You know…
Maybe this belongs in the blindingly obvious category, or possibly in the totally misunderstanding the problem one, but it seems to me that a lot of the problem with evolution v ID, etc. comes not from the teaching of evolution per se, but from the fact that folks seem to need to take that extra step and say that that means something re: Christianity.
I see what you’re saying, but for a lot of folks who oppose the teaching of evolution theory alone it’s that it’s being taught as proven fact, when it’s merely a theory and a theory with a lot of holes that cannot be proven.
So for those of us who believe that creation/intelligent design was how this planet started, then it’s tough to swallow the theory of evolution. For people of faith, the Book tells the story pretty clearly. It’s not so much about meaning as you might think. For many of us, it’s the more logical explanation to something that can’t really be fully explained.
Posted by jen on 01/11 at 09:00 PMEvolution is a scientific theory. That is, there were old theories, such as Lamarck’s, about how animals developed and adapted to their environment, but there were facts that they did not explain. Darwin (and a younger guy neither I nor anyone else ever remembers) invented a new theory that fit the known facts. Since his time, the theory has been revised or refined, but there has never been a fact or set of facts so at odds with it that it must be discarded.
That’s science: facts, hypothesis, checking the hypothesis against more facts.
ID is the opposite. It begins with a hypothesis, then looks for the facts that will fit it. I’ve never encountered it in a form that is falsifiable.
You want to believe it? Fine. But it is not science, it is faith.
Posted by Ian Hamet on 01/12 at 01:00 AMProponents of ID forget that our brains often find patterns where there are none. That’s why horoscopes, fortune tellers, and gambling are so popular. As for evolution, well it happened with language and the process is very similar for species. A few minor changes here and there add up until they are sufficiently different. That’s why even though we speak English, we can’t read Beowulf even though it was written in English.
Posted by Rob on 01/12 at 09:03 AMAll I’m saying, folks, is that it seems to me that whatever you believe it has to be possible to find a way of approaching the subject such that you don’t have a science class trying to override the parents’ religious teachings. Knock it off with the assertions of fact, call it “science’s explanation” or something--but they ought to be able to teach the damn thing without teaching the kids that the Bible is crap. Create doubt by presenting something different? Fine. Parents can straighten that out, the way they’ve been having to do with history and economics for years. But there has to be some sort of middle-ground way of approaching the thing, even if I’m not sure exactly what that is, wording wise. It’s a science class, not a science evangelism fair.
Posted by Deb on 01/12 at 11:35 AM
Next entry: My poor teething baby.
Previous entry: Keira Knightly Is Making Sense