Posted on 02/27/2004 12:04:20 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Isn't that what this means:
"Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”
Everyday, I pray for truth, understanding and the strength to handle it all.
Your statement reflects a misunderstanding of evolution. It is simply a process. And according to my beliefs it is perfectly compatible with a God created universe.
Not fair you say? Well, if we take into account all the scientists that ever existed, 99% of them are still alive today. Five hundred years ago science did not exist. Science is a recent phenomenon and a method which was not adopted until near the turn of the twentieth century.
I am not uncomfortable in the least. If someone someday comes up with a superior scientific explanation that so be it. You said it was "merely my opinion" that evolution is the only scientific theory to teach children. As of right now, this is all that should be taught in high school freshman biology.
Should the origin of life be taught in Biology class?
BTW: this thread is not about what should be taught in biology class.
BTW: I agree with your point about what should be taught in biology class.
The scientific method (as we know it today) did not exist 500 years ago. The "theory" you refer to were either philosophical musings (ex Aristotle's celestial circles) or nonsense like alchemy and astrology which had not stood up to the rigors of hypothesis driven "science" - repeated cycles of experimentation and observation. While the technology has vastly improved the scientific method has basically remained the same since Bacon.
Unlike religion, science is every-changing.
Gosh you don't really want to go there do you? ;-)
No. Actually you misunderstood what I said. I was talking about core beliefs related to the origin of life - the theory of happenstance or some form of creationism. This has nothing directly to do with evolution. Evolution does not address the origin of life. Basically there are two belief systems: one based solely on happenstance (the Atheist perspective) and one based on some form of creationism.
Many believe both in evolution and a form of creationism (I being one of them)
Science has very little say with regard to high school students on this topic.
Utter nonsense.
The scientific method (Observe/Hypothesize/Conclude) was developed by the Greeks like 2200 years ago. The current scientific method (Observe/Hypothesize/Experiment/Conclude) was developed (credited to Redi) in 1600 which is pretty close to 500 years ago.
RWN: Science has very little say with regard to high school students on this topic.
So than please explain why the following disclaimer freaks you out:
"Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”
(yes, that was a setup)
The Greeks were much better thinkers than experimenters. They flirted with the scientific method a bit, but never realized its power.
You know, this popular creationist line of argument has some strange implications. Let's see if you really want to go there...
You're implying that essentially no scientific theory we hold to be true today is really true. The scientific theories we rely on today are actually wrong. Or maybe they're all correct today, but they won't be 500 years from now.
You're basically saying that either there is no truth, or truths change with the times. Either way, your conception of science is that all important scientific theories & frameworks periodically collapse, and are substantially overthrown, as in a revolution, by something significantly different or even opposite. Then, presumably the new series of scientific theories will themselves be completelly overthrown in the next paroxysm of Hegelian dialectical revolution. And on and on and on.
Science must proceed in the manner you're implying, jerking from one incompatible theory to another with no rhyme or reason; indeed with no expectation of ever converging on any actual truth. It must be so - unless the world is fundamentally comprehensible. If we can, in principle, truly understand the natural world, then new major theories that overturn the old ones should actually be closer to the real truth. And I say that is exactly how science has proceeded.
But you must deny this. All so you can hold on to a belief in creationism. Is that an acceptable tradeoff for you?
RWN(later): They (the Greeks 2000+ years ago) flirted with the scientific method a bit, but never realized its power.
Are you now going to retract the first statement?
Go back and read the context this was taken out of. They are refering to "origins" of species. It is a disclaimer on "Evolution" , not "Abiogenesis".
Er, um - you think creationism in the public schools will be solved by the gun???
Now THATS a new one! LOL!!!
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.