NationStates Jolt Archive

I have seen that the resolution to allow evolution to be taught has passed, however; why is this do you think that it is fact? The truth is that it is not fact, but just a theory and nothing more. Teaching it as fact is wrong, because it is only a theory. If someone were to say the grass was blue, would you teach that the grass was blue? Of course you wouldn't it would be foolish to teach that it is fact when evidence supports that is not. Same can be said for evolution. All you are doing is teaching something that is false to students who will grow with that knowledge even though it is false and there is evidence against it. The schools are to teach for the betterment of the students, not cloud their minds. My question is do you want to make people blind by teaching a theory as fact?

Greetings.

Although we are certain of the fact of abiogenesis, living as we do in a magical environment, we would like to note that evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is a specific theory related to one kind of evolution; and in fact, there are several related theories in that area. In fact, saying 'in fact' in a debate about fact is a rather disturbing thing as it lacks style.

We think that market forces and legal forces should prevail. Should a man teach fiction as fact, let him continue. We do it all the time anyway. Sooner or later, he will be dealt with. And if not, then you must have let him do it.

Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Saint Lucius Malfoy

Description: REGRETTING the threat to human rights which is the suppression of learning about evolutionary theory;

AWARE that some of causes of this suppression are political and/or religious based fears that evolution is an alternative to belief in a deity;

NOTING that many religions do not feel threatened by evolutionary theory. Furthermore it is unlikely that God is so malevolent as to plant evidence that our planet is aged 3.5 billion years;

EMPHASIZING the United Nations must collectively discourage the suppression of this grand unifying theme called evolutionary theory. Teachers of the idea should also be free from imprisonment and persecution.

CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of evolutionary theory or punishing those who teach it.

MANDATES a strong symbolical disapproval against any member state that persists to physically imprison / punish teachers or students for engaging in evolutionary studies.

REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory;

ASKS member nations work with world leaders to prevent the suppression of evolutionary theory in the classroom. Could someone tell me where exactly the resolution states that evolution has to be taught as fact?

Greetings.

We note with pleasure the plaintive cry of the Flibbleite, who is of course absolutely correct.

But to be absolutely correct does not ensure the fun-and-games which some people dearly love. It would be akin to banning foxhunting in some cultures.

As a theory of the progression of live, evolution works. Thought the Empire strongly leans toward a creationist point of view, our top theologians see no problems in accepting that species can and do change, though the extent of that change is still being debated, as part of the grand, ineffable plan the gods have laid out for us. Whtever that might be... they never really say.

As a theory og origins it's next to useless. Evolution theory doesn't explain origins and offers no mechanisms for life to spontaneously appear. Hypotheses concerning this have been mooted by scientists across the world but have generally been found to lack in one area: the conversion of energy. Simply throwing energy in to a system that has no conversion mechanisms will simply make it more chaotic.

For this reason, Ashatar does not feel it necessary to talk about repealing resolutions concerning teaching of evolutionary theory, but we would like to see more research - obviously on a voluntary basis rather than through any UN mandate - in to possible mechanisms for the origin of life itself. The results should be interesting.

Why should only the Right be questioned about teaching evolution, surely lefties and centrists need to be tested if they are to teach it too? Discrimination by affiliation in schools..the UN will be frowning. Revolutionaries teach evolutionary (i like the ring to that!!!!)

Very well done, Bahgum. Hopefully this first bit of sillyness will survive and flourish.

The truth is that it is not fact, but just a theory and nothing more. Teaching it as fact is wrong, because it is only a theory.

Absolute truth (if it exists) is inaccessible to us (or so philosophers of many diverse schools of thought agree). Therefore nothing taught can be proven to be true, but who would propose that teachers say 'this is just a theory' after every sentence?

The truth is that it is not fact, but just a theory and nothing more.

But isn't all of science "just a theory"? Like Safalra said absolute truth is not accesible to us.

Also, a scientific theory is different than a "regular" theory. Saying evolution is just a "theory" is technically a fallacy.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena...



http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

We at the Commonwealth of Sentient Computers (CoSC) have never observed the Theory of Evolution being taught as "fact" in the gravitas that word implies. To imply Creation (lets say the judo-christian one, as of course different religions have their own stories of creation), is the opposing arguement is simply not the case. They might deal with the same subject matter but that's where the similarity ends.

The story of Creation is a religious fable outlined in text passed on from previous generations. Over the thousands of years of it's existance it has been translated into different lanugagues, changes made (for whatever reason, accidental or not), but ultimately is believed to be the word of God. There is no disputing to word of God and infact it is this that is offered as "fact". People will put their own spin on what things mean, but to have faith you have to believe in it. This also means not being open to other points of view on the subject.

The Theory of Evolution has changed since first being published by Charles Darwin some couple of hundred years ago. Being scientific theory the main emphasis is on disproving something, as it's impossbile to ever prove anything. As other repeatable observations have been made over time - in particular the development of DNA technology and hereditary - development of a new speices (or many new species) from a proto-species has aided in our understanding of what this theory implies.

The teaching of Creationism has no place in science. It should be kept in religious studies. Those that disapprove on the theory of evolution should be trying to contribue by disproving the parts they don't agree with. Perhaps offer a Theory of Creationism built on repeatable observation that can be statistically analysed.

I have to agree strongly with the comments of the CoSC representative.

The Theory of Evolution and its accompanying doctrines/facts/theories (etc) have a solid basis in a century’s worth of scientific study grounded in every single technique of scientific investigation, whether that be in the lab or in archaeology. True, its perimeters may have changed as scientific techniques have improved, but these corrections have not dented the core propositions of its teachings. It is, to put it bluntly, a fact.

In contrast Creationism or intelligent design as some like to spin it now (sorry, did someone say the White House?) has not a single shred of scientific proof grounded in any technique that is recognised by any of the major scientific bodies in the world. At best it can be described as a vague theory although I`d blanche at giving it even this honour as even the most basic theories have a few tests or solid chunks of evidence behind them.

Although I am not a Un Delegate I am a memeber of the UN and my opinion should be heard upon this matter. Evolution is a fact it has been proven countless of times by many different people in many different nations following many different religions.

I'm not sure who but someone brought up a topic that I am very vocal about, which is foxhunting. I believe that this "sport" is cruel and should be banned in every nation that is a member of the United Nations. Would you send a pack of dogs to go and kill a kat while you rode behind on a horse? No because this is cruel. How is sending a pack of dogs to kill a fox any different?

Bow To The Almighty Pie

Bow to the almighty pie indeed...perhaps the nation of pie loving people and Bahgum are similarly blessed with superior pie cuisine. In Bahgum the pie has part of our nations motto since we joined the UN.

We at the Commonwealth of Sentient Computers (CoSC) have never observed the Theory of Evolution being taught as "fact" in the gravitas that word implies. To imply Creation (lets say the judo-christian one, as of course different religions have their own stories of creation), is the opposing arguement is simply not the case. They might deal with the same subject matter but that's where the similarity ends.

The story of Creation is a religious fable outlined in text passed on from previous generations. Over the thousands of years of it's existance it has been translated into different lanugagues, changes made (for whatever reason, accidental or not), but ultimately is believed to be the word of God. There is no disputing to word of God and in fact it is this that is offered as "fact". People will put their own spin on what things mean, but to have faith you have to believe in it. This also means not being open to other points of view on the subject

The Theory of Evolution has changed since first being published by Charles Darwin some couple of hundred years ago. Being scientific theory the main emphasis is on disproving something, as it's impossbile to ever prove anything. As other repeatable observations have been made over time - in particular the development of DNA technology and hereditary - development of a new speices (or many new species) from a proto-species has aided in our understanding of what this theory implies.

The teaching of Creationism has no place in science. It should be kept in religious studies. Those that disapprove on the theory of evolution should be trying to contribue by disproving the parts they don't agree with. Perhaps offer a Theory of Creationism built on repeatable observation that can be statistically analysed.

I consider myself a Fundamentalist Christian and I think this hits the nail exactly on the head. IMO the only way of knowing what is really "true" is to find a way to go back in time and find out (and even then it might be almost impossible to interpret what you are seeing correctly). Until then pretty much anything we choose to dump out there is unprovable, so it comes down to what you believe. My belief is, let scientists who look on Evolution as fact state the case for evolution, let the "intelligent design" people offer their rebuttals of individual theories, and let people in general believe what they want when it comes to their day-to-day lives. The system works, ladies and gentlemen, and there is no reason to storm the castle of Science and bloody up the place based on nonexistent threats. My personal opinion: God so loved the world, regardless of how he chose to make it.

BTW

Peace out, and congrats to CoSC for great post!

Edit:
or intelligent design as some like to spin it now

V. different group of people Gladsby; Creationists are religious; intelligent design is a group of scientists who reject the overarching theory of Naural Creation and don't so much offer up their own theories as point out the flaws in Evolution. These people DO have a place in the scientific debate as CoSC implied, offering up their problems with individual theories within the Evolutionary construct.

Edit:
or intelligent design as some like to spin it now

V. different group of people Gladsby; Creationists are religious; intelligent design is a group of scientists who reject the overarching theory of Naural Creation and don't so much offer up their own theories as point out the flaws in Evolution. These people DO have a place in the scientific debate as CoSC implied, offering up their problems with individual theories within the Evolutionary construct.

No, they don't have any place in scientific debate because their "objections" to evolution are religiously, not scientifically, motivated. The entire basis of their arguments against evolution boils down to "I personally refuse to believe it could have happened like that".

Don't fool yourself, IDers are creationists in scientists clothing, they're just trying to figure out a way to sneak creationism into the science class by camouflaging it in pseudo-scientific terminology.

In the words of William Dembski, one of the big name IDers:

"I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed." He continued, "And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done -- and he's not getting it." - William Dembski

There you have the motivation of the Intelligent Design movement in a nutshell.

No, they don't have any place in scientific debate because their "objections" to evolution are religiously, not scientifically, motivated. *snip*

Greetings.

While we of Roathin understand your sentiment, we must note that the motivation of a debater is not of primary interest to a debate. Rather, should we be participants in a scientific debate, we would be bound to assess the content of an argument by scientific principles. The act of rejecting the right of place of a debater because of his motivation and not his argument is itself 'ad hominem' and should be rejected.

You can dispose of religious arguments in a scientific debate on scientific grounds. Likewise, given an agreed theological basis in a theological debate (regardless of which theology), you can dispose of scientific arguments on theological grounds. Remember that the ground rules for a debate determine what is acceptable and what is not, and allow all to judge the effectiveness of an argument by the same standard.

Examples:

Consider a case of an entity named 'God' with certain physical properties in a theological debate. Can God create a rock he cannot move if he is defined as omnipotent? The answer is that he cannot, but this does not void his omnipotence. A scientist would say 'Pish' and perhaps 'Tosh', or even 'Bosh!' But it is a legitimate theological position.

Consider same entity under discussion in scientific debate. Same question. Scientific debate ground rule is stated as, "It is not possible to include such an entity in this debate." End of debate.

Of course there is no place for God or religious arguments in a scientific discussion! In the same manner, there is no place for religion in a theological discussion!

Religion and Science are two separate thinghs that serve different purposes. Science is a process by which our knowledge is constructed. There are no definite trues and everything can be chalanged (including, evolution!). Strictly speaking science can never tell us how the Universe works, because every theory is temporary and it will only be adopted until a better description arises. For now, evolution is the theory which better describes the known biological facts. Schools should teatch the biological facts and then introduce evolution as the theory that helps the understanding of such facts.

Religion is a very different thingh which serves very different purposes. One of the characteristics of religion is that you are asked to believe in a certain number of dogmas that can not be demonstrated or chalanged. And even if the facts contradict these thinghs you still must believe them and doubt the facts! According to creationism the world was created about 4500 years ago.

There is an infinitude of facts that demonstrates that the world is older than 4500 years.

Creationism is the only alternative to the evolution theory. How can someone question the right to teach evolution?

Greetings.

We of Roathin note the Technocratic stand as inevitable given your nature. We also know for a fact the world is more than 4500 years old. This does not excuse the idea of an inexplicable creation from scientific discussion. The prophet Terence of Pratch once spoke of machines which could engineer such, and the prophet Stefan the Falconer once calculated the characteristics of an initial singularity (both rightly and wrongly).

Hail to Terrence of Pratch! Blessed is he who doesn't stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'! :D

Dear Grand Duke of Roathin,

Between two competing theories leading to the same results I choose the simplest one. It seems to me than evolution is simpler than "an inexplicable cretion". Therefore, this is what we choose to teatch our childrean at school.

It seems to me that it makes more sense to question the right of teaching religion, creationism, astrology or any other form of pseudo-science in schools than to question the right od teatching a scientific theory that is pretty good in helping our understanding of the surrounding world.

Religion is meant to make a distinction between what is right and what is wrong. These are questions that can not be determined scientifically. And science is there to give us knowledge ehich is somethingh you can not get from religion. Schools should teatch science and temples should teach religion. I think this is a good argument even for those who are not Obcessive Technocrats! ;)

The Nation of Krythe would like to note that the biggest problem with creationism/inteligent design being presented as an alternative to evolution is that it is not a scientific theory. being a scientific theory implies that there is solid proof behind the proposal; that the proposal has been tested multiple times in multiple locations. Creationism/inteligent design, by its very nature, cannot be tested and therefore is not a scientific theory - Creationism/inteligent design is not an alternative theory to evolution.

The Democratic Republic of Krythe teaches the theory of evolution in its biology classes, just as it teaches the theory of relativity and the theories of particle physics and the theory of gravity in its physics and chemistry classes. Creationism/inteligent design is taught along with the creation beliefs of all other religions in its cultural studies class.

Dear Grand Duke of Roathin,

Between two competing theories leading to the same results I choose the simplest one. It seems to me than evolution is simpler than "an inexplicable cretion". Therefore, this is what we choose to teatch our childrean at school.

It seems to me that it makes more sense to question the right of teaching religion, creationism, astrology or any other form of pseudo-science in schools than to question the right od teatching a scientific theory that is pretty good in helping our understanding of the surrounding world.

Religion is meant to make a distinction between what is right and what is wrong. These are questions that can not be determined scientifically. And science is there to give us knowledge ehich is somethingh you can not get from religion. Schools should teatch science and temples should teach religion. I think this is a good argument even for those who are not Obcessive Technocrats! ;)

Greetings.

We of Roathin would like to gently point out several things.

1. Schools are surely meant to show how various people distinguish between right and wrong, but this is not the only purpose of religion and it is not the only purpose of schools. So that point is moot.

2. Religion, like it or not, is a part of the heritage of most races. Some have outgrown it, some have overgrown it, but most have grown some of it in the fertile fields of their youth.

3. Some teach blatant falsehood and call it Literature, and sometimes, even Philosophy, Economics, or Science. We have to remember that the scientific approach, its application to data and its consequent findings are the cornerstone of Science; just as the literary approach, its application to texts and its consequent findings are the cornerstone of Literature. Here we mean the subjects taught as parts of formal education, and not the larger areas of sentient endeavour which go beyond.

4. We note that 'Fiat Lux!' establishing a vast region of multidimensional space which still has inexplicable properties has a certain (that is, definite) simplicity to it which other theories do not have. This act might have left little supporting data, but it is simple to understand. Do not think that a scientific theory accounting for all properties of a universe is necessarily simpler than a theological argument or statement.

5. We ourselves, having basic thaumaturgy a key discipline of our educational system, could take issue with you on your definition of 'science', but we think that it is perhaps best not to legislate directly against particular teachings lest one wastes time, effort and philosophical space.

6. In conclusion, we support the right of freedom of speech in abstract, subject to the usual restrictions in practice - no fraud, no harm, no impingement on other rights, space-time constraints, economic priority (i.e. given limited resources, what can be supported).

We would also like to note that, in NS, the rules are different. For example, we may have proof of creationism, through an ironic twist in our exploitation of the universe. Our Linking Books exploit the fact the universe is just waveforms to establish "gateways" to other worlds, no matter where they are in space or time (we even have Linking Books that have two or more versions of a world, linking to alternate timelines as well, though so far we remain in this universe). However, we have no proof the worlds existed before we Linked to them. It is mostly old belief based on the presense of signs of a world having formed naturally, but those signs are possibly false. We might be unknowingly creating a new world with each new world Linked to, bringing into existance what did not exist before and changing both space and time. However, we have no evidence we are doing that either.