I recently read an article about well educated leaders in our society leading a war against the teachings of evolution and using it as an excuse to get religious teachings put into the public school system. I don't know about anybody else, but this seems like a huge step backwards to me.
I see two issues:
Issue 1,
There is a ton of evidence that supports Darwin's theories and the scientific information that has not supported has still supported evolution, only in other ways. Nothing has been found, scientifically, that supports a nonexistence of evolution. The only contradicting "evidence" has to do with pieces text that have been rewritten by those in power many many times in order to make them fit their power schemes of their age...There are contradicting texts, for instance, that give supporting evidence that women were rewritten in the bible in order to give them less power then men when, in the contradicting texts, women are shown to have a more equal power...I consider myself to be a religious man, but I take the "facts" of the bible lightly and, instead, focus on the lessons that underlay the ever-changing stories that focus on a seemingly pliable history.
Issue 2,
I am appalled at the fact the people would push to have their religious views put into the classroom. The line between church and state must remain clear for the foundation of our country to remain strong. The founding basis of this country was that it was a place where people in the rest of the world could flee to in the face of religious prosecution. It is not fair to press one view on the nations children when we are a nation comprised of many views. This cannot be allowed unless we're willing to face ALL the consequences.
I feel that there is a definite meeting ground between church and science and that if we lose sight of this, we'll lose the footing to some major future scientific breakthroughs that will only come from allowing the children of today to be able to expand on the theories of today as they become the great minds of tomorrow.
posted by ~mike @ 5:07 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Please check out Jessi's post on this topic...
...a rebuttal is soon to come, so stay tuned!
Hypothesis, Theory, Law
"As far as Evolution is concerned, it's important to remember that it is still a theory and should be treated as so, not an absolute truth as some of my teachers have done. It needs to be realized that the scientist can easily become something like a fire and brimstone theocrat, teaching theories as fact and forgetting that much of science is also faith based (not religious faith based)." -Jessi
This comment, while having much validity, also holds some flaws. It is important to distinguish how a scientist views a theory, what it takes to have an idea become a theory, and why it "seems" so many scientists view theories as facts, but this is actually part of the design of the scientific method.
The Scientific Method:
Observation, Question, Hypothesis, Theory, Law
These 5 things are the basis of scientific inquiry. As I'm sure most, if not all, of those reading have had some (or extensive) education on these things, I'll just do a quick highlight on everything, with a strong emphasis on theory.
Observation:
The first thing a scientist must do is notice something in nature at which to ponder. "Wow, look at that blue sky!"
Question:
Once noticed, the scientist then builds a question on his/her(/their) observation "Why is the sky blue, anyways?"
Hypothesis/hypotheses:
This is an important step to think about when realizing what something being a scientific theory really means. Once the question is formed, the scientist(s) then form many, many ideas on what could possibly cause this. These ideas are called hypotheses. It is this step that takes the longest time and involves all of the research and testing. While Hypotheses involve a certain extent of background knowledge and research prior to being created, for the most part they are created as they are thought up. "(1)The particles in the sky are blue (2)Reflection from water in the sky ...(272)Refraction of light bending around the earth
It is the job of every scientist, at this point, to try and disprove every hypothesis!
theory:
Once a hypothesis has been tested over and over again and cannot be disproved, it is almost to the theory stage. A few more things, however, MUST be in place before a theory can be considered as such. The testing environment that the theory was created in must be recreatable so that any scientist with the means could reproduce the test. "The physicist's greatest tool is his wastebasket." - Albert Einstein - Second, in order to get a theory published, it must be peer reviewed. With peer revision, the theory is put to the test by fellow scientists. If they, too, are unable to disprove the theory, it is considered to be a theory. "The bending of light around the Earth is refracted by earth's atmosphere. Via the Doppler effect, we get blue skies in the day and red sunsets in the evening."
Law:
In rare cases, the simplicity (usually) and matter-of-factness of a theory will be so profound that the scientific community will graduate a theory to a law. This is a rare occurrence and a title only given when there can be no doubt. "The Law of gravity is something that anybody on this planet can verify exists"
Importance of Theories:
This is where one of Jessi's concepts comes into play that I very much agree with. In good faith of fellow scientific work, scientific method, and peer revision, the scientific community will then begin to use these theories in very factual ways. A good example of this is electricity. Electrons power our computers, lights, TV sets, radios, and everything else "electric", yet nobody has ever seen one. The existence of electrons is a theory. Another very powerful example is atomic energy and the atomic bomb. The splitting of atoms is based on theory and the atom itself is a theory.
So, to say evolution is "just a theory" is the ultimate flaw in the fight against evolution. It shows an ignorance to the meaning of theory and the scientific method (Jessi, there is sincerely no offence meant here). It is, however, to be understood. The theory of evolution is as far fetched to some today as the theory of the Earth being spherical was perceived in and before the 15th century. But just as Columbus showed us that the world didn't just end, science has been able to show us that the world is ever changing. Even after Columbus and Magellan, there were still many non-believers and it's taken many centuries for the world's views to change towards spherical thought. The same shall be with evolution. It is unfortunate for the people who deny themselves the truth (although I'm sure they'd say the same to me), but time will show that science, albeit slowly, does move our knowledge in the right direction.
As is Jessi and Einstein, I am all for incorporating that “cosmic religious feeling” in the classroom. I am also for presenting opposing arguments into the classroom. Where I strongly disagree with most evolution activists is the push for the “Christian View” to be the primary alternative in the classroom. By focusing on one religion, the line between church and state is all but demolished. If religion is to be taught in the public classroom, a focus on ALL religions must be made. I wonder what these activists would say to having some true Pagan views brought into the classroom to be displayed on equal grounds to Christian views?
Ultimately, I know that the theory of evolution is the most definitive answer that we have right now to explaining a species’ ability to adapt with a changing world just as I know that when I flip a light switch electricity will power the light bulb causing it to emit light, making it easier for me to see. Yeah, they may be theories, but I’d bet my life that they are pretty damned close. In fact we all bet our lives on theories every day. Aerodynamics, electricity, medication, engine dynamics, and telephones, for example, are all based on current theories, and millions of people are trusting their lives to these theories as you read this right now.
I recommend a Google Search on Scientific theory, law, and hypothesis for more information.
A last few quotes to dwell on...
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Evolution is cleverer than you are." — Francis Crick.
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge." - Unknown (unfortunately)
"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details." - Albert Einstein
“Humans are inherently fallible. If god created us, then god knows this. The text of the bible has been rewritten by fallible creatures so many times over, it’s hard to judge what was in the original texts. How, then, are we to judge anything in this text as fact? I personally shall use it solely for the solid messages pertained in an otherwise fluid text.” ~mike
Jessi posed a side of this topic that I didn't touch on very much, but that I agree with whole-hartedly. My agreement, however, comes from a different angle.
I find your teachers were not only wrong with forcing one view, but that they only used one view to describe an idea. The line of church and state was well crossed in her example. I feel that every child should have a choice to believe in. Should be given ALL the facts, all the views, all the opposing arguements. This is what turns a learnEd child into a knowledgable child. We all can retain "facts" but it takes a knowledgable person to be able to form and defend their own opinions...and I think Jessi can agree with that :0)
That wasn't quite exactly how I meant to come off. Ah well, I retract my comment.
Post a Comment
<< Home