Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: possibly OT: NYT article on GA creationism/evolution debate



You are absolutely correct, and I would agree with what you said if
it weren't for the fact that when "those folks" use the word
"theory," they really mean "hypothesis" or "guess." They and most of
the public use theory in this much less exalted meaning that
scientists do, so they really are saying something that isn't true.

You have a point. But I think there is more to consider here. "those
folks" and most of the rest of the general public do not understand the
sometimes subtle and sometimes inconsistently used differences in words like
theory, hypothesis and guess. On the other hand almost 100% of the students
taking science classes especially K-12 do not really understand what science
is. They view their science class as a place to obtain definitive
descriptions of the way the world "really'" is. If my science teacher or my
book says so then it must be true. My 9th grade son was studying biology
last night. When he finished his worksheet I asked to see it along with his
book. The topic was how life developed on earth etc. One section said that
the earth is believed to be 4.5 billion years old and that 3.5 billion years
old rocks contain fossils. Not the slightest hint of evidence to support
these claims was provided. Did my son (who I imagine is quite typical of
many if not most 9th graders) even consider wondering how we know that the
earth or the fossils mentioned were that old? No! He wanted to study what
he needed to pass the class and questioning the evidence or in this case the
total lack of evidence was not part of his thinking. I spent most of a half
hour trying to get him to understand that he needed to recognize these kind
of blatant assertion and demand convincing evidence before he put much stock
in the ideas presented. In my experience it is a sad reality that most
students study science as a list of facts to be learned maybe it is because
most teachers teach this way. I wish, as John C. said, that all academic
subjects were approached by students and teachers with a healthy bit if
skepticism and critical thinking, especially all sciences.

Darwin's "dangerous idea" *is* a theory, and a wonderful one, for it
is the beginning of understanding how life on earth operates. But
"evolution," taken to mean "descent with modification," which is how
Darwin used it, is as near to a fact as anything in science can be.
So what the opponents of teaching evolution are saying is just not
true.

Again you make a good point. On the other hand when texts say, as my son's
biology book does, that life is believed to have spontaneously developed
from inorganic substances some 3.5 billion years ago while giving little to
no evidence to support such a statement students are not really given the
opportunity to think critically about the subject are they? How honest is
that? Sounds more like indoctrination to me.

The other problem, is that they are not interested in studying
evolution carefully and critically, which is really a good idea. They
want only to discredit it and suppress it. Unfortunately, they have
adopted and adapted scientific language in pursuit of a
non-scientific goal.

You are correct. As a Christian I am often embarrassed and angered by the
intellectually dishonest arguments that are made attacking anything
scientific.

Cliff Parker

Never express yourself more clearly than you can think. Niels Bohr