CE- with a grain of salt

[JACkory]

And two words for anyone who would exalt Darwinism as "pure science" and justify it being taught as such: MISSING LINK.

[rockysigman]

chrisfan said:

admin said:

Evolution is science. Philosophy goes beyond the science of evolution, to question the source of life and the source of evolution. Philosophy does not belong in science class. But philosophy from multiple viewpoints DOES belong in philosophy class.

And to me, this is what it all comes down to. Evolution is science. Intelligent Design or creationism are not. Certainly those ideas have their place within the context of the way that we think about the world and the debates and discussion about our own origin. However, those ideas are not science, and therefore it makes exactly NO sense to teach them in a science class. We don't teach Southeast Asian history in science class, because it is not science--so we teach it in a Southeast Asian history class. We don't teach literature in science classes, because it is not science--so we teach it in literature classes. Intelligent Design certainly has its place in religion classes or in philosophy classes, but why anyone would think that something that is not science should be taught in a science class simply makes no sense.

[Artknocker]

chrisfan said:

artknocker said:

As neither is proven, it's only right and fair that if you teach one you have to include the other. If you can't do that, then don't teach either one.

Are you talking about science class, or school in general?

I guess science class. Where else in schol would it come up?

[Artknocker]

Oops. You can tell I didn't go to skool!

[Mary]

jackory said:

Darwin's theory, though, is just that...a THEORY. As such, it should be taught as such. I don't have a problem with it being taught in school as a theory, but too often it is taught as fact. That it is not.

But "theory" in science means something different from "theory" in colloquial usage.

Darwin's theory of evolution is "just" a theory because the precise mechanisms through which evolution takes place are still open to discussion - however, that evolution takes place is no longer open to discussion. It's a fact.

A quote from the talk.origins FAQ on this subject (wow, blast from the past - I used to read this newsgroup all the time when I was like 19, but I haven't looked at it in 8 years now...):

"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

Cheers,
M

[rockysigman]

jackory said:

And two words for anyone who would exalt Darwinism as "pure science" and justify it being taught as such: MISSING LINK.

I don't see why missing parts of the evolutionary chain do anything at all to question the scientific validity of evolution. A lot of widely accepted scientific theories have aspects to them that we can not yet fully explain. However, there is also no scientific evidence at all at this point to dispute evolution, and there is a ton of evidence to support it. And if some evidence does surface that disproves evolution, or a part of evolution, then the scientific community will change their views on evolution. Scientific theories reflect the evidence we have, not the other way around.

[chrisfan]

Hell, I'd even agree to teach intelligent design as part of social studies/history/current events/anthroplogy classes. But I do not understand what it has to do with SCIENCE. Understanding the similarities and differences between a chimpanzee and a human makes total sense to me as part of biology. But understanding WHERE the monkey and the human came from does not sound like science to me.

[rockysigman]

Yeah, what Mary, or at least the article that she posted, said.

[Mary]

BTW, agree 100% with chrisfan and rocky (there's a weird sentence) on this - I think comparative religion classes and philosophy classes are completley appropriate places to discuss theological questions about life's origin, meaning, purpose, development, etc etc. Not only that, but I would LOVE it if more high schools developed serious philosophy curriculums, and included in these curriculums serious engagement with theology. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with kids reading religious texts in school, or even religious apologetics.

Just not in a biology classroom. Since the time of Francis Bacon, we've understood science as a specific enterprise rooted in particular methodological principles. Creationism - including intelligent design theories - simply don't follow any of these principles, and can't be considered science as a result. That doesn't prove them wrong, or useless, or stupid (some versions of creationism may well be all these things, but it doesn't follow merely from the fact that it's not science) - it just means that they flow from different principles than scientific theories.


Cheers,
M

[stratman19]

chrisfan said:

Hell, I'd even agree to teach intelligent design as part of social studies/history/current events/anthroplogy classes. But I do not understand what it has to do with SCIENCE. Understanding the similarities and differences between a chimpanzee and a human makes total sense to me as part of biology. But understanding WHERE the monkey and the human came from does not sound like science to me.

Bingo. Teach it all. Evolution, intelligent design, etc., but teach it in the appropriate class. Science class is for SCIENCE. Teach other points of view in philosophy, anthropology, or comparative religion classes, etc.

[stratman19]

Oops, Mary beat me to it!

[chrisfan]

mary said:

BTW, agree 100% with chrisfan and rocky (there's a weird sentence) on this -

I think that if there is ever a "Rare Moments in RS/RS Castaways History Hall of Fame", that sentence should be inducted.

[Mary]

jackory said:

And two words for anyone who would exalt Darwinism as "pure science" and justify it being taught as such: MISSING LINK.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

[phil]

The "theory of evolution" ...

When scientists say "theory",
they mean a statement based
on observation or experimentation
that explain facets of the observable world so well
that it becomes accepted as fact.

They do not mean an idea created out of thin air,
nor do they mean an unsubstantiated belief.

WAS DARWIN WRONG?
National Geographic mag.
November 2004

[strat-0]

I'm telling ya, we went down this road, including what a "theory" is. Somebody made a very enlightening post on that matter. I'll try to search it up later.

Really, Art - anyone - are you saying there's no difference between science and faith? Do you know that every religion / culture has their own story of creation? Some are even more fanciful than the idea of creating the world in 6 days, creating woman from a man's rib, etc. They all believe their creation myth is the truth, so I guess they should all be taught in science classes.