It makes no sense to teach children wrong interpretations
Well then we should stop teaching them evolution in that case.
After scientific experiments show that evolution - as defined and used in evolutionary biology - is wrong.
Demonstrating that creationist straw man arguments are false just demonstrates that the straw men are wrong and not evolutionary biology. Seeing as the creationist arguments were wrong at the start this is no biggy. 1+1=3 is wrong from the start, demonstrating that fact does not add to knowledge, nor does it demonstrate that 1+1=5.
Materialism may be all we can see but that does not mean that is all there is. It's like the old example of two computers discussing how they came about by assuming what is going on inside is all there is.
Science is about what we can observe and test. By definition that is the natural world. You can call it "materialism" but that doesn't change the reality that science deals - and only deals - with the natural world.
They don't realize that they were put together by somebody outside of their little world so they write that off as a possibility and all their hypotheses about what happened are all wrong because they can't see their creator and their stories of how they happened to be get sillier and sillier while they try to make sense of their existance.
Evidence please. Without evidence this is not science, not fact, but faith, belief. It is fine to have belief, but we shouldn't confuse it with science.
OR we can teach evolution as a possibility and not exclude creation as an alternative possibility and see where the evidence/the facts lead.
Or we can keep doing what science does - test concepts for validity, weeding out the invalid concepts and predicting results that will increase our understanding of reality ... and we can teach the results of these endeavors in science class as legitimate results of scientific studies.
We can discuss invalid ideas in science - a flat earth, astrology, a young earth, and the reasons these concepts are now invalid due to our increased understanding of reality, in order to show how science works in eliminating invalid ideas.
There is only one reality, and we either understand it or we don't. There are not multiple valid interpretations of reality, this is a false paradigm. We either have a true understanding of reality or we don't.
We have evidence, facts, and we can assume it is true to reality or we can assume that it is false.
- If we assume there is false evidence we can make no conclusions about reality, and all science, all philosophy, all religion are equally inconclusive. This is the refuge of people who want to continue believing something that is contradicted by evidence - "flat earthers" for instance.
- But if we assume that all evidence is true to reality then we can test concepts against that evidence to see whether it is valid or invalid. This is what science does.
Science tries to understand reality for what it is, not interpret things according to any preconceived world view, and it does this by testing concepts against evidence and discarding invalid ideas.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clarity
Edited by RAZD, : added.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2