Quote:Schools should be presenting the scientific evidence and noting the various theories which attempt to explain them, i.e. the beliefs/theories that I listed.

The list can and will not end. Henderson tried to demonstrate this with the FSM "theory"; there are an unlimited number of theories that can explain any scientific phenomenon and teaching all of them is a colossal waste of time and resources.

Finally, a majority opinion is not a valid basis for acceptance and teaching of a theory. As history as shown us with Galileo, people can be misled and can be completely wrong.

(05-31-2012 07:45 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

Quote:Schools should be presenting the scientific evidence and noting the various theories which attempt to explain them, i.e. the beliefs/theories that I listed.

The list can and will not end. Henderson tried to demonstrate this with the FSM "theory"; there are an unlimited number of theories that can explain any scientific phenomenon and teaching all of them is a colossal waste of time and resources.

Finally, a majority opinion is not a valid basis for acceptance and teaching of a theory. As history as shown us with Galileo, people can be misled and can be completely wrong.

And why was Galileo shown to be wrong? Because his hypotheses/theories were discussed and critically analyzed! Sure the list can and will not end. Sure you have to draw the line somewhere due to diminishing returns on studying them. Sure the line could simply be, "There are other theories out there. You can look them up if you have a burning desire to read about them. Those that I currently know of are listed on this handout. If you come across more that are not on the list, please give me a reference so I can add them for future classes." So which get analyzed and which get relegated to the handout list? Majority opinion (or significant minority opinion) would be a good starting point. Not perfect, but you have to have some criteria! I think we can, at least in this country, agree that creationism and evolution are the primary theories/belief systems. If we were in India, we'd add in whatever the Hindus believe (and I don't know what that is). If we were in Tibet, we would probably add the Tibetan monk teachings to the critical analysis list. For the sake of historical context, I'd add in Roman and Greek mythology too. In essence, those that have a significant number of followers should be studied so that you can understand and agree or disagree as you see fit. But to say only evolution should be taught and all other beliefs/theories of how we got here should be disgarded as "religious and not scientific" is not tenable and is contrary to the scientific method of discussing and testing and accepting or rejecting based upon the results of that on-going testing.

I don't have a problem with creation myths being taught. They are valuable.
But not as scientific theories.

I remember the bumper sticker that said, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." How do you apply the scientific method to that?

(05-31-2012 12:31 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  And why was Galileo shown to be wrong? Because his hypotheses/theories were discussed and critically analyzed!

By grade schoolers?

Quote:But to say only evolution should be taught and all other beliefs/theories of how we got here should be disgarded as "religious and not scientific" is not tenable and is contrary to the scientific method of discussing and testing and accepting or rejecting based upon the results of that on-going testing.

There is a time and a place to examine and research theories. Bombarding a 5th grader with "What-if" scenarios is not going to help anything, especially in the name of the 'scientific method'. At the end of the day, we must rely on data from respected scientists who have researched and, if possible, proven their theories. Having lived in India for some years in between and been subjected to the "what Hindus believe repeatedly" I vehemently disagree. Just because this is the belief of the general public does not make it grounded in fact. If there is a critical mass of researchers who believe that creationism should be taught in schools and peer-reviewed journal publications support their reasons why, then it can be considered to be taught as part of the scientific method.

People can believe what they want to believe. That said, the public schooling system should not mix religious beliefs and science.

(05-31-2012 12:31 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 07:45 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

Quote:Schools should be presenting the scientific evidence and noting the various theories which attempt to explain them, i.e. the beliefs/theories that I listed.

The list can and will not end. Henderson tried to demonstrate this with the FSM "theory"; there are an unlimited number of theories that can explain any scientific phenomenon and teaching all of them is a colossal waste of time and resources.

Finally, a majority opinion is not a valid basis for acceptance and teaching of a theory. As history as shown us with Galileo, people can be misled and can be completely wrong.

And why was Galileo shown to be wrong? Because his hypotheses/theories were discussed and critically analyzed! Sure the list can and will not end. Sure you have to draw the line somewhere due to diminishing returns on studying them. Sure the line could simply be, "There are other theories out there. You can look them up if you have a burning desire to read about them. Those that I currently know of are listed on this handout. If you come across more that are not on the list, please give me a reference so I can add them for future classes." So which get analyzed and which get relegated to the handout list? Majority opinion (or significant minority opinion) would be a good starting point. Not perfect, but you have to have some criteria! I think we can, at least in this country, agree that creationism and evolution are the primary theories/belief systems. If we were in India, we'd add in whatever the Hindus believe (and I don't know what that is). If we were in Tibet, we would probably add the Tibetan monk teachings to the critical analysis list. For the sake of historical context, I'd add in Roman and Greek mythology too. In essence, those that have a significant number of followers should be studied so that you can understand and agree or disagree as you see fit. But to say only evolution should be taught and all other beliefs/theories of how we got here should be disgarded as "religious and not scientific" is not tenable and is contrary to the scientific method of discussing and testing and accepting or rejecting based upon the results of that on-going testing.

So you're proposing that Greek and Roman mythology are a valid and valuable topic of study in an AP Biology class?
48% of Americans believe in ghosts, does that suggest there should be a unit on the mechanics of hauntings in Physics class?

(05-31-2012 12:31 AM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 12:05 AM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 05:23 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  In that vein, I think we should be looking at evolutionary theory, creationist theory, intelligent design theory, Mormon came from a distant planet as children of alien gods theory, Native American mankind sprung from Mother Earth (not sure that is really accurate, but you get the drift), Muslim origin theory (which as I understand it dovetails with Judeo-Christian beliefs) and whatever other theory is out there. Discussing what the beliefs are does NOT establish a religion. Preventing that discussion DOES abridge the freedom of speech in that area.

Only one of those things you listed is a theory (and not "just a theory"). The others are beliefs. And there is the stark distinction. No one has the right to use the public schools to teach faith as science.

Either you have to acknowledge that evolution is a belief as well as a theory or you have to acknowledge that the others are theories as well as beliefs. Some require more belief and have less supporting evidence for the theory that others, but ALL are theories and depending on the individual, may be beliefs. Notably, the dictionary doesn't differentiate, defining (at least in Merriam Webster's dictionary) "theory" to be (among other things) "a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>". And no one has the right to use the public schools to teach evolutionary theory as the only plausible theory when it is certainly not even the majority accepted position. Schools should be presenting the scientific evidence and noting the various theories which attempt to explain them, i.e. the beliefs/theories that I listed. If you want to take the faith out of science in schools, you need to start by taking evolution out of the natural selection discussion. Natural selection has scientific support - evolution from one species to another doesn't (or at least I have never seen any credible scientific support for it).

I'm not persuaded by what one of the definitions in Merriam Webster's dictionary says. "Theory" has a real meaning in the context of science, and creation beliefs do not qualify. Yes, they attempt to explain the world, but on the basis of faith - not dispassionate observation and testable hypotheses.

Doc, I usually love your posts, but Lord save us from engineers discussing biology. It reminds me of when MIT engineers Click and Clack try to discuss physics. :towel:

By your reasoning I assume you would also be ok with a law requiring geology and earth science teachers to teach, as equal in weight to the theory of Plate Tectonics, the “theory” that the earth was created just as it is today, 4,000 years ago, and fossils were put here to test our faith.

BTW, I have no problem with any science teacher who wants to discuss any of the “theories” you mention above. It is when the legislature gets involved in pushing its bible based beliefs as equal to actual science that drives me crazy. Perhaps we can all agree that politicians should stay out of what science teachers teach?

With a Hefner Award, maybe he can teach at UT:

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/05/21/...c-affairs/

Congrats to Zack!

But when you pick up the Award at the Playboy Mansion DO NOT swim in the Grotto or get in the Hot Tubs.

(05-30-2012 10:41 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  owl7886,

Lest you are categorizing me as a young earth Christian, I wish to correct your view of me. Without getting into all of the theology and study that I have done on the subject on my own, I simply note that I believe the young earth Christians are in error in their view - not on the all important issue of salvation through Jesus Christ, but on their view of the age of the earth and interpretation of Genesis. My view is far more in line with that set forth IN THIS ARTICLE.

I started to add a comment, but I couldn't figure out how to make it sound non-judgemental on a message board, so I just let the statistic stand. Probably a bad move on my part. My point was far more along the lines that I think it's safe to assume all young-earth Christians are Creationists (and therefore at least give a lower bound on Creationist Rice folks I suspect is considerably higher than many on the other side of the spectrum would have thought), but I do recognize that it's not necessarily true the other way around. A rectangle/square sort of deal.

Neither here nor there in this conversation, but one thing that bugged me about this whole conversation was what the Louisiana law actually states. This article would appear to be a relatively even-handed summary of the whole history of its genesis and what it wound up being.

http://ncse.com/rncse/28/4/louisiana-ena...ionist-law

Based on my reading here, it's definitely rife with possibilities to allow other theories into the education. But it certainly doesn't mandate the teaching of other theories, and there are certain protections, most notably around public pressure, that will make it difficult to wipe education on evolution from the schools. In reality, it'll be the local school boards that make the calls, and there is definitely room to fight it from there. As we saw with Kansas, if there are attempts to mandate at the state-wide level, there will likely be a backlash against trying to establish an anti-evolution curricula.

So, back to the original award, I do think it's ironic that someone wins a free speech award that involves the suppression of other theories and criticisms (essentially speech), even though I'm firmly a believer in evolution and generally believe that humans are contributing some to global warming (though not necessarily on some of the proposed solutions or that it's truly at an end game). (Those were the areas that were mentioned this person fighting against.) High school level students are definitely capable (or at least should be capable) of discussing such topics.

The law was specifically designed by young-earthers to allow the local school districts to to inject that into the curricula. Statutory language does not exist in a vacuum.

(06-01-2012 11:48 AM)texd Wrote:  The law was specifically designed by young-earthers to allow the local school districts to to inject that into the curricula. Statutory language does not exist in a vacuum.

And your point is?

I wonder what the Louisiana Family Forum would think about a law to encourage an open discussion of gay marriage in order to "teach the controversy."

(06-01-2012 11:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:48 AM)texd Wrote:  The law was specifically designed by young-earthers to allow the local school districts to to inject that into the curricula. Statutory language does not exist in a vacuum.

And your point is?

Many of the Discovery Institute are old-earth creationists. They are technically less wrong that the Answers in Genesis new earthers, but still very wrong.

They've failed with previous attempts to wordsmith legislation to introduce their religion into schools. It's a waste of time and taxpayer money to continue to try to pass these bills that won't pass constitutional muster.

(06-01-2012 09:39 AM)gsloth Wrote:  So, back to the original award, I do think it's ironic that someone wins a free speech award that involves the suppression of other theories and criticisms (essentially speech),

No "speech" is being suppressed. Things that are well-proven theories can still be taught in science class. Debunked hypotheses can still be discussed in a historical framework. I applaud the award winner for helping to ensure that tax-dollars are not wasted in an effort for public religious indoctrination, which people who wish to choose ignorance may still pursue on their own time.

My brother graduated from HS in Louisiana in 1968. There's a picture in his yearbook of an ROTC cadet at attention, holding his rifle and standing next to a teacher as she lectures the class. The caption notes that it's an exercise as part of the annual "Free Enterprise Day" meant to show students what it would be like to live in the Soviet Union.

(06-01-2012 01:02 PM)Fiftysix Fortytwo Wrote:  well-proven theories

Oxymoron of the day.

(06-01-2012 01:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 01:02 PM)Fiftysix Fortytwo Wrote:  well-proven theories

Oxymoron of the day.

I chuckled.


Now back to my "old-earth creationists", how to take over the world by looking at all the facts and beliefs (even those we disagree with), methodology of determining what I do and don't accept/believe/want to explore more.