NationStates Jolt Archive

The following proposal can be found under the heading "Teach Facts" and currently page 14 of the proposals list. Support it if you care about the truth.

Description: Whereas a free public education is mandatory in all UN member nations due to a previous resolution, and Whereas there are no mandates to prevent pure propoganda to be taught to our children in these public schools.

Be it hereby Resolved that any public school be required to teach facts, and to not teach a scientific "theory" as a scientific proof. On such controversial and unproven scientific theories as evolution versus creationism, or Manmade Global Warming versus Natural Planetary Climate Change, they may only be explained if both theories are brought up and it is pointed out that neither have conclusive evidence to make a scientific proof.

With any unproven scientific subject, all theories may be taught, but none may be singled out as being more valid than the other, until which time modern science has proven said theory beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Had I a veto, I would veto this.

A thoroughly poorly thought out proposal, designed to promote ignorance, superstition, and scientific illiteracy.

Fantasan, you can NEVER prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This is why juries say "we find the defendant guily beyond reasonable doubt."

Schools should put most of the emphasis on the theory that has the best evidence surrounding it, namely that of evolution.

THough government has no business regulating schools. Let them teach whatever the hell they want to, but let the students choose another school.

The RL UN says that teaching should be in a "spirit of understanding, tolerance and equality".
You cannot teach the FACT that people are equal, as it cannot really be proven.
Evolution is proven, and global warming is virtually proven, so the latter should be taught as a highly likely theory.

Hmm, I do see the point, but it is my own philosophy that the teachers teach both theories..IE teach both evolution and creation, manmade global warming v Natural global warming. And let the teacher's produce the evidence given for both, and than let teh student decide which they believe is right. By the time they reach the levels of education in which these subjects are approached, they will have enough mind of their own to decide which one they believe.

The RL UN says that teaching should be in a "spirit of understanding, tolerance and equality".
You cannot teach the FACT that people are equal, as it cannot really be proven.
Evolution is proven, and global warming is virtually proven, so the latter should be taught as a highly likely theory.

Evolution and global warming aren't PROVEN

Evolution has been PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

Global warming has been PROVEN BEYOND SOME DOUBT, but I wouldn't call it a "fact" yet. The evidence we have to say "global warming is the result of human development and that this is bad" is circumstantial at best and wouldn't be enough to convict a murderer with a decent lawyer.

Modern science does not prove ANY theories beyond the shadow of a doubt. Modern science is practically made up of theories which are not, and, very likely, can not, be proven with one-hundred-percent certainty. However, all the accepted theories have at least SOME proof behind them -- a theory is a scientific idea that is supported by some evidence.

Our educators tell us that if we begin teaching EVERY alternative theory of everything scientific in our schools, our citizens will have to be enrolled in our education programs until age 70 -- if they're lucky. And that only includes theories that have some minimal following. This is simply not an option.

Instead, we teach, and will continue to teach, to our children those theories which are currently accepted by the overwhelming majority of our national scientific world. Where two or more conflicting theories have roughly equal acceptance, we will teach both (as is the case with whether Global Warming is a natural phenomenon or one caused by humanity's industry). But this is rarely the case.

Take evolution and creationism, for example. Neither can be proven with 100% certainty, true. But evolution is supported by vast amounts of evidence which, while it does not eliminate all doubt as to its accuracy, seem to make that accuracy quite likely. Creationism, on the other hand, has no evidence behind it to speak of. Unless one looks to the Bible as evidence. But Christianity is a minoriy religion in our nation, and even if it were not, we do not teach religion at our schools.

Since evolution is backed up by much evidence, it is accepted by practicaly all credible scientific minds in our nation, and no alternative theory has so much support. Thus, while we will explain to our children the difference between "theory" and "truth," we see no reason to teach alternatives to evolution to them, as we do not consider any alternatives that exist today to be nearly as credible as the current version of Darwin's theory.

Office of the Governor

Hmm, I do see the point, but it is my own philosophy that the teachers teach both theories..IE teach both evolution and creation, manmade global warming v Natural global warming. And let the teacher's produce the evidence given for both, and than let teh student decide which they believe is right. By the time they reach the levels of education in which these subjects are approached, they will have enough mind of their own to decide which one they believe.

There's no scientific evidence for creation, therefore it should not be taught in science class. If you want to teach it, teach it in religion class.

Let's put it this way: What if your history teacher said everything was the result of God? Would we stand for history teachers going "and then God made the British think that the Americans dressed like mohawks and dumped their tea into Boston Harbor, but they really didn't"?

On teh other hand, there is considerable evidnece both ways in Global Warming.

You have all totally misread my proposal. It clearly states that you have to teach all theories on a subject! This is what this is for. If a scientific theory, such as Global warming, has no conclusive proof, then you have to teach the different theories behind it, and not automatically say "it's all mankind's fault!"

to not teach a scientific "theory" as a scientific proof.

This doesn't say you can't teach anything that isn't proven. It says you can't say it's an absolute fact!

controversial and unproven scientific theories may only be explained if both theories are brought up and it is pointed out that neither have conclusive evidence

How hard is it to see that this is merely to make sure that science is not close minded and locked up. A lot of you criticizing me now would have a fit if some school taught Creationism as a scientific fact. So why the hell shouldn't you be upset if Darwinism is taught as if it were fact? And don't try to tell me it's proven, because they have yet to find the missing link.

We thought they found a whole bunch of missing links, if you mean common ancestors to humans and chimpanzees.

In any case, creationism is not a scientific theory, as it has NO scientific proof to back it up.

We will teach evolution as a scientific THEORY, not as fact. But we will tell our students that it is the currently accepted theory. So far, all evidence seems to match evolution.

Office of the Governor

How can creationism be taught without teaching the existence of a God?

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

We don't mind teaching that there are still unanswered questions about evolution, and that it shouldn't be taken as absolute, indisputable fact. We like to promote a spirit of free scientific inquiry in SuperHappyFun's public schools, so we would never declare that it is unacceptable to challenge a theory. However, we object to the following language of the resolution:

With any unproven scientific subject, all theories may be taught, but none may be singled out as being more valid than the other, until which time modern science has proven said theory beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Specifically, we take issue with the requirement that no theory may be singled out as more valid than another. There are literally thousands of "creation stories" out there. Your resolution would require us to teach that every one of these is equally valid, that evolution has no more evidence behind it than the belief that God created the world in seven days. In fact, if some cult taught that human beings were descended from space aliens, we'd have to declare that theory to be the scientific equal of evolution and the story in Genesis. If I declared that I created the world, and I convinced a significant number of people to agree with me, then schools all over the world would have to teach this as well. Clearly, this is unacceptable and unrealistic. Time constraints and a commitment to facts require that we only teach scientifically plausible theories.

Furthermore, we believe that this will be a dangerous precedent. While the resolution refers to "science," which presumably refers to disciplines such as biology, ecology, and physics, we believe that the social sciences like economics and history tend to follow the lead of the "hard" sciences. If this resolution is put into place, we think that it won't be long before Holocaust deniers demand that the Holocaust be taught as just a "theory."

When you preach the equality of all theories, you allow crackpots, pseudoscientists, and outright liars to gain a foothold in the education system. We cannot accept a resolution that does this.

Does this mean that the students of the FLOT will no longer be learning about the theory of gravity?

Respectfully,
The FLOT

Does this mean that the students of the FLOT will no longer be learning about the theory of gravity?

Respectfully,
The FLOT

They will...but they'll also have to learn about the "prime mover" theory. [ooc: Aristotle's]

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

Creationism isn't science because there is NO POSSIBLE WAY YOU COULD PROVE OR DISPROVE IT USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Creationism may be cool, it may even be true, but it isn't science.

Does this mean that the students of the FLOT will no longer be learning about the theory of gravity?

Respectfully,
The FLOT

They will...but they'll also have to learn about the "prime mover" theory. [ooc: Aristotle's]

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

ooc: I'm unfamiliar with that one.

Gravity is still a "theory"...

EDIT: Oops, didn't see The FLOT's post

Does this mean that the students of the FLOT will no longer be learning about the theory of gravity?

Respectfully,
The FLOT

They will...but they'll also have to learn about the "prime mover" theory. [ooc: Aristotle's]

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

ooc: I'm unfamiliar with that one.

Things on Earth move downwards, things in the sky move in circles.

Remember, this is back when geocentrism was believed in...oh wait, wouldn't we have to teach that under Fantasan's proposal? Satellites could be faked... ;-)

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

You've really out done yourself this time Fantasan! The thought of schools not teaching scientific theory is... well I can't even use the word or it would be a flame! Several words come to mind though, use your imagination.

Scientific theory vs creationism is not even in the same league! Creationism is nothing more then a story. Zero theory what so ever! No science at all to back it up. All of science is a theory. That's what science is! To try and compare the two , well you might as well compare computers to trees!

This is the worse one he's come up with yet. Unbelievable!

Peace,
Stephanie.

You've really out done yourself this time Fantasan! The thought of schools not teaching scientific theory is... well I can't even use the word or it would be a flame! Several words come to mind though, use your imagination.

Scientific theory vs creationism is not even in the same league! Creationism is nothing more then a story. Zero theory what so ever! No science at all to back it up. All of science is a theory. That's what science is! To try and compare the two , well you might as well compare computers to trees!

This is the worse one he's come up with yet. Unbelievable!

Peace,
Stephanie.

Creationism isn't science because you can't use the scientific method on it. You can't set up an experiment to determine the existence of God.

This is the worse one he's come up with yet. Unbelievable!

I concur. I think this even beats out the Ashcroft one.

You've really out done yourself this time Fantasan! The thought of schools not teaching scientific theory is... well I can't even use the word or it would be a flame! Several words come to mind though, use your imagination.

Scientific theory vs creationism is not even in the same league! Creationism is nothing more then a story. Zero theory what so ever! No science at all to back it up. All of science is a theory. That's what science is! To try and compare the two , well you might as well compare computers to trees!

This is the worse one he's come up with yet. Unbelievable!

Peace,
Stephanie.

Creationism isn't science because you can't use the scientific method on it. You can't set up an experiment to determine the existence of God.

Agreed, but even more so.. ALL of science is a theory. So is he suggesting we stop teaching science in schools? :roll:

Peace,
Stephanie.

This reminds me of this funny joke that I saw on some old Econ website and have been saving ever since:

Why God Never Received Tenure at the University

1. Because he had only one major publication.
2. And it was in Hebrew.
3. And it had no cited references.
4. And it wasn't published in a refereed journal or even submitted for peer review.
5. And some even doubt he wrote it himself.
6. It may be true that he created the world but what has he done since?
7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8. The scientific community has had a very rough time trying to replicate his results.
9. He never applied to the Ethics Board for permission to use human subjects.
10. When one experiment went awry, he tried to cover it up by drowning the subjects.
11. When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he often punished them, or just deleted them from the sample.
12. He rarely came to class, just told students to read the book.
13. He had his son teach the class.
14. He expelled his first two students for learning.
15. Although there were only ten requirements, most students failed his tests.
16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountaintop.

So... Fantasan made a proposal saying you can't teach creationism in school? Because creationism isn't a scientific theory, only a psuedo science.

LOL! Lets all point at him and laugh!

Creationism isn't science because you can't use the scientific method on it. You can't set up an experiment to determine the existence of God.

Yes you can. And God fails.

Any use of any method of measurement or even hypothetical "thought experiment" will tell you there's no God.

QED.

Creationism isn't science because you can't use the scientific method on it. You can't set up an experiment to determine the existence of God.

Yes you can. And God fails.

Any use of any method of measurement or even hypothetical "thought experiment" will tell you there's no God.

QED.

I actually quite agree with this. :idea:

Peace,
Stephanie.

Creationism isn't science because you can't use the scientific method on it. You can't set up an experiment to determine the existence of God.

Yes you can. And God fails.

Any use of any method of measurement or even hypothetical "thought experiment" will tell you there's no God.

QED.

Okay please set up an experiment to prove or disprove the existence of God then :). You can't do it. You can't measure or observe God, therefore when you ask science "does God exist"? Science can't answer that.

Therefore, one should assume that God does not exist, but you can't prove scientifically either way.

Creationism isn't science because you can't use the scientific method on it. You can't set up an experiment to determine the existence of God.

Yes you can. And God fails.

Any use of any method of measurement or even hypothetical "thought experiment" will tell you there's no God.

QED.

Okay please set up an experiment to prove or disprove the existence of God then :). You can't do it. You can't measure or observe God, therefore when you ask science "does God exist"? Science can't answer that.

Therefore, one should assume that God does not exist, but you can't prove scientifically either way.

I think (I'm just guessing here) what he is getting at is if you take all the lack of evidence and formulate a probability it would be next to slim to none. At least that is how I took what he said.. perhaps I misunderstood.. but I think that's what he did in fact mean.

Peace,
Stephanie.

What I mean is that from a logical perspective:

- You can't set up a physical experiment to prove or disprove God.
- Therefore, a rational entity should make its policies independent of God, because you should always accept the null/negative claim (God does not exist) when there is no proof either way.

What I mean is that from a logical perspective:

- You can't set up a physical experiment to prove or disprove God.
- Therefore, a rational entity should make its policies independent of God, because you should always accept the null/negative claim (God does not exist) when there is no proof either way.

I hear ya TGM.. and I understand what you're saying and from a scientific stand point you would be correct.. However, it doesn't negate.. what are the odds? ;)

Peace,
Stephanie.

The odds are undefined. You can't mathematically or empirically derive any 'odds' of whether God exists or not.

BTW Fantasan is trying to get you impeached.

The odds are undefined. You can't mathematically or empirically derive any 'odds' of whether God exists or not.

BTW Fantasan is trying to get you impeached.

Hahah Again.. *sigh*

Peace,
Stephanie.

The odds are undefined. You can't mathematically or empirically derive any 'odds' of whether God exists or not.

BTW Fantasan is trying to get you impeached.

Hahah Again.. *sigh*

Peace,
Stephanie.

Ah well...I just wrote a very extensive rebuttal.

I agree with the principle that scientific theories should be taught as such. However, I disagree with Fantasan's example of evolution versus creationism.

I'm quite certain that literal creationism (the Earth was made 10,000 years ago) has been disproven by use of the scientific method, namely, radiological dating techniques*. There may be various variations of these two theories, and these could reasonably be debated.

A better example would be the various theories about the existence of Jesus Christ. It has not been conclusively proven that Jesus Christ was or was not the Son of God.

*Radiological dating techniques involve using known information about the half-lives of unstable atoms to date various objects. Carbon-dating is a form of radiological dating that measures the carbon-13 content of an object, typically anything that was once alive or made from something that was once alive.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder of The Realm of Ambrosia

I'm no expert on the subject, but I think that you could divide "creationists" into two rough categories. One believes in the literal truth of the creation accounts in the Book of Genesis. This group disregards science in favor of religion, but they will go to great lengths to twist facts to make their theories seem scientifically plausible. The other doesn't believe in the literal truth of the Bible, but does believe that some kind of divine power or "intelligent design" is necessary to explain the development of the world as it is today. The latter category is more willing to accept certain aspects of evolution, but they'll generally put a religious or spiritual spin on things. Some respectable academics fit into this category.

It wouldn't be so bad for students to be taught: "Evolution has some gaps, and some have suggested that there is some kind of intelligent design that would explain these." It would be horrible, from a critical thinking standpoint, for students to be taught: "Evolution, creation of the world in a week--eh, who are we to judge; they're both equally plausible." The latter, however, is mandated by the words of Fantasan's resolution.

Evolution is a FACT.

That species change over time due to genetic mutations passed down to offspring has been observed, and its existence is no longer debatable.

I really don't care about the creationism/evolution debate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Basically, claims that the Holocaust didn't happen are as stupid as saying the Sun is made from Cheese."-English Republicans, stating an excellent point.

Evolution is a FACT.

That species change over time due to genetic mutations passed down to offspring has been observed, and its existence is no longer debatable.

Evolution is a fact beyond reasonable doubt.

You can never 100% prove anything in science or in law. This is why juries say "we find the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt." However, you can 100% disprove something.

Just a semantics thing. I'm very pro-evolution. Creationism should not be taught in science classes. If you want to teach it, teach it in religion class.

One thing I would like taught in all science classes at the lower ages of schooling, is the difference between science and pseudoscience.

But what about teaching that racism, for instance, is wrong? This example and others rely on untilitarian ethics, which you cannot scientifically prove.

And evolution has been proven through carbon dating fossils and example. The idea that the world began 4000 years ago has been disproven by fossils millions of years old.

Evolution vs Creation has been going on for ages, and basically boils down to people's unwillingness to accept that they are the ultimate result of pure chance changes, helped along by selection.

The flat-earthers (flat earth created in 6 days and populated by creatures of god's personal design) have been largely discredited around the world, except maybe in southern Texas.

The creationists (intelligent design by god of creatures at beginning of time) have a much larger audience, as they're not so extreme or ludicrous in their claims and use a sort of pseudo-science to justify claims.

However when it boils down to it, the overwhleming evidence from the fossil record, empirical tests with fast breeding animals (E.coli and fruit flies) and comparitive anatomy make evolution the accepted choice of scientists, who yes still call it Theory, because they're too modest and honest to straight out call it fact. They don't say it's the only way it could have happened because the set of ideas they use to arrive at such a conclusion state that we cannot ever PROVE something in the past as we didn't see it happen.

As for the experiment, try this one, it a good little thought experiment:

If God is real, consider the following,

The empirical defenition of god includes the idea that he is all powerful
The only way to prove/disprove something that cannot be quantitatively measured is to serch for a contradiction in its empirical definition. If the contradiction is present, the thing does not exist
So consider:

Can God create a boulder so heavy that he cannot lift it.

Now, if god's definition is true, he must be able to create that boulder, and at this stage of the experiment, passes the "all powerful" clause.

however, he can't lift it, and OH NO,, just failed the "all powerful" clause, cause he can't lift the boulder and hence cannot exist in the current definition.

Having a nice day on our way to the endless nothing of eternity free from the influence of the great sky-pixie.
Ni!