Originally posted by trumptman
So because something can be satirized, it means it is wrong? That must mean that just about everything is wrong then.
Do you stand in front of a mirror when you practice being deliberately obtuse, just to see if you get the dull, blank expression right?
Let me spell it out: I thought that particular
piece of satire made a specific
good point about a specific
issue. That has nothing to do with the validity or lack thereof of anything which can be satirized... and you know it
Correct and imagine if we had a mindset that told students they could and should not question or keep an open mind regarding those less accurate theories. Imagine instead that we told them such theories were complete, totally accurate and were above reproach.
The parallel with how evolution is taught would be ?
Think about that for a minute or two.
Somehow Einstein managed to come up with his theory of gravitation without someone having put any disclaimer stickers on his physics textbooks warning him to be especially careful about that terribly incomplete Newton stuff.
This is all about what gets singled out
for special disclaimers
-- and yes, the motivation behind the people out to place those special disclaimers has to be considered. Consider again my hypothetical example of students forced to wear "This student makes errors" signs, signs that only a willfully obtuse person could defend of the basis of their factual truth. You'd certainly have to consider the motivations of a teacher for picking on particular students made to wear these signs when such abuse was investigated.
Gravity is a really good example because we don't claim to have a unified theory that includes how gravity works. We have mathematical models that predict the force, but we can't explain why the force exists. If a textbook claimed that we not only did we have an explanation for that force, but that it was a fact beyond question, then that book should probably be viewed with skepticism at this point in time.
Please show me an example of any high school biology textbook that claims that evolution is completely understood and that all aspects of it are totally beyond question.
Pointing this out would also not be an endorsement of religion.
Perhaps, but since there's no parallel about any such thing needing to be pointed out about how evolution is taught, you have no point.
Are you going to claim that every time someone uses a phrase like "millions of years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs" that a long-winded disclaimer needs to be attached, or else this would be a shameless example of treating every aspect of evolutionary theory as incontrovertible fact? Are you also going to clamor for disclaimers about the incompleteness of gravitational theory to be placed next to every physics textbook question about how long it take for a rock to fall 50 meters?
The problem with your reasoning here is that you treat all students equally whereas all scientific theories are not advanced along to the same degree of completeness and understanding.
So it would be okay to hang disclaimer signs around the necks of particularly erroneous students?
I don't even buy the parallel that evolution is somehow like the slow student in a classroom of other scientific theories, but beyond that, there's a difference between recognizing a problem (that one student might not be as bright as most others) and the way you handle it (being helpful, or trying to shame the student).
The motivation to place these stickers on biology textbooks is to discredit
the theory of evolution, first and foremost, not to improve the education of students.
It's not an "OR" proposition.
You seem to like saying this a lot today, whether it's particularly apropos or not.
The only burden faced by evolution is the incompleteness of its explanation. If it weren't such an incomplete theory, people couldn't question it so readily. If it had some predictive qualities, people would be more likely to treat it like chemistry, physics, or other fields.
Lots of theories are incomplete. Most are. You haven't shown any examples that when evolution is taught that there's any particularly egregious way that the teaching hides or disavows said incompleteness. So, again, what makes evolution so special that it needs to be called out with warning labels? When we talk about gravity in science textbooks, we generally treat it as a matter of fact, without disclaimers galore trying to hammer home the notion that gravity is incompletely understood.
Even if the motivation for placing such stickers wasn't religiously motivated (which largely it is) there's no good non-religious reason for the theory of evolution to receive any special disclaimer treatment either.
On your last point, if you don't think evolution has any testable predictive qualities, you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. (And please, spare me a weak comeback about "not predictive in the same way" or some other such BS that I might have to waste keystrokes knocking down.)