A better analogy than E=MC[sup]2[/sup] would be a physics teacher who won’t mention gravity because it’s “just a theory.”
Darwin is to biology what Newton is to physics.
But is it impossible to have any knowledge of biology without knowledge of evolution?
Ok, I see your Prior post, I went off with a hair trigger without reading further back, I have been in and out of this thread.
My Emily Litella moment for the week.
Nevermind.
This kind of absolutist, literalist “gotcha” soes not really make for a powerful rebuttal. Evolution is the central theory behind all biology. It makes no sense to teach biology without it.
I used to teach guitar. I always made sure I taught some music theory along with the riffs. Instead of just teaching them to play a chord, I explained what a triad was and why a minor chord was a minor chord. I tried to teach them some basics about reading music, even though it would have been easy just to use tablature. I played in bands with lots of guys who could play instruments in the sense that they knew where to put their fingers and mechanically play the songs, but they didn’t know the names of the chords they were playing, it was difficult to communicate arrangements to them and (for most of them) their compositional and improvisational abilities were nil. I would not consider them to have had any real understanding of music, even though they had trained themselves in some basic performance skills.
I would consider your gardener example to be somewhat analogous.
I don’t agree with that. Newton’s observations and the conclusions he drew from them are the basis of everything that followed him, until relativity and quantum mechanics came along. Newton’s work was physics until the atomic structure was worked out. Darwin’s observations and conclusions were important, but cellular structure and functions, cell division, germ theory, genetics; many important and fundamental elements of biology do not depend on Darwin, and in fact have nothing to do with his work.
I’m not anti-evolution. I’m anti rash unsupportable statements. It doesn’t help the cause of Darwin or science or anything else to exaggerate the importance of evolution.
Like I said. You are being pitted for, among other things, making absolute statements of fact and then trying to weasel out of it. Why not just say what you really mean in the first place? You are an articulate guy. If what you meant was “knowledge of evolution is essential to a complete understanding of biology” why not just say that? Why claim a ‘gotcha’?
To be clear. Do you really mean that no one who plays music and cannot read it has a real understanding of it? I would not want to go all ‘literalist’ on you.
Not really. Gravity is just a force-- one of many different forces. It’s possible to teach plenty of physics w/o knowing anything about gravity, per se. But gravity is something everyone experienced first hand everyday. Almost no one experiences evolution first hand, so it only makes sense to use gravity as the “force of interes”.
Evolution is certainly the underpinning of all modern biology. But you can teach almost all of biology without ever mentioning evolution. You can even teach so-called micro-evolution as part of a lesson on heredity. But think about it-- cell structure, cell processes, body structure and function, organ function, reproduction (wink) can all be taught without ever mentioning evolution.
You can’t teach how populations of organism change over time without teaching evolution, but that’s just a tiny part of any school biology curriculum, unless it’s a highly specialized class in which case it’d be an elective anyway.
You wouldn’t be able to teach how the universe came to be the way it is w/o teaching about gravity, but that also is a just a tiny part of what would be taught in phsyics, if it’s taught at all.
So maybe in a sense evolution and gravity are analogous, but both are necessary to teach only a small fraction of the entire subject, and that fraction would be more suited to advanced students anyway (ie, taken as an elective). I wouldn’t expect either to be covered in general “science” class.
Because it’s essential to even a basic understanding of biology. The key word here is understanding, not just a superficial knowledge of some observable phenomena
I didn’t just say those who can’t read it, but those who don’t know any theory at all. (i.e. they don’t know anything about scales, harmonies, chords or key). They might be able to play it but they don’t understand it. A very few people can be extraordinarily intuitive about it but even they don’t really understand it. They’re still doing things the hard way and would save themselves a lot of hassle by learning some theory.
I just don’t get how you can do a good job teaching Biology without teaching Mendel and Evolution. It would seem to be a great disservice to the students.
I still think this would be like teaching physics without teaching E=MC[sup]2[/sup].
You can teach basic physics without this, but you shouldn’t, should you?
If in a theoretical sense you mean, I can teach about DNA & mitochondria without teaching Evolution, I have to concede you are right. But it would be a poor biology class.
I would be upset if by third grader came home an talked about how they learned “Brontosauruses” lived in swamps because they were incapable of support there own weight on land. I expect teaching to teach reasonably up to date theories of science, not abandoned theories.
Teaching Evolution is central to todays understanding of life and biology. I just can’t see it being optional.
Oh, and btw… From my persepective at least, this whole little hijack boils down to your series of posts way back there where you essentially said (and I’m just summarizing your point, not quoting you): Children have a right, guaranteed by the 14th amendment, to have evolution taught to them. If you actually believe that, then let’s start a GD thread and debate it. If not, I’ll be happy to drop it.
I explicitly said you could teach heredity (even if you didn’t teach evolution).
Of course it would!!! But that wasn’t the point. The claim was made that is impossible to teach biology w/o teaching evoluiton, not that it would be a dissservice to do so.
But we’re talking about a general science class taught to, say, 5th graders. The stuff you take in high school is all elective, so it makes no sense to say “it is required to teach all students…”. At the pre-secondary level, I don’t see any need to get into advanced topics like evolution, relativity, or the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle for that matter. Teach evolution or don’t teach evolution-- it just doesn’t matter until you get to advanced topics.
To be more precise, my position is that the 14th Amendment assures children access to the same level of education as what is offered in public schools. If pubkic schools teach evolution, then all kids have a right to be educated about it and parents do not have a right to deprive their kids of that access.
Actually, yes, you should probably omit most of Einstein’s work from a basic physics class, unless you’re covering the history of the field. Einstein’s work is advanced physics.
Do you know of any court, anywhere, that has agreed with your view of what the Fourteenth Amendment requires?
Hey y’all. Contribute here if you like. Perhaps we can get some thoughts from others.
What I want to know is if Dio thinks parents that homeschool their children (in Kansas only, perhaps) should be required, by his logic, to teach their children intelligent design.
Only if you think evolution is as important to biology as mechanics are to physics.
Now, I don’t know about biology classes, but I do know about physics courses. And the first semester of college-level physics is pretty much all Newtonian mechanics. And the next couple, although not about mechanics, do use calculus (which Newton was instrumental in creating) rather extensively.
Perhaps someone whose more familiar with biology curriculums could state if Darwin and his theories are as influential there as Newtons are to physics?
Ok, but even on grammar school level it school be at least briefly gone over along with animal classifications. Probably only need a week or less to provide a basic grounding that the theory is out there.
But that says nothing at all about whether it is necessary. (I’ve startd a GD thread if you care to check it out.)
I’ll say. Evidently, establishing as fact that evolution is a more fit subject for the science classroom than is creationism, ipso facto establishes that Dio has not been shown to have advocated legislation to enforce his views, per Mtgman’s claims.
Hey Diogenes, did you bring enough for everybody?