Posted on 06/20/2007 2:32:45 AM PDT by balch3
Since “both sides” means the scientific side and the religious side, only one gets to be taught in science classes and the other may be taught in elective religion classes.
I would agree with the above.
I think that's false.
One side says -- look at this neat evidence! This evidence makes us think that random mutation and natural selection is responsible for speciation!
The other side says -- look at the complexity! The complexity and inter-relatedness of natural systems makes us think that random mutation can't be responsible!
Debate the differences. That's science. Swallowing one half of the story -- that's religion!
No there isn't.
I teach this stuff. I have no problem understanding acquired complexity. Perhaps a few science courses (undiluted) would help you.
How do you feel about quantum mechanics? Should physics courses present the “it looks compex to laymen so let’s just say goddidit” argument?
Should each science class give equal time to all alternative theories with a popular or religous following? Most? Some?
BTW, mutations aren’t truly random.
Cogent post and very well stated.
Balch3: If there isn’t there should be, right? Is the evidence that supportive in your opinion? If so, I have not yet seen it. I know they have conjured a few things up in the lab, but I have seen no evidence for any labs being present on a young earth.
I think science classes have their “popular followings” already, that is, unless of course you consider evolutionary theory, unpopular? I could alternatively posit the question, “Are we to just say chance over time did it, everytime we run into something complex?”
Both sides are religious. One worships blind chance.
Duplicate, or your observations are no more scientific than Margaret Mead’s or Noam Chomsky’s.
Postulates, hypotheses and theories should not be taught as given fact. Just because “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” sounds neat doesn’t mean it is necessarily true.
I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin’.
Evolution has been taught in public schools for decades. It's mostly presented as established truth. And yet, some 60% of the public does not believe in it. Imagine what that percentage would be if part of the teaching were to explore the views of scientists who have don't accept Evolution. There's quite a bit that can be said against it, and although you may not find this side of the argument compelling, can you imagine the outcome if schools truly presented both sides of the debate? The number of Americans who accept Evolution would likely be smaller, don't you think?
Perhaps that disturbs you. The folks who oppose Evolution are sometimes derisively compared to Flat Earthers. Let's look at that as one "alternative theory":
What if, for decades, all students studied Geography and that a central teaching of Geography was that the Earth was flat. Now, there is another side of the argument, and that side would also be taught. The teacher would show film from astronauts in space orbiting the Earth. Students might talk to people from Australia ("No, we're not standing on our head.") and reports could be done on traveling around the world via major airlines.
After decades of presenting both sides of this Flat Earth controversy -- how many Americans would believe that the earth was actually flat? I'd expect less than 5%.
So (my opinion): if we teach both sides of Evolution, the percentage of people who accept Evolution will go down. If we teach both side of Flat Earth Theory the percentage of Flat Earthers will go down.
Someone's pet theory is a lot like the Flat Earth theory. And it ain't mine.
My point: teaching both sides of alternate theories is only frightening to the people who want their theory accepted as a matter of faith but who lack the means to make a truly compelling case for their side.
Wrong.
On two counts. Blind chance is not how life form evolve. Many scientists, perhaps most in this country, are some form of Christian.
Try re-reading my post 6. You seem to have missed the point. Or are you possibly presenting strawman arguments knowingly?
Nope.
You can, of course, posit any questions you like, but yours are not relevant to the content of science classes.
Science in science classes, other things elsewhere.
Why? Simply because we want students to know what scientists think on a given scientific subject.
Your basic point, as I understood it, seemed to be that the content of science classes should not be determined by what "most people" seem to think is right.
My point is that in areas where there is controversy (and the Evo debate has controversy, in case you missed it) then teaching both sides would seem to be an appropriate way to present the material.
My further point is that the side that doesn't want both sides presented (that's the Evo side) would seem to be fearful that their side will be unable to mount a case which is more compelling that their competition (that's the anti-Evo side).
I think the Evolutionists want their beliefs taken on faith. I do think Evolution has become a religion.
Anyone with any sense sees life forms adapt. Many in the scientific communitycarry this back to primordial soup coalescing over millions of years and the one-celled organisms eventually evolving into Man.
My point is that scientists determine what is in science classes.
That way students learn what current scientific thinking is in the field.
This is done in every branch of science, even geology which has much in it that could disturb those who want envery branch of science to match their personal understanding of the Bible.
I'll make a bold prediction: more bacteria will become resistant to antibiotics and the flu next year will have mutated from the flu this year making flu shots given this year useless. But that would show that organisms mutate their genes so that their offspring will survive and multiply.
To some extent, resistant bacteria already exist. Bacteria develop in response to stimuli, and incomplete dosage of antibiotics seems to let resistant bugs develop more resistance. Are viruses really a;ive?
Since when is bacteria a virus?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.