I was just trying to say that teaching that all living things evolved from 1 source is not a proven fact. Some part of the theory of evolution are facts. School books should present them that way. I agree that religion should not be taught in public school, but facts should be taught.
anyone have a copy of a 10th grade biology textbook so we can see for ourselves how evolution is presented? but all the textbook debate aside, any good teach will suppliment their text with outside sources, videos, articles, etc etc...if your child is ONLY learning what is in the textbook, you've got a problem bigger than how evolution is presented..
It's not taught as fact. Nobody knows nearly enough about the formation of the first organisms to teach any particular method of it happening as a fact. It wasn't when I was in school and it isn't now. That's a common refrain of the creationist/ID crowd, "it's not a hundred percent proven fact"; well guess what, very little ever really is.
I thought he made a pretty good point, actually; or at least, I inferred something I thought was rather astute. When they teach the evolution mythos in biology, it comes in a package deal. Genetic inheritance is packaged with natural selection, speciation, the evolution of living things from the non-living, the formation of the earth, and the Big Bang. Roth isn't mixing these things together, biology curricula are. There are elements in there that even hard-core creationists can accept (well, the first one I listed and perhaps the second), but their detractors often assume they reject the whole thing, even simple genetics, in a straw-man of the position.
I love that typo, it is my favorite one. Evoltion? Man, that is just crazy! You really got me. I feel so stupid. And yeah I know I misspelled "certain" in another post. But do you know whut? I don't care. You should see me when I'm drunk. As far as an answer to your apple question goes, uh let me think... My answer is "**** off, ronald."
The four steps to the scientific method are: 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. That stated: Animals evolving and changing over time is a theory. Experiments and observations bear out the hypothesis. All living things evolving from a single source is a hypostesis. No experiments or observations bear out this hyposthesis.
What's the alternative explanation then? I think even "intelligent" design espouses this to be true, no?
What about "pseudo"? Sorry...you opened yourself up. Uhh....evolution. JV, I don't think high schools teach religion and/or philosophy because HS is not really conducive to learning...especially when it involves original thought or critical thinking. If you read the early (20th century) guidebooks for public education that form the foundation for contemporary education, they are very overt about not wanting the children to think too much or question too much, etc.. It sounds like a bad Hollywood script, but the wording is actually pretty scary...and this continues today, even with stuff I read as late as the 90's.
I must have missed the part of the scientific method that went, "Unless some Rockets fans can come up with another explaination, whatever is in vogue at the time must be true."
I suspect that ID doesn't even get to the hypostesis stage. Thus, ID is not even worthy of mention in textbooks.
That may be an explanation but is hardly a justification. These subjects can be taught in school and, imo, should be taught. Of course, everyone is too worried about Japanese children having better math scores than us to concern themselves with a classical education.
All I am saying is that it would take a major overhaul of the education system. I am in full favor of that. Don't know if it will happen, though, because it feeds the system. Besides, who knows if such a position would really be electable. Son, instead, we get "teacher accountability" and standardized test training.
Texas textbook vote ruffles religious activists Friday, November 7, 2003 Posted: 10:52 AM EST (1552 GMT) AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- The State Board of Education voted Thursday to approve biology textbooks, despite criticism from some scientists and religious activists who say the books fail to present criticisms of evolution. The 11-4 vote was preliminary and the board was expected to give final approval Friday. Some religious and alternative science groups had argued that weaknesses in the theory of evolution weren't adequately presented in the books. But scientists and educators argued that the theory of evolution is widely believed and is a cornerstone of modern scientific research. Texas is the nation's second-largest buyer of textbooks, and textbooks sold in the state are often marketed by publishers elsewhere. Texas, California and Florida account for more than 30 percent of the nation's $4 billion public school book market. Three dozen publishers invest millions of dollars in Texas. Some board members had asked to vote on the books one by one, but the motion was overturned and all were approved with one vote. "I wish we'd had the opportunity to vote on each book because they're not the same," said board member Don McLeroy, one of the four board members who voted against adopting the books. McLeroy called the presentation of evolution in most of the books "dogmatic." "People don't realize the threat of scientific dogmatism," he said. "They're not looking for the truth." Samantha Smoot, executive director of the Texas Freedom Network, commended the board. Smoot had been one of the most vocal supporters of presenting evolution in the textbooks. "The voices of the science community have been loud and unified," Smoot said. "This is not a theory. There's no question about what whether evolution exists at all." Critics had urged publishers to revise some of the books and wanted the board to reject others outright, saying they contain factual errors about the theory of evolution. Board members can reject books only for factual errors or failure to follow state curriculum as mandated by the Legislature.
