Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Classroom Clashes Over Science Education

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the preach-the-controversy dept.

Education 493

cheezitmike writes "In a two-part series, the American Academy for the Advancement of Science examines two hot-button topics that create clashes in the classroom between science teachers and conservative-leaning students, parents, school boards, and state legislatures. Part 1 looks at the struggle of teachers to cover evolution in the face of religious push-back from students and legislatures. Part 2 deals with teaching climate change, and how teachers increasingly have to deal with political pressure from those who insist that there must be two sides to the discussion."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why 2 sides (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40226791)

Why 2 sides to discussions that have been scientifically settled? Have the other side of the discussion in Sunday School.

Re:Why 2 sides (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227157)

These are not conservative leaning. They are religious zealots. They need to stop making people right of center seem like that they are all crazed idiots.

Re:Why 2 sides (1)

kilodelta (843627) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227829)

Exactly on point! They are religious zealots who wish THEIR world view on everyone else. So when the water is lapping at their door, maybe then the religious nitwits will understand the real ramifications of climate change.

Re:Why 2 sides (4, Insightful)

kenh (9056) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227171)

Simple, because it is science class - teach the children, don't dictate to them, welcome their challenges as a sign of an engaged, but misinformed, student and work to inform their decisions.

If a student is forced to accept what is told to him without question by either a person behind a lecturn or behind a pulpit, the pulpit stands a better chance of winning over the student - the church offers snacks.

Re:Why 2 sides (5, Insightful)

Moofie (22272) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227249)

"If a student is forced to accept what is told to him without question" then the student is not in a science classroom.

However, if when the question is answered with facts and data, the student persists in the Truth of an untenable hypothesis which is not supported by facts and data, the student ought not presume to get a good grade in a science class.

Science is not a religion. I say this as both a scientist, and a religious person.

Re:Why 2 sides (4, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227465)

Get the right answers on the test and it shouldn't matter what the student believes. Students should not be graded on beliefs but on results. Generally science classes aren't given essay tests so no philosophy needs to be presented by the student. I've never seen science test that just ask "is evolution a fact", instead they have questions like "what is eohippus" or "what are some of the consequences of a rising global temperature", things that you can answer and get full credit on even if you think the topics are bunk. They can be answered without lying by phrasing certain way (prefix it with "according to many researchers" for example).

The danger here is rejecting one dogma and replacing it with a different dogma. And this danger becomes apparent when you see statements that a student should fail because of their beliefs, or that a scientist is fired because of it.

another danger (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227733)

If the religious parents of a child explain "give the answers they want even though we know they are wrong thanks to the Bible," the fact remains that the student is being exposed to evidence that undermines his faith.

This is what the religious practitioners all fear. When a young and impressionable mind is exposed to challenging information, no amount of preparation can prevent at least some of it from making an impression. So, it is not sufficient to keep religious discussions in the church and to allow secular discussions at school. Any exposure to religion-undermining memes *at all* is a threat to parent's goal of keeping control over their child's beliefs.

No amount of enlightened philosophizing will convince such parents that it is ok to keep secular education secular. And telling them to send their kid to private school is no good either; most religious parents either can't or won't pay for it. They want the property-tax-funded public education for their child, and they want to filter out anything that might challenge their religious beliefs, and they are going to fight for this tooth and nail.

You can't silence them through rational argument. There is no convincing them, and we are stuck with them. Your only option is to get just as involved, and just as pushy, and just as loud as they are.

Re:Why 2 sides (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227789)

Get the right answers on the test and it shouldn't matter what the student believes. Students should not be graded on beliefs but on results. Generally science classes aren't given essay tests so no philosophy needs to be presented by the student. I've never seen science test that just ask "is evolution a fact", instead they have questions like "what is eohippus" or "what are some of the consequences of a rising global temperature", things that you can answer and get full credit on even if you think the topics are bunk. They can be answered without lying by phrasing certain way (prefix it with "according to many researchers" for example).

The danger here is rejecting one dogma and replacing it with a different dogma. And this danger becomes apparent when you see statements that a student should fail because of their beliefs, or that a scientist is fired because of it.

Bingo! Pal had to take Women's Studies module as a Mandatory Option he wrote down the bullshit women only get 77 cent on the dollar and other unscientific crap which he knew to be wrong and which he suspected the lecturer to know to be wrong as well to pass his course.

Re:Why 2 sides (5, Insightful)

hughJ (1343331) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227683)

The problem with this is that the teachers are generally not equipped (educated) sufficiently on any particular science topic to be able to address legitimate questions from the students. Any student that's spent any amount of time digesting anti-Evolution talking points is sufficiently equipped to make your average grade school science teacher look foolish in front of the class. Simple questions are quick and easy to ask, but the answers may require extensive explanation that's either not straight forward, beyond the grade level of the class or even the teacher's own academic level.

Re:Why 2 sides (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227245)

I too, find it odd.
I mean, republicans have the CHOICE to send their kids to Private School that teaches Theology. I know.. I went to a private school for High School, even though I did not believe, i had to take Theology all 4 years.
Oddly enough, we also had science classes.
So.... parents, if you dont like the public schools teaching, look for a private school that has a totally separate class taught by nuns.

why not teach the science consensus? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40226811)

Climate change: the majority of climate scientists think it's true and a component is man-made, but a small and decreasing percentage of climate scientists disagree.

Evolution: There's all but no doubt, and essentially no reputable scientists in the field disagree with the core concepts.

QED.

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40226867)

But a substantial number of actual scientists (read: not a liberal arts major turned AGW advocate) question the anthropomorphic aspect of climate change. Including a number of Nobel prizes.

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40226991)

I don't think you know what 'anthropomorphic' means.

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227061)

I guess he meant "anthropocentric".

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (2)

Immerman (2627577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227177)

rather Anthropogenic:
            anthropo - human
              genic - producing or causing

Anthropocentric simply means to looking at thing from a human focused perspective

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (3, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227127)

Anthropomorphic aspect of climate change is pretty simple: it's when you look at it like a guy who's constantly farting in a locked room, but who keeps eating beans because they taste so nice. Which is a pretty accurate analogy, come to think of it.

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227047)

[citation needed]

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (0)

spike hay (534165) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227109)

How many of those actually study climate science or know anything about it? This sort of thing is classic appeal to authority.

There is near consensus. Accept it.

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227475)

Excuse me for asking, but... How is a climate change "specialist" any more a scientist than a physicist, a chemist, or a mathematician? If the latter three can widely pinpoint erroneous reasoning or methodology errors or incomplete data or anything else, I listen. If either in these three groups holds a Nobel price or a fields medal, I'm all ears open.

My own experience with science research breaks down to this: hold the views of your supervisor or lose funding; and he loses funding unless he holds his boss' views. Your experience might be different, assuming any. But between this and the epic narrowness I encountered back then, I do keep this takeaway: the odds of good research and ideas coming out of its own field is lower than seeing skittles getting crapped out of a unicorn's arse.

But then, as you point out, there is this classic appeal to authority. Sorry, but no. The authority I give to the specialist, as a scientist, is just above zero. In any field; not just my own. As a scientist, I'm a critical thinker, and I check facts. If a statement makes no sense to me after cursory examination of the evidence, it means that something might be hidden under the rug. If closer examination yields a hoard or cockroaches, something is absolutely wrong. And that is the position AGW got itself into over the years.

There is absolutely no consensus. Accept it.

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (3, Informative)

spike hay (534165) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227759)

A mathematician can't pinpoint errors in reasoning about climate change because he/she is not a specialist in the field. You need the knowledge to properly analyze the evidence. Serge Lang was a great algebraist/number theorist, and yet he was an AIDS/HIV denialist. Clearly his superior intelligence and logical powers were able to deduce that the AIDS researchers were wrong all along about HIV.

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227129)

Not if they have any training in climate science. If a microbiologist tells you that a physicist is wrong about quantum mechanics, that does not make the physicist's stance controversial.

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227169)

Not disagreeing, but names please.

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (2, Insightful)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227211)

I'm not sure what your point was - there is debate about the particulars, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught.

Climate change is one thing, there are people who argue it isn't even happening. The causes are another thing.

The evidence against climate change basically fell apart, and all but the looniest of loons now cling to the idea that it isn't happening. There is no doubt from any sane person, and it should be taught just as we teach about ice ages.

What causes it is still in doubt, especially since we can't easily separate out whether the earth is in a cooling or warming period, or would be if the influence of man had not happened. The potential causes should be taught as one of those "as yet unresolved" aspects of science that the next generation may be able to give a final answer to. But they need to know there is a question.

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40226869)

What does the word 'concensus' have to do with science?

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40226979)

"What does the word 'concensus' have to do with science?"

Everything. Scientific consensus matters in almost every field of science: if you're some one off guy claiming something, that's about useless unless you get a lot of your peers to agree. If they don't agree when you show them the evidence, you're probably just wrong. What's regarded as "scientific truth" comes largely FROM the consensus of the scientists in that field. Sure, it can change, they might all be wrong, blah blah, but that's the best we can really do. If most of the smart people educated highly in area X all thing the same thing, best not to bet against it. If they're divided, well, maybe we don't really know yet.

Virtually no one has the required education to evaluate many claims in many fields themselves. Thus, the 99.99% of us who aren't experts in that field must take the word of the few scientists who are. In that, consensus is everything. If 100% of the scientists all say something is the best theory of the moment, then it probably is. If a few scientists are making a new claim, then it MIGHT be true, but we just don't know yet until things solidify - they might also just be barking up the wrong tree.

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (0, Troll)

kenh (9056) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227225)

Exactly.

In Science you are either right or wrong, your proof shouldn't rely on who or how many other scientists agree with you - you either have proven your theory or not.

If you rely on concensus, you haven't proven it.

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227367)

You have no understanding of what a proof is in natural sciences. This isn't math, where everything is deductive. It is induction, and it is a numbers game. Furthermore, consensus is a good proxy for whether a scientific theory has been dissected and found valid, or whether it has been discarded for lack of predictive power. Or do you spend your life going over every scientific theory that your life depends on? Of course not. You use the experiences and work of others for that.

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (1)

mariox19 (632969) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227007)

and a component is man-made

Ay, there's the rub.

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (2, Interesting)

doconnor (134648) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227507)

Appeal to authority is not science. It is a logial fallacy.

Teachers should present the evidence and have the students decide for themselves. It would be an excellent exercise.

Re:why not teach the science consensus? (1, Troll)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227623)

Devil's advocate: Then you're teaching what the statisticians who supposedly polled, for example, climate scientists tell you to. Frankly I have absolutely no knowledge of their methods, nor do I know enough climate scientists to make a statistically significant rebuttal. Do they ask every graduate in every country? Do they do telephone surveys? How many people don't answer those surveys because surveys are retarded?

I don't for a moment think that the religious arguments have any merit, but at the same time, I hear a lot of people touting "Scientists believe X." Which scientists where? I'd really appreciate knowing the margin of error on that statistics, which people specifically were polled, and especially, which weren't. I don't know the bias of any of these statements, and as far as I can recall, I've never, ever seen it mentioned. Considering that that is extremely important in social statistics, it seems lacking.

Bigger Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40226839)

Why aren't they debating over how to actually engage students? Regardless of whether they teach evolution or creationism or climate change or how to tie your shoes, the way they're doing it is wrong and everybody knows it. They could be spending their time fixing the education system, but instead they're wasting it on this.

Re:Bigger Problem (2)

spike hay (534165) | more than 2 years ago | (#40226863)

How do you think you should teach science then? The actual problem is that most students are stupid, and they are raised by stupid parents. Throughout most of human history almost everybody hunted or worked in the field, and it's only now we expect the average individual to be able to think rationally.

Re:Bigger Problem (3, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227013)

Realistically, you can't. Science is hard and learning about it doesn't pay off in the obvious or self-gratuitous ways that matter to most people. So, the motivation will always be low, lower still if you have to work a job that does not require you to know any science, as most jobs today are.

It is a lost fight, especially in a world in which the future looks increasingly likely to be much bleaker than the past, for everybody.

Re:Bigger Problem (3, Interesting)

spike hay (534165) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227145)

I was doing some science outreach stuff at a museum a while back, and a seemingly intelligent looking thirtysomething woman with two children asked me if the Sun goes around the Earth, or the other way around. That is when I gave up.

Re:Bigger Problem (4, Interesting)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227565)

It is the same everywhere. I grew up in a rabidly atheist country, where rejecting religion was the norm, science was lauded at every opportunity and scientific education was (and still is, nominally) the norm in school. Guess what, you can observe the same lack of interest and ignorance.

When it comes to attitude towards modern science, three types of people develop:

  • - people who don't care (oh, I learned in school and I forgot about it)
  • - people who turn passively or rabidly superstitious (range is from "you must drink iodine in Europe to prevent radiation poisoning from Fukushima" to "GE should be banned forever")
  • - people who think they know all about "science" ("yes, I've studied 5 years of physics and I can tell you that HAARP concentrates solar energy by opening a hole in the atmosphere and causing changes in the Young modulus of the crust, which triggers earthquakes")

Sadly, most of the science teachers in schools gravitate towards the third group.

I guess there are two trends that collide to this sad outcome. One is, as I said above, the complexity and hardness of it all. The other is that politicians in modern democracies dislike educated population. Add to this the lack of motivation from a powerful adversary in the past 20 years or so, and the picture is really bad.

Re:Bigger Problem (2)

ultranova (717540) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227603)

I was doing some science outreach stuff at a museum a while back, and a seemingly intelligent looking thirtysomething woman with two children asked me if the Sun goes around the Earth, or the other way around. That is when I gave up.

So, after someone you had judged intelligent based on a visual analogy of phrenology asked you a question about science she may or may not have had good reasons - such as being home-schooled by a crazy cult - to be ignorant about, you gave up on educating people on science? Because, obviously, having given birth twice should have given her the basics of astronomy.

How very logical of you.

Re:Bigger Problem (1)

spike hay (534165) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227793)

Humans aren't robots, dude. I can analyze evidence mostly rationally but rationality doesn't govern all of my behavior.

Re:Bigger Problem (4, Interesting)

Immerman (2627577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227695)

Realistically, you can't. Science is hard and learning about it doesn't pay off in the obvious or self-gratuitous ways that matter to most people. So, the motivation will always be low, lower still if you have to work a job that does not require you to know any science, as most jobs today are.

It is a lost fight, especially in a world in which the future looks increasingly likely to be much bleaker than the past, for everybody.

Actually no, science is easy, we start using it long before we learn to talk as we build up a mental model of the rules governing our universe. Several studies have shown that infants and children attempting to understand a new phenomena generally experiment in a fashion very near the statistically optimal pattern for exploring a new problem-space, it's only later in life that we start expecting things to behave in neat, well behaved patterns and get stymied by counter-intuitive behaviors.

The problem is science classes generally make no attempt to teach science, just scientific knowledge, and much of that *is* complicated. And without an understanding of science itself, the knowledge is just so much trivia that you're being asked to take on faith. Teach real science, do experiments where the answer *isn't* completely known beforehand, and ideally where the answer actually matters, or at least is interesting, and you can start getting students to appreciate that unlike almost every other subject (except math) science is a living, breathing, cutthroat combative subject where theories don't get widespread acceptance without considerable evidence. Once they *really* understand the rules of the game then it becomes clear that science, while still flawed, is far more authoritative than any other field on the planet.

Heck, ideally I'd say hold a class-wide experiment once a month or so to figure something out - students work in small "research groups" attacking the problem from different angles, but by the end of the "research window" (days?, weeks?) everyone needs to reach a consensus on what the "real" answer is, with some sort of prize (pizza party? movie break?) if they're correct within a certain margin of error so that they actually care. Then, once everyone has agreed, bring in a professional who can provide a conclusive answer in an understandable manner to verify the results. Not only would that provide a taste of real science, but it would also provide a periodic reminder of the fact that in the face of an implacable universe the best speakers and most inspiring/popular/attractive students generally aren't the ones you want to be listening to if you want to get it right.

Because, at the end of the day, all you really care about in most pre-university science classes is
(A) giving everyone a general background knowledge of how the world works (they'll soon forget most the details anyway, so the big picture is the important part)
(B) inspiring those so inclined to pursue careers in research or technology (and nothing like an occasional project were you're one of the respected "inner circle" to inspire a lonely nerd)
(C) instill a certain level of respect for scientists in the form of an understanding that, unlike in virtually all other fields of life, when it comes to questions of how the world works within their area of expertise, their opinion really is worth a heck of a lot more than yours.

Re:Bigger Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227117)

I do believe in evolution and climate change but i have to say that most of these battles strike me as a big fuss over little of importance. Math, physics, chemistry, and literary analysis teach you skills. The other subjects are just masses of facts.

We're stuck here arguing about what the facts are. But we actually should be able to agree on what the skills are. Why can't that be the starting point?

I'll reiterate, if the subjects most important to everyday life (math, physics, chemistry, and literary analysis) are uncontroversial and are better indicators of rational thinking (ie the ability to derive conclusions from premises), why are we wasting so much time on debates over the denial of certain premises and/or conclusions?

Re:Bigger Problem (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227231)

I don't "believe" in either one.

I accept as fact Darwin's theorems concerning evolution based on observation and proven fact. As a Christian, this does not conflict with my beliefs.

I accept on fact that climate change as a constant thing that has happened before mankind and will likely continue afterwards. The only question that remains unsettled (in spite of shouting from either side) is how strongly mankind can and does alter climate, and what, if anything, we could *safely* do to reduce mankind's influences if indeed they are strong enough to provide adverse reactions to the system as a whole.

I limit my beliefs to matters of spiritual faith and of human emotion. Everything else requires hard evidence.

Re:Bigger Problem (1)

grumling (94709) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227141)

Actually, when people worked on farms it was likely easier to teach evolution, since selective livestock breeding is just a form of evolution.

Re:Bigger Problem (1)

jxander (2605655) | more than 2 years ago | (#40226931)

Bingo. Don't just tell kids about evolution... bring in an ornithologist (bird scientist) with Darwin's finches. Or arrange a Field Trip to take the kids out to see something where they can interact with some evolution.

As for Climate Change, we still teach kids about the Ice Age, right? Why is it so wrong to teach them that we're headed into a "warm age" or whatever you want to call it. You can include all the verbiage about how this is still theoretical, and blah blah blah ... but if you look at trends over the past 100 years, you can form a hypothesis, right? Like you said, get the students engaged. Don't just tell them about climate change, actually TEACH them how to figure these things out.

Re:Bigger Problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227087)

Showing children the evidence is an excellent way to teach evolution. However, it should be pointed out that it is just a theory AND that there is a significant unproven premise upon which the theory is built. Namely that there has never been an observed case of one species becoming another species (species being defined by the ability to reproduce withing the species, but not outside of it) Showing bones of animals from the past that look like a variant of animals that exist today (aka a primate skeleton that has some aspects similar to monkeys and some similar to humans) is hardly proof! It could just as easily be attributed to a now extinct species which originated at the same time as ours. In this scenario of mutual origination, God created the animals and while there may be some intra-special modifications due to breeding each animal still produces after its own kind.

My point is that there are legitimate alternative theories besides evolution and that leaving them out of school simple teaches students to be closed minded and accept whatever the system throws at them.

Re:Bigger Problem (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227155)

The phrase "just a theory" means that you do not know what you are talking about. Educate yourself.

Re:Bigger Problem (2)

jxander (2605655) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227187)

Which is pretty much exactly what I was getting at.

Don't tell student "evolution exists, remember finch #1, #5 and #13 for this Friday's test." Show them where the evolution theory comes from, present the evidence and let them figure it out for themselves.

P.S. Gravity was still just a "theory" less than 100 years ago.

Re:Bigger Problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227571)

While the common usage may be different in scientific literature

Fact ~= Confirmed observation
Law ~= Mathematical approximation of the behaviour of a system within a given set of parameters
Hypothesis ~= Explanation which fits the known Facts and Laws while also making useful predictions of the behaviour of a system
Theory ~= Hypothesis whose predictions have been tested and found to be true extensively.

If it is an explanation it is ether a Hypothesis or a Theory, not ever a fact. Theory is often used in casual conversation where Hypothesis would be used in scientific literature. Note that a theory, having been tested against many new observations is more solid than a fact as it is supported by hundreds.

As for the explanation you give why would we, in embryonic development, make our jaw bone form gill arches (which then self destruct) if there was no fish in our lineage.... The normal observable changes we have seen in animals such as dogs vs wolfs in our short timespan when added up over time will eventually lead to exactly the same type of species barrier we see today between much more different species. There is no clear line and no distinct single change that leads to this separation, just the addition of processes we can observe over much greater time scales than we can examine. This claim you make is like saying that when a shape gets large enough the rules relating its surface area to volume magically change, can you give a reason why the laws of nature should be changed just because the time scale is longer?

The interbreeding line is often of inclination before impossibility but and the kind definitions often include animals that can interbred to make sterile offspring in the same kind. Given our similarity to chimpanzees(over 98% identical genomes) it is possible that we could have sterile offspring with them, other pairs of much less related animals can. This is however an experiment so disgusting and unethical that it would have most scientists reaching for pitchforks and torches if you suggested it, and so has never been tested. Still we are more similar to chimps than many things put in the same kind, so are we part of ape (or even monkey) kind?

Re:Bigger Problem (4, Insightful)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227581)

"Namely that there has never been an observed case of one species becoming another species (species being defined by the ability to reproduce withing the species, but not outside of it)"

Only, of course, while a rare event (it couldn't be otherwise) it *has* been observed and even produced in a lab. See i.e. http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/speciation.php [sciencemeetsreligion.org]

But even if that wasn't the case, it so obvious that darwinian evolution *must* happen that there would be no point discussing it anyway: as soon as you know that there are random mutations (trivially probed in a lab), that these mutations affect fitness (trivially probed in a lab) and that fitness affects alleles distribution (trivially probed in a lab), speciation is nothing but an unavoidable fact.

"My point is that there are legitimate alternative theories besides evolution"

No, there aren't. There are legitimate *ideas* about evolution (i.e. lamarkian versus darwinian) already disproved that nevertheless make for a good case about how scientific ideas get concieved and accepted or rejected.

Re:Bigger Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227663)

My point is that there are legitimate alternative theories besides evolution...

Really? Like what?

God created the animals...

Oh dear. I thought of asking for the evidence, but that won't go anywhere - cognitive dissonance among people of faith and all that.So, I just say that my belief is that the Kitty Gods - the TRUE GODS! - are the ones who created us to entertain Their Children.

I have just as much proof as any person who believes in the false god of Abraham.

Re:Bigger Problem (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227685)

As for Climate Change, we still teach kids about the Ice Age, right? Why is it so wrong to teach them that we're headed into a "warm age" or whatever you want to call it.

Because stopping climate change requires rebuilding the energy infrastrcuture, which means that the oil and coal companies will lose money. Also, it will require either nuclear power or an absolutely enormous amounts of resources being permanently devoted to building and maintaining renewable power plants. Nuclear power is scary, and using enormous amounts of effort to maintain renewable power will mean far lowered quality of life for everyone (since that effort is removed from producing consumables).

Basically, climate change means that everyone who's in school now has nothing but misery to look forward to, either from trying to stop the change or from not stopping it. Also, fossil fuels are running out. Combine these two and there's precious little reason to bother graduating.

Re:Bigger Problem (4, Insightful)

Ichijo (607641) | more than 2 years ago | (#40226959)

They could be spending their time fixing the education system...

They're trying [wikipedia.org] to, but they're getting resistance for that, too: With few exceptions, teachers' unions fight against efforts to ground teacher evaluation in data and simultaneously resist giving administrators the discretion to remove teachers. [time.com]

The evolution of evolution articles. (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40226853)

Gonna post AC on this since it's a little off-topic, but isn't this the third or fourth 'science/evolution/education' article posted in the past 24 hours? It's an important topic, for sure, but it's beginning to smell a bit of spam sensationalism (not sensationalism as in over exaggeration but rather in over reporting to get ad clicks).

Won't ever have a decent debate... (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40226893)

While a good idea in theory is to teach 2 (or more) sides to every issue, you'll always have teachers who believe one way or the other (just like any of us) and will always skew things towards that one way.

You're going to get some teachers skeptical of evolution and some teachers who are die-hard man-made global warming believers. Chances are slim that you are going to get much of any intelligent debate of either of those issues. Same thing with politics, etc.

Re:Won't ever have a decent debate... (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40226925)

There is no scientific debate about the theory of evolution; why, then, should any such debate be taught in a science classroom? A science teacher who is "skeptical" of evolution had better have some extraordinary proof that there is a problem with the theory, or else they should not be teaching science.

Re:Won't ever have a decent debate... (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227001)

Some people aren't sold on the theory. It really doesn't make any sense to a lot of people because 2 controdictory things must happen: the organism must first be best adapted to the environment, and the organism also must have mutations (most of which are not immediately beneficial) to continue change.

Re:Won't ever have a decent debate... (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227063)

But this is exactly the kind of misunderstanding of evolution and selection pressures that science education should correct!

Populations evolve, not individuals. It's not so much that the organism "must first be adapted to the environment", it's that the only mutations which persist are adaptive. I'll grant that it's kind of a strange concept at first, but any inherent contradictions are illusory and most intro biology students (who have good teachers) eventually have the "a ha" moment somewhere in the first semester.

Re:Won't ever have a decent debate... (2)

kenh (9056) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227295)

"most intro biology students (who have good teachers) eventually have the "a ha" moment somewhere in the first semester."

I'll just bet their a ha moment doesn't come about as a result of the teacr simply repeating "settled sciece" ovr and over again, but in working with the students to understand why their misconceptions are wrong, and why the what the teacher is saying is correct.

Re:Won't ever have a decent debate... (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227717)

That's why I said good teachers. I can't think of a single discipline where simply asserting something as unexplainable fact would be an acceptable teaching strategy, except maybe religious indoctrination.

It's perfectly acceptable for the average person to have the impression that the science is settled.

Re:Won't ever have a decent debate... (1)

Kergan (780543) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227213)

Pardon for correcting, but some Americans aren't sold on the theory. In less religious countries, aka everywhere bar the most completely backwards areas on the planet, there is no debate whatsoever.

Re:Won't ever have a decent debate... (0)

dark12222000 (1076451) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227491)

Wrong. South Korea, England, Ireland - err, should I go on? Unless, of course, you're suggesting everywhere that's not America is "backwards".

Re:Won't ever have a decent debate... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227767)

It is because to America we are facing forward!

Re:Won't ever have a decent debate... (4, Insightful)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227433)

Some people aren't sold on the theory. It really doesn't make any sense to a lot of people because 2 controdictory things must happen: the organism must first be best adapted to the environment, and the organism also must have mutations (most of which are not immediately beneficial) to continue change.

Since existing organisms are already in existing environments the first thing you state has been observed and is what most people would call a fact.

Since mutations have also been observed in organisms this would also be considered by most as fact

To continue what I perceive as implied (that these observation can't make evolution happen).

We have also observed that dna is responsible for the traits displayed in the organism. We have observed that if we change that dna, traits of the organism are changed. We have also observed that we can select the largest organism of a given population and that over time the average size of the organism will increase (e.g. cows or strawberries or my fruit flies in 10th grade). We have observed that selection pressures exist in nature so that when the environment changes traits observed in populations change. (loss of sight for organism isolated underground, colors of moths as pollution-soot changes or reproductive ages of fish changing with fishing laws)

We have observed that the same trait can be detrimental in one environment and beneficial in another (pigmentation's benefit/detriment depends largely on latitude; Sickle Cell Anemia depends on the threat of malaria.)

I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem.

Re:Won't ever have a decent debate... (1)

Xaedalus (1192463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227037)

There IS no scientific debate, true. But a lot of people tend towards worshiping the concept of righteousness. It doesn't matter whether the label of "God", "Jesus", "Allah", or "scientific method" gets applied, it's still a label smeared across the idea that there is only ONE right way to act/think, and that all other alternatives are blasphemous. Most people have a psychological need for that kind of certainty.

I'd say for most /.r's that it's all too easy for us to get along with those who believe in the scientific method with an intensity bordering on the religious because they adhere to logical rigor for the most part. However, we share a common enemy in those who choose to live their lives according to religious dogma with the same degree of intensity, and we tend to ignore the syndrome when it's in our allies.

Regardless, it's that fanatical adherence to a sense of righteous certainty applied to the dogma of conservative fundamentalist Christianity by a large segment of the American populace, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that keeps bringing this debate up. The more proof we shove at that segment of the population, the more they will cling to their beliefs because they can justify their defense as "faith" and gain satisfaction from their "martyrdom".

what I find amusing is that very few people want or choose to explore the possibility that true faith can only be found through the pathways of doubt. No one wants to seriously question their fundamental beliefs, for fear of discovering they could be wrong.

Re:Won't ever have a decent debate... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227051)

Mostly the same could be said with AGW... Except that low and behold, there is contrarian evidence.

Frankly, as much as I enjoy to mock Americans for their bigotry, I'll confess to outright scorn when you're debating evolution. You're the only country in the world, bar fundamentalist Islamic countries, where this kind of "science" debate can occur. And it's scary that you've more military might than any other country to back these views -- and people open to using it.

Re:Won't ever have a decent debate... (1)

grumling (94709) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227167)

Trust me, it's just a very vocal minority that the press loves to prop up. Rational thought doesn't make for good headlines.

With politics there are 2 sides. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#40226977)

Actually, with politics there are as many sides as there are people involved in the discussion.

The same with religion.

They may agree on very broad concepts, but each one of them knows that s/he is right and that anyone who disagrees is wrong.

That is because those are OPINIONS.

Science is not based upon opinions.
Science is based upon theories that have to be falsifiable.

Re:With politics there are 2 sides. (2)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227105)

But "science" also deals with the realm of things that cannot be immediately verified and confirmed or refuted by (easy) experimentation. No one has in their lifetime, seen an organism give birth to a distinctly different organism (when 2 of the same organisms have mated), for example, no one has seen 2 cats mate and then give birth to a dog. Same thing with climate change, we only have a few sets of data we cannot look at the weather reports (beyond a few scattered accounts) of life in the 13th century. And so a lot of information has to be taken from the known and transported into the unknown, exactly like politics where we can take the known (what happened after a policy changed was made) and apply it to the unknown (what will happen if a similar policy change was made today).

That does not matter. (2)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227179)

But "science" also deals with the realm of things that cannot be immediately verified and confirmed or refuted by (easy) experimentation.

That does not matter. As long as the theories explain the available observations and are falsifiable.

Ideally the theories should suggest experiments that can be used to falsify them. Whether or not these experiments are possible to perform is another issue.

No one has in their lifetime, seen an organism give birth to a distinctly different organism (when 2 of the same organisms have mated), for example, no one has seen 2 cats mate and then give birth to a dog.

Of course not. That would be evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong.

Re:With politics there are 2 sides. (3, Interesting)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227311)

I don't see how evolution requires sexual reproduction to produce "distinctly different" (whatever that means) progeny. There are ample examples of speciation [wikipedia.org] , if that's what you mean by "distinctly" different, wherein a population of animals are separated and over time, for instance, the two separated populations are no longer able to reproduce with one another. We have strong evidence for this, even if we haven't witnessed the event with our eyes, in the same way that you have incontrovertible evidence that your great-great-great-great grandfather was born, even though you know no one who was present, and there probably exists no written record of the event.

Re:With politics there are 2 sides. (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227653)

" No one has in their lifetime, seen an organism give birth to a distinctly different organism (when 2 of the same organisms have mated), for example, no one has seen 2 cats mate and then give birth to a dog. "

But there have been people that put two groups of the same species of flies in two bottles, let them be about seven years and, after that, saw they couldn't interbreed individuals from the two populations.

And there are historical records about when the home mouse was introduce in the Faeroe Islands about two hundred years ago and how the different populations are coming apart from each other since then.

Darwinian evolution is a damn undisputed fact.

Re:With politics there are 2 sides. (1)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227671)

Evolution doesn't predict that an organisms would ever give birth to a distinctly different organism. Red and Blue are to distinctly different colors but you can move between them by making tiny imperceptible changes. At no time will you see red turn to blue. Even with different species organisms are not distinctly different. Taxonomy is debated all the time precisely because it is difficult to differentiate organisms.

We classify horses and donkeys as separate species because they cannot produce offspring that can reproduce. On the other hand they can produce sterile offspring. Evolution attempts to explain this by offering that horses and donkeys were once capable of producing fertile offspring and are now diverging. Their gene pools are not affected by the other. Now this doesn't 'prove' Evolution. In this case, Evolution is the theory that explains the observation.

Now let's look at a prediction of Evolution. Evolution predicts that the traits passed from parent to offspring change very slightly. Now it is obvious that for bisexual parents offspring are not clones. But Darwin wasn't saying that offspring were a different mix of traits he was actually proposing that the traits varied slightly and that new traits were introduced. He didn't know their was DNA that mutated slightly through each generation. But Evolution depended on it. If it had turned out that DNA was static and that varying traits were dependent solely on mixing genes as opposed to introducing slight changes (changes in genes means changes in traits) it would have falsified evolution on the spot.

Re:With politics there are 2 sides. (3, Interesting)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227761)

We've also never seen tectonic plates move thousands of miles, but we have evidence that they have done so. We've never seen the inside of the sun, but we have evidence that hydrogen fuses into helium. We've never even seen a nucleus of an atom either! Science doesn't work by directly observing the phenomena it explains. Science works by making hypotheses about things and making testable predictions about things that we can observe. If we fail to observe what the hypothesis predicts, that's evidence that the hypothesis is incorrect.

easy peasy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40226939)

there's a right way and a wrong way.

there is a place for religious education for those who want it. it's called sunday school. it has no place in public schools.. and private schools should teach science first and leave evolution or intelligent design or whatever they call that nonsense these days to the religion classes.

Balanced but only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40226957)

Balanced views are fine but *only* if the alternating view isn't filled with psuedoscience or peppered with half truths or partisan politics. ...but as for creationism, gtfo of science. Scripture/Religious class all fine and dandy but science... no.

Oh America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40226961)

So determined to stay the laughing stock of the civilised world.

Sure... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40226973)

...as long as all churches are required to have an atheist (e.g., Daniel Dennet) or a historic biblical scholar (e.g., Bart D. Ehrman) come in for every sermon or Sunday school lesson to present an alternative viewpoint.

Explain how science works (2)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 2 years ago | (#40226997)

Quoth TFA:

McDonald advises teachers to start the year off with a short section on the nature of science. “Once I started to do this, I had fewer challenges in my classroom,” he says.

Sounds like a good way to deal with the "just"-a-theory crowd.

Shouldn't be so difficult (4, Interesting)

evil_aaronm (671521) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227069)

Just have the Conservatives provide the peer-reviewed science behind their assertions. If it's actually science, there should be something testable to support it. If it isn't science, it doesn't belong in science class.

Re:Shouldn't be so difficult (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227391)

It's strange how, by fighting to teach the controversies in science, political conservatives are really on the innovative cutting edge of Post-Modernism. It used to be you had to get into a doctoral program before you could get into issues like the Politics of the Objective and authoritarian constructivism as it relates to White Privileged Males in the Academy :)

Just check the two groups. (1, Funny)

Exitar (809068) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227077)

If they overlap enough, it's a sign that climate change is real.

Political issues (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227083)

Why not teach actual science, e.g. classical experiments in electrostatics or mechanics or button-sorting in biology or anatomy?

It's not like kids need to grasp evolution or climate models at an early age. The former is almost better handled in history of western philosophy course and the latter in a history of the logical methods of science in the 20th century.

Science, not religion (4, Insightful)

kenh (9056) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227133)

I would imagine it is the role of the science teacher to educate, not pontificate - if students enter the classroom with different ideas, theories, or beliefs I would expect the teacher to entertain their ideas, beliefs, and theories and then work with the student to understand how their ideas, beliefs and theories balance against scientific facts.

The teacher is not obliged to give equal time to all theories that the students preset, but the science teacher has the task of equiping the students to come to their own conclusions based on facts. A science teacher that can't (or doesn't want to) defend the ideas and concepts they are teaching needs to find another profession.

Religions typically teach the "One True Belief" on a subject and ask the followers to "believe without proof, as an exercise of their faith," not science.

There are two sides. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227175)

Until I hear environmentalists address why in the Earth's several billion years temperatures in the 1800's are the perfect climate that we must not diverge from.

Until I hear environmentalists explaining that climate change is constant, but that rapid change could be a concern.

Until "Stop Climate Change" is regarded as a joke like "Stop Plate Tectonics"

Until I hear environmentalists explaining the possible benefits of a warmer environment along with the detriments.

Until I hear environmentalists use arguments involving cost/benefit ratios that don't approach the infinite.

Until then I will regard environmentalists as zealots who are in no way interested in a truthful discussion about managing our impact on our world.

Re:There are two sides. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227529)

Completely aside from the scientific truth/merit of AGW, it seems to the public at large that universally, every solution proposed to stop it requires more regulation of peoples' private lives, more redistribution of wealth, and more scaling back of lifestyles. I can guarantee you that Al Gore's carbon footprint hasn't shrunk.

The purpose of the public school system (2)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227195)

Is to teach skills that make people able to participate in society. If you're going to be catching alligtor for a living, you don't need much education. However the trend is for increasingly complex jobs as computers fill-in the easy, repetitive parts.

Then lets look at creationism. It posits a "because god made it this way" which provides a limit to understanding because we cannot possibly do what god has, because then we would be gods ourselves, and that's heresy. But call it "evolution" and "biology" and "chemistry" and we can teach these and they lead to skills and discoveries in genetics, medicine, disease therapy, etc.

And that's why creationism has no place in schools. It does not teach a skill.

We might solve a lot of these problems..... (4, Insightful)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227251)

Why do we let politicians write the text books, instead of having a quorum of people in their respective fields with masters degrees? Shouldn't the most educated in their respective fields have a say in what the younger generation is being taught, so they can be more prepared for higher education?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?_r=1 [nytimes.com]

Recent Survey on Creationism (1)

100_Monkeys_Typing (662396) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227263)

The number of people who believe that God has his hand in the creation of the world has not changed much in the last 30 years. What is going to change in the near future to make a difference in those numbers? If people haven't figured it out in the last 30 years, I have my doubts that 30 more years is going to make much of a difference. http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx [gallup.com]

By clashes over science you mean. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227275)

Clashes over putting religion in a science class.
It has no place there.

Invisible sky beings that grant wishes and the fake religions around it are a joke.

Pay your taxes and then you can have a opinion about something until then suck my ass.

Science should be seen as subversive.... (1, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227293)

...and promoted as a way to rebel against the dead hand of the "flat earther" Superstitionists.

Teachers can't do this, but if any students are reading this post:

Your conventional authority figures want you to be stupid cattle. They despise reason itself and they want you to be slaves. To them.

The kids in the 1960s were actually right about The Man before most of them sold out and got old and scared.

Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. As you age your physical power and independence will allow you to reject your authority figures as most deserve.

Cultivate a "fuck you" attitude but learn how to mask it lest you be in situations where Bible Thumpers have the power to punish you.

Trust no one. Not me, not anyone.

Learn and use Critical Thinking or you will end up like the retarded fat fucks you see shuffling around Walmart who believe everything Fox News tells them.

Unfortunate (1)

axlr8or (889713) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227353)

When I was younger I was highly religious but even in that time our 'conservative' school taught evolution. It seemed even the churches were happy about it. It took away the ability of any one church to really subjugate the school.

Of course they clash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227363)

Just the notion of evolution is failed in their mind, Aunt Mommy and Uncie Daddy did not produce something better

Why mutually exclusive? (0, Flamebait)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227487)

The great mistake being made here is that they need not be mutually exclusive. It may trouble people here to no end to know that some of the greatest scientific minds throughout history were also deeply religious. There are those of us with enough presence of mind to be able to separate our faith in god with our faith in science. We readily admit as scientists that we do not know the origin of life, the universe and everything, and at the same time we as Christians (at least me) readily admit I don't know what god is or who Jesus is, or how the whole god thing works. I take it on faith that both of these things will be true. I have the observable evidence of the universe around me to prove out, or at least not falsify, a lot of what science has taught me. I have the same observable evidence of the universe around me to prove out some of the stuff that Christianity has taught me. A lot of the stuff is pure bullshit, but the idea that we should all just get along is certainly not a purely scientific concept (and not exclusively Christian). That's not a bad idea. At the same time almost nothing that science has taught us has been bullshit, but the stuff that is bullshit is just about as bad as the worst Christianity, or religion in general has handed us. Stuff like eugenics and biological weapons, for some people GM foods and other "evil capitalist" ventures science has made. I can list the transgressions of science and religion all day long, but they are not interchangeable entities.

What if it turns out, as I suspect, that god is math. Most all of the attributes science applies to math the religious apply to god. What if the background radiation is god? As a scientist I know that these things, until falsified, can most certainly be true. Just as true as the almost near certainty that there is life on other planets. There's just too many planets for there not to be. I know this with just as much certainty as I know god exists, not 100% confidence. But wouldn't it be great if it turned out that the stuff in the bible was perhaps a superior being trying to talk to people who viewed his/her/it's form as a god? Do dogs and cats (ok, dogs) not look upon us as gods? All honest geeks know the saying "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (Google just told me it's one of Clarke's three laws [wikipedia.org] ). So who knows, maybe god isn't math but a super intelligent omnipotent uber begin.

My big hang up with people who just hate god/religion/whatever is that you have no proof these things do not exist and there is certainly proof, according to the conjecture put forth by the religious, that god does exist. And science doesn't work by "proving" things it works in the opposite way, you disprove things. So until god has been falsified, please stow the "god doesn't exist" talk because you sound very arrogant. People much smarter than you (not me) believe in god. You certainly don't know that with 100% certainty, so don't tell everyone else as if it was a proven fact.

Re:Why mutually exclusive? (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227587)

I don't see any people here saying "God doesn't exist." In particular, science says nothing about God, because no evidence can ever prove God doesn't exist. There isn't any "God doesn't exist" talk going on here except yours. It seems its only people who are big on religion who think science and religion are mutally exclusive.

Re:Why mutually exclusive? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227591)

Amen brother, my thoughts were almost the same. My thought was what if God is the attraction that holds all atoms, protons neutrons and what have you's together. Explains omnipotence, omnipresence and the like. We can take apart as much as we want but it stays all together in another form. Me personally, I cant wait for science to prove God exists!

Why is it so hard to purge the idiots? (3, Insightful)

Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227499)

We don’t let people who can’t read teach kids how to read.
We don’t let people who can’t add/subtract teach kids math.
It should just be a hiring requirement for science teaches that they accept evolution as fact.

Re:Why is it so hard to purge the idiots? (-1, Troll)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#40227801)

It should just be a hiring requirement for science teaches that they accept evolution as fact.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

There are quite a few notable scientist who take issue with the way evolution is popularly understood. Take this example: Evolutionary theory holds that changes in organisms occur as the result of random genetic mutations; if one of these changes confers an advantage that allows the organism to produce more offspring, the change is likely to be inherited by the offspring and may eventually become normal for the species. But when we look at the reptilian egg (or the mammalian eye or any number of other features and organs), we see that numerous events must have occurred simultaneously for the development to succeed. The shell, for instance had to be impermeable and strong enough to protect the embryo. But unless the embryo had at the same time developed some means of liberating itself from the shell, this durable egg would have become a tomb. In addition, the embryo had to develop a means of absorbing the nutrition while in the egg. But unless it had also developed some means of storing its own waste products safely, it would soon have created a poisonous environment.

Each of these developments - the durable shell, egg tooth, and so on - had to arise, according to evolutionary theory, as the result of random mutations. But between the mutations that produced the shell and those that produced the egg tooth there could have been no connection (they arose at random), nor between these concerning nutrition and waste disposal. And if there were no such connections, how was the whole process orchestrated? From this point of view, the reptilian egg must be seen as appearing without causal benefit and as representing the culmination of a series of wildly improbably coincidences.

Now I'm convinced that Climate Change is religion (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40227777)

"pressure from those who insist that there must be two sides to the discussion".

Science requires that there be two sides to the discussion. Einstein's theories are STILL being tested, and attempted to be disproved, by good, solid scientists who understand that the nature of Science is inquiry and disagreement, and trying to advance real understanding by questioning conventional wisdom and dogma.

Religious Zealots think that there should not be more than one side to a discussion.

Ergo, I have just become convinced that the climate change fanatics are religious zealots.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?