Replies

You know, this popular creationist line of argument has some strange implications. Let's see if you really want to go there...
You are off to a very bad start. I am not a creationist nor is it a "creationists line of argument".

OK, you're not a creationist. But it most certainly is a popular creationist argument: "You eeevilutionist are all vanity! Man's theories change with the seasons. What used to be 'scientific fact' years ago is laughed at today. But the Bible is the same forever!" How many times have we seen that stellar argument thrown around here?

That line of argument tries to imply that scientific progress jerks back & forth on a whim, with no clear convergence on any kind of objective truth. (It's the same kind of vision that postmodernists have of knowledge, ironically.)

You're implying that essentially no scientific theory we hold to be true today is really true.
Nope. You are not even close. I am saying based on the evidence (you know, that scientific method and all...) knowledge is a continuum - 2000 years ago we did not know it all - 1000 years ago we did not know it all - 500 years ago we did not know it all. Based on the evidence (and trend) we do not know it all right now so assuming our current theories are facts is faulty logic (if you choose to apply the scientific method)

OK, then tell me: Do you think the mainstream scientific theories of 1500 years ago were more or less true than those of 2000 years ago? Were the mainstream theories of 1000 years ago more or less true than those of 1500 years ago? Were the mainstream theories of 500 years ago more or less true than those of 1000 years ago? And are the mainstream theories of today more or less true than those of 500 years ago?

I should explain a bit more context here: The complaint that students are being taught that the ToE is a fact when it's "only" a theory has nothing to do with being a stickler for intellectual precision. And it has nothing to do with wanting to make sure the children keep an open mind. It's a rear-guard action to try to save some smidgen of scientific respectability for creationism. Nothing more than that.

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.
Nope. Not even remotely close. You sound like a person that desperately wants to live in a binary world where everything is either right or wrong - fact or fiction...

I knew you'd say that! No, I don't have a strictly binary mindset. But the overall pattern of (the lack of) scientific progress that your argument relies on is fundamentally different from that of the scientist, who believes that the world isn't lying to us and when a new theory becomes mainstream it tends to be for a darn good reason.

The question is: What do we teach teenagers who are, for the first time, learning about such basic biological phenomena as blood types, the Krebs cycle, anatomy, what's inside a cell, what it looks like when you slice open a frog, etc. etc. Sure, they should know that strictly speaking all scientific knowledge is provisional, subject to being proven wrong by new evidence or a better theory. But it's also just as important to make them realize that the body of knowledge we work with contains a very secure core of knowledge and theory - that's secure in its place for a good reason.

(Off to dinner, be back later.)