by seattleniceguy 72 Replies latest social current
The sticker explicitly read "a theory, not a fact". And that was seriously misleading, not only about evolution but about scientific methodology generally.
Those issues are quite amazing to me as the vast majority of religious groups in France (except a handful of American-influenced fundies) have no problem whatsoever with evolution and would never ask for such a "disclaimer".
The origin of life, or abiogenesis, is not part of evolution as it's normally defined in science. Evolution, as Darwin himself was careful to state, is concerned only with what happened with life after its origin. Of course, lots of people, including incautious scientists, often lump evolution and abiogenesis together, but that's more of a philosophical or even metaphysical discussion.
Truth. But the sticker in and of itself does not contradict anything we know to be true; besides, without knowing what is IN the textbook, it is hard to know whether it is necessary to leave a "door" of critical thinking open. Some textbooks include abiogenesis as part of the "fact" of evolution. Some even use outmoded understandings of evolutionary processes! Should these be presented as the "facts" on which a student can build a life? Or should they be presented as possibilities, with greater or lesser bodies of evidence which can be weighed - and leaves the decision of belief in the lap of those who should make the choice, ie. the students themselves? After all, they have to live with the consequences of their choices.
And the sticker doesn't reference the Bible at all, Simon.
I think the sticker should be part of chapter one: The Scientific Method. And leave it at that.
Besides, most people wind up making up their own minds about what to believe, evidence or no, stickers or none...
CZAR
I don't mean to sound indoctrinated but...
I was taught that "evolution" was "things" changing into other "things" over time. Not adaptation or differentiation or modification. It was a fish becomes a bird (eventually) a bird becomes a ----- (eventually), and so on. Because I can agree with both schools of thought if that is the case. Yes the "facts" show change- it's just how far that change goes that is open to debate.
"Evolution" is kind of like the "trinity" you need to agree on which definition you're refering to before you discuss or you just go round and round. Because these terms mean different things to different people and "schools of thought". There is by no means a concensus among believers on these subjects. Nuances of belief and opinion can change points of view drastically. Example of Woody Allen saying, "my wife and I almost never have sex, maybe only 2 or 3 times per week." to his shrink, while the wife says, " we're always have sex, at least 2 or 3 times per week." Make sense?
u/d
czar, I think it is the intent of the sticker more than anything. I'm sure it gives the religious right the smug feeling. Like they are "getting one over" on all those smarty pantz know it all scientists who would dare espouse anythin other than gawd as the creator. Oh that and a big ass marble monoliths etched w/the 10 commandments for every court house...
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
czarofmischief said:
: the sticker in and of itself does not contradict anything we know to be true;
Yes, it does. As Narkissos pointed out, the sticker explicitly read "a theory, not a fact". This gives the false impression that facts and theories are mutually exclusive, which is simply not so. Gravity is a good example.
: besides, without knowing what is IN the textbook, it is hard to know whether it is necessary to leave a "door" of critical thinking open.
Not really. The sticker in and of itself is misleading, and therefore ought not to be pasted on any textbook.
: Some textbooks include abiogenesis as part of the "fact" of evolution. Some even use outmoded understandings of evolutionary processes! Should these be presented as the "facts" on which a student can build a life?
No. Such textbooks shouldn't be used, since they don't properly present science.
: Or should they be presented as possibilities, with greater or lesser bodies of evidence which can be weighed - and leaves the decision of belief in the lap of those who should make the choice, ie. the students themselves? After all, they have to live with the consequences of their choices.
You're making the classic mistake of viewing biological evolution versus creation as if it were merely a philosophical difference of opinion. It is not. Evolution is science. It is the consensus among tens of thousands of scientists who study the basic material every day. Besides, there is nothing at all preventing students from getting sectarian opinions from any number of other sources, including their parents and churches.
The point here is that the people who lobbied for the sticker did so for political purposes, which means that they were trying to insert their religious misgivings about evolution into the science curriculum.
: And the sticker doesn't reference the Bible at all, Simon.
Not directly. But certainly indirectly, given who promoted it.
: Besides, most people wind up making up their own minds about what to believe, evidence or no, stickers or none...
True enough. But a lot of braindeadly religious fanatics would never get the facts without a science curriculum free of sectarian religious influences.
AlanF
A quote from that linked article:
At a trial in federal court in November, the school system defended
the stickers as a show of tolerance, not religious activism."Science and religion are related and they're not mutually exclusive,"
school district attorney Linwood Gunn said. "This sticker was an
effort to get past that conflict and to teach good science."
So unfalsifiable models like intelligent design are good science? Thats rich.
Tolerance they say? Of what? Useless ideas that haven't concretely increased our knowledge base one iota? I mean I love the idea of say ... directed panspermia ... but if its baseless then there's nothing for the scientific method to work on.
I'm glad the Judge saw the disclaimer for what it was.
upside/down said:
: I was taught that "evolution" was "things" changing into other "things" over time. Not adaptation or differentiation or modification.
I'm not sure you really understand evolution. The latter three things result in things changing into other things. "Descent with modification" (by whatever means) is the most commonly proposed result of the observation of evolution.
: It was a fish becomes a bird (eventually) a bird becomes a ----- (eventually), and so on. Because I can agree with both schools of thought if that is the case. Yes the "facts" show change- it's just how far that change goes that is open to debate.
Only in creationist circles. There's no debate in scientific circles. Even creationists admit that a certain amount of change is possible, but they assert, with no real evidence, that there are built-in limits to the amount of change possible.
: "Evolution" is kind of like the "trinity" you need to agree on which definition you're refering to before you discuss or you just go round and round.
Exactly.
: Because these terms mean different things to different people and "schools of thought". There is by no means a concensus among believers on these subjects.
You're a master of understatement.
AlanF
Hi, Im just curious of what you guys think of this recent essay by Ray Franz regarding evolution.
Even the WTS admits evolution happened in the Creation book ... they try and dismiss some evidence as "a branch of the human family that died out".
"a branch of"? ... ie, different, evolved !
I liked what the judge wrote in his ruling:
"While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community."
I'm still not sure how to write this so it sounds good, but I was thinking along this line...
"Whileevolutionreligion is subject to criticism, particularly with respect tothe mechanism by which it occurredhow it affects our lives, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value ofevolutionreligion in thescientificcommunity."
I thought it was a little scary that the state of Alabama has its own science text books...
Officials in Alabama said they do not think Thursday's ruling affects the several-paragraph evolution disclaimer in the front of that state's science books.
The disclaimer says that "any statement about life's origins should be considered theory, not fact," and lists four of the "many unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook." One of the questions is, "How did you and all living things come to possess such a complete and complex set of 'Instructions' for building a living body?"
So, does this include "religious" theories too?
"any statement about life's origins should be considered theory, not fact,"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, it irks me when scientists take their theories so serious they forget that they are just descriptions, using human words, of how they think things are or work out. No matter how a thing is defined or described, it still it, in its own right. I think that to say that theories ARE facts, is a bit too absolutist, maybe even arrogant. EVERYTHING should be questioned, especially our own thoughts.
