gzent

David K.,

Yes, those are touchy subjects. Lets talk about science for a minute.

I received my degree in Electrical Engineering almost 20 years ago. In my career I have met 100's of people I would call scientists. They may have been educated in EE, Mechnical Eng., Math, Physics, Medicine or computer science, but they all could be considered scientists.

Now, I would guess 3 out of 4 of those I have met would appreciate and respect the difference between scientific law and theory. Laws are concepts that can be proven both in theory and experimentally ... Newton's Law, Ohm's Law, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and so on. Theories are concepts that cannot be proven in either theory or experiment.

Evloution is a theory, not a law. Unfortunately, I think that the other 1 of 4 'scientists' and a much higher percentage of high school science teachers are forgetting that evolution is a theory, not a law.

It is one possible explaination for the appearance of biological life on earth.

Unproven theories should never be taught as factual, lest future scientists look back on us as fools, much as we today regard those 'scientists' of ages past that considered the world was flat, the universe rotated around the earth, that spoiled meat changed into maggots, that mental illness was cured by drilling holes in the skull.

These were all accepted science in their day, yet totally unproven, as evolution is today.

I am not here to support one exclusive theory or another on the genisis of life on earth. Rather, I am asking that educators respect the difference between law and theory, between fact and opinion, between history and perception when shaping young minds.

Greg

__________________
Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revalation
And the mind's true liberation

dkelley

Greg, I respectfully submit that you are somewhat mistaken about the distinction between a law and a theory. To a scientist, both a law and a theory have been supported by independant experiments by many people. The main difference is that a law describes a relatively basic attribute of the natural world while a theory takes more reasoning. A theory pulls together basic laws along with experimentation to explain something.

A theory has been proven by experiments. So saying that something is a theory is a power statement in science. It in not "just a theory" as some people say. It has been elevated to the level of a theory by a lot of experimentation and debate. If is accepted as fact by the scientific community.

The untested, unproven ideas you described are called hypotheses. Evolution is a theory, not just a hypothesis. Because of this, I think it should be a part of a full scientific education. However, you are free to think that this part of science should be left out.

I don't think people of the past were fools because of there incorrect beliefs. They just hadn't made the scientific progress we take for granted. I don't like the idea of excluding proven theories from scientific education because I think doing so would stunt scientific growth. After all, it is scientific growth that helped us figure out that the Earth is round.

Peace,

__________________
-David Kelley

Tootsall

It IS!??? I could swear there is a thread running in another website that says it's flat! (heavy on the irony, light on the theology)

DaveH

I think we should be able to talk about and explain the meaning of evolution, as well as any and all other theories, and discuss them on their merits - or lack thereof. Let's present the information, and not advocate the accuracy of one or the other, especially since we evidently do not know for sure. Let's teach about what these theories mean and discuss them, and then move on without demanding adherence to them as fact, especially if we are unsure about them as facts.

Then, we have allowed for the dissemination of information, the discussion of the information, and made allowance for the learner to do his/her own reasoning and drawing of conclusions. We also have taught respect for the "tentativeness of knowledge," which means that what we think we know is subject to change with new and better information. The Earth being flat is a good example. We accept with humility that we do not know everything and are willing to revise our knowledge as needed.

The same can be done for religions as it relates to World History. We can learn about them, discuss them, and become informed about them without necessarily advocating them. I can discuss and learn about Judaism, for example, without becoming Jewish. I can learn about a polar bear without becoming a polar bear.

Yes, you are so right as posted above. It is impossible to make everyone happy. That is an elusive goal. So, we should walk the moderate course and avoid the extremes, IMHO.

gzent

David K.,

Let me say that my use of the terms 'law' and 'theory" are coming from a broad spectrum of disciplines that I consider 'scientists', as I mentioned above, not the narrow, academic scientific definition of 'theory'.

Not all disciplines agree or use the same language in the same ways, but I would still consider them part of the scientific community, whether doctors, physicists, engineers, mathematicians, chemists, etc.

When you look at the definition of 'theory' you find more than one interpretation. If you go to dictionary.com, which compiles entrees from many sources, you will find a description similar to the strict academic definition, and it is listed first:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.


Notice, the farthest it goes is to say TESTED or WIDELY ACCEPTED. None of the definitions say PROVEN.

If you look at more of the entries, here are some of the meanings I think are more commonly considered across disciplines:

- An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture

- a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena

- a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence

- a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

So, I will concede that a theory may be widely tested and accepted, but I would not take the leap to agree the word 'theory' is a proven idea.

On the other hand, if you look at the definition of 'law', after the legal definitions you see where proof and fact comes into the picture:

- A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.

- Mathematics. A general principle or rule that is assumed or that has been proven to hold between expressions.

- A generalization based on consistent experience or results

- a statement of order or relation holding for certain phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions

- A scientific principle that invariably holds true under specificconditions, for instance, the law of magnetism states that likemagnetic poles repel one another, while opposite poles attract.

- a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature


Hence, 'law' implies proven, theory does not.

As for the pop-science notion of evolution suggesting that complex life forms have evolved from wholly different simpler life forms, well, its unproven at best; a specious notion that by its nature cannot be proven and should not be taught as factual.

Greg

__________________
Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revalation
And the mind's true liberation

dkelley

Greg,

Our discussion has degraded into an argument over terminology. I don't find that very rewarding. It's clear where we both stand.

Peace,

__________________
-David Kelley

mike ansberry

There is a lot of stuff here with which I agree. Just a couple of points.

If you wait till your kid is a teenager to teach them discipline, it is too late. I know some good kids go bad, but mainly, if you discipline your kids when they are young, and continue to expect them to do right when they get older, (with consequences for wrong behaviour), they will turn out okay. I had 2 kids. They were both good kids. Well respected in the community. Raising them was a constant battle. It can wear you down, but you can't let it. You have to go after it tooth and nail 24 hours a day. Raising you children should be the most important thing you do with your life. I'm sick of hearing parents say, "I have to have my time". Bull. When you had kids you gave up "your time".

Since when has God been taken out of public school? In our county we have a moment of silence in the morning. You are welcome to pray at that time. Most of us do. Those who don't aren't stigmatized. We have Hindus who dress in their traditional garb. We have a club that meets once a week in the morning for prayer. We aren't forcing any particular belief on anyone, but we respect the beliefs of all.

Mike

__________________
"Music is a fire in your belly that has to come out of your mouth, so you'd better put a horn in the way before someone gets hurt" (paraphrase of Bleeding Gums Murphy)