RE: The Attack on Scientific Truth in Public Schools
January 2, 2012 at 10:54 pm
(This post was last modified: January 2, 2012 at 11:08 pm by Jackalope.)
(January 2, 2012 at 10:34 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Either of those examples work. I don't support creationism or agree with it, but like I said, I see no problem with it being taught and refuted in a science class.
Those that are pushing for creationism / I.D. to be taught in the classroom aren't going to stand for it being refuted there as well.
I have no issue with it being taught in science as an example of an example of junk science / pseudoscience, but that ain't happening in the U.S. any time soon.
(January 2, 2012 at 10:51 pm)Perhaps Wrote: You're correct. I am naive to most things. And I'm glad that I now have that information.
It's a common misconception, and I for one am encouraged in that you recognize that you were mistaken on that point and learned something new.
It's unfortunate that the word "theory" has been overloaded and means something completely different in common usage (something akin to mere supposition) than it does in science (an accurate, predictive explanation of a natural phenomenon), as well as philosophy / mathematics / etc.
A well-supported theory that withstands great scrutiny is the gold standard in science. It simply doesn't get any better than that, despite what the "it's just a theory" wankers would have you believe.
