our students by having low expectations. I just am suspicious of what would occur when the beautiful curriculum hits the class. Thinking about material seems to run so contrary to their understanding of what learning and school is that when presented with this "new" approach many violently reject it. I know we need to find a balance that doesn't sacrifice the education of the "motivated" students (I teach at a community college where I have many very intelligent kids who were just so put off by the HS curriculum that they actually failed) but also doesn't just forget about the, I hesitate to use the word, bottom 3/4 of the class. How does one do this? I do not know, and it makes my head hurt. (which may be why I will leave this environment and get my PHD, much easier)
The average 17-year-old a hundred years ago was probably more mature in most ways than the average 27-year-old is today.
True but that 17 year old had a job that didn't require the same type of prerequisite education. Not all talents translate into the type of "book" intelligence that we expect of people in modern society. They had more "natural" talents at that age that translate well to the jobs of the day (like agriculture) I think that we forgot how "unnatural" abstract though is for most people.
"You're right, but exactly which part of evolution is an opinion?
The part that leaps from observed facts to belief that the processes that have been observed are the only way that unobserved events could have happened."
Nope, come up with a way that has some predictive power AND explains the plethora of disparate lines of inquiry better than evolution and it will be looked at.
Come up with some bullshit about how it was aliens wot dun it and you SHOULD NOT be listened to.
Does your theory explain the gaps in the fossil records and not have more gaps itself in its ability to explain evidence?
At the moment, there IS only one theory that is explicable at high school level: evolution.
What else would YOU put in?
If you have nothing, then what is there to make their minds up about other than "accept evolution" or "don't accept evolution" which they currently have anyway.
What are you babbling about? Your comment makes no sense.
Ah, I see the problem. Your sig explains all!*
From:"I think, therefore I am."(attributed to Voltaire)
*I suggest your sig should then be: 'I don't think, therefore I am not.'?
What a maroon!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Make a lead weight as heavy and with the same aerodynamics as a feather.
You'll have to try VERY hard, and it STILL won't work. The feather design was refined over millions of years to hold the wind.
And I notice that you have made no claims (so I cannot check your work critically and see whether YOU have found data that supports what you state and not the reverse of your thesis.
This is really my biggest issue with the "global climate change" evangelists. The global climate has been changing since its' existence. I have no problem with conservationism. But some people are blindly arrogant and ignorant on the issues.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
creationism and [the similar theory of] intelligent design
Drill baby drill - on Mars
It's a fucking scam, the textbook racket. I've worked for Wiley for 15 years and they just suck money out regularly for the same tired shit on three-year revision cycles. How much do you think textbooks change? IT'S A STRATEGY TO DEAL WITH USED BOOKS! That's why there are spiffy media packages - to hook you loosers on our online stuff like crack. We compel your professors to ASSIGN homework cause that the best way we ENSURE YOU BUY A FUCKING NEW BOOK. I hate this industry, put us all out of fucking business and buy used books.
Perhaps being a Canadian I don't fully grasp why the phrasing would really result in creationism being taught over evolution. Personally I don't think they're mutually exclusive, or really even talking about the same thing at all. I identify myself as a Christian, and I'm also an elementary school teacher, so I can speak to this issue from a position of experience
I don't think it's fair to be calling into question the mental faculties of any group of people, no matter what your personal beliefs are. That smacks of xenophobia or somesuch. I know from teaching students at ages from kindergarten up, that given the proper guidance and information, kids are able to make up their own minds. There has been a huge push recently towards constructivism - that is, students constructing their own knowledge based on information they have and previous experiences. This does not work in all instances, but works very well in some. If you think that an 8 year old child cannot logically evaluate a couple sides of a coin, you are sadly mistaken. If you think that they cannot understand when there is bias in a written work, an experiment or a lesson, you have obviously not spent much time in a classroom.
Children learn very well by using cognitive dissonance. Information is presented that doesn't jive with what they have been told before. This works with a mathmatical model, or a religious story. I intentionally introduce those moments, and use that inherent desire to "right the ship" to help them learn. Given evidence for a couple of scientific theories, they can tell which is the correct one. Kindergarten kids (4 and 5 years old) were able to tell me the world was round, that magnets have a "force you can't see" and other things of that nature, with me doing nothing but presenting information.
I realize someone will call BS on that, as bias is incredibly prevalent in education. Well, it IS, but it doesn't have to be. My science classroom is about discovery and comprehension of the natural world. If I am teaching in a Christian (or Catholic, or whatever else) school, the Bible content stays in that block of the day. I may choose to see the charges on elemental particles as indicative of a creator, but they don't have to. They can make that decision themselves. I may see evolution as a miracle, (and a perfectly valid scientific theory mind you) but my students can interpret it in their own worldview
That is the point, in school we teachers are NOT teaching a worldview, or at least we should not be. Unless you are teaching in a private religious institution, it should not enter the picture. You can present worldviews, I think a worldviews class should be standard for every student at least twice before they leave public school. But they should be presented in an unbiased way, and should be inclusive of atheist and agnostic. If not, then it truly is not a fair assessment.
After six hours of often mind-numbing debate...
The fact there is even a debate is the only mind-numbing thing about this.
Evolution we know occurred and continues. The various theories attached to that, such as punctuated equilibrium and theories about the rate of change, are certainly good areas for exploration.
Theories about abiogenesis, which is the emergence of complex organisms from self-replicating organic molecules, is a different area of exploration which has a whole different set of theories. Natural selection is certainly a part of it, but the competition for energy and the evolution of molecules has its own vernacular.
If by "possible alternatives" you mean, maybe animals and plants didn't evolve from single-celled organisms, I wouldn't bet on those.
That we organisms evolved on this planet from organic molecules is pretty much a given at this point. We know already that given certain conditions you can coax inert gases into self-assembling into amino acids, and that self-copying molecules do arise spontaneously. It is now simply a matter of understanding how the competition for energy - and the various ways it is converted by molecules - gives rise to such intricate systems of energy-exchange. That is to say, the vast diversity of the biological world.
Even if this planet was seeded from the outside, we still know abiogenesis is real, had to have happened somewhere, and still happens. Most likely it's exactly what happened here, and probably many times, all over the planet.
The scientific implications of theories of abiogenesis are the very things that drive experimental testing. Each implication has to be explored to see where it leads. The most tricky question of biology may be, how did the DNA molecule arise? How did the instructions that code for proteins end up gathered together into such a huge master molecule? There are already several theories on that, and it will undoubtedly be explained one day. Every DNA molecule itself contains vestiges of its ancestry and each segment tells its own story.
The philosophical implications of abiogenesis, it seems to me, would only be challenging to minds which are predisposed to incredulity about the notion that the laws of nature could - in themselves - give rise to life just given a good set of conditions. But that is unambiguously the picture so far. The more we learn about biochemistry and DNA the more this picture is reinforced.
There are certainly metaphysical implications like, how did it come to be that a universe favorable to life exists? (Well, to be fair, this universe seems at most "favorable" to bacteria - complex life took billions of years to get started). But for that matter, how can there be a universe at all? What came before? Why does everything get annihilated in the end? Does any information escape? Etc., etc.
-- thinkyhead software and media