Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Importance of the First Amendment
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 13 of 59 (463934)
04-22-2008 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Serdna
04-22-2008 12:00 AM


Re: The False Dichotomy
Serdna writes:
quote:
However when science is aimed at disproving the existence of God
Just a parboiled second there.
Can you give a single example of such? You previously wrote in Message 5:
teachings such as the evolutionary theory which attempt to undermine any religious beliefs
But why? Why does evolution "undermine religious beliefs"? Not even the Catholic church has a problem with evolution. I'm not saying you have to be Catholic, but if the largest Christian denomination doesn't have a problem with evolution, how can it be said to "undermine religious beliefs"?
If we're going to concern ourselves with any information that might possibly contradict a religious opinion anywhere, then we might as well chuck the entire educational system. There are those who insist the earth is flat. We aren't going to abandon what we have learned of solar system dynamics just to coddle them, are we?
Like it or not, evolution is a fact. It really is. That's why we have a theory of it. You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. That is why it is called the theory OF evolution. You have the fact of evolution first and then you develop a theory to explain the fact.
When I take a ball that is in my hand and let it go, it falls to the ground. Since we haven't mastered that telepathy thing just yet, we have to use words to describe it. The word we happen to have chosen for the force that pulls the ball down to the ground is "gravity."
Thus, we have the fact of gravity.
It is only through experimentation and inquiry that we come up with gravitational theory and find F = Gm1m2/r2.
The same thing with evolution. When we observe populations of organism over time, they change. Since we haven't mastered that telepathy thing just yet, we have to use words to describe it. The word we happen to have chosen for the process by which the population changed is "evolution."
Thus, we have the fact of evolution.
It is only through experimentation and inquiry that we come up with evolutionary theory and find things like natural selection, neutral drift, the chromosome, etc.
In fact, there are various experiments you can run in a decent high school biology lab that will show evolution happening right in front of your eyes.
Why on earth would we want to hide this from people?
And why would it possibly "undermine religious beliefs"?
quote:
Just because your using facts in your research doesn't mean that every conclusion you draw from it is also a fact.
Of course not. That's why you're continually testing the theory. But notice: You have to start with a fact. You have to analyse the FACT of evolution in order to develop a theory OF it.
You also mentioned in Message 5 that evolution was "controversial." Well, according to whom? And why do we care what the people who find it controversial think? Are they in any position to have anything of use to say about it? Just because somebody has an opinion doesn't mean it is a valid opinion with any sort of justification behind it.
Tell ya what. How about this for a way to determine what the curriculum is:
Every year, we shall take a survey of the scientific literature and whatever percentage of the literature advocates whatever conclusion, that's the amount of time we'll spend on it in class. Thus, if 70% of the articles conclude evolution and 30% conclude creationism (even if it's been tarted up as "ID"), then we'll split the class time 70/30.
And if we find that not one paper concludes creationism/ID, is that not evidence that there is no "controversy"? This persistent claim that we should "teach the controversy" assumes that there is evidence against evolution.
There might be, but we haven't found any yet. And since we haven't found any, why would we want to lie to people and say that there is "controversy"?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Serdna, posted 04-22-2008 12:00 AM Serdna has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024