Comments on: Head explodes again http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2009/03/24/head-explodes-again/ As honest as a gambling man can be Fri, 10 Sep 2010 04:22:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Mr. McLaren http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2009/03/24/head-explodes-again/comment-page-1/#comment-56134 Mr. McLaren Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:51:05 +0000 http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/?p=2444#comment-56134 Instead of answering the question as you posed it let me say this: I'm pretty much with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_Science" rel="nofollow">Karl Popper</a> on my philosophy of science. I would be delighted to have schools emphasize in their science curricula that all scientific knowledge is not objective fact, but rather is our most useful understanding in each case--that these things represent not <em>how the universe is</em> in any objective sense, but rather that they represent our best model <em>so far</em>. In that light, I'd be fine with evolutionary theory being taught in that kind of context. Calling out evolution specifically as something that's somehow different from the rest of our scientific body of knowledge, as is proposed here, is a completely different thing. And, of course, we all know that what's happening there isn't really about misunderstanding scientific theory as 100% truth--it's about creationists trying to find ways to sneak their BS into science curricula. Instead of answering the question as you posed it let me say this: I’m pretty much with Karl Popper on my philosophy of science. I would be delighted to have schools emphasize in their science curricula that all scientific knowledge is not objective fact, but rather is our most useful understanding in each case–that these things represent not how the universe is in any objective sense, but rather that they represent our best model so far.

In that light, I’d be fine with evolutionary theory being taught in that kind of context. Calling out evolution specifically as something that’s somehow different from the rest of our scientific body of knowledge, as is proposed here, is a completely different thing.

And, of course, we all know that what’s happening there isn’t really about misunderstanding scientific theory as 100% truth–it’s about creationists trying to find ways to sneak their BS into science curricula.

]]> By: Jason Hinsperger http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2009/03/24/head-explodes-again/comment-page-1/#comment-56133 Jason Hinsperger Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:01:47 +0000 http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/?p=2444#comment-56133 Re-read the article, and remove these two sentences: <blockquote>Dr. McLeroy believes that God created the earth less than 10,000 years ago.</blockquote> and <blockquote>He also wants the texts to make the case that individual cells are far too complex to have evolved by chance mutation and natural selection, an argument popular with those who believe an intelligent designer created the universe</blockquote> Is there anything wrong with pointing out the gaps in the theory of evolution? We are still a long way from describing the origin of humanity, and while I agree that creationism has no place in schools, I do think we tend to present a lot of information as a 100% truth without discussing any of the related unknowns. I know that isn't what they are trying to do in Texas, but I think the argument could have been much more persuasive had the ideas in above 2 sentences been left out of the proposal. Re-read the article, and remove these two sentences:

Dr. McLeroy believes that God created the earth less than 10,000 years ago.

and

He also wants the texts to make the case that individual cells are far too complex to have evolved by chance mutation and natural selection, an argument popular with those who believe an intelligent designer created the universe

Is there anything wrong with pointing out the gaps in the theory of evolution? We are still a long way from describing the origin of humanity, and while I agree that creationism has no place in schools, I do think we tend to present a lot of information as a 100% truth without discussing any of the related unknowns.
I know that isn’t what they are trying to do in Texas, but I think the argument could have been much more persuasive had the ideas in above 2 sentences been left out of the proposal.

]]>