Interesting debate. I'd like to add a few penny's worth, if I may.
"Theory" is not the same thing as "theory". When Creationsists go to school boards and complain how evolution is just a "theory", they are trying to pull one over on you. When a scientist talks about a theory, they mean something very different from an English Professor talking about a 'theory'. Scientific theory, according to Popper, must be "falsifiable". That is, Scientific theory must directly or indirectly predictions which can be measured. This usually results in Technology, the application of the predictions of Theory.
Examples:
The computer that you are using to view this message is "proof" that Maxwell's Equations and Electromagnitism are good Theories.
Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria are good examples of microevolution. Pharmacutical Companies use microevolution all the time to create robust strains of protein producing bacteria.
Quote:
|
Anyways, back on topic, Creation is a widely accepted theory, possibly more so than evolution... so, why does it not make sense to have it taught in schools.
|
But that's just the thing. It's NOT an accepted theory. The vast (>90%) of scientists will tell you that Creationism is not a scientific theory (it fails to make useful predictions). It is a widely accepted _Story_.
Quote:
|
So instead of calling me names, try telling me why both philosophies can't be taught.
|
Sure, they can be taught side by side. In a philosophy classroom. Creationism has no place in a science classroom at any primary or secondary school. Sure, kids should learn about creationism as an example of something that _isn't_ science, but there is no reason to do it at such a young age. It will just confuse them. Similarly, no one teaches imaginary numbers to third graders. There's no reason to teach about the philosophy of science in grade school (well, maybe in the last two years of highschool).
Quote:
|
Atoms, as well as many other scientific rules are based on theories. Not proven, not factual, just predictable.
|
They're not just predictable. They're VERY predictable. Around the turn of the century (1800-1900), chemists and physicists were very intersted in the study of energy and heat. The science of Thermodynamics was born. For a given body, there seemed to be a nearly linear relation between the amound of energy of the body and the temperature of the body. Many theories were made and tested. Why was this relationship so linear? Why did this relationship change at extremely high and low temeratures? Einstein's analysis of a solid as a collection of "Atoms" resulted in one of the first theories of matter that matched very well with experimental obersvations in Specific Heats. While Scientists had been kicking around the idea for a while, it was this study of specifc heats and other areas of interest in Thermodynamics that really cemented the validity of the Atomic Hypothesis. The Atomic Hypothesis still survives to this day. Althrough the revolutions in Quantum physics and High energy particle physics have altered our understanding of what Atoms are, the fundamental assumption of descrete mass still stands. The Atomic Hypothesis is probably up there with Maxwell's equations as the most well documented and well-"proven" Scientific Theory.
Now then, I told that little story so that hopefully people have a better understanding of what science is. It very easily to talk about Popper and Falsifiability, but it's almost too academic and meaningless. In the end, Science is about coming up with ways to explain our observations of the world. Each explanation is called a Theory. But one should also notice something about these Theories. And hopefully it was evident in that story I told. A good Scientific Theory doesn't just explain one thing. A good Scientific Theory has to fit with the Other Scientific Theories. Think of Science as a big jigsaw puzzle. Holding a single piece in your hand is irrelevant. You have to find the piece that fits in the right place.
Evolution is not a good Scientific Theory just because we dug up some bones. Evolution isn't a good Scientific Theory just because we know something about DNA. Evolution isn't a good Scientific Theory just because we can breed donkies and horses.
Evolution is a good Scientific Theory because of ALL of these things. Evolution is good because the puzzle piece fits. It explains all these phenomenon and gives us further insights. It is Elegant.