Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Motley, Feb 20, 2008.
Could you actually call it "evolution" in class prior to this, or was it prohibited?
I heard a wingnut on the radio yesterday, quoted as saying that he was disappointed that this theory of evolution would now be presented "as something to be uncritically accepted".
And I'm thinking... what about Newton's laws? Or Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Both have been presented as fact at one time or another, and it never stopped people from looking critically at those ideas and finding them lacking.
Yet somehow, people will never look at evolution critically again?
True, but the speed of light or inertial reference frames were never mentioned in the Bible either.
In all seriousness, it's a slightly inaccurate to compare evolution to physics, because Newton and Einstein dealt with phenomena that are measurable. And as our ability to take those measurements got more sophisticated, the various theories were tweaked. Evolution is VERY hard to quantify, because it takes so long to happen. And even though there is evidence out there to support it, there will always be others with a more *ahem* faith-based way of thinking to refute it.
Of course, religious people would never stoop so low as to uncritically accept something
There are quantifiable parts to evolution as well as qualitative parts to physics. Quantification of the changes in DNA allele frequency amongst different populations would be a perfect example. Irrespective qualitative data is just as just as scientific as quantitative data - that's not a valid delineation to make. Evolution has also been 'tweaked' as our measurements and observations got more sophisticated - again the discovery of DNA would be a perfect example. There is nothing inaccurate about comparing the validity of two scientific theories - the emphasis and point being made that they are scientific theories, not the colloquial understanding of 'theory'.
Physics takes a long time to happen as well. Light years? The formation and destruction of new galaxies, suns, black holes? A lot of them take massively long periods of time yet we can still study them. The limit that something must be quantifiable to be scientific is your own restriction and not one of science.
Faith doesn't refute anything anymore than sticking ones fingers in ones ears and yelling I'm not listening.
Unfortunately I am inclined to agree.
AP bio in 1997...Broward county...
I barely recall that our awesome teacher, when asked, skirted around using evolution eventhough everyone in the class agreed with its ideas...
Then again, I know personally that Florida has THE WORST education system in the whole country. From Kindergarten to Grad School, all public schooling is completely effed here. On all levels.
Know who is to blame?
No, the other one. Ill take anyones challenge on this blame debate.
actually einstein could prove anything or measure exactly enough to quantify it's theories ... it took years or decades for such exact clocks etc. to be developed
with gravity it's even worse since gravity is perhaps one of the most difficult things to measure (ironically it's very very tough to explain how gravity actually works)
if i had the choice what to quantify i sure would rather choose evolution because digging holes in the ground or look at fast evolving living things like flys, bacteria is a lot easier than pumping satellites into orbit
mafia is getting ridiculous
Yeah, our understanding of gravity is pretty limited. We know it is a property of mass.
And the funny part is that the church did take issue with physics. It just got over it recently (it was denying a lot of physics for up until about a century ago if that). Biology is newer (at least as it is now and not as it was/purely descriptive) so it is understandable that people will attack it. The next science to make breakthroughs will get the same flack and biology will suddenly be deemed "quantifiable" by these laymen.
which church do you mean btw ? actually an aweful lot of scientists have been actually members of the catholic church especially in biology (like Mendel linked before) and astronomy
perhaps you actually should look up some of the most important figures in the early development of the big bang theory:
who actually got flak from einstein for his theories which later turned out to be true ... and all while
i'm not a product of florida public school schooling (i moved from california which has some of the best public schools in america) prior to going to a private college in florida, and i was amazed at how far behind florida students were in intro chemistry and intro classes in the sciences. i just knew that half the stuff we covered in ap chemistry my junior year, and it felt lots of boring going over it again. the prof talked after class and he knew florida's school system was horrible based on what i knew and what the average florida product knew. i think the biology teachers talked about evolution in california quite a bit, and it wasn't taboo.
and here's another food for thought, i tried applying to palm beach county's school system as a biology teacher (i have a biology degree, not an education degree, so that could have been part of it too), but they didn't even say anything about interviewing or anything else i needed to to for applications, etc. and i applied to four positions at local high schools for biology teaching. not a one. they claim a science teacher shortage and don't act at all for anything. education is close to last in this state, as it's mostly retirees, snowbirds and tourism that drives the state. if i'm still in florida (i hope not) when and if i have kids, i'll be home-schooling them for sure.
and it's fcat's all the time here, fcats this, fcats that on the news (we have no school age children). i know california recently had a standardized test, but florida's rules were just insane (reminded me of texas' little taas disaster).
i think he's talking about the fundie churches, they are pretty much no evolution at all. but i know the view with a sect of christians is that evolution doesn't deal with origins, it just deals with change over time, which where things get kinda hairy. the fundies think evolution is taking god out because it doesn't match a literal 7 day timeline for creation (many people believe that the seven days was actually billions of years). this is where id comes from and blah blah blah.
No where in my post did I saw that scientists can't be religious. Where did you get that idea?