evolution and ID in public schools

[BJQ87]

How about neither, that might make more people happy, at least stop a lot of contraversy and complaining. Why not admit theory as theory and not teach theory to young kids? In public schools up to the secondary level that is. In previous years I've had elementry school and highschool science teachers straight out state evolutionary theories as facts, if they were talking about the theory of ID then most those teachers would likely have been fired.

Say there was a law that made it so neither evolution or ID were taught in schools. The theists wouldn't complain about evolution being taught and the atheists wouldn't complain about ID being taught. The only thing they could complain about is not being able to teach their own theories in public schools. And if thats their complaint then oh well, i dont think the government has to care being as teaching theories in public schools isn't a right its more like a priviledge.

Or maybe the fact that ID is slowly starting to get accepted into school systems is better. That way kids are introduced to both of the two popular theories of our time, thus being more educational. And also evening out the playing field, encouraging the stating of theory as theory instead of fact.

Your thoughts?

 

[TragicMonkey]

"Theory" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

 

[Ducky]

Considering we're talking about classes specifically dealing with science, and evolution is most certainly a part of science, teaching ID, which is at best a philosophy and not scientific, and at worst a toehold to introduce creationism, then I'd say ID is in the wrong place.

Or would you have us also teach both the "theory" of gravity alongside the "theory" of intelligent falling?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Or would you have us also teach both the "theory" of gravity alongside the "theory" of intelligent falling?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Tricky]

Or maybe the fact that ID is slowly starting to get accepted into school systems is better. That way kids are introduced to both of the two popular theories of our time, thus being more educational. And also evening out the playing field, encouraging the stating of theory as theory instead of fact.

If you think ID is a "theory", then tell me this: What evidence would it take to disprove the theory?

Evolution has many such areas where it is "falsifiable". Where are the falsifiable parts of ID?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's a popular theory with kids up to the age of 6 or 8 that Santa delivers toys at Christmas and the Easter Bunny delivers candy at Easter. So I think we should teach those two popular theories through, say, second grade.

It's a popular theory with many people that aliens abduct humans for research purposes. I think we should teach that theory in, say, grades 7 through 12 and, of course, college.

~~ Paul

 

[drkitten]

How about neither, that might make more people happy, at least stop a lot of contraversy and complaining. Why not admit theory as theory and not teach theory to young kids? In public schools up to the secondary level that is. In previous years I've had elementry school and highschool science teachers straight out state evolutionary theories as facts, if they were talking about the theory of ID then most those teachers would likely have been fired.

That's because evolutionary theories are as close to facts as you get in science. ID, on the other
hand, barely makes the bar for "coherent hypothesis," and does not get as high as "testable conjecture."

Say there was a law that made it so neither evolution or ID were taught in schools.

That would cripple science education (and biology education in particular), and fifty years from
now, the United States will be a third-world country with everyone speaking the language of their
Chinese overlords.

Does that strike you as a good long-term goal?

 

[Ipecac]

Oy vey.

 

[BJQ87]

"It's a popular theory with kids up to the age of 6 or 8 that Santa delivers toys at Christmas and the Easter Bunny delivers candy at Easter. So I think we should teach those two popular theories through, say, second grade.

It's a popular theory with many people that aliens abduct humans for research purposes. I think we should teach that theory in, say, grades 7 through 12 and, of course, college."

are any of those theories actually popular to the point of people thinking them to be true? obviously thats what i mean when im talking about teaching stuff in public schools. There's no such thing as too much critical thinking in my opinion, you can't really have too much of a virtue. If I say "I'm too generous, its actually that I probably have poor judgement skills. Wouldn't critical thinking include taking context and attitude into consideration?

"Considering we're talking about classes specifically dealing with science, and evolution is most certainly a part of science, teaching ID, which is at best a philosophy and not scientific, and at worst a toehold to introduce creationism, then I'd say ID is in the wrong place.

Or would you have us also teach both the "theory" of gravity alongside the "theory" of intelligent falling?"

gravity is a theory now? Maybe come up with a better comparison if that's what your going to do.

You see a gap in science and think of the theory of evolution, I see a gap in science and think about the theory of God. This type of thinking goes way back to ancient civilizations. Some people took a look at the world we live in and decided to come up with a theory of a god or a number of gods. Others decided not to believe in a god and probably thought that life exists just because it does. Eventually, and just recently in the course of history, those people who didn't believe in any kind of god or gods came up with a theory of their own that was also based upon taking a look at the world we live in and coming up with a possible explaination.

 

[sphenisc]

If you think ID is a "theory", then tell me this: What evidence would it take to disprove the theory?

Evolution has many such areas where it is "falsifiable". Where are the falsifiable parts of ID?

You go first.

 

[headscratcher4]

Ideas may be popular...but that doesn't make it scientific.

it is irrlelevent, it seems to me, whether a scientific theroy is popular or not. It is where the research and the data lead you. ID has neither research or data to back it up, and it can not be falsefied...in fact, it is anti "science" as we define science, because once you conldue that ID is the explaination, you might as well give up any investigation.

Further, "popular" is misused here. It isn't popular with trained scientists. The "scientists" who buy ID and demand that it be taught ast an alternative theory, number in the dozens -- and many of these are not credentialed in the field they are passing judemtn on and demanding be alterned. The VAST majority of scientist who work in the field completely reject ID.

The point is that ID is a political NOT A SCIENTIFIC movment. It has about as much scientific validity as the "science" practiced by Nazi's in the concentration camps. IT is fake science. It is anti-science.

 

[Bob Klase]

How about neither, that might make more people happy, at least stop a lot of contraversy and complaining. Why not admit theory as theory and not teach theory to young kids? In public schools up to the secondary level that is. In previous years I've had elementry school and highschool science teachers straight out state evolutionary theories as facts, if they were talking about the theory of ID then most those teachers would likely have been fired.

Even worse- I've seen elementry schools (even down to kindergarten) teach gravity theory as a fact! And that theory about the earth revolving around the sun is never even questioned!

But if we don't teach 'theory' to young kids, then there's really nothing left to teach them except the bible.

Or maybe the fact that ID is slowly starting to get accepted into school systems is better. That way kids are introduced to both of the two popular theories of our time, thus being more educational.

I think it would be much more productive to teach the kids what the word "theory" means when used in science. Evolution (like gravity) is theory. ID is barely a hypothesis.

 

[headscratcher4]

If you think ID is a "theory", then tell me this: What evidence would it take to disprove the theory?

If you prayed really, really hard that there not be an earthquake in your home town and there was an earthquake, than that would tend to disprove ID.

Also, if your town votes out a school board that wants to teach ID, and god in rightous wrath wipes the village off the face of the planent and turns all of the new school board into pillars of salt, that would tend to prove that ID.

How's that working for you?

 

[Upchurch]

gravity is a theory now? Maybe come up with a better comparison if that's what your going to do.

wow. You really need to learn what the word "theory" means in science. Yes, they are called the "Theory of Gravity" and the "Theory of Relativity" and "Quantum Theory". The use of the word "theory" in science is a nod to the fact that there is always a possibility that it could be wrong, but by the time a hypothesis reaching "theory" status in science it's pretty darn certain.

Now you might be confused things which are labeled "laws" like "Newton's Laws of Physics" thinking that they are abolutly facts, right? Well, funny story. Many of Newton's Laws have been shown to be incorrect, or more accurately imprecise.

The Theory of Evolution is just as much a scientific fact as the Theory of Gravitation. Is it possible either are wrong? sure. Is it likely that either are wrong? no. Should they be constantly questioned and examined? absolutely.

You see a gap in science and think of the theory of evolution, I see a gap in science and think about the theory of God.

How is your "theory of God" related to observable phenomenon?

This type of thinking goes way back to ancient civilizations. Some people took a look at the world we live in and decided to come up with a theory of a god or a number of gods. Others decided not to believe in a god and probably thought that life exists just because it does. Eventually, and just recently in the course of history, those people who didn't believe in any kind of god or gods came up with a theory of their own that was also based upon taking a look at the world we live in and coming up with a possible explaination.

Ah, historical revisionism.

 

[PatKelley]

"Or would you have us also teach both the "theory" of gravity alongside the "theory" of intelligent falling?"

gravity is a theory now? Maybe come up with a better comparison if that's what your going to do.

Gravity is a theory. It is a name for the property of mass to attract other mass with no intervening medium. Our current theory involves curvature of space/time in the presence of mass. So, yes, Gravity is a theory. And it is an excellent point of comparison, truth be told.

You see a gap in science and think of the theory of evolution, I see a gap in science and think about the theory of God.

God is a theory now? So he's open to falsifiablity and peer-review science?

This type of thinking goes way back to ancient civilizations. Some people took a look at the world we live in and decided to come up with a theory of a god or a number of gods. Others decided not to believe in a god and probably thought that life exists just because it does. Eventually, and just recently in the course of history, those people who didn't believe in any kind of god or gods came up with a theory of their own that was also based upon taking a look at the world we live in and coming up with a possible explaination.

Nope. You're really really wrong in your understanding of history. People came up with theories; some involved a man in the sky, others did not. Some actually had the temerity to encourage exploration and questioning, as in encouraging youth to climb Mount Olympus to see if the gods really were there. They occasionally paid for it with their freedom, their prestige, or in extreme cases with their lives, but they were not atheists. Often they were religious, pious, observant men - such as Gregor Mendel - who simply approached a problem with the idea of seeing what actually worked. Attempting to pin this on an atheist agenda because you don't like where it goes is, well, it's so late nineteenth century.

 

[headscratcher4]

OOOps. double post. Sign of lack of ID.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

gravity is a theory now? Maybe come up with a better comparison if that's what your going to do.

Gravity is no more a theory than Evolution is a Theory..

There are theories of gravity however just as there are theories of evolution.
But the fact that gravity exists is just as much a fact as evolution existing.

You see a gap in science and think of the theory of evolution, I see a gap in science and think about the theory of God. This type of thinking goes way back to ancient civilizations. Some people took a look at the world we live in and decided to come up with a theory of a god or a number of gods. Others decided not to believe in a god and probably thought that life exists just because it does. Eventually, and just recently in the course of history, those people who didn't believe in any kind of god or gods came up with a theory of their own that was also based upon taking a look at the world we live in and coming up with a possible explaination.

You're completly confusing the definition of "Theory" in science.

I'll quote the definition of Theory from Wiki..

In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it

is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,

is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and

is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam's Razor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

This is what a Theory is. It is a framework based on observed facts. It conducts experiments and makes predictions and most of all it can be falisified if those predictions are wrong.
Evolution does this.

Today we know evolution happened. Period. We have proven this through a variety of methods. There is no scientific debate anymore over wether evolution happened or not but how it happened.

Looking at the natural world and claiming "God did it" is not a scientific theory at all. It does not base it's conclusions on facts,it does not conduct experiments,It does not make predictions,It is not falsifiable..It's simply not a scientific theory by any means.

What evidence is "God did it" based on?
What experiments have shown "God did it" to be a theory?
How is "god did it" falsifiable?
How does "God did it" explain vestigial organs?
How does "god did it" Explain ERV's?
How does "god did it" explain that Humans have some of the same mutations in their DNA that chimp's do which could only mean humans and chimps have a common non-human/non-chimp ancestor?
How does "god did it" explain the fossil record that supports evolution?
How does "God did it" explain Nested hierarchies?
How does "god did it" explain Redundant pseudogenes?

I could go on for hours,But if your "Theory" does not fit the criteria of a scientific theory..Than it's simply not one. Pure and simple.
Unless your "Theory" can answer all of the questions I put forth,Unless it can answer ALL of the questions evolution can and provide alternate explanations backed by evidence..It's not a theory.

 

[headscratcher4]

I like the alleged "fact" that the theory of evolution was based upon the godless taking a "look" at things and coming up with an explaination/theory of their own...that is how science works...take a look around and come up with an idea...this is the "Ann Elk, the theory which is mine" theory of science....

 

[BJQ87]

That would cripple science education (and biology education in particular), and fifty years from
now, the United States will be a third-world country with everyone speaking the language of their
Chinese overlords.

Does that strike you as a good long-term goal?

As i mentioned in my first post, if it did get outlawed then it would be for secondary schooling and below, in public schools that is. And also I haven't really taken that side, as I also suggested that teaching both theories as theory might be the better way to go. And I think so.

headscratcher4- Take into considration they are wanting to teach both of the theories, and not just one. I might agree this shouldn't be seen as a scientific movement. It is a way to make sure that a whole lot of kids don't feel obligated to believe in evolution because they look up to their teachers for wisdom and go home to their parents and say "nu uh my science teacher told me..." If your only teaching evolution in schools, then it might seem like its the more intellectual thing to do, also discouraging faith.

 

[BJQ87]

Gravity is no more a theory than Evolution is a Theory..

There are theories of gravity however just as there are theories of evolution.
But the fact that gravity exists is just as much a fact as evolution existing.

idk much about these theories but i know that when i look gravity up in the dictionary and compare it to reality then I think i reasonably conclude gravity plays out in reality as a fact.