This is something that often occurs to me when I’m reading a thread on creationism or evolution. Inevitably, the whole thread boils down to people talking past each other, usually because they are not coming from a common frame of reference. I personally think that anyone who believes that the earth was created 6000 years ago, in the face of all evidence, is being willfully stupid, but it doesn’t bother me that they want to believe that. AFAICT, it has no impact on daily life. People who support evolution in these debates, however, frequently act as if a belief in ID is tantamount to Armageddon. If you believe in ID, then you’re a stupid, ignorant savage who will lead mankind into a new dark age of superstition, fear and barbarism. That’s obviously hyperbolic nonsense. Really, baring someone who pursues a career in the sciences, what difference does it make? I know plenty of people who believe in creationism who lead perfectly normal, healthy, happy productive lives. IOW, does the evolution versus creationism “debate” (I put debate in quotes because there really is no debate; going by the facts alone, evolution wins with a clean knockout in the first round) actually have any bearing on real life (again, baring in the sciences, where facts obviously do matter)?
People may believe as they wish.
The controversies mostly arise when idiots try to force ID or Creationism into the Public Schools. Science classes in the Public Schools should deal with Science.
In fact, most Private Schools teach Science, too. But they aren’t supported by our taxes.
How do you get scientists for the sciences if you don’t teach science?
If all who believe in creationism would STFU in the public sphere, it would be no problem. Astrology buffs don’t try to get it taught in schools, and while we may think them stupid, it’s no big deal. Remember that before the Supreme Court decisions these people managed to prevent evolution from being taught. Now they just want evolution to be treated as only equal to their myths, which subverts the entire idea of science. How do you teach kids about science being based on evidence and logic when you must teach something that isn’t as being equal.
On a more practical level, someone who doesn’t understand evolution is not going to understand why buying products that encourage the development of superbugs is not a good idea, and is not going to really understand why preserving species on the verge of extinction matters. If this sort of policy only affected them it would be no great loss, but it affects all of us also.
What do you have against fighting ignorance anyway? :dubious:
I couldn’t have said it better.
What harm would there be, really, if schools were required to teach the “stork theory” of human reproduction alongside the mainstream science-centric view? Or perhaps dental schools could include a course on the Tooth Fairy in their curricula. Really, what does it matter whether we know how electricity works, or just assume light bulbs are powered by magic?
There are many times where we can use the principle of natural selection in our daily lives. If you like to garden, or are involved in agriculture, natural selection is of some importance. The overprescription of antibiotics might decline if people understood the consequence of selecting for resistant bacteria and didn’t demand them from their doctor every time they got a cold.
An ID proponent might say that I’ve provided examples of microevolution and that macroevolution (speciation) doesn’t make any impact on our daily lives. My reply is–so what? Neither does great literature, but we teach that. I could point to any number of subjects and discard them as nonessential. A strictly utilitarian approach to education is, IMO, a bad one. To throw out evolution because it’s controversial is idiotic. It’s beautiful, it’s inspiring, and it’s correct–so it belongs as much as any other scientific principle or any great novel.
It matters whenever a policy maker makes decisions based on faulty information. The policy maker could be working in education, environmental regulation, foreign policy, etc. Education has been covered, I won’t beat that horse. The links to environmental and foreign policy are maybe more subtle, but real nonetheless.
Even if the knowledge is not used by most in their daily lives, you still need to set the groundwork for those that might be able to make use of it. There is no way to tell in advance which individual might contribute greatly to our understanding of the world around us, lets not make their job twice as difficult.
So, willful ignorance doesn’t bother you at all? Okay, Vinyl Turnip sacrifices crucified babies in the woods and feed the bodies to rats. It’s part of his/her demon-centered religion, which has at least 100,000 followers nationwide. Go get 'em.
Maybe whoosh? At least that’s what I thought.
Definitely a whooosh.
The problem is, what do you leave out so you have time to teach the “stork theory”? At least at the schools I went to, there was always stuff we didn’t cover in classes because there wasn’t time. It was most obvious in history classes- my Modern European history class never got past WWI, and we briefly covered Watergate in the last day or two of my American history class.
Hey, whooshes happen. I was too lazy to bother with quoting from the OP, which I assume is not a whoosh. But I’d be happy to be wrong.
There are a couple of reasons why it matters:
- Intelligent design is not science. It should not be taught as science. And since there is no reason to believe in ID, it should not be taught in schools at all. Suppose that I believe that the universe was created be a bowl of Golden Flax from an alternate dimension. There’s no reason to believe it, of course, but can it be taught in schools?
Now, I realize that some people believe that it should be merely mentioned that ID is what some people believe. That depends what class it’s in. Should it be mentioned in a class on philosophy? Of course. In a science class? No.
- It is a clear and obvious attempt to subvert the seperation of church and state. If you cannot see this, you have your head firmly planted in the sand.
Hey, people, Kansas has gone from attacking evolutionary theory to something much more substantitive:
That was a pretty big whoosh. Good show. In other news, “Crucified Babies” = should be a band name by now. Another useless observation: nailing the baby’s little arms to a tiny cross would be sorta difficult I imagine.
I agree with this. You could teach a lot of nonsense in public school that “wouldn’t matter” to most people.
For the case of science, I don’t see how it would make a bit of difference if things happened w/o a ‘God’ over trillions of years, or was all done by ‘God’ in a much shorter time but in a way that appears to have taken trillions of years.
Well the only difference is if ‘God’ did a imperfect job and made detectable mistakes, but if we assume a perfect ‘God’, no mistakes can be made, unless it was done on purpose.
kanicbird could you elaborate? I’m honestly not sure what it is you’re saying.
Actually, Kansas’ State Board of Education now has a pro-evolution, pro-science majority. Apparently the wingnuts wore out their welcome.
Because if you teach intelligent design as a scientific fact, then you’re promoting a religion. If you can succeed in convincing people that ID is a science, then you can pull out your Bible and point out that Christianity is true because it is corroborated by “science” - as opposed to Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism or Wicca, none of which have any “scientific” basis to their belief.
Suppose, as a counter-example, that I taught students that it was a scientific fact that Earth was originally settled by aliens from another planet and produced “evidence” to prove this. Then later on, my students encounter Christianity (which says that God created Adam and Eve) and Scientology (which says that Xenu transported people to Earth from another planet). Based on their existing belief that aliens settled Earth, which religion now sounds more credible?