The Attack on Scientific Truth in Public Schools

[Perhaps]

You're correct. I am naive to most things. And I'm glad that I now have that information. But as for what they want teachers to do, I gave my opinion, you gave yours. Perhaps yours is better than mine, in fact it probably is.

Does that make you happier?

[Jackalope]

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.

---

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.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

[Minimalist]

You're correct. I am naive to most things. And I'm glad that I now have that information. But as for what they want teachers to do, I gave my opinion, you gave yours. Perhaps yours is better than mine, in fact it probably is.

Does that make you happier?

At my age I don't get happy.

A little more or less cranky usually covers it.

[popeyespappy]

[Jackalope]

Republican State Rep. Gary Hopper, who with his Republican district mate John Burt introduced HB 1457, told the Concord Monitor that the theory of evolution teaches students that life is nothing but an accident.

This statement is such a steaming pile of crap it's unbelievable.

First of all, he's confusing evolution with the scientific explanation for the origin of life (abiogenesis). Typical.

Secondly, abiogenesis doesn't suggest that life was an "accident".

Lastly, so what if it was an accident? Wouldn't you rather people know the truth, even if it strips them of their security blanket deity? Rhetorical question. Of course he does.

Fail.

How do you know when a fundamentalist politician is saying something stupid? His lips are moving.

[fr0d0]

Creationism is very weak science and should be addressed in science as such. Likewise a metaphysical statement like "we know there is no purpose" should have no place in the science class room. Apart from the reason to point out the correct forum for addressing it.

[Ace Otana]

Creationism is very weak science and should be addressed in science as such.

Creationism isn't science. It's a joke. It is an insult to human intelligence.

[theotherone]

[leo-rcc]

As science, creationism is a hypothesis, severely lacking any kind of evidence. The worst thing is that creationist, specially of the Discovery Institute know this. The trick creationists pull time and time again is trying to poke holes in an established theory, thinking it somehow gives credit to creationism in some way.

Its all the DI does, they place all their effort in trying to discredit the ToE, and get politicians to allow "teaching the controversy" as if there actually is one. Creationists point to the scientists who doubt the validity of the theory, and trump up some bogus list of scientists (where on several occasions several scientists on those lists have pointed out that in fact they do accept the ToE as the most plausible theory, but were tricked in the way the poll question was put forward).

In response, the NCSE put forward a list of its own, with scientists signing that they agree with this statement:

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

At the moment, this list has 1183 names on them. That might not seem much, but there is a catch. The only scientists allowed to sign their support on this statement, have to be named Steve. Even with this huge limitation of who is allowed to sign (it is estimated no more than 1% of American scientists are called Steve) this list still far outnumbers any list creationists have come up with.

The reason the NCSE did this was not to claim that the ToE is correct, but just to make it obvious that people should not be bought in with polls on validity of a scientific theory, because in the end it is nothing more than an argument from popularity, and not science.

I am all for teaching a controversy if there is indeed a controversy to speak of. As it stands however, there is no competing theory or even a hypothesis that has any merit. Teaching creationism or its lab coat disguise ID has no place in the science class until it does. And I am willing to bet that that will not be any time soon.