Re: or is you talking to me? -- world

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

05/18/26 8:17:09pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5 ]

Subject: Re: or is you talking to me?

Author:
krz

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11/17/04 11:10:06am
In reply to: tjm 's message, "is you talking to me?" on 11/17/04 11:01:48am

what i'd really like is to use this discussion as an opportunity to teach science. I've been mulling over tjm's idea of putting content in the social science courses (like it by the way) rather than in the science curriculum.

I think if one could set up a teaching unit that laid out clear criterion for evaluation of a theory - based on what actually happens in science, then by default the creationist argument is difficult -

(1) a theory can never be proven true (neither can 'evolution' be proven as truth)
(2) a theory must be testable (not sure how one tests creationism or intelligent design for that matter - so they really aren't counterpoint 'theories' as much as they are world views. Ergo, appropriately discussed in the social sciences.)
(3) a theory's utility is based on the preponderance of evidence - coming from different sources. That with the best (read 'strongest') evidence is the going theory at the moment - at least until a better one comes along.

What a great way to teach science - embed in the children the tools with which to form logical arguments. I personally have no problem with the topic coming up in science classes; I have a problem with bad science teachers who don't look upon this as an opportunity to shape thought (not to engender a conclusion).

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]