3 ms·

Claiming that evolution is wrong implies that all science is wrong. If you don't teach the basic scientific principles to young students it gets harder and hard

by pat2man 14y ago

Claiming that evolution is wrong implies that all science is wrong. If you don't teach the basic scientific principles to young students it gets harder and harder to convince them of more complicated topics. You get into a science vs religion debate where no one wins and the students always loose.

PakG1 14y ago
Whoah, whoah, whoah. Newtonian physics can be easily explained and understood without knowing anything about evolution. The same for basic chemical reactions. The same for mitochondria. And the same for various more complicated topics. Let's not debate the debate well, but let's not get hyperbolic.
- derleth 14y ago
  > Newtonian physics can be easily explained and understood without knowing anything about evolution. As a set of equations handed down from On High, yes. As a living field that's part of modern physics and has relevance to becoming a productive member of the society we're trying to build, no. Science isn't dogma. It's all connected by the spirit of questioning and challenging authority.
  - stephenhuey 14y ago
    You can say science isn't dogma, but it has real people playing the part of the scientists, and those real people often sound as biased as you just did. In other words, everyone doing the science sees the world through their own lenses and you just have to try as hard as possible to observe and analyze objectively.
    - derleth 14y ago
      At least with science there's a chance to be undogmatic.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I think perhaps what he means to imply is that the mental gymnastics necessary to deny evolution also, if taken to their logical conclusion and not kept contained to biology, take out pretty much all of physics and chemistry as well. This said, people in the business of denying evolution are pretty good at containment. It is far from unheard of for people to live "dual lives". There are no rules forcing people to keep their own beliefs self-consistent.
Alex3917 14y ago
"If you don't teach the basic scientific principles to young students it gets harder and harder to convince them of more complicated topics." First of all, the vast majority of US students aren't even proficient enough in reading and math to understand science regardless of what the curriculum consists of. Debating what the science curriculum should consist of is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. But the fact that you hear 10x as much about this issue than about the shameful lack of reading ability in students suggests that this debate is as much about ideology as it is about pedagogy. That was kind of my point. Yes, it's important, but the fact that people are spending so much time worrying about optimizing something that's largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things says a lot about them.

by pat2man 14y ago

PakG1 14y ago

Whoah, whoah, whoah. Newtonian physics can be easily explained and understood without knowing anything about evolution. The same for basic chemical reactions. The same for mitochondria. And the same for various more complicated topics. Let's not debate the debate well, but let's not get hyperbolic.

derleth 14y ago
> Newtonian physics can be easily explained and understood without knowing anything about evolution. As a set of equations handed down from On High, yes. As a living field that's part of modern physics and has relevance to becoming a productive member of the society we're trying to build, no. Science isn't dogma. It's all connected by the spirit of questioning and challenging authority.
- stephenhuey 14y ago
  You can say science isn't dogma, but it has real people playing the part of the scientists, and those real people often sound as biased as you just did. In other words, everyone doing the science sees the world through their own lenses and you just have to try as hard as possible to observe and analyze objectively.
  - derleth 14y ago
    At least with science there's a chance to be undogmatic.
jlgreco 14y ago
I think perhaps what he means to imply is that the mental gymnastics necessary to deny evolution also, if taken to their logical conclusion and not kept contained to biology, take out pretty much all of physics and chemistry as well. This said, people in the business of denying evolution are pretty good at containment. It is far from unheard of for people to live "dual lives". There are no rules forcing people to keep their own beliefs self-consistent.

Alex3917 14y ago

"If you don't teach the basic scientific principles to young students it gets harder and harder to convince them of more complicated topics." First of all, the vast majority of US students aren't even proficient enough in reading and math to understand science regardless of what the curriculum consists of. Debating what the science curriculum should consist of is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. But the fact that you hear 10x as much about this issue than about the shameful lack of reading ability in students suggests that this debate is as much about ideology as it is about pedagogy. That was kind of my point. Yes, it's important, but the fact that people are spending so much time worrying about optimizing something that's largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things says a lot about them.