And for the record, i have had plenty of idiotic conservative teachers over the years, some even...*gasp* bigoted!
Churchill is a loon, and shouldnt be working, but the idea that only "liberal" teachers are "activist", a term that has no meaning in teaching, especialy in reference to one who was espousing a strongly conservative worldview(that being realism/structuralism) is just stupid beyond belief.
Activist...teaching things on the taxpayer's dime that have nothing to do with what he was hired for...like a science teacher preaching about how GWB is teh evil or something.
./sigh No, it's not. It's a theory. Unproven. Fitting many datapoints and not others. (If you really care to know which datapoints don't fit smoothly, check out the sane anti-evolution websites/books; I don't feel like running around to gather them for a LJ argument)
It's also often taught as a religious viewpoint wherein there is no possibility of supernatural beings; which is far beyond what the strict theory says.
While I agree with you that evolution is well-supported, I have to disagree with your argument... you say it's a fact, and then you say it's a theory. You'll have to pick one or the other to make a solid point.
Technically, it's still a theory. But it's a theory that seems to fit with the facts and evidence we have from our DNA, the fossil record, and general observations.
Part of what makes evolution science is that it's falsifiable, in that it could be proven wrong with evidence. ID is religion because they depend on faith rather than evidence or fact, and there's no evidence or fact that could disprove them. It's not scientifically falisfiable, and therefore doesn't belong in biology class.
But be careful about saying it's 'fact'. There's a lot of evidence that supports evolution, and nothing that supports ID or creationism, but creationists could hit you back with "it's not a fact" and be right.
The theory of evolution, which posits exactly how species evolve is not nessesarily true, but at the moment, our best guess. That living organisms evolve is irrefutable, it is irrefutable because we have observed it, you would get farther by saying that my lungs dont work, because the theories of cardiovascular and nervous systems might not be true.
There is a very real theory of gravity, there are many, they may or may not be true. However, this does not mean that gravity might not exist, only that we dont know exactly how gravity works, or our model of gravity may be incomplete.
There are also atomic theories, which suggest how atoms stick togother. These theories may or may not be true.
However, the fact that atoms stick togother cannot be said to not be true, and it cant be said to not be true because i am sitting here typing this to you, and you are reading it.
Well, it's a bit more than a guess. There's good evidence it's how things actually work. We know that living organisms mutate, but that evolution happens in the macroscopic scale is still a theory. It's a theory with a massive amount of evidence, just like the general theory of relativity, but it's still a theory in scientific terms.
Atomic theory is also still a theory, because although we've observed atoms, there are many things about the nature which are still just models we use that successfully explain observations. At this point I don't think too many people will refute the atomic theory of matter, just as not many will refute evolution. But it's still possible that we may come to a different understanding of these things than we have now. Until recently, we had never seen atoms, even though we were splitting them long before anyone ever saw one.
Today we can do wonderous things with quantum mechanics, even though it operates below a world we can observe. Yet there must be something to it because we can do things like making lasers and computers with it. But there may be better theories that can explain physics at the very small scale than quantum mechanics.
I know this is kind of rambling and not making any sense, but I guess what I'm saying is that what makes something a theory, and what makes something a fact are different. Our understanding of evolutionary theory may change, just as our understanding of particle physics might change. A theory is more a model to explain a set of facts and observations, rather than being facts themselves.
But I think you might be saying the same thing really, and I'm just not quite understanding right now, because it's late and I'm tired.
Either way, it doesn't change the fact that we have a lot of activist conservative educators in America. Some insist on teaching creationism in public schools, or refuse to teach sex education when their health curriculum includes it.
I'd prefer it if both sides would keep their activism out of my schools.
You want to know what "conservative activist teachers" do? They break California law by refusing to teach the section on Darwin's theory of evolution at the local high schools.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-05-19 10:45 pm (UTC)What does that even fucking mean?
And for the record, i have had plenty of idiotic conservative teachers over the years, some even...*gasp* bigoted!
Churchill is a loon, and shouldnt be working, but the idea that only "liberal" teachers are "activist", a term that has no meaning in teaching, especialy in reference to one who was espousing a strongly conservative worldview(that being realism/structuralism) is just stupid beyond belief.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 04:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-19 11:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-19 11:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-19 11:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 12:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 12:05 am (UTC)No, it's not. It's a theory. Unproven. Fitting many datapoints and not others.
(If you really care to know which datapoints don't fit smoothly, check out the sane anti-evolution websites/books; I don't feel like running around to gather them for a LJ argument)
It's also often taught as a religious viewpoint wherein there is no possibility of supernatural beings; which is far beyond what the strict theory says.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 01:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 01:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 01:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 03:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-05-22 07:09 am (UTC)You're a stupid fuck. Die in a fire.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-22 07:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 12:26 am (UTC)Part of what makes evolution science is that it's falsifiable, in that it could be proven wrong with evidence. ID is religion because they depend on faith rather than evidence or fact, and there's no evidence or fact that could disprove them. It's not scientifically falisfiable, and therefore doesn't belong in biology class.
But be careful about saying it's 'fact'. There's a lot of evidence that supports evolution, and nothing that supports ID or creationism, but creationists could hit you back with "it's not a fact" and be right.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 04:18 am (UTC)There is a very real theory of gravity, there are many, they may or may not be true. However, this does not mean that gravity might not exist, only that we dont know exactly how gravity works, or our model of gravity may be incomplete.
There are also atomic theories, which suggest how atoms stick togother. These theories may or may not be true.
However, the fact that atoms stick togother cannot be said to not be true, and it cant be said to not be true because i am sitting here typing this to you, and you are reading it.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 04:31 am (UTC)Atomic theory is also still a theory, because although we've observed atoms, there are many things about the nature which are still just models we use that successfully explain observations. At this point I don't think too many people will refute the atomic theory of matter, just as not many will refute evolution. But it's still possible that we may come to a different understanding of these things than we have now. Until recently, we had never seen atoms, even though we were splitting them long before anyone ever saw one.
Today we can do wonderous things with quantum mechanics, even though it operates below a world we can observe. Yet there must be something to it because we can do things like making lasers and computers with it. But there may be better theories that can explain physics at the very small scale than quantum mechanics.
I know this is kind of rambling and not making any sense, but I guess what I'm saying is that what makes something a theory, and what makes something a fact are different. Our understanding of evolutionary theory may change, just as our understanding of particle physics might change. A theory is more a model to explain a set of facts and observations, rather than being facts themselves.
But I think you might be saying the same thing really, and I'm just not quite understanding right now, because it's late and I'm tired.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 09:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 12:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 12:55 am (UTC)Either way, it doesn't change the fact that we have a lot of activist conservative educators in America. Some insist on teaching creationism in public schools, or refuse to teach sex education when their health curriculum includes it.
I'd prefer it if both sides would keep their activism out of my schools.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 01:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 03:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-19 11:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 12:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 12:09 am (UTC)