Evolution, scientific methods, and reason are losing in America's classrooms

[ImmortalFlame]

You have succeeded to convince me the ideal is to keep the focus on observable facts and not parade beliefs around in a science room. But, I hope you also will admit, evolution is yet a theory. So, while there are some things that appear self-evident, the jury is still out on actually observing a total jump of species.

Theory is as high as you can get in science. Gravity is a theory. In fact, most scientists would say that evolution is far more factual than the theory of gravity.

Evolution, as in changes in allele frequency over time, is a fact. It has been observed, it has been quantified, it has been tested. Where evolutionary theory has been applied, it has met with nothing but success in predicting the fossil record and geneology of the last several million years of earth's history. Not once has any fact ever come forward to contradict evolutionary theory, and yet it is supported by such an overwhelming preponderance of facts that most scientists refer to it as the most successful theory in all of science.

Also, we have observed speciation:
Observed Instances of Speciation

I think you and I hold a fundamentally different idea of what classrooms are for.

And I think you hold a fundamentally incorrect view on what science is for.

My beef is that IF a teacher ventures to make references to Creationism that they say something to this effect: "I don't concern myself with religious matters and decline to respond." vs. "Creationists and Bible believers are ignorant and deluded fools." While this may be true, it is equally arrogant and foolish for him to presume in the entire field of religion there are no truths of vital importance. That's like a religious person totally denouncing the scientific method.

Of course, I have a problem with that as well. But how is presenting creationism (objectively or otherwise) in the science classroom dealing with any such issue? This is not a problem in science teaching and has nothing to do with teaching science.

My only concern is that whatever is taught in public schools that it be taught in an objective manner. Frankly, I don't even subscribe to the whole public education process to start with.

Then teach what is objectively verifiable and true, and discard that which is objectively unverifiable or false. Ergo, teach evolution and discard creationism.

In my previous comments I wasn't fully constraining my thoughts to the context of a public science class. I home school my children and I am giving them opportunities to learn everything they have an incling of curiosity about.

Where you are coming from is promoting a model that makes everyone's box for them and then to educate them in a way to stay in that box. Thinking is only for Phd's so go back to your video games and sports viewing... Bah!

No, that's not what I'm advocating at all. If you'll read again, I said that critical thinking is perfectly fine in the right context. It is not perfectly fine in science, where the issue is not about critical thinking but about the verification of facts. Of course, children should be encouraged to ask questions, but they should not be encouraged to doubt plain and simple facts. Science is not determined by opinion, it is determined by facts, and it is not up to science teachers - much less science students - to decide what constitutes a viable scientific methodology or fact.

Tell me, when you home school your children do you teach them about alchemy? The occult? Flat-earthism?

You are damned scary. I wouldn't let my children anywhere near someone so full of themself as you appear to be. You would rob them of their own sense of discovery and just turn them into non-thinking drones.

That's a pretty big knee-jerk reaction. Critical thinking is a good thing, I encourage it in everyone I meet, but a fact is a fact regardless of what you think of it. A science student does not get to decide which concepts are scientifically valid and which aren't - these things are decided by years of study, analysis, tests and objective verification by thousands of the world's smartest people. To claim that all of this hard work and research hangs on nothing more than the opinions of minds not yet qualified to grasp even the basics of the science involved is beyond naive.

That was a cheap shot.

I'll be going now. I'm done here.

Do you admit, then, that it is an accurate comparison?

 

[kylixguru]

Science is not determined by opinion, it is determined by facts, and it is not up to science teachers - much less science students - to decide what constitutes a viable scientific methodology or fact.

Everything in science starts with opinions. The degree to which individuals can discover the truths of science the better they retain what they learn and the more likely they shall apply what they learn.

Tell me, when you home school your children do you teach them about alchemy? The occult? Flat-earthism?

If they ask me about those things then I will teach them. They are already aware of how some people used to believe the earth was flat. I used it as an object lesson to encourage them to always be willing to question anything anyone tells you is a FACT.

That's a pretty big knee-jerk reaction. Critical thinking is a good thing, I encourage it in everyone I meet, but a fact is a fact regardless of what you think of it.

What gives you the idea I am arguing where self-evident facts are concerned. Saying "the Bible is just for ignorant fools" bears no comparison to saying "2 + 2 = 4". You earned my reaction quite handsomely.

A science student does not get to decide which concepts are scientifically valid and which aren't - these things are decided by years of study, analysis, tests and objective verification by thousands of the world's smartest people.

I could vomit listening to this BS. Why is it the most transformative discoveries RARELY ever come out of institutionalized research? Hubris!

To claim that all of this hard work and research hangs on nothing more than the opinions of minds not yet qualified to grasp even the basics of the science involved is beyond naive.

If there is a group of 1,000 people who all have your hubris I wouldn't expect much out of them.

Do you admit, then, that it is an accurate comparison?

I think you are a danger to innocent creative minds. I sorrow for all the people who are putting their children in classrooms with such hubris behind what they are told to think instead of allowing them the ecstasy of discovery that gives them confidence in their own ability to think for themselves and gives them something they can actually functionally employ rather than merely regurgitate.

ADD: Pardon me if I don't respond further. I am "checking out" of participating here on RF.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Everything in science starts with opinions. The degree to which individuals can discover the truths of science the better they retain what they learn and the more likely they shall apply what they learn.

Except science isn't based on opinions. It's based on verifiable facts. It's no use ruminating on a position in science if it doesn't have any factual basis. You could be of the opinion that the world is flat, and hold true to that position until you are presented with sufficient evidence that you are wrong, but once that evidence exists and has been widely understood what is the point of continuing to ruminate on the idea of the world being flat?

Evolution is such a widely accepted and evidenced theory that teaching it is no different to teaching that 1+1=2. It is just a fact, and it doesn't help students to confuse the issue by presenting them with unverified, non-scientific explanations without any facts to support them.

If they ask me about those things then I will teach them. They are already aware of how some people used to believe the earth was flat. I used it as an object lesson to encourage them to always be willing to question anything anyone tells you is a FACT.

You did not answer my question.

Do you or do you not teach your children about the occult or alchemy? If you do not, then it is for the same reasons we do not teach children about creationism.

What gives you the idea I am arguing where self-evident facts are concerned. Saying "the Bible is just for ignorant fools" bears no comparison to saying "2 + 2 = 4". You earned my reaction quite handsomely.

That's not where my comparison lay, and you know it didn't. My comparison lay in your assertion that we should encourage critical thinking by presenting creationism in science class rooms.

I could vomit listening to this BS. Why is it the most transformative discoveries RARELY ever come out of institutionalized research? Hubris!

Now you're just being rude. Either respond to the point maturely or don't bother.

If there is a group of 1,000 people who all have your hubris I wouldn't expect much out of them.

Again, you're showing a great deal of immaturity here. I hope such immaturity with regards to these extremely important issues is not communicated when you teach your children.

I think you are a danger to innocent creative minds. I sorrow for all the people who are putting their children in classrooms with such hubris behind what they are told to think instead of allowing them the ecstasy of discovery that gives them confidence in their own ability to think for themselves and gives them something they can actually functionally employ rather than merely regurgitate.

Again, where have I ever said any of this was a bad thing?

Don't get on a moral high horde just because you can't think of a reasoned response to the arguments that I have made. Like it or not, science is not philosophy. It is not about imagination. It is about facts, and science classrooms are for presenting those facts. Suggesting that only facts be taught in a science classroom is no more limiting to a child's imagination than suggesting that 1+1=2.

It may not be my place to judge, but if the way you're behaving with regards to this issue is any indication of what and how you teach your children, I seriously doubt they are being well served.

 

[Skwim]

You are being silly.

By highlighting "why it's so foolish" am I to assume you believe astrology is NOT foolish?

I have dealt with it MANY times in my life. Our world is suffering because of it.

You have dealt with creationism many times, and the world is suffering because of creationism? Interesting. Care to tell us how?

As I have said, just give me the facts and I shall decide.

Now you're not making any sense.

You are tripping all over yourself. I am not speaking out against truths scientists discover. They should be presented. I am saying if the Creationist view is allowed to stand along side of it then people will make their OWN decision about it.

No. You were saying that the presumptions of the evolutionists rational aren't credible. Your remark had nothing to do with putting creationism up against evolution. Don't you read what you write?

That is the root of what I am saying. They should be objective.

And you also said teachers should not include the conjectures of science.

There's a gap you have crossed the line on you didn't catch. You didn't realize the baby was going out with the bathwater.

Not understanding your point. Are you able to explain? Will you?

I am the one who is saying an individual in the field of public education should rigorously eliminate all conjecture possible. This is in fact at the heart of good scientific research. Hubris manages to find its way into everything man tries to do and I am merely advocating it be eliminated as much as possible.

We weren't talking about education, but creationism itself. Stay on track please. And as I explained, conjecture, AND presumptions are critical to science. I invite you to read up on the philosophy of science a bit and see how the enterprise actually works. It's far from as cut and dry as you are imagining.

Your analogy is flawed.

Not at all. It's right to the point. In looking at the Sun as orbiting Earth you do so by planting the reference point on Earth rather than on the Sun, which is no different than planting your reference point in driving, on the car rather than on the Earth.

The pure unadulterated fact is to one degree or another, even if one is very miniscule in comparison, they are rotating around one another. What do you do in the case of a double star solar system. One star is slightly bigger than the other so the other one rotates around it? No, of course not. They have a central foci they both rotate around. Just because the foci point for our earth and the sun remains within the space of the sun doesn't rule out the same principles applying to some degree.

well, *chuckle* if you prefer to look at it this way go ahead, but because the Sun won't exhibit any of this coupled motion whereas the Earth really does so, and in spades, I don't think you'll have much company. The fact is, your "central of foci lies extremely close to the Sun's center.
Consider.

The "central foci" of the Earth Sun, its center-of-mass, is a matter of mass and distance.

Earth and Sun
Msun = 2 x 1030 kg
Mearth = 6 x 1024 kg
From the balance relation, the distances of the Sun and Earth from their mutual center of mass are related to the size of the semi-major axis of the Earth's orbit (a) and the ratio of the masses:

^asun + aearth = 1 AU = 1.5 x 108 km
^asun/aearth = Mearth/Msun = 3 x 10-6
After some simple algebra (do it!), we find:

^asun = 450 km
Since the radius of the Sun is 700,000 km, this means that the center-of-mass of the Earth-Sun system is deep inside the Sun.

source
​

450 km means your "central foci" lies .0006429 % of the way from the Sun's center, which is equivalent to a dime lying forty inches from the starting line of a one mile race.

This is where your hang up is. I said you need to put your words in context.

I must have missed that instruction. Where is it you offered this advice?

From a person's point of view standing on the surface of the earth the sun does in fact appear to rotate around them. That's a truth and if you are discussing things with a person unacquainted with kepler's laws and such, you can acknowledge to them the truth of what they believe they see and then add upon their understanding even more. Which, when that understanding clicks for them, then they will see FOR THEMSELF how silly their original perspective was.

But that's not how you phrased it. You said, "If you are standing about 100 million miles above the sun and are looking down."

The literal implications you made is that the earth is not spinning on its own axis but that it is the earth that is very quickly rotating around the sun in a 24 hour period instead of in an annual period.

If my explanation mislead you into thinking this is what I actually meant, then I apologize.

Actually, I was the highest student in my honors physics class. You are the dimwit that would be like many others who coveted study-time with me.

Oh my god! Once more one of my points is devastated by the most powerful arguments known to man: the "I'm smart and you're a dunce" maneuver. You do recognize what such a response indicates, don't you?



Skipping ahead because I'm getting bored.

Have you not yet figured out that this is what I am advocating? It is entirely possible to spend about 10 minutes or so to sum up what Creationists presume or suppose is true. As long as it is presented as their presumptions then it is useful. If a teacher presents it as "this is absolute truth because its in the Bible" then they are doing violence to a child's mind and in my opinion doing violence to the Bible itself.

Creationism no more deserves mention than do astrology, numerology, phrenology, dowsing, and alchemy.

I couldn't disagree more. There are truths in all of those fields that can be presented in an objective manner. They tend to bring you into a different paradigm than newtonian mechanics but they are valuable and useful fields of understanding. We need to be developed in our understanding of our emotional, spiritual, energetic forces to navigate ourselves in an open society.

and going into creationism, astrology, numerology, phrenology, dowsing, and alchemy will do that? Give me a break good buddy.

3. Ignoring such pseudosciences prevents the impression they merit consideration.

And, do you have the right to impose those constraints upon others?

What constraints? Constraining people from getting the idea that these pseudoscience merit consideration? Yes, as a responsible teacher of a decent science curriculum I sure would. To present pseudosciences as viable alternatives is indecent, to say nothing of child abuse.

 

[kylixguru]

...

I'm already past my remaining time here...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/you-new-religiousforums-com/110848-thanks-good-bye.html

Take care!

 

[Skwim]

I'm already past my remaining time here...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/you-new-religiousforums-com/110848-thanks-good-bye.html

Take care!

And another one bites the dust.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm already past my remaining time here...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/you-new-religiousforums-com/110848-thanks-good-bye.html

Take care!

In retrospect, my comments about how you may teach your children were pretty out of line and I apologize wholeheartedly for them.

For what it's worth, I wish you and your children well. Goodbye.

 

[outhouse]

And another one bites the dust.

he made it rough on himself and went against the grain in ever post he made.

he asked questions instead of answering any and then argued about the question you answered for him.


if a person wont debate properly or keep on open mind they may not be right, the debate section might not be for you

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm already past my remaining time here...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/you-new-religiousforums-com/110848-thanks-good-bye.html

Take care!

I can't say that I'm sorry to see you go as I never really interacted with you much. This forum is one of the best I've seen and there are plenty of knowledgeable people here from various wakls of life. Debate sections aren't for the meek. Some do well in same faith or general discussion sections. Drop in from time to time to the other sections. There's a lot of great information and conversations here....

 

[LuisDantas]

A pity, really, that jbug has such a hard time realizing either the purpose of science classes, the nature of the scientific method, or how solidly comprovated the Theory of Evolution is.

 

[outhouse]

or how solidly "comprovated" the Theory of Evolution is.
__________________

thast way to big a word for me

 

[Skwim]

thast way to big a word for me

I kind of like it. It has a lot of possibilities.

"The comprovation of evolution will not be compromised." "He was comprovating the theory last night." "They formed a cabal of evolution comprovites." "Comprovate all you want, I still think ketchup should be red." "It was comprovatingly irrefutable."

 

[Gloone]

Well roughly 10-15 years ago when I was in middle school they taught it as some type of pseudoscience. It was like “well people no longer have tails and certain organs because they have evolved without the need for those types of things.” It definitely loses traction when teachers have no valid evidence to backup their assertions. They eventually get laughed at by students and others. And yes it is sad to think that a teacher with a degree would get laughed at by students because they can’t back up their claims. Biology, adaptations, etc. can be taught without the need for evolution, but many people seem to think evolution is a must when it comes to biology. It is like someone who is attached to a wool fleece and decides to wear it even though it is out of fashion. Science isn’t a history course and is suppose to teach the natural process of life cycles. Not those that can’t be backup by evidence or predetermined processes that have no valid explanation.

 

[Skwim]

Well roughly 10-15 years ago when I was in middle school they taught it as some type of pseudoscience. It was like “well people no longer have tails and certain organs because they have evolved without the need for those types of things.” It definitely loses traction when teachers have no valid evidence to backup their assertions. They eventually get laughed at by students and others. And yes it is sad to think that a teacher with a degree would get laughed at by students because they can’t back up their claims. Biology, adaptations, etc. can be taught without the need for evolution, but many people seem to think evolution is a must when it comes to biology. It is like someone who is attached to a wool fleece and decides to wear it even though it is out of fashion. Science isn’t a history course and is suppose to teach the natural process of life cycles. Not those that can’t be backup by evidence or predetermined processes that have no valid explanation.

I would doubt that any middle school text, regardless of the subject, would go into much detail. A lot of aspects of biology can indeed be taught without reference to evolution, just as it can be taught without reference to chemistry or DNA, but obviously this doesn't mean such facets aren't important. And such importance is typically addressed in the higher grades and college. So the relevance of evolution to biology teaching depends on the grade in which it's taught. In my old college text, Biology by Arms and Camp, evolution has its own section and is given considerable recognition throughout the text.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

But, I hope you also will admit, evolution is yet a theory.

Wrong.

Evolution is NOT "yet a theory" - this is a common mistake, essentially based on equivocation between two meanings of the word.

THEORY has 2 meanings

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation".

But,
in scientific terms, there is another, different, meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.


Theories EXPLAIN facts

Theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed - science has long since determined evolution is a fact of nature.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.


the ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation

The term "Theory of Evolution" does NOT mean "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all. It does NOT mean Evolution is still "merely a theory" - that is has not yet been graduated to "fact".

Wrong.

Rather -
the term Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for the facts of evolution works, it models the behaviour of the observed facts of evolution (and allows predictions to be made.)

Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.


Yet
some people say
"evolution is (just) a theory"

as if it means
"evolution is merely untested speculation" (false)

As if - even after all this time since Darwin - science has STILL not graduated Evolution from theory to fact. Not so - evolution has long since been shown a fact of nature - by millions of interlocking experiments and tests of many types by thousands of scientists in dozens of countries of many decades. Zero tests disagree with evolution. Millions agree. Evolution is observed in nature.


EVOLUTION = FACT & THEORY

Evolution is a FACT.
We observe evolution.
And,
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION, or model, for the observed facts of evolution.

It is incorrect, and misleading, to claim evolution is "yet a theory". It's simply wrong.

Evolution is a fact.
And we have a theory to explain those facts.


Iasion

 

[Skwim]

Gday,



Wrong. . . .


. . . And we have a theory to explain those facts.


Iasion

Ah, jbug has left the building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for good.

 

[Gloone]

I would doubt that any middle school text, regardless of the subject, would go into much detail. A lot of aspects of biology can indeed be taught without reference to evolution, just as it can be taught without reference to chemistry or DNA, but obviously this doesn't mean such facets aren't important. And such importance is typically addressed in the higher grades and college. So the relevance of evolution to biology teaching depends on the grade in which it's taught. In my old college text, Biology by Arms and Camp, evolution has its own section and is given considerable recognition throughout the text.

I agree. However, you did post an article on public schools or the sorts. I'm sure it is more thoroughly examined in College curriculum like everything else.

 

[kylixguru]

Theories EXPLAIN facts

Theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed - science has long since determined evolution is a fact of nature.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.

Understood and acknowledged.

I do not dispute the facts that have been revealed by scientists in this area. What I dispute are those who extrapolate dogmatic presumptions based on those facts and then erroneously teach that other things are not also possible at the same time.

For example, there is a prevailing mindset that we represent man's pinnacle of evolution right now and that man has never exhibited a higher level of understanding and achievement in this planet's history. Those who endeavor to establish lines of investigation to question this because they believe man has had high civilization and technology in the past are mercilessly ridiculed as if they are questioning facts.

Another example, just because the vast majority of believers of the Torah account of creation, including Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc., don't know how to read it, it is not conclusive that the document is an ancient relic that has long outlived its usefulness.

As I see it, if the Bible is interpreted correctly, it can stand right along side the facts of evolution just fine. And I do mean reading it in its literal wording while taking into account the metaphoric structures that it provides for itself.

Also, the facts of evolution shall at some point in the future become a very important foundation stone upon which the correct understanding of the Bible will be established. Genetics are much more important than people yet realize.

 

[kylixguru]

Ah, jbug has left the building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for good.

I am going to finish up existing conversations before I duck out. So, I'll be answering you eventually. My time is a bit constrained but I'll do my best to answer you. Unless you would rather I don't bother. I don't mind giving you the last word.

 

[waitasec]

For example, there is a prevailing mindset that we represent man's pinnacle of evolution right now and that man has never exhibited a higher level of understanding and achievement in this planet's history.

is this your opinion or the facts?