Navigation
User login
Quote
What is wrong with Dover?
From Time, this is getting stuck into Dover, PA text books this year:
Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence ... Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view ... As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
I would like to proffer some other stickers I think could go in text books...
Because Einsteins's theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence ... Disperate space is an explanation of the speed of light that differs from Einsteins's view. The reference book Faster than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view ... As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
Because Fermi's theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence ... Group theory is an explanation of the origin of the weak force that differs from Fermi's view. The reference book The Quantum Quark is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view ... As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
Oh, wait a second. All those are at least real science... I guess it's still turtles all the way down.
Also from the Time story:
In a Harris poll conducted in June, 55% of 1,000 adults surveyed said children should be taught creationism and intelligent design along with evolution in public schools. The same poll found that 54% did not believe humans had developed from an earlier species--up from 45% [ed:emphasis mine... I guess I need to up the 45% rule a few percentage points] with that view in 1994--although other polls have not detected this rise.
But wait!
But for those who read Genesis literally and believe that God created the world along with all creatures big and small in just six days, there's no reconciling faith with Darwinism. And polls indicate that approximately 45% of Americans believe that.
Maybe I can stick with 45 being the "total moron" number.
TotSP Search
Community
Chatter
- Ohhh, let me know when they
17 hours 10 min ago - WTF?
1 day 12 hours ago - Cobb County's nocturnal habits
1 day 21 hours ago - I think you mean "Best Buy."
2 days 7 hours ago - So are there going to be any
2 days 8 hours ago - jimmy carteris the best
2 days 15 hours ago - iphone: saw that too
3 days 7 hours ago - Did you buy it already?
3 days 10 hours ago - Agreed on sanselan issues
3 days 13 hours ago - Many thanks and a question
4 days 12 hours ago
Comments
RE: What is wrong with Dover?
45% amen brother
I am telling you clowns, get Michael Shermers "How We Believe", its a well written book that uses, get this, reality and science to pique your interest. There really are underlying reasons people insist on believing shit that is contrary to any actual evidence, and will still "believe" something not just in an absence of evidence area but rather in the face of contrary evidence.
The reason I bring it up here, as it touches on ID and creationism, along with other such notable 45% type subjects as astrology (can I get a fucking refund, there is now a 10th Planet - WTF!), ghosts, ESP, dowsing, Sasquatch, Nessie, haunted houses, psychic abilities and project management (ok so I threw in the last one).
And as if its even worth debating, its not, there is no fucking lack of evidence for evolution. LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF THEORY in such scientific context. Its a BODY OF FACTS (damn, more than one?) - evolution is supported by genetic evidence all around us, observable evidence, chloroplasts and mitochondria are the evolution of bacteria into "organelles" in complex cells. TONS of molecular evidence and we have every animal that ever lived as evidence - Giraffess have long necks, finches have adapted beaks, I have stereoscopic trichromatic vision, hell if you cant accept the obvious (hominids are fancy apes) we have example after example of convergent evolution. People keep saying this "gaps" in evolution shit and its JUST NOT TRUE. The fossil record is NOT the only evidence we have for evolution, in fact, as Richard Dawkins states outright in the Ancestors Tale, the fossil record is just a great big BONUS which corroborates the molecular and OBSERVABLE evidence.
I have been saying for years that we know much more about evolution that we do about lots of other aspects of science, gravity and nuclear forces have also been my prime examples. Yet we still teach those because they are accepted SCIENCE as deemed by SCIENTISTS in peer reviewed journals and tested the bejesus out of.
All you anti evolution people are going to hell, by your own rules, for lying and being deceitful, even if you do by the creation myths (which I dont think you do actually believe) then you are still specious for claiming its science, which you damn well know it aint.
RE: What is wrong with Dover?
Well, are there things we don't know? Sure. Are there things we think we know and don't? Absolutely. The problem with this whole arguement, though, is the "Intelligent Design" people seem to be hung up on, oh, the idea of a fundamental, immutable truth. "Science" never claims to have a fundamental, immutable truth. It is always in flux and there are, inherently, things we don't know or don't fully understand. The difference is, science seeks out new understanding and faith cedes the ground to the supernatural and gives up.
RE: What is wrong with Dover?
The English word science comes from the Latin verb Scio - to know. Science today is made of various theories. Instead of calling it Science in schools it would be more correct to call it Scientific Theory. That may placate both parties
RE: What is wrong with Dover?
@The English word science comes from the Latin verb Scio - to know. Science today is made of various theories. Instead of calling it Science in schools it would be more correct to call it Scientific Theory. That may placate both parties
While I understand this idea is meant to help both sides, its still flawed. The latin meaning of words does not equate to the modern day usage (and dictionaries define USAGE, not definitions) - and science, while by no means perfect, is the only "truth" or "knowledge" we really have.
To call it "scientific theory" overall misses the point of my above post (if the connotation of theory is meant to be "we arent sure").
The definition of theory is basically a more solid body of evidence and empirical testing - its a group of related things we call "fact" - when used in broad science terms such as "theory of evolution". How about "germ theory of disease", "atomic theory", et al.
A broad "theory" has held up to severe scrutiny across the educated knowledgeable fraternity of people that call themsevles scientists, the word theory is used because its indicative that science is critical of itself and ADMITS there is no absolute truth.
Theory means more of "we damn well know its a fact" than it means "well we arent sure but this is our best guess" (again in the broad "theory of evolution" scope).
Science is all we have when we really look at truth, sure science changes with new information, but thats the beauty, its self correcting with error bars built in. The opposite is true of what purports to refute science.
The problem many people (45% ;)) confuse something such as scientific theory with not being accurate and something such as a preacher at a pulpit spouting infallible and unquestionable ideology as accurate. They do this because science is honest about "truth" and ideology is not.
RE: What is wrong with Dover?
A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).
A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).
An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).
RE: What is wrong with Dover?
Agreed. All this crap about theory or whatnot is really kind of moot. What we associate with "Science" is really about the "Scientific Method" rather than some artifice of "theories".
The reason ID isn't Science is because it is not an explanation based on natural laws and phenomena observed. It is at best simply an incredulous speculation.