Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Lucern · 05-12-2005, 04:37 AM

Exactly Stratos.

That means that ID isn't science. Evolution encompasses the whole of this scientific debate. The debate touches on things like what role mutations, crossing over during meiosis, and the 'jumping genes' have in evolution, distorting the original pure natural selection explanation now that such information is available.

There's a silly description that I read regarding what 'including both sides' would entail. After explaining roughly all 6,000 recorded creation myths (read not as a fictional story, but a literal or figurative truth to a people), point out that none of them have a scientific basis, nor can they be the subject of falsifiable research. THEN continue with the science.

However, it might be a useful thing to concisely explain the opposition to evolution from that first day in 1859 just to put it all into perspective. Science doesn't develop in a vacuum. There was (and continues to be) almost as much resistance to Darwin's idea as there was to the idea of a heliocentric solar system. It would also be a useful thing to explain that a complete understanding and belief in evolution only conflicts with a fundamentalist reading of a creation text of a given religion. It does conflict, and that's up to the individual to resolve. Reading Daniel C. Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous Idea and watching the old black and white film about the Scopes trial would be plenty to understand the context and impact of evolution.

I would consider doing justice to the idea that fundamentally changed the framework of all modern biology to be part of a good science education, and that's not always done in US public schools where the political/social environment makes it simply not worth the trouble for teachers. Only one side of this debate will help future scientists through demanding college science courses.

Besides, since when is high school not about brain-washing and manipulation?

05-12-2005, 04:37 AM	#10
Lucern Quintesson Join Date: August 28, 2004 Location: the middle of Michigan Age: 43 Posts: 1,011	Exactly Stratos. That means that ID isn't science. Evolution encompasses the whole of this scientific debate. The debate touches on things like what role mutations, crossing over during meiosis, and the 'jumping genes' have in evolution, distorting the original pure natural selection explanation now that such information is available. There's a silly description that I read regarding what 'including both sides' would entail. After explaining roughly all 6,000 recorded creation myths (read not as a fictional story, but a literal or figurative truth to a people), point out that none of them have a scientific basis, nor can they be the subject of falsifiable research. THEN continue with the science. However, it might be a useful thing to concisely explain the opposition to evolution from that first day in 1859 just to put it all into perspective. Science doesn't develop in a vacuum. There was (and continues to be) almost as much resistance to Darwin's idea as there was to the idea of a heliocentric solar system. It would also be a useful thing to explain that a complete understanding and belief in evolution only conflicts with a fundamentalist reading of a creation text of a given religion. It does conflict, and that's up to the individual to resolve. Reading Daniel C. Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous Idea and watching the old black and white film about the Scopes trial would be plenty to understand the context and impact of evolution. I would consider doing justice to the idea that fundamentally changed the framework of all modern biology to be part of a good science education, and that's not always done in US public schools where the political/social environment makes it simply not worth the trouble for teachers. Only one side of this debate will help future scientists through demanding college science courses. Besides, since when is high school not about brain-washing and manipulation?