Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers
Here is a huge impediment to faith and reason. The stickers in questions stated: "is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered". Now what is wrong with this? Is any faith required?
No, in fact the sticker stated that the the student should approach the subject with a critical mind. Exactly the kind of mind that makes a good scientist! So what's the problem. Faith, of course, but faith as it's improperly applied to science. The faith in this case is the faith in the theory of evolution.
"Theory?" you say? Yes. Theory. Let's compare it to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. It is pretty well accepted as fact, yet scientists continue to run experiments to prove it. In fact, there are no known issues with relativity, but it is still a theory.
On to evolution. Has any successful experiment ever been run? No. We have not ever observed an animal evolve. What about the bones? Intriguing yes, and the theory of evolution, at least on the surface, would seem to explain them. But has anyone ever found bones or fossils of an intermediate species that was able to reproduce with both its lower and upper species. No. It's a theory still. We have observed some sub-species specialize, as in color, plumage, and size, but they could always inter-breed. That is, a dog is still a dog. A Chitzu could still, at least technically, impregnate a Great Dane (although the reverse sound dangerous).
It should be taught as a theory. Not doing so deprives students of wonderful connections to the scientific method. Consider the connections to probability (i.e., what is the probability that a species might evolve), the ramifications of time (given the probabilities, how long would evolution have taken), and implication to infer (if there wasn't enough time, then what conditions must have existed to speed up evolution). But when we teach evolution as fact, the questioning is done. Now to my mind, the questions are good. That evolution is fact sounds like a sort of dogma, and one requiring much faith.
Whoops. I think Manely doesn't really understand what dogma is.
No, in fact the sticker stated that the the student should approach the subject with a critical mind. Exactly the kind of mind that makes a good scientist! So what's the problem. Faith, of course, but faith as it's improperly applied to science. The faith in this case is the faith in the theory of evolution.
"Theory?" you say? Yes. Theory. Let's compare it to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. It is pretty well accepted as fact, yet scientists continue to run experiments to prove it. In fact, there are no known issues with relativity, but it is still a theory.
On to evolution. Has any successful experiment ever been run? No. We have not ever observed an animal evolve. What about the bones? Intriguing yes, and the theory of evolution, at least on the surface, would seem to explain them. But has anyone ever found bones or fossils of an intermediate species that was able to reproduce with both its lower and upper species. No. It's a theory still. We have observed some sub-species specialize, as in color, plumage, and size, but they could always inter-breed. That is, a dog is still a dog. A Chitzu could still, at least technically, impregnate a Great Dane (although the reverse sound dangerous).
It should be taught as a theory. Not doing so deprives students of wonderful connections to the scientific method. Consider the connections to probability (i.e., what is the probability that a species might evolve), the ramifications of time (given the probabilities, how long would evolution have taken), and implication to infer (if there wasn't enough time, then what conditions must have existed to speed up evolution). But when we teach evolution as fact, the questioning is done. Now to my mind, the questions are good. That evolution is fact sounds like a sort of dogma, and one requiring much faith.
"This is a great day for Cobb County students," said Michael Manely, an attorney for the parents who sued over the stickers. "They're going to be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma."
Whoops. I think Manely doesn't really understand what dogma is.
posted by Phil Shea | 11:40 AM
1 Comments:
First, I want to thank you for taking the time to make such a long, well thought out comment. I'd love to continue this discussion, but other than these posts, I'm not sure how. Blogger didn't give me anthing to link to. My email is phil1shea@netscape.net. I'll watch for you.
What I'd like is an expression of humility from the science community. Let's not get wrapped up in semantics. Gravity is still a theory, although we can run some experiments to describe what we know about it. But is gravity a constant? It appears so, but we can only observe it for a few years, and so we know it only on a short time scale. Evolution is still a theory. And I'd like to put it up against geology theories -- so many of which have changed in the last 50 years.
I'd also love to know about the fruit fly experiments. Sure, we can breed animals for certain characteristics, but do you ever get a new animal? One that can't interbreed with its source species? Perhaps you can. And if so, well, that's science! But why haven't I seen anything like that? Email me (phil1shea@netscape.net) with the references (keep them simple, I'm an engineer, not a biologist).
I think I'm asking good questions. If evolution is possible, then how long does it take. Was there enough time? I don't hear these questions being asked. Even your comments, kind though they are, seem a little on the "evolution is true, stop questioning it" character.
Finally, the news media has divided us into two neat groups: the enightened who accept evolution, and silly people who beleive the bible story that the world was created only about 10,000 years ago.
Post a Comment
<< Home