Centerfield

I would like to see more discussion of the scientific method, and how we decide what things are true.

Public education is about preparing citizens, not just a trade school. The main purpose of science class is to teach reasoning, not to stuff kids with facts.

It would also be good if we could teach people that there is uncertainty, it is reasonable to estimate the probability that certain explanations are true.

My own probability estimates:

That evolution occurred as a historical event--99.99% certainty.

That the theory of natural selection as put forth by Darwin and his successors fully explains the processes which caused evolution--45%

Rick,

How do you come up with your probability estimates? Unless you are a paleontologist, they just seem to be guessing. The point is that a scientific "theory" is not the same thing as common usage; it's not saying something is possible, it's saying that, as of now, this is the state of scientific knowledge.

I disagree with BK, although I agree it's a peculiar decision. Saying that evolution is only a "theory" IS an attempt to impose religion. It's utterly inappropriate to require a statement like that in a public school setting, especially since we KNOW what the agenda of these people are--it's to undermine the idea of evolution in favor of a religious interpretation of the origin of life. That is inappropriate.

Those probabilities come out of my butt.

Basically, the 99.99% estimate of evolution is based on a historical record or fossils and molecular analysis of DNA from various species which independently tell a consistent story. The only chance that it didn't occur is if the Earth was created as an elaborate hoax with fossils pre-existing in the ground and DNA arranged to look as if species evolved. I put the likelihood of a cosmic hoax as

On the other hand, I think there are real problems with the state of our knowledge of the mechanism by which evolution occurred. So I place the likelihood that we have no major surprises in store before we have it nailed down at

Regarding the word "theory" there is a tremendous amount of confusion over what it means. The non-scientists usage means "speculative hypothesis" whereas scientists will use theory for a solid explanation of the data. Religious fundamentalists are trying to make use of an error in semantics by saying it's "only a theory" and therefore likely to be in error.

The only chance that it didn't occur is if the Earth was created as an elaborate hoax with fossils pre-existing in the ground and DNA arranged to look as if species evolved.

Which is exactly the argument some creationists make. Bt how can you trust a god that has to post-date his reality checks?

I don't see anything wrong with mentioning other theories of creation in textbooks, but I agree with MWS; it's very difficult to look past the reasons many people want such things in school textbooks.
And also the core of science is the scientific method and creationism and intelligent design are not representative of that method. Evolution has mountains of evidence that has survived the process. I suddenly want to read about the Scopes Monkey trial again.

I have no problem at all with creation theories in textbooks!

(Pick your jaw up...there's a catch.)

When I went to middle school and high school, there was always an elective called "Comparitive Religion" that examined the basic tenets of the major world religions. Anyone could take it, it didn't "promote" any religion, it simply examined them. And it's just the right class for textbooks with creation theories. From all the religions included in the course.

Science class is not the place, because creationism is not science. It's religion. That simple. The drive to use the state in any fashion to discredit science when it conflicts with someone's religious doctrine is, or to promote one particular brand o creationism over others, has has been ruled by the courts over and over and over again as an unconstitutional attempt to promote religion. As there are literally hundreds if not thousands of creation myths from the universe of religions, promoting one particular myth in preference to all the others is indeed an unconstitutional effort to promote a particular religion.

Creationism is not "theories" of creation in any scientific sense of the word. It's religion. And it shouldn't be taught in science classrooms, or used as a pretext to suppress the teaching of science. Teaching it as part of courses that examine religion is a different matter, and shold be perfectly acceptable.

When I went to middle school and high school, there was always an elective called "Comparitive Religion" that examined the basic tenets of the major world religions.

I agree, but I went to high school that didn't offer an elective like that. I'm not saying one religon should be put forward above all else, but I see nothing wrong with letting students know some people don't buy the evolution explanation. But I must confess, that type of curriculum may not have any place in a science class.

From my perspective what Tully just posted seems sensible.
But I hang out with a lot of the creationist types, and from their perspective evolution is a LIE. For them the bible is the final arbitrator of truth. And for a lot of them that lie is the work of the devil, (no I'm not making this up, its straight from a dozen horses mouths) so as good Christians it is their duty to battle Satan and his works.

For them its doesn't appear to be about teaching the bible its about removing an obviously FALSE, satanic inspired piece of information from our schools.

The south is a truly unique place to live. Y'all come down and visit us, hear.

Lived there, Bob, and we have some of those folk right here in Kansas. Occasionally they become a majority on the state school board and we get to go through this all over again in the courts. As we probably will this year.

Yeah, I'm familar with what the creationists want. But scientists are not going to let them get it. And this is in large part because science has better explanations, like evolution, and better miracles, like cell phones and the internet and allegra and MRIs and instant soup so on.

But if there's one thing that science can do to live with creationists and do without sacrificing an inch on the scientific method, it's to freely acknowledge how the idea of theory works within the scientific method. They don't really need to concern themselves with what it means in common parlance other than to try to make clear what it means in scientific parlance, and maybe spread this.

OF COUSE evolution is a theory, in the same way that so many oither scientific ideas that ultimately aren't 100 objectively verifiable are theories. Evolution is a theory, but it's not JUST a theory. All theories are not equal. Some have tons of evidence, and others have none.

So that's what I advocate scientists stress. It definitely is a theory, and it's also definitely not JUST a theory, it's one of the best and most plausible explanations we have, and it has a ton of supporting evidence. Science should view all clashes such as this as OPPORTUNITIES to teach. Scientists believe in the marketplace of ideas, and that the best ideas will win.

Evolution is JUST a theory? Nope. It's a very robust and well investigated theory with tons of backing evidence. You got an alternative? Bring it! Oh, it's quite lame compared to evolution and fails to provide objective and verifiable evidence to support it? That's a shame. Thanks for playing.

Scientific method is at the gate. If you agree on the rules, you get to play on the science field. If you don't agree to those rules, you're not playing science, you're playing philosophy. We respect you and wish you well, but you're playing a different game. Take you faith ball and go play on the faith field, and we'll keep our scientific method ball off of your field. Or you can try playing with your ball on our field as long as you're wiling to let us play with our ball on your field. Let's start with immaculate conception, noah's arc, jonah and the whale, walking on water, turning water to wine, and reconciling a world supposedly only a few thousand years old with carbon dating and the speed of light. No? That sounds like a nightmare? Hmm...your only explantions are that we should just believe your explanations based on faith and that therefore science must be wrong?

I always like to tell them that gravity is also a theory. “So make sure you hold on reeeal tight.”

We were out kayaking a couple of weeks ago (strangely enough with a geologist and a creationist) on a man made lake. When I pointed out the number of strata exposed at the top of the submerged mountain, he said he didn't need to count them, since the bible told him there were only about 6000. The geologist said “no comment” and just keep paddling.

Bob J Young...

Wow.

This may be one of the few times where I'm actually almost speechless.

Yea. Sometimes I think I'm living in a weird parallel universe. If you think that's shocking you should hear them talk about how mental illness is caused by demons.

It was one of the few times in my life I was speechless. Most of these people are scientists, engineers and techs.

Although you have to understand where they are coming from. During my own personnel anthropological adventure into the evangelical culture, I have gotten to know some of them very well. They have had horrible and traumatic lives, that their faith has saved them from. I'm talking about drugs, alcohol, rape, child abuse....... Turning their lives over to Jesus has allowed them to be functional members of society.

During my own personnel anthropological adventure into the evangelical culture, I have gotten to know some of them very well. They have had horrible and traumatic lives, that their faith has saved them from. I'm talking about drugs, alcohol, rape, child abuse....... Turning their lives over to Jesus has allowed them to be functional members of society.

Yup, you're right Bob we're all ex-addicts and/or abuse victims. Guess, I'll just need to up the dose of my Prozac so I can see "the real" light.

Chris: I used the word “some”, you used the word “all”.

PS: Do demons cause mental illness?

The first person to be considered a real psychologist and who wrote the first real text seperating mental illness from demonic posession was Johann Weyer, a 16th century physician. His book De praestigiis daemonum (The Illusions of Demons) is considered the first true book on the subject. In it he argued that some who had been deceived by demons were not in themselves actually posessed, but merely deluded and "mentally ill." Weyer was fortunate not to be burned at the stake for such heresy--and for his other occult activities and writings.

This has been your infrequent digressive moment in obscure bibliographical history.

Hmmmm!
Maybe I should check outside for an angry mob.

If they don't have torches they're just a pale imitation.

Well I certainly seem to have the ability to irritate and inflame people. But so far no torches in sight.

PS: Should I feel slighted? After all, if nobody has tried to burn me at he stake, I can't be much of a heretic. Maybe I should try harder?

We roast folks electronically now. Beware wild-eyed people bearing toasters, asking you to step in puddles.

Seriously, Bob, as I have told more than one newly-elected politician, no matter what you do you'll piss off half the people all the time. Might as well do what you think's right, eh?

Well in that case:

TO THE RAMPARTS! Let us defend the bastions of science from the superstitious savages.

Let not death diswade us, for glory awaits us in the next Blog entry!

Of course, in physical 1-on-1 with the wild-eyed, discretion is advised....

Bob;

From my perspective what Tully just posted seems sensible. But I hang out with a lot of the creationist types

Why?

Which do you mean?
Why do I hang out with them, or why do I think its sensible?

I'll answer the easier one.
A female friend at work introduced me to one her friends. He had some mutual interests (boats,camping and kayaking). He also organizes some of his churches social actives. Anymore I think they consider me their pet agnostic. Sometimes I volunteer to provide logistical support for their activities.

Believe it or not, it is possible to be friends with people who's world view is in complete conflict with your own. We have had some very interesting discussions. Although neither side has managed to convert the other, I think we have both grown from the interaction.

Believe it or not, it is possible to be friends with people who's world view is in complete conflict with your own. We have had some very interesting discussions. Although neither side has managed to convert the other, I think we have both grown from the interaction.

Amen! (No pun intended.) People are much more than their opinions, and most shared human values far transcend politics and religion. Tolerance and acceptance of diversity are learned by practice. How can you expect anyone to respect your views without despising you (not agree, respect) if you won't respect theirs? If you treat everyone who disagrees with you about anything as an enemy?