Science and Inquiry discussion
Science in the News
>
Creationists at work in South Korea
Eric wrote: "There is certainly a lot of evidence to support evolution, and it definately appears to be the truth about how things happened, but that does not mean that the theory of evolution will never change."I think you need to be extremely careful with the way you discuss this with impressionable students, especially students at a religious school.
Even though the history "may" change, it doesn't mean processes like Natural selection will go away, or that DNA will suddenly be found to not exist. The things in history you might see change are things like Abiogenesis being successful and being added into the Theory of Evolution, since that will show that we do know how life was actually created.
Evolution being untrue is just so utterly remote it's become laughable to suggest otherwise. We know more about that than Gravitation. I think the history of science can also be misleading when it comes to the huge theories that we've basically determined were true. We are so much better at doing science today that it's staggering to compare to even science done in the 1800's. Nevermind the fact that humanity had to throw off the chains of all kinds of religious hogwash to get at some semblance of knowing what's going on with the world.
I am not saying we know everything, we certainly don't. But I am saying that the history where we overthrow theories for correct ones is misleading compared to some of the things we know today. For example, the Theory of Electromagnetism is not going to be overthrown. Theories like String Theory, which hasn't been proven, yeah that could be overthrown, but the big accepted ones, it just isn't going to happen.
There is a reason theories are theories. There is a reason laws of science are laws of science. These things have been tested and proven over and over and still remain theories and laws. Some theories may be replaced or improved upon... laws will always be laws. I stand firm that evolution is on its way to becoming a law. There is overwhelming evidence and proof that humans evolved from a primate/hybrid species. If mammals evolved and humans are mammals, that makes us no more special than any other mammal. Creationism does not follow logic in the least.
Eric wrote: "I explain that science does not try to answer the question of WHO, because science can not prove or disprove WHO."I don't think the question of "WHO" is relevant at all. This question only arises if you expect a creator. Science just doesn't require an answer to this particular question in any way, shape or form!
"I have performed my own research and personal experimentation and have determined to my satisfaction that God does live."
Care to share some of that research?
Eric said: Sorry for the lengthy composition, but I don't want anyone to think that all religious people want to do away with evolution. Neither do I want anyone to think that all scientists want to do away with religion. No apologies necessary Eric. Well said. There are "Fundamenalists" on both sides of the aisle who would like to function as thought police. It's best to tune them out and leave the rest of us free to "evolve" our thinking on these fascinating questions.
I'm an atheist meaning I simply lack the belief in God that you have. Fortunately, in your case, this does not prevent us from having honest discussions about the truth of evolution and it's mechanisms which we are still discovering.
Hp wrote: "Care to share some of that research? "On top of sharing that research (hopefully showing full methodology, literature review of previous work in the area, full conclusions and critique of any problems you ran into which would make a future attempt at research more accurate), can you give citations for who peer reviewed it, who has reproduced your research, and which reputable periodicals/journals have published it.
I went to religious schools and got plenty of evolution - but they were not fundamentalists. (They were Episcopalians and Moravians.)
Graham wrote: "Eric wrote: "I teach my students that, as scientists, we have to accept that we can never know ALL there is to know about anything..."and
"I want to be clear that I do believe in a God who I do..."
I'm not sure what part of those two statements would seem irreconcilable. I do believe in God, but I certainly don't feel like I know all there is to know about Him, or about the way He does things. I don't know all there is to know about evolution, but I still believe in it. My belief in God is similar, I don't know all there is to know, but I know enough to believe in Him.
Kenny wrote: "And as a scientist how can you believe something without proof, Eric? I once thought theism and science could co-exist, but no longer."
It's a good question Kenny. My answer would be that I feel like I have enough proof for me to believe. I have performed my own "experiments" with my religion, just as I would perform a science experiment. (Granted, it is more difficult to experiment with something that is so much less tangible, but it is possible, and I assure you that the results I got were plenty tangible enough for me.) I do not expect that other people have to believe like I do, or have to agree with me. I recognize that it is a very personal decision. Having said that, I have found no conflict between science and my religion.
Adam wrote: "Eric wrote: "There is certainly a lot of evidence to support evolution, and it definately appears to be the truth about how things happened, but that does not mean that the theory of evolution will..."Thanks for the comments Adam. I don't actually teach at a religious school. I understand your concern, and I assure you that I don't teach my students that the big concepts of science are easily overturned (including evolution.) In fact, I stress to them that what usually happens is we "tweak" our current theories/models/ideas as we develop new technology and gain new understanding. I agree that we do science much more efficiently now than we used to, but I think we would have said the same thing before we learned how to do DNA mapping, and look at how far we've come since then. (Look at how much we've "tweaked" since then.) I do tell my students that we don't usually throw ideas out, but, like our model of the atom, or our model of the Earth's interior, we tweak them as we learn. I do not imply to them that the theory of evolution is going to be discarded, but simply that we don't know all there is to know about it.
Hp wrote: "Eric wrote: "I explain that science does not try to answer the question of WHO, because science can not prove or disprove WHO."I don't think the question of "WHO" is relevant at all. This questio..."
Soley from a scientific perspective, the question of WHO is not relevant, which is why I feel it is a question better answered, and in fact, only answerable, by religion.
As for my own research into religion, most of it is personal enough to me that I'd rather not share, (and it wouldn't be relevant to this discussion to share it anyway, because the subject of religion is one where each person must draw their own conclusion based on the results.) The process of my experimentation, however, is easy to share. I find a promise that is given in the scriptures that is written in the form of IF you do _______, THEN ________ will happen. I do the IF part, and I see if the THEN part happens. I'm not meaning just some vague, random blessing. I am referring to very specific things happening. I have tried this method countless times with many aspects of my religion, and it has ALWAYS worked for me. (I know some people would call this coincidence, or say that I only saw what I wanted to see, but the results were plenty convincing enough for me, and this system has never failed me.) I realize that one time of results supporting your hypothesis does not prove your hypothesis, but if you run different tests enough times and they always support your hypothesis, the hypothesis begins to look pretty good. As I said, I am very aware that someone else might come to a different conclusion, and that is their own decision to make. As for replication, there are millions of people who would say that they have performed similar experiments and received the same results. I am sure that there are those those who feel they have not gotten the same results that I have. Today I did a lab that was supposed to demonstrate the Law of Conservation of Mass, only it didn't work. I ended up with missing mass. I didn't assume that the laws of science were wrong just because my conclusion didn't support them. Naturally, I assumed that I had made a mistake in my procedure. I did the lab again, and this time I was successful. If I am willing to give science the benefit of the doubt, and assume human error, why wouldn't I assume that "human error" might complicate someones religious experiments as well? I have drawn my own individual conclusions based on my own individual experiences. I do not believe that everyone has to agree with me. I don't look down on people who don't share my beliefs, and I would hope that those who don't share my beliefs would grant me the same courtesy.
Steve wrote: " Eric said: Sorry for the lengthy composition, but I don't want anyone to think that all religious people want to do away with evolution. Neither do I want anyone to think that all scientists want ..."Thank you Steve! I appreciate your willingness to disagree without being disagreeable. This also makes it much easier and more enjoyable for us to discuss our similar views on aspects such as evolution.
Eric wrote: "Soley from a scientific perspective, the question of WHO is not relevant, which is why I feel it is a question better answered, and in fact, only answerable, by religion"But my point was that the question of WHO is totally irrelevant - not merely redundant from a scientific point. It is just that as humans we always expect a WHO even where it is not necessary.
I do the IF part, and I see if the THEN part happens.
Aha! Post hoc ergo propter hoc with confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance!
Kenny wrote: "There is a constitutional right to separation of Church and State as well a right to protect our children and society. That's how it will be done, just as it has in every case where it has come up..."As soon as you tell people they are deluded, you are inviting attack and a fight. You also become just as bad as them, trying to force your ideas on them. You cannot force someone to think a certain way. As Rozzer has said, you need to persuade them. A good scientist presents the evidence, is available for questions, and lets the people work with that as it fits in their minds. Yes, we have a separation of Church and State, and yes, I believe Creationism and Intelligent Design should be kept out of public schools. But those school boards who want it in see their faith and their belief as fact because they experience it every day. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I do not hold religious beliefs because of the lack of evidence to support the ideas. But that does not put me in a position to condemn those who do.
Abby wrote: "A good scientist presents the evidence, is available for questions, and lets the people work with that as it fits in their minds."Good scientists actually do a LOT more than that: they produce repeatable, documented, falsifiable work which can be peer reviewed and openly criticised.
Why does this not apply to a good creationist or good anti-evolutionist?
I don't condemn these deluded people; I care that they believe nonsense which affects my life and the life of those I love. I just want them to realise that they are mad.
Abby wrote: "Kenny wrote: "There is a constitutional right to separation of Church and State as well a right to protect our children and society. That's how it will be done, just as it has in every case where ..."Ummmm, what a crock. Where did I say anything about forcing thinking. But that's exactly what these idiots what. They want to force their beliefs on our children. Fortunately the law prohibits it and we must be ever vigilant to make sure the laws are enforced. People who are found to hold religious beliefs and push them on others should be prohibited from being members of public school boards just like we treat sex-offenders.
Why? Because the language of science is just not comprehensible to most of us outsiders. One must be trained for a long time to be able to understand and appreciate the written form of formal papers and studies. And the large majority of scientists (I have many in my own family) get very frustrated very quickly by having to interpret things for lay people and very soon get into the habit of saying, in effect, "this is the truth, damnit. You may not like it or understand it, but you HAVE to believe it." Putting across the essence of their discoveries to lay people is not only hard work, it's something that is just outside of the standard skill-set of most scientists. Which is why good, trained, experienced science journalists should be (and are) highly valued.
Hp wrote: "Good scientists actually do a LOT more than that: they produce repeatable, documented, falsifiable work which can be peer reviewed and openly criticised." Why does this not apply to a good creationist or good anti-evolutionist?
I don't think religious believers should be removed from school boards, but I do take issue that these people decide curriculum. What qualifications do they have to decide any kind of curriculum even English. Should a team of English professors be working on that? Shouldn't scientists decide science? Shouldn't mathematicians decide the necessary mathematics? What is this nonsense with irrelevant people deciding what we learn?
Rozzer wrote: "....Putting across the essence of their discoveries to lay people is not only hard work, it's something that is just outside of the standard skill-set of most scientists. Which is why good, trained, experienced science journalists should be (and are) highly valued...."Yes that's why people like Carl Zimmer, Mary Roach, Bill Bryson, Brian Cox, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov Neil deGrasse Tyson, Natalie Angier etc. etc. etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_...
are so important, yes even the dead ones, because their books are still here and still relevant!
Rozzer wrote: "Why? Because the language of science is just not comprehensible to most of us outsiders."I hope you're not christian as for nigh on sixteen hundred years the word of god was deemed incomprehensible to the common people and the church had the rights on it's interpretation.
People were burnt to death in England in 1512 for having in their possession the Scriptures in English (illegal at the time): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cove.... Roasted alive just because they could read the word of god (yeah, right) and interpret it in their own way!
The basics of most scientific theories and investigations are available to any one who can read (we have this wonderful thing called the internet - given to us by science). If you are too stupid to at least bother to get basic education in current, pertinent science then perhaps you are better off with faith. Let someone else do the thinking for you.
Interesting reply, Hp. I fail to see the relevance of the Christian situation regarding the bible. And then, after that, you seem to take the position that science is obvious and entirely transparent, and that just isn't true. There is (thank God) a large (and growing) number of good "translations" from science, written by particularly capable scientists and journalists, which I am reading all the time. I believe we now exist in a "Golden Age" of popular science, or at least it's far, far better than what we have had in the past. And I do also read plenty of actual, formal scientific papers on various reputable websites. But no lay person like myself should ever commit the error of believing that science is "easy" or "transparent." It's not. Sorry if this bothers you, but it's the obvious truth.
Hp wrote: "Rozzer wrote: "Why? Because the language of science is just not comprehensible to most of us outsiders."
I hope you're not christian as for nigh on sixteen hundred years the word of god was deeme..."
I was hoping to have good, intellectual discussions in this group. Unfortunately, other than Rozzer and Graham, everyone in this discussion seems intent on forcing their agenda and demonizing others for not holding their same beliefs. You are just as bad as the Christians you are criticizing. Thank you, but I will no longer participate in this group.
Well, Abby, you're right. But right and wrong at the same time. Wrong in the sense that the kinds of back and forth we're having here on this thread are by no means far from the general tenor of the AGW and Creationism arguments as they're discussed all over the world. Me, I think that if those of us on the pro-AGW and evolutionist sides of the debates refuse to deal with the comments just as they are, we lose automatically. We're then just walking off the playing field and abdicating to the other side. Yes, it's annoying to have to enter into exchanges at a low level. But, like it or not, that's where the action is.Abby wrote: "I was hoping to have good, intellectual discussions in this group. Unfortunately, other than Rozzer and Graham, everyone in this discussion seems intent on forcing their agenda and demonizing other..."
Abby wrote: "I was hoping to have good, intellectual discussions in this group. Unfortunately, other than Rozzer and Graham, everyone in this discussion seems intent on forcing their agenda and demonizing other..."Hmm, seems to me like that is what's happening. The problem is that the creationists and anti-evolutionists don't want to have a rational discussion and when it happens they either continut to spew unsupported claims or stomp off in a huff.
Decisions are made in real time, the rolling "now" that each of us inhabits in each present moment. And the considerations any of us take into account when making those decisions frequently change, thereby causing the decisions to change. Though the Antis may seem monolithic to us Pros, they're human, and their decision considerations can and do change like everyone else's. If we (the Pros) are ready at all times for interaction, always prepared for dialogue, then sooner or later the Antis' decision considerations will change, and their decisions will change.Fascist modes of imposing unwanted decisions on any group of people are off the table. Ain't gonna happen. At least in this AGW situation. (The right would be happy to impose all kinds of things were they to get a majority in both houses and the presidency too.) Persuasion is all there is. And any serious persuasion strategy has to be longterm, willing to wait out periods of stalemate and then re-engage instantaneously when the decision considerations change.
I guess I ought to fess up now. Before I retired I spent thirty years as a professional mediator. And that's where I'm coming from. Keep the dialog going. Always. Aim number one. Take care!
Kenny wrote: "Abby wrote: "I was hoping to have good, intellectual discussions in this group. Unfortunately, other than Rozzer and Graham, everyone in this discussion seems intent on forcing their agenda and dem..."
Abby wrote: "I was hoping to have good, intellectual discussions in this group. Unfortunately, other than Rozzer and Graham, everyone in this discussion seems intent on forcing their agenda and demonizing other..."You've probably left, never to read this reply. But I'm sorry you're not getting what you wanted. I don't think you ever will though, simply because there is no intellectual discussion to be had on this topic.
This topic is basically the same as me holding out two apples and saying "I have two apples" then you respond with "no you don't".
To make this conversation more intellectual, I would proceed to define what I mean by "two" using Set Theoretic Principles. Which you might not understand and leaves you more solidified in your position that I don't have two apples. Everyone that knows what two means scoffs at the ignorance of someone that doesn't know, because it is clearly true. The person that is capable of spending some time to learn it simply doesn't.
This is an amalgamation of mine and Rozzer's points. There is no intellectual discussion, there is a statement of a fact. These aren't things you intellectually debate or discuss when it comes to teaching children factual information. These things just are, whether you want them to be or not.
No, Adam. I heartily disagree. There is the possibility of PLENTY of intellectual discussion. This issue does not involve BY ANY MEANS a statement of fact. I very much hope that Abby does come back, because there is much, much more about which to converse here on this thread.The position that you yourself are taking here is not at all a pure statement of fact. It's a combination of fact and emotion on your part, essentially dictating to Abby, and people like Abby, that she must "surrender" and do your bidding. The addition of emotion to a statement of fact is rather like someone pouring gasoline on a hamburger and offering it to someone while saying "eat this, I insist, it's only a hamburger." Can't do that Adam. Which is to say that of course you can, but you'll never have a serious discussion. No one will want to play by your set of playground rules. They'll just walk away. And they'll be right. Discussion just doesn't work that way.
The issues involved in Creationism are by no means black and white, though I realize that you feel strongly that they are. There are many, many people (including many very good scientists) who find no contradiction between science and faith, who want to find out ways of phrasing this issue of co-existence in manners that permit all people to live with a serious view of the serious scientific realities involved.
Unless you're willing to back off and cool down, willing to have a relaxed exchange with the aim of mutual enlightenment, well, nothing's going to happen. You'll be left all alone with no one to talk to. You'll announce in your solitude that you won the argument. But there'll be no one left to hear that boast, because everyone else will have walked away.
Adam wrote: "Abby wrote: "I was hoping to have good, intellectual discussions in this group. Unfortunately, other than Rozzer and Graham, everyone in this discussion seems intent on forcing their agenda and dem..."
I heavily disagree with your attributing emotion to my commentary. My commentary lays out the situation, that is all.It entirely involves a statement of fact. What part of Evolution, that is presented at the high school level today, has been shown to be false and creationists had the right answer? When you provide me with that example, I will be willing to concede that we are not discussion a fact, I will also insist we begin debating the non-fact of gravity as well. (I am merely trying to point out the level of "fact" this is.)
I am also not sure why I need to cool down... you sound as if you read my words like I am raging and angry. If that's how people choose to interpret what I'm trying to say... that's fine I guess. I will be happy to return to my own work and no longer engage others if I am that much of a bother.
Nothing about that situation "has been shown to be false..." Evolution is evolution. It's happening everywhere all the time. It's entirely resistant to any point of view involving the divine creation of any species within historical memory.But that very factual evolution is by no means to say that the universe could not have been created by a god who may continue to be active in human and other existences even today. Do I believe so? No. But there are very, very many who do. People whose faiths are absolutely central to their lives.
If one respects "other people," if one respects (really respects) freedom of opinion and religion, then one makes room. One doesn't attack the beliefs of others just because they differ from one's own. That's what all those 20th Century bad guys did, the ones we defeated or who just died off. Haven't we learned anything from that experience? Haven't YOU learned anything from that experience?
I'd say, yeah, evolution is right and not teaching it in every American biology classroom is a shame. A shame. But I'm not going to try to punish people who don't agree. Me, I just want to make sure that any schoolkid in the U.S. who wants accurate and truthful information about science can get it while sitting right at home. And I do think that's feasible.
Adam wrote: "I heavily disagree with your attributing emotion to my commentary. My commentary lays out the situation, that is all.
It entirely involves a statement of fact. What part of Evolution, that is pr..."
But when it comes to Creationists (people who think the evolution is false) we are NOT talking about people who think God created the universe and Evolution is the process God has used. Since we are discussing what occurs in science, this non-factual supposition need not even be discussed. So it really doesn't matter if someone thinks God created anything, who cares?I do respect freedom of opinion, when there is an opinion to be had. We are not talking about opinions. You don't get to have an opinion on the truth value of something that has been shown to be true. I'm not attacking anyone's "beliefs" per se, I am telling someone a factual statement.
If I have to worry about the truth value of my factual statements infringing on someone's incorrect notion that they want to call an opinion, then I'm in the wrong line of work. I think you are being overly lenient in your notion of what constitutes having an opinion and what does not. You can have an opinion on whether or not they should change the law to allow for Gay marriage, but you can't have an opinion on Maxwell's Equations and their governing of Electromagnetism.
Rozzer wrote: "No, Adam. I heartily disagree. There is the possibility of PLENTY of intellectual discussion. This issue does not involve BY ANY MEANS a statement of fact. I very much hope that Abby does come ..."Completely and utterly wrong. You are once again defending superstition and magic and I do not appreciate it. I'm back to believing you are just a tool trying to use the Wedge strategy and I'll have nothing to do with it. The FACT is that EVOLUTION is the accepted, proven means by which life adapts to its environment. Creationism in any form is nothing but religion. If there are alternatives, modifications, enhancements to evolution then they must become part of the scientific canon by the scientific method. Until they do there is no reason to give them any quarter what so ever. And certainly not in our public institutions. As Adam says, we are not talking about beliefs or opinions, we are talking about reality and science and there is NOTHING to debate about the truth of evolution.
You can drop the pretense now, because I'm done with you and will counter every post you make like this.
Okay, Kenny. Bye!Kenny wrote: "Rozzer wrote: "No, Adam. I heartily disagree. There is the possibility of PLENTY of intellectual discussion. This issue does not involve BY ANY MEANS a statement of fact. I very much hope that ..."
Kenny wrote: "Rozzer wrote: "No, Adam. I heartily disagree. There is the possibility of PLENTY of intellectual discussion. This issue does not involve BY ANY MEANS a statement of fact. I very much hope that ..."
Kenny wrote: "Rozzer wrote: "....Putting across the essence of their discoveries to lay people is not only hard work, it's something that is just outside of the standard skill-set of most scientists. Which is wh..."Hp wrote: "Abby wrote: "A good scientist presents the evidence, is available for questions, and lets the people work with that as it fits in their minds."
Good scientists actually do a LOT more than that: th..."
Thanks for this reference, Kenny. I see some of my fav authors on this list, and now I know of some other good people to read.
Sandra wrote: "Thanks for this reference, Kenny. I see some of my fav authors on this list, and now I know of some other good people to read."You're welcome! (I just finished Carl Zimmer's Planet of Viruses. Great book!)
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble following this discussion because I don't know what the acronym "AGW" means. Could someone fill me in?Rozzer?
???? Global Warming (man-made I believe). I've never seen it myself but here. Or maybe Anti-Global-Warming???could be any of these: http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com...
I hate acronyms, people should just say what them mean instead of trying to be 'cute'
Probably this one: AGW Accident Generated Water
meaning to pee in one's pants.
Now be nice, Kenny. I think Rozzer must have meant the "anthropogenic global warming" meaning when he used AGW, but thanks for another great list nonetheless.
I used to call myself Acronym Man in school. I'd pretend to tug at my shirt and show a large A on my chest. Then I'd protest the latest educational acronym by shouting, "This is a time for Acronym Man to come to the rescue." I'd insist on the full words and people would applaud.
Jimmy wrote: "I used to call myself Acronym Man in school. I'd pretend to tug at my shirt and show a large A on my chest. Then I'd protest the latest educational acronym by shouting, "This is a time for Acronym..."Thumbs Up!!
:)
Jimmy wrote: "I used to call myself Acronym Man in school. I'd pretend to tug at my shirt and show a large A on my chest. Then I'd protest the latest educational acronym by shouting, "This is a time for Acronym..."Yes! AM is definitely needed in today's society!!
And classrooms studying the New Deal would rejoice.
Very interesting discussion going on here.I think a person needs to cultivate his or her own tolerance for ambiguity. Especially when trying to understand a new subject, or follow someone else's point of view. One needs to run newly received information through one's own mental filters to decide whether to believe it or not. Sometimes you don't have enough experience to make a valid decision to accept or reject the new idea, so you must maintain the ambiguity in your mind until you think you do.
Many people incorporate faulty belief systems into their rules for behavior, yet are still able to live productive lives in our society. Belief in astrology does not necessarily relegate a teenager to a life of poverty and suffering.
I would say most people wish to understand reality so that they may better survive and prosper in the complex society of today. The methods of science are probably the best way to achieve success in this endeavor. But the previously existing tenets of religion, philosophy, culture, science fiction, superstition, astrology, and magic can make the task more difficult.
In this forum, your arguments may bounce off deaf ears or find fertile, receptive minds. Regardless, your opinions must still compete in the marketplace of ideas. We hope that our readers will at least cultivate their tolerance for ambiguity while actually considering what we have to say. But there is no guarantee that reality will not be misinterpreted.
Later, John.
Eric wrote: "I do believe in God, but I certainly don't feel like I know all there is to know about Him, or about the way He does things..."I assume you are using 'Him' and 'He' out of tradition? What do you know about 'God' and how?
John wrote: "The methods of science are probably the best way to achieve success in this endeavor"...and...I think a person needs to cultivate his or her own tolerance for ambiguity..."Nice reply John. 'Motherhood and apple pie' I think the US phrase is? I have a bone of contention though. This doesn't exactly sound like respect for science and ambiguity to me:
John wrote: "science is telling us back off on economic progress based on a scientific WAG [wild ass guess] about the average atmospheric temperature of Earth some time in the distant future...""
Kenny wrote: "I hate acronyms, pe..."I hate TLAs too!
Eric wrote: "Adam wrote: "Eric wrote: "There is certainly a lot of evidence to support evolution, and it definately appears to be the truth about how things happened, but that does not mean that the theory of e..."It's super important to teach kids that science is always changing. Otherwise, people reject important changes. Just look at the Pluto controversy! People were taught that Pluto is a planet and that's just the way it is. They internalized it so much, that they fought against new science suggesting otherwise.
In terms of evolution, it is pretty clear that there are changes in allele frequencies over time and that this leads to the origin of new species. This is the actual theory of evolution. Everything else we derive from this are hypotheses based on the theory of evolution and still subject to change, including how humans evolved. As we gather more evidence and learn of more ancient human relatives, we sometimes shift our perspective on which Homo we evolved from. In the past, as these shifts have occurred, people have pointed to these changes and argued that because it's changing, it can't be right and scientists don't really know what they're talking about. However, if we teach kids that science does change and to expect it, then they can be prepared to deal with this type of illogical argument. Plus, kids should learn to constantly question science-even the big things that we don't believe will ever change. This is fundamental to the progress of science and we want kids to know that science WANTS to be disproved. And it is not an ultimate truth, but a tool to help us understand our world to the best of our ability.
Also, it's arrogant to suggest that our science is better than the science of the past and that we will somehow have less fundamental changes. I have no doubt that in the future, people will look back and laugh at some of the things we know to be true and are practicing. Just look at medicine. I'm sure one day people will wonder what the hell we were doing when we gave children mind altering zombifying drugs. Or what about cancer treatment? This will be looked back upon as barbaric. And here we laugh at the use of leeches and believing in the humours. Yet look at our pitiful understanding of the nervous system, including the brain, and how we treat/mess with that. I acknowledge that this might not be the best example, since medical practice is very different from long held theories. But the truth is, I don't know what new tools we will have in the future that may lead to the next paradigm shift. All I know is that throughout time, no one believed that their understanding of the world could be challenged. And then it was. Why are we so special? The important thing is that we are ready for it. We don't want to slow down future progress because we're not ready to acknowledge that our understanding of the world has changed. And now we've come full circle. This is why we need to teach kids that science can change. Or be "tweaked."
Tippy, Thank you for this very important statement about scientific method and progress. Whenever I do battle with Creationists (and other "ists"), their first line of attack is always to fault science for its changeability, and hence unreliability. You have provided me with some new arguments (not that it will do any good). Regards.
Mod
I once thought theism and science could co-exist, but no longer.