FirmaFan
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2008
- Posts
- 1,085
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m37EiGf-sUo[/ame]
Why, oh why, is evolution still a topic of controversy fueled by such insane ignorance that we must continue to time and time again entertain the ramblings of creationist lunatics whom the people have so stupidly given power to?
Notice how conniving and malicious the verbiage of the bill is, such that it seems so apt to adhere to the principles of good science: allow the teaching of strengths and weaknesses, critically analyze, provide information and resources for alternative theories...it's utterly sickening.
Should we be critical of science? Absolutely! Should we investigate the claims of theories such as evolution and verify or refute those claims based upon collected evidence. Damn straight we should! Is the elementary, middle, and high school the place for this? Absolutely NOT! There are conflicting ideas about the specifics of all scientific study, from gravity to quantum theory to evolution, etc. The place to attempt to establish the validity of those ideas is not a high school classroom where children are just beginning to learn the very basics of the subject. Science is working diligently to gain a more accurate understanding of the subjects under study, but this is done by doctors and biologists and physicists through investigation, experimentation, data collection, independent verification, and peer review; it is not done by high school teachers, not by high school students, and certainly not by legislators who don't even seem to have the education they are attempting to sabotage.
I always find it funny when someone talks about the teaching the "strengths and weaknesses" of science for two reasons. One, it always seems to be about evolution. No one ever advocates a "strengths and weaknesses" curriculum for gravity, or chemistry, or atomic theory, despite evolution being much more substantiated than any of those. As far as requiring investigation of "weaknesses", the subject of evolution is near the very bottom of the list. The second thing I find funny is that when you take one of the advocates of "strengths and weaknesses" and ask them what weaknesses they would teach about evolution, they'll give a very long list of things that may seem to them like good arguments but, to anyone who actually understands the subject, really just demonstrates how little they know about the subject of evolution. Then, to really show how little they know about evolution, ask them what strengths about the subject they would teach.
The very basics of the theory of evolution are actually very very simple to understand. A basic understanding is readily available to any who wants to know, and anyone who does know is able to look at what antievolutionists are against and can easily see that the idea of evolution they are opposed to is so far removed from what evolution actually is. It becomes a wonder why these kinds of bills are ever entertained. They are fighting against an idea of evolution that doesn't actually exist. Unfortunately, a history of religiously motivated antievolution has deceived most with an entirely false idea of evolution, motivating them to attack and try to deter the true theory from being taught to others, despite not having any real idea of what they are actually fighting against.
Why, oh why, is evolution still a topic of controversy fueled by such insane ignorance that we must continue to time and time again entertain the ramblings of creationist lunatics whom the people have so stupidly given power to?
Notice how conniving and malicious the verbiage of the bill is, such that it seems so apt to adhere to the principles of good science: allow the teaching of strengths and weaknesses, critically analyze, provide information and resources for alternative theories...it's utterly sickening.
Should we be critical of science? Absolutely! Should we investigate the claims of theories such as evolution and verify or refute those claims based upon collected evidence. Damn straight we should! Is the elementary, middle, and high school the place for this? Absolutely NOT! There are conflicting ideas about the specifics of all scientific study, from gravity to quantum theory to evolution, etc. The place to attempt to establish the validity of those ideas is not a high school classroom where children are just beginning to learn the very basics of the subject. Science is working diligently to gain a more accurate understanding of the subjects under study, but this is done by doctors and biologists and physicists through investigation, experimentation, data collection, independent verification, and peer review; it is not done by high school teachers, not by high school students, and certainly not by legislators who don't even seem to have the education they are attempting to sabotage.
I always find it funny when someone talks about the teaching the "strengths and weaknesses" of science for two reasons. One, it always seems to be about evolution. No one ever advocates a "strengths and weaknesses" curriculum for gravity, or chemistry, or atomic theory, despite evolution being much more substantiated than any of those. As far as requiring investigation of "weaknesses", the subject of evolution is near the very bottom of the list. The second thing I find funny is that when you take one of the advocates of "strengths and weaknesses" and ask them what weaknesses they would teach about evolution, they'll give a very long list of things that may seem to them like good arguments but, to anyone who actually understands the subject, really just demonstrates how little they know about the subject of evolution. Then, to really show how little they know about evolution, ask them what strengths about the subject they would teach.
The very basics of the theory of evolution are actually very very simple to understand. A basic understanding is readily available to any who wants to know, and anyone who does know is able to look at what antievolutionists are against and can easily see that the idea of evolution they are opposed to is so far removed from what evolution actually is. It becomes a wonder why these kinds of bills are ever entertained. They are fighting against an idea of evolution that doesn't actually exist. Unfortunately, a history of religiously motivated antievolution has deceived most with an entirely false idea of evolution, motivating them to attack and try to deter the true theory from being taught to others, despite not having any real idea of what they are actually fighting against.
