Well, My Opinion Of The US Public Just Went Down Again...

[IanKennedy]

*EDIT* Let me clarify; in the first part of my response above, I'm speaking not of this particular issue, but of the idea of selecting one of many alternative ideas to teach, and deciding not to educate kids about even teh existence of opposing viewpoints.

If those opposing viewpoints are scientific that's fine. If however, they are religious then it's not fine. It's a science class not theology. See my example on gravity in my previous post.

[stitch626]

Was the flying spaghetti monster ever a majority belief?

[Mikey]

So, by that logic...

We should teach kids about evolution - which is a theory, not a law - but not even about the fact that opposing viewpoints are extant? That goes beyond the bounds of a tehological/philosophical discussion, into the realm of irresponsible education.

If a history teacher teaches about the necessity of the US entering into the Viet Nam conflict, shouldn't we teach the students about the existence of viewpoints opposing the entrance to the "war?"

[Sionnach Glic]

Was the flying spaghetti monster ever a majority belief?

Does it matter?

[Mikey]

No, it doesn't. I think Ian misunderstood me, to think that I advocate the teaching of theological viewpoints in public education. I don't believe in that - as he said, if you want to learn religion, go to church. However, education about the existence of alternative viewpoints to the accepted academic norms - be they religious or secular - is a simple part of preparing students for the world at large.

[IanKennedy]

Part of the issue here is the convolution of history and science to suit atheist needs.

What needs do I have, I'm intrigued to know?

Take, I don't know, some of those ruins down in Africa. I believe there is still some debate over exactly how they were constructed. Science can tell you ways they could have been constructed, and it could explain the mechanical forces that keep them from collapsing. But it can't say exactly how they were contstructed. Maybe they actually used a different method than what would be the simplest. That's an element of history that could have come about in a number of different ways.

Similarly science can't pretend to know how life started. It can propose ways it could have started. It can explain the lipids in your body that make it continue. But maybe in the end Star Trek is right and the planet was seeded by an alien species. In fact it's very possible what they teach now is quite wrong, even from an Atheistic point of view. For example maybe it wasn't lightning at all, but instead a pressure wave from a meteorite. Or pehapse life actually started on mars and a chunk of rock smashed into space brought it over. Pretending you have the one true answer is simply dogmatic.

In this context evolution does not try to explain the origins of life, merely the diversity of species on the planet. Plus you mars example doesn't explain the origins of life either, all it says is it came from somewhere else. Simply delays the question.

Actually as an aside I find too much of science in general is taught from far to certain a place. For example who else is old enough to remember when they taught that Brontosaurs had legs bowed out to the side, and had to be in water to support their mass? Now they have straight legs, can stand on their own, and it turns out that "Brontosaur" is a misclassification. Now the issue isn't that there were some incorrect beliefs. It happens all the time, and you do what you can with what you've got. I just feel the certainty with which things are expressed reduces critical thinking.

I don't see how more upfront about things we can be. They are called theories for a reason. They are all open to modification as new evidence is brought to light. Your own statement shows this in action. You are able to say that the 'Brontosaur' was a misclassification because science is flexible and can change. There is no certainty, it would be bad science.

This is a real problem in more practical science. For example in Millikan's famous oil drop experiment he actually got the wrong value, because he used a slightly wrong value for the viscosity of air. It took ages for science to work this out, not because people reproducing the experiment didn't get the correct values, but because they figured they must be wrong and so did the experiment again until it was closer to Millikan's number. So instead of going straightaway to the correct value, things sorts of slowly moved in the right direction.

That's very bad science, the whole point of trying to reproduce things is to eliminate mistakes not bend things until you can get them to fit. It's also why such things as peer review are part of the picture.

I've been in academia long enough to know that this sort of stuff goes on far to often.

EDIT: Geez, this thread is moving too quick there are five posts that popped up between starting and finishing typing this.
Seems like we're actually coming closer to something resembling agreement actually.

[Sionnach Glic]

I think it should be pointed out that evolution =/= atheist. You can be an atheist and not believe in evolution. You can be religious and believe in evolution. They're not one and the same. "Atheist" just means "does not believe in a god". It means nothing else.

[Aaron]

ITT we discover (yet again) that a religious dude does not understand what Atheism is.

[IanKennedy]

Was the flying spaghetti monster ever a majority belief?

I can't remember the exact figures just at the moment but they number in the millions if not billion, but why would that matter. It's an alternative belief why should it be excluded if you are allowing religion into the science classroom.

[IanKennedy]

So, by that logic...

We should teach kids about evolution - which is a theory, not a law - but not even about the fact that opposing viewpoints are extant? That goes beyond the bounds of a tehological/philosophical discussion, into the realm of irresponsible education.

If a history teacher teaches about the necessity of the US entering into the Viet Nam conflict, shouldn't we teach the students about the existence of viewpoints opposing the entrance to the "war?"

Science is not a matter of public policy. There are accepted standards for what is good science and what isn't. If your theory meets those standards then it could be in, if it doesn't then no it should not be in a science classroom. The science teacher is not qualified in theology nor philosophy. If a science teacher has to explain every alternative theory to science there would be no room in the school for other things.

[IanKennedy]

No, it doesn't. I think Ian misunderstood me, to think that I advocate the teaching of theological viewpoints in public education. I don't believe in that - as he said, if you want to learn religion, go to church. However, education about the existence of alternative viewpoints to the accepted academic norms - be they religious or secular - is a simple part of preparing students for the world at large.

So do you want the maths teacher to teach the possibility that trig is wrong because certain people don't believe in it?

[Nickswitz]

One thing I feel like adding to this that may or may not have been mentioned, but evolution is a theory, not a law... This means that there is no actual proof that supports evolution, there is conjecture about it, but no absolute proof...

And something Ian said, about the flying spaghetti monster vs. Gravity, Gravity has been proven. Evolution has not been proven, which I believe that Mikey was saying, and that because it has not been proven, children should be shown other thoughts on the matter. I personally have no problem with lack of education on Creationism, however, the fact that most of the time they try and pass it off as fact rather than theory is something that annoys me. They act as if Creation must be wrong, and that evolution must be right.


To something Rochey I believe said earlier, What other beliefs are there for atheists, purely wondering, I know there's the big bang theory, which is like spontaneous appearance, but usually IIRC that is coupled with evolution...

[sunnyside]

*sigh* Yes I know evolution and Atheism are not equivalent. And I know that not every Atheist is out to deride and convert.

I could do a better job of prefacing statements.

However there are plenty of atheists out to deride and convert, particularily in the US. And all too often here the theory of evolution becomes THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. And we start the whole song and dance with both sides going after each other.

I would rather welcome a situation where we could have more tolerance from both sides instead of feeling the need to call one another idiots.

As for the dinsaur example it isn't that science can't be changed. Rather it's that at any given point in time it is presented to children as being 100% accurate with no room for question. Then they were sure Brontosaurs lived in water, now they're sure Apatosaurs(or whatever the proper name is) could stand up and whip their tales around, maybe in the future they'll decide they always had their heads lower than their hearts.

The point is that science in the US is generally not presented as an area of continuing correction, but as "this is how it is". This is particularily annoying when teaching things like the Bohr model of an atom, which we know isn't correct, but is closish and simpler to explain. So they teach it to kids.


More on subject, if they simply taught that the lightning strike and all that are on possible but not neccessarily correct origin of life I think far fewer people would have a problem with it.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

One thing I feel like adding to this that may or may not have been mentioned, but evolution is a theory, not a law... This means that there is no actual proof that supports evolution, there is conjecture about it, but no absolute proof...

And something Ian said, about the flying spaghetti monster vs. Gravity, Gravity has been proven. Evolution has not been proven, which I believe that Mikey was saying, and that because it has not been proven, children should be shown other thoughts on the matter. I personally have no problem with lack of education on Creationism, however, the fact that most of the time they try and pass it off as fact rather than theory is something that annoys me. They act as if Creation must be wrong, and that evolution must be right.


To something Rochey I believe said earlier, What other beliefs are there for atheists, purely wondering, I know there's the big bang theory, which is like spontaneous appearance, but usually IIRC that is coupled with evolution...

Of course it's a "theory," it's a fact that nothing in hard science can ever be absolutely proved. It can only be supported by many observations. Relatively and Quantum theory aren't "absolutely" known to be true (never mind the fact they don't get along with each other) but they have each been found to agree with observations to such absurd levels of precision that we can't think of any idea that would better fit the existing body of evidence.

Moreover:

1) There are no competing scientific theories that agree with the existing body of evidence as well as evolution. (reference my previous posts defining scientific thought)

2) As Seafort so eloquently pointed out, Evolution is a fact just as much as gravity is a fact -- the only scientific debate is over what causes the observed effect of gravity, or what causes the observed fact of evolution over time. As has also been clarified, Darwin's theory isn't "Evolution" but "Evolution by the process of Natural Selection." Unless you wish to posit that God has placed the fossils on earth to confuse us (and no offense, but that's not a God I'd like to worship) the fossil record and laboratory demonstrations of evolution on a small scale have proved that evolution does occur. The scientific theory is only about what drives it.

3) As to "one must exclude the other" - see the exchange Mikey and myself and others had a couple of posts ago concerning how he reconciles his beliefs. The two must not necessarily exclude the other at all!

4) As to what athiests believe? If I were to conduct a census of every belief of every athiest on Earth, I'd spend the rest of my life doing it and the list of different beliefs would span many volumes. Athiest beliefs are as varied as those of people of faith.

[Nickswitz]

2) As Seafort so eloquently pointed out, Evolution is a fact just as much as gravity is a fact -- the only scientific debate is over what causes the observed effect of gravity, or what causes the observed fact of evolution over time. As has also been clarified, Darwin's theory isn't "Evolution" but "Evolution by the process of Natural Selection." Unless you wish to posit that God has placed the fossils on earth to confuse us (and no offense, but that's not a God I'd like to worship) the fossil record and laboratory demonstrations of evolution on a small scale have proved that evolution does occur. The scientific theory is only about what drives it.

The rest of what you said is ok, however, this is wrong, How does the fossil record prove or disprove anything at all... And why couldn't fossils have been formed if the being was created?