The exam is based on undertsanding and knowledge of the current state of the theory being taught by the curiculum. You are being tested for your time spent in class, not whether you think it's true or false. the other poster said it best, you have to make it clear that it is a theory, a scientific one at that, but that it is subject to change. My school certainly neevr made that point. I don't think there's anything wrong with asking for that from educators.
right. anyway, the scientific theory thing was discussed on the first page in the very first few posts. Lets try reading that before launching into any sort of rants about propagandists lol
I've never said evolution shouldn't be taught. I've stated I think its a correct theory. I even bolded it for those of you whose eyes started squinting after I said they should emphasize its a theory I mean afterall isn't Socrates considered a founding father of science? Wasn't his motto that the only thing he knows for sure is that he knows nothing? Unfortunately, I think there are parts of scientific academia who have forgotten this.
I haven't read the entire thread, but I'd like to mention... Religion doesn't reject evolution. It rejects the theory that humans evolved from "monkeys". It's just a disagreement of "where did it start?". It's not about "do organisms evolve over time?".
Well my eyes are already small enough that some people consider it perma-squinty... I'm just saying college level edumacation and better taught middle and high public schools spell it out that these theories are accepted for being the best fit. Maybe it's the cynicism from the years of hearing the same record played, but the only groups that want to over emphasize this (evolution in particular) are religiously rooted.
1) Every grade school biology course DOES NOT need to emphasize that evolution is a theory because the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is taught years before the theory of evolution is introduced to students. Knowledge of the scientific method is absolutely necessary to learning anything about science. 2) There is no reason that evolution should be singled out and emphasized as theory over Newtonian physics, relativity, atomic structure, quantum mechanics, etc. It is implied. 3) If you look at statistics, American students don't believe anything anyway. 90% of them don't think evolution is a theory, they think it is false.
I believe Socrates is known as the "Father of Western Philosophy". Galileo is considered the "Father of Science". The Socratic Method is similar to the Scientific Method, but Socrates was more interested in arguing things like virtue, love... The famous quotations attributed to him about knowing nothing were more about his interest in the process (or Socratic Method) of becoming wise rather than the state of being wise (which he claimed not to be). I'm sure any serious scientist would have a fairly enlightened view about the Scientific Method, theory, empirical knowledge, etc. They wouldn't be very good at their job otherwise. Do you also preach to Architects about Aesthetics, Engineers about the Engineering Method, Historians about the Philosophy of History?
The Socratic Method is a common legal practice. The Scientific Method, which is a completely distinct method of questioning, is the basic form of questioning employed by science. And there is a line (as blurry as it may be) when we have enough evidence to discard the theory label. Gravity is still a theory. We can come up with all sorts of observations and data, but using Socratic thinking, we can poke holes in the idea. The same goes with evolution. There's lots of scientific data and research to support evolution but poking holes in it doesn't mean much to me. While its a theory, it also has no real opposition in terms of scientific alternatives. We have creationism but there's no scientific evidence to support that at all. We have intelligent design (if you want to make a distinction from creationism) but that too has no real evidence. Both of those theories are justified either by faith (which is fair enough but its not science) and by poking holes in evolution. Both are supported by negatives and by a Socratic logic that seeks only to poke holes in evolution but not supply contrary evidence that actually proves an alternative. Until someone can provide evidence, then evolution (while a theory) is the only theory out there. Not to mention while this article pokes a tiny hole, its only a tiny hole. The evidence on evolution is so large and tremendous that it will take a lot more than tiny questions like this to really create doubt. And without an alternative, I see no reason why we cant treat evolution like fact (even if technically it isn't) Science relies on the scientific method and until someone justifies an alternative using the framework of the scientific method, evolution stands alone and should be treated as such.
I wasn't making an argument against evolution. I think evolution is the process by which God has created the wide variety of life. I was only making the observation that I have seen a lot more objects being attracted by gravity than I have the evolution of species. There have only been what some 50 billion species in the history of life on earth, but I have seen every grain of sand pulled down onto the beach. That you felt the need to become defensive speaks more to your feelings about evolution than mine.
No, you have seen what you ASSUME to be the effects of a magical force called gravity that you can't entirely explain. I'm not sure why this is at all relevant - as I said a bunch of times above an that you failed to address, your 'visual confirmation' both 1. has very little value in scientific terms, and 2. can be repeated for evolution anyway. Yawn, and who would believe you were trolling here with lines like this?
Simple question: If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Did a few lucky monkeys get to make out with some aliens?
Man did not evolve from the current apes. Apes and man shared common family tree at some point earlier.
It does strike me as ironic that SOME scientists absolutely hate it when someone wants to deviate from normal school of thought. Especially when you consider that scientific theories and such change probably every generation or so, you'd think that those scientists wouldn't be so elitist when it comes to protecting what they hold to be true for the moment.
missing link? Again, I AM NOT DISPUTING THE VALIDITY OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION., so please save yourselves the trouble of writing posts to tell me that evolution should be taught or that it is a correct theory. I AGREE WITH YOU Seriously, I have taken great pains to state that many times already. Why is some people so jumpy on anyone who even implies that its not 100% accurate? Do you not realize what it makes you sound?
Where did you get that 90% figure from? It sounds kind of ridiculously high. Shrug, I had read somewhere before that he was A founding father of science in that he made contributions to it via the questioning of things, and assuming that you know nothing. If he's not one, then feel free to ignore those portions of my posts I don't think it should take away from the correct point that a lot of scientists are extremely elitist about ANY sort of challenges to their thinking, which when you consider how much science changes every generation or so, is just plain close-mindedness. Thank you for the smarky paragrapgh at the end though
I hope a simple answer, with similar questions: Why are there still bacteria? Why are there planaria? Why are there still salamanders? Just because a mutation helps a new species branch off, that does not mean the old species necessarily dies out. This is how evolution explains the enormous number of species and variety we have. I hope that makes sense. (I'm not a biologist, but as Sam Fisher will tell you, I am actually an alien ape.*) If we followed your argument about apes, then that version of evolution would only allow one species of life on the planet at a time. Of course, we could be headed that direction, with the current mass extinction. * = I mean, I had to reply once you mentioned apes and aliens in one post.
There is a HUGE difference between me and an ape. Why has "my branch" been so lucky all these years and the "other branch" well - they are still eating bananas in a tree?
