J
JakTak
Guest
I recently read a magazine article in National Geographic concerning Evolution in the Textbooks of the public school system. It was the first time I have ever TRUELY seen evolutionists battle other evolutionists over what they believe happened, and what should be included in the science textbooks.
The battle over textbook contents was very interesting because both scientists believed the same exact thing. The earth is billions of years old and on and on with their story. What was interesting is that both had their own ideas as to what should and shouldn't be allowed in the textbook. Because I have forgotten their names, I'll use Bill and Bob.
Bob, being a conservative scientist, believes that absolutely NOTHING should be included in a scientific textbook unless it has first been completely proven. Secondly, he said it's ok to include theories as long as the writer explains clearly that a THEORY is only an EDUCATED GUESS and that IT MAY NOT BE TRUE. He went on to argue that the books present this information as if the theories HAVE BEEN PROVEN and are infact, TRUE.
Bill argued that if such a 'theory rule' was imposed on textbooks, it would lead students to believe that scientists such as himself do not know what they are talking about. As this would make students wonder what the truth is, and the object of school is not to make children wonder, but to give them answers. The theories we have now are completely fine, it is when children grow older that they can form their own opinions about evolution.
Of course Bob had to step in and counter this argument because 1) A scientist who makes unproven claims should not be in the position in the first place, as he obviously does not have proof. and 2) That without a desire to learn, a wonder, children would all grow up to be dumb.
Bills only response to Bob was that he was unable to make decisions, and that children would become 'confused' because theories are already hard to understand.
-----------------
My only statement on this is that it's finally great to see leading scientists battle each other over evolution, whether than creationists. It may be possible that the evolution vs evolution battle will lead to more clear-headed views about using unproven 'theories' in textbooks.
Anyone else care to comment? Maybe you've seen or read this article and remember more about it.
The battle over textbook contents was very interesting because both scientists believed the same exact thing. The earth is billions of years old and on and on with their story. What was interesting is that both had their own ideas as to what should and shouldn't be allowed in the textbook. Because I have forgotten their names, I'll use Bill and Bob.
Bob, being a conservative scientist, believes that absolutely NOTHING should be included in a scientific textbook unless it has first been completely proven. Secondly, he said it's ok to include theories as long as the writer explains clearly that a THEORY is only an EDUCATED GUESS and that IT MAY NOT BE TRUE. He went on to argue that the books present this information as if the theories HAVE BEEN PROVEN and are infact, TRUE.
Bill argued that if such a 'theory rule' was imposed on textbooks, it would lead students to believe that scientists such as himself do not know what they are talking about. As this would make students wonder what the truth is, and the object of school is not to make children wonder, but to give them answers. The theories we have now are completely fine, it is when children grow older that they can form their own opinions about evolution.
Of course Bob had to step in and counter this argument because 1) A scientist who makes unproven claims should not be in the position in the first place, as he obviously does not have proof. and 2) That without a desire to learn, a wonder, children would all grow up to be dumb.
Bills only response to Bob was that he was unable to make decisions, and that children would become 'confused' because theories are already hard to understand.
-----------------
My only statement on this is that it's finally great to see leading scientists battle each other over evolution, whether than creationists. It may be possible that the evolution vs evolution battle will lead to more clear-headed views about using unproven 'theories' in textbooks.
Anyone else care to comment? Maybe you've seen or read this article and remember more about it.