Quote:
Originally posted by riptide4070
What about the arguement of public schools only teaching evolution and not creationism as well? Especially when the big bang hasn't been proven. How can the "chance" of everything starting the way we learn it in school be true?
|
That's simple. Schools are supposed to teach the truth, and by teaching evolution they do so.
The creationist argument that their theory's should be included simply because they cannot be 'proven' to be false is patently flawed.
Some opinions, theories, and ideas are more grounded and worthy of acceptance than others.
For instance (Stealing from Douglas Adams) if I were of the opinion that the moon was made out of Norwiegen Beaver Cheese, my 'theory' would not automatically be entitled to a place in the classroom simply because we can't 'prove' that it isn't (Notice that the standard of proof in this sense will always be higher than is obtainable).
In the real world, when we are confronted with several possibilities, we have to evaluate all the available relevant evidence, and choose the most likely possibility. Since every single scrap of evidence in every single major scientific discipline (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Anthropology, Geography) points towards evolution, then that is what deserves to be taught.
The assertion that creationism is a competing theory to evolution is just flat out false. As a scientific theory it is dead. It is no more valid than my assertion that the moon is made out of Norwiegen Beaver Cheese because they both fall into the category of untestible (by test I mean personally set foot on the moon and attempt to eat a moonrock). Theories that are untestable are not theories, they are....conjectures:
Conjecture
1 obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : SUPPOSITION
2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved
Contrast this to the definition of a scientic theory:
Definition: [n] a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
Notice that it must 1: Explain scientific observations, which creationist theory fails to do spectacularly, and 2: It must be falsifiable, meaning it can be tested.
Since the theory of creation can't really be tested, it isn't actually a theory.
And to answer your original post, I do not think there is an athiest agenda.
I think that schools should concern themselves with matters of fact, and that the presence of religion in schools should be restricted to quiet observance of ones personal beliefs. In other words, people should be able to believe whatever they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to force their religious agendas into the curriculum.
It is probably worth noting that the official position of the catholic church on this issue is pro-evolution. In fact, they just recently reaffirmed this stance. And we can't really accuse the vatican of being a big bunch of athiests with an agenda
