BZ
Science education is supposed to educate people in science. Creationism
isn't science. Of course I am not suggesting that we should ever teach
atheism
or even mention the bible in biology class. Teach the science absent
bronze age myths is all I am saying. Science education shouldn't be held
hostage
to anyone's religious beliefs.
))))))))))))))))
RM
I agree with you that we are supposed to educate people in science. I agree
that religion and "Creation Science" aren't science at all. I'm fine with
"teaching science", and I'm fine with leaving out the "myths". But I'm not
fine with statements like, "Life began billions of years ago when aminoacids
somehow linked up by chance to make a single-celled organism that
subsequently evolved into every living thing we that has ever lived." Or
words to that effect. I'm not saying that this is definitely incorrect, but
stating it AS "correct", the truth and nothing but, is simply not justified
by any "science" that I recognize. As you stated above, science is never
certain.
Now granted, that tiny little concession, which would allow most believers
to accept science as benign, WOULD also allow people to believe in a GOD and
in a Creation, and if the goal is to stamp out those beliefs, then such a
concession is unacceptable. We can't have people believing what they want.
We can't have them look at the evidence and form their own opinions, we have
to force them to believe as WE do! If that means never admitting any level
of fallibility, then it's a small price to pay.
I want them to evaluate evidence and draw conclusions about what
is going on. In terms of evolution, I want them to know that organisms
change over time; something that is absolutely FACT, and absolutely
Irrefutable. I would also want them to understand that extending this FACT
leads to the reasonable conclusion that current-day organisms were quite
different in the distant past, and that it may be that everything
ultimately
evolved from a single-celled organism, which itself developed from
non-living material. I don't, frankly, feel that it is my responsibility
or
function to tell them that we KNOW we're right about this, that this is
what
they should believe, and that any other belief is absolutely, positively,
false. Why should I care if someone believes in Creation? How is that a
threat or impediment if that someone understands how to collect evidence,
evaluate it, and draw logical conclusions? Shouldn't the purpose of
education be to help people to evaluate evidence when deciding what THEY
choose to believe? If, after all that, they still believe that a Creation
occurred, how am I (or they) diminished by that?
)))))))))))))))
BZ
The core fact in evolution is that the evolution of life lacks any apparent
teleology. They aren't stupid, they will understand this is what evolution
theory tells us about the nature of life and the history of life from its
early one cell beginning. Pretending otherwise won't appease the
fundamentalists, you're fooling yourself if you think it will. The very
idea of
evolution makes mince meat out of the Biblical world view. They know this,
they
won't be appeased by lip service to someplace somewhere god might have done
something. This isn't what they are taught in Sunday School.
))))))))))))))))))))))))
Rm
You're right that you will not appease the strict interpretationists.
Again, however, I assert that they are a tiny minority. What we MUST NOT DO
is to push moderates into their camp. Before, when science was not
perceived as an open attack on believers, you had only this tiny group of
zealots to deal with. NOW science is being misused as an instrument to
stamp out any belief in a GOD. OF COURSE you now have lots of opposition!
And it'll grow the more aggressively you attack it!
You can't stamp out belief in Creation. You cannot eliminate religion.
Better opponents than you attempted it in years past, AND IT DIDN'T WORK!
If this is your goal, then you are doomed to failure. I'd like to avoid
the
outcome that Christians, generally, become enemies of science. Asserting a
false certitude regarding scientific explanations/conclusions is not
acceptable to me. I think that it is not only intellectually dishonest,
but
also detracts from the process... AND... in the case of evolution,
unnecessarily antagonizes a HUGE group of people who WILL respond in
opposition. If you disagree with anything I've said, then so be it.
))))))))))))))))
BZ
In Europe the Churches are empty, I think would be a good outcome.
Nonetheless, all I am saying is that science should NEVER compromise with
religion
on anything. Teach the science, leave religion out of it. That's all I am
saying.
Bob Zannelli
)))))))))))))))
RM
Then I'd suggest you teach it in a way which does claim attributes for it
that it does not possess. Acknowledge the tiny little loophole in science
that would allow the vast majority of religious people the freedom to
understand and enjoy science without feeling that they are under attack.
I guarantee you that I could teach "evolution" in a manner that is
scientifically rigorous and complete, even in Forida. And I'd be willing to
guarantee you that if the parents and students heard me out there would be
little in the way of criticism from the religious. All that is necessary is
to tell the complete truth, warts and all. I wasn't in the classroom to
tell kids what to think. I was there to show them how science is done, how
data is collected and evaluated, and how to draw logical conclusions based
on the data that is available. I was also there to show them that new data
can CHANGE the conclusions, and that we can never be 100% sure that our
explanations are correct. Science is an ongoing process, not a series of
immutable facts to be carved on stone tablets and never questioned.