Ignoring the 99% of the field of biology that isn’t evolution entirely.
Evolution isn’t even one of the practical bits of biology.
Is it necessary to study biology at all to function in the world? No, but there are some personal health and reproductive bits that make things quite a bit smoother.
Is the study of evolution a key component of the biological education of, say, a doctor? An organic chemist? Nope… not even useful.
To assert that the knowledge of the theory is evolution is necessary is as absurd as saying someone can’t possibly live life without knowing the chief exports of Sri Lanka.
Statements like these are the ones that get you a reputation for being a blowhard, especially when you strain so hard to qualify what you have said aferward. Are there no truths about biology extant from pre-evolutionary theory days? I have a friend who is a fantastic gardener and has zero knowledge of evolution. Does she “not know anything about biology”? Not anything? Nothing at all?
You really are hopeless, Diogenes. You can definitely get a handle on cell structure, anatomy and body chemistry without understanding evolution. Unless you are going into research, evolution has about zero day-to-day use.
What’s the practical use of geometry or history or American Lit to most people? Is anything necessary? I didn’t realize so many people around here were so hostile to education.
I give up. Go ahead and teach your magic fairy stories to your kids and pretend it’s an “education.” Keep them illiterate while you’re at it. Obviously children have no rights and I’m just wrong.
That is priceless. I happen to think education of children is perhaps the most important role of society, but because I believe that it is possible to have knowledge of biology without having knowledge of evolution I am “hostile to education.” Why don’t you just admit you shot your mouth off instead of resorting to sarcasm and ad hominum attacks
And there you go ladies and gentlemen. Dio has provided his “out”. He wasn’t demanding that evolution be studied and understood, he’s just upset at those fundies that will teach Creationism.
Every thread you get worked up in you show what a bullshitting squirmer you are. Hope you have fun teaching your kids that attitude.
Most of the posters in this thread seem to me to be in favor of education, not hostile to it. They also give evidence of having had a fair amount of it. You made a gross overstatement
Three people, CarnalK, Contrapuntal, and CandidGamera, called you on it, and you started blustering about hostility to education. Have you taken any biology courses? If so, you may have noticed what they are talking about: the vast majority of biology does not deal with evolution at all.
So you can teach science without teaching the prevailing theory of science.
I can have a knowledge of Physics but disregard the E=MC[sup]2[/sup] because I don’t like it.
You are without reason. By your logic, I can just use 3 in place of PI because it is close enough.
Learning science is about learning the most up to date theories of science.
Dio should thank you for proving his point by your ignorant statement.
(Angriest Post I’ve made, I am tired of this stupidity)
At the most basic level, one can eke out a basic existence without a formal education; however, fundamentals like literacy and basic math are necessary to function at a normal adult level. You will be disadvantaged in society if you are illiterate or innumerate.
If you don’t know about the War of 1812, though, chances are that it won’t come up in conversation. And you might even get to be on TV if Jay Leno decides to ask you about it.
At the next tier of practicality are things that are broadly applicable to a number of fields. English classes that go beyond literacy to focus on clear writing. Algebra. Health classes. Basic Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. Things that are very likely to be helpful, to most people.
At the third tier, we have things that are of practical value to somewhat specialized fields. History would fit in here, in my view - helpful in a number of academic fields. Detailed science classes, too. So evolution sort-of comes in here - except it’s such a tiny, specific subset of a detailed biology course… that if you covered Biology without mentioning it, most people wouldn’t even notice. It’s like leaving out a specific battle of the Revolutionary War - nice to know if you’re a historian, but otherwise, who cares?
The vast majority of astronomy doesn’t deal with terrestrial orbits, but if a teacher wants to teach Astromomy while claiming that the sun revolves around the earth – or perhaps is a flaming chariot driven across the sky by Apollo – then I would say that the teacher is so fundamentally wrong in such an important way that he shouldn’t be trusted to teach astronomy at all.
You two are certainly cut from the same cloth. Save your anger for where it counts. Show where I have made any such statement * as you allege or shut the fuck up. Dio is the one claiming that knowledge of biology is impossible* without knowledge of evolution and then fleeing rather than backing it up. I refute that assertion and that one alone and I am guilty of the crimes you allege? Back it up or go join your buddy.
And let me go on record here - I believe in evolution, and I believe it should be taught, I’m just arguing in this thread because Dio is either talking out of both sides of his mouth, or his grip on reality has come undone.
People who claim their opinions are facts tick me off. People who contradict themselves tick me off. Hypocrites tick me off.
Did you mean this. If so I stick by what I said. You should not selectively choose to ignore establish theory in teaching science.
By the way nice to answer criticism with curses.
I agree with your example, but I don’t think that evolution holds the same position in biology as the motion of the planets holds in astronomy. I don’t mean in terms of validity, I mean in terms of centralness and essentialness. My issue with DtC’s statement was simply that I know that vast amounts of biology can be understood without addressing the origin of species at all. I’m not advocating a curriculum, simply disagreeing with a single statement.
