quote:
What would be the reason for a group of people to argue that the weaknesses of a particular theory should not be required to be taught?
The answer to this question, specifically as it relates to evolution, ir quite simple. The things that creos want to get presented in schools are not weaknesses in the theory of evolution. Broadly speaking, and off the top of my head, they all fall into one of these catagories:
1. A misunderstanding of the ToE.
2. A (probably intentional) mischaracterization of the ToE.
3. Nothing to do with the ToE.
4. Something actually quite well explained by the ToE, but creos don't get it.
Whether there are "weaknesses" in the ToE depends entirely on what one means by weakness. If you mean questions that the ToE can't yet answer, everyone who knows anything at all about it knows that there are millions and millions of questions that the ToE can't answer. Although it seems paradoxical, the fact that there are unanswered questions is one of the hallmarks of a vital and flourishing theory in any science. Any important scientific theory is going to point to vast areas of new research for further inquiry. Thus, if you mean that we should teach that evolution doesn't answer every question in the field of biology, I can't imagine that any scientist would object.
The reason why people are fighting against creo attempts to "teach the weaknesses" is because their idea of "weaknesses" is bad science, and because it's a blatant attempt to continue in their efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution. The obviousness of this is demonstrated by the fact that they don't want to teach the "weaknesses" in geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, botany, or any other field of science (except, occasionally the portions of those disciplines that contradict their narrow reading of the bible).
I can absolutely guarantee that it has nothing to do with scientists being "afraid" of facing the "weaknesses" in the ToE. As many people have explained in many places on this forum, the lifeblood of science is exposing weaknesses of theories. Any scientist who could present an objection to the ToE that would undermine the acceptance of the theory would win a Nobel Prize and be the most famous scientist since Darwin.
Broadly speaking, the work of scientists can be broken down into three different types of activity. The first is creating and refining hypotheses and theories. The second is putting those theories into practical effect. The third is doing one's best to prove that any given theory is wrong, and the more well-accepted a theory is, the more to be gained by disproving it. That in large part is why Einstein is so famous. Not just because his theory is so revolutionary, but because the theory that he disproved, Newtonian Mechanics, was probably the most widely-accepted theory in the history of science.
The problem is not that there are no "weaknesses" or that scientists are afraid of "weaknesses." The problem is that the "weaknesses" that creos want taught aren't "weaknesses" at all, and certainly bear no relation to science in any way.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
™ Version 4.2
