Where are the breakthroughs of religion, of philosophy?
Science in science class. Just get that. You may think there are better answers somewhere else. There aren't. Not for the purposes of science class.
Were the kudos for flying above the Dawkins attack fray and being civil a little premature? "Science in science class, science in science class." Sorta sounds like a myopic parrot routine rivaling the lefties chanting slogans on campus.
Archimedes started out modeling the behavior of levers and screws. Now we model the orbital trajectories of space probes and the quantum tunneling behaviors of electrons.
If we're talking Greeks, Socrates let us know that ultimate wisdom lie in the acceptance of how little one actually knew in the bigger picture. Then Descartes proved one thing to himself though impressions and the senses, which was the only provable reality was that of his own existence. Then masters like Max Planck came along and got us to question what was really "there?" on a scientific level.
So your example is incredible, granted; there will be many more incredible moments to come as the universe unfolds new secrets ad infintum.-still waiting for a little insight as to when that unified field theory is due.
I have never stated that science shouldn't only be taught in science class as far as my own viewpoint was concerned. Find where I did. While I would love to see it stir the pot these days just for fun, I don't give a s**t if people considering the nature of realities and philosophy and metaphysics are only meeting in the (Sacred Zone) of the science class as a compliment to the subject matter, or in the basement of the Acme Rubber Chicken company as long as they are not dissuaded by the shame of the Insititution to do so. God, I would have never been thinking of this as such an issue three or four days ago the way I am now.
Here's one thing for you to just get: Methinks this thing is going to backfire on Dawkins and the moooovement, big time. He, and the press leaning his way, seems to get more shrill as I discover the diatribes. Much emotion, many straw-men and indeed much selective perception.
Some of you guys are coming across as gulag types and that is a bad PR long term position. To some rational minds, whether you like us identifying ourselves that way or not, you can sort of mirror Pat Robertson at times.
While my ability to comprehend all things grand does not approach yours, I do get one thing for certian, the only permanance is in change. That's both a philosophical observation and evolution at its finest. In the end this will all come around in a different form and there will be a new synthesis with new understandings and science could get turned on its head like it has in the past. The Great Brain Trust is in for rough times if it internalizes this latest court win too greatly and continues to accumulate hubris in its quest as the monolithic arbiter of truth without leaving more room for open minds-such as the great Darwin himself, pulling an amazing explanation of the species while in a sea of skepticism-and by minimizing all things not science as anti-science. It's ridiculous!
BTW Where are the breakthroughs of religion, of philosophy?
A few: Victor Frankel's, "Man's Search for Meaning"
The life and influence of Mahatma Ghandi on mankind.