Six years ago in high school science class, just prior to the instruction on evolution, the teacher discussed the idea of "Spontaneous Generation" an very old european hypothesis that worms and fish just came out of the mud on the floors of rivers. This wasn't presented as what really happens, but chimpy chompy, we were told about it, IN science class. When I asked him point blank in class about Creationism, he apologized, stating he legally was forbidden to talk about it. He later showed me a list from the school board of all the things teachers couldn't speak of. Fourteen pages. I understand that in six years the pages have grown. Very sad, no? We can observe pulsars in the night sky, yes. How pulsars were formed and how they work internally is a hypothesis only.
So you're seriously saying astronomy has no theories??? I don't think a science teacher should get into discussion of religious ideas, although I guess outright banning it is a bit drastic. If I was a teacher I'd just say something along the lines of "we're here to talk science, god is a supernatural and non-scientific concept". Then again people are often ignorant of science and might misinterpret that as "god doesn't exist". So I've often thought what kids should get is a lesson or two on what science is or isn't, and how it differs from other ways of looking at the world. But once that's done and dusted, no supernatural stuff in science class.
--- As I understand the difference in meaning between hypothesis and theory, we have a great many hypotheses, in cases where we have say collected lunar soil or solar particulates, then hypotheses concerning those materials could be changed to theories, if the hypotheses proved out. If instead the testing show the hypotheses wrong it would not become a theory. There are of course many astronomical theory that have been proven through the years, if they were in fact "testable" in some way. --- In science class the teacher told us actual many different stories from a diversity of cultures of their ideas of how life started, the story of spontaneous generation was his way of telling his students that 'theories' come and go and one day darwin and evolution might be superseded and discarded in favor of a new scientific 'theory' based on better information. As I understand it science can not 'test' evolution. --- Creationism can not be proven scientifically. There are vocal forces who do not want it in any class room. Three quarters of americans hold this is how it happen. In term of supernatural, ninety plus percent of the world holds that this is how it happen. --- Chimpy Chompy how many public high schools have religious studies? T'Girl
I know that in Australia public high schools have Religious Studies as an elective for those students that want to study it Here is an example of what is taught
^^ When I was in High School, I had a class called "Bible As Literature." The Human race was aware of evolution long before Darwin, and in fact exploited this knowledge through the breeding of various plants and animals-- thereby "testing" it. What Darwin contributed-- for one thing-- was a Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. This has been "tested" by observation of how living things, up to and including antibiotic-resistant bacteria, adapt to recent changes in the environment, particularly those made by man. Evolution in general is not only supported by observation, but by the fossil record and molecular biology.
T'Girl: okay I think you're misunderstanding some things here. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation, a theory is one that has survived rigorous testing. That testing can be against naturally occuring events or objects, as well as those in a lab. The lab is just a way of idealising conditions. Something like stellar evolution is not relegated to mere hypothesis just cos we can't make stars in the lab. Careful with talk of "discarded". Newton's laws of gravitation have been superseded but we haven't thrown them in the bin, they're still quite useful. Theories of evolution have already come on a long way since Darwin's time. And they'll continue to be improved on, sure. I'm not a biologist so someone else might have to step in here, but I know there's plenty of evidence to test our theories of evolution against. Genetics, the fossil record etc. It's clear that life has changed over billions of years, that's pretty much a fact and in that sense evolution is a fact too. The theory is that which explains how it all happened (ie processes like natural selection). Sure, but that's got nothing to do with whether or not it's valid science. Again I think we need better education on what science is about, maybe then religious types wouldn't get so upset at their worldviews not being brought into that particular class (or maybe that's wishful thinking and they would still, i dunno :/ ) Schools here in the UK have compulsory religious studied up to the age of 14, then it becomes an optional subject for GCSE. I've no idea what goes on in USAland, but I do think it should be taught.
Isn't that what I said? We can't make stars in a lab ...we can't 'rigorously test' ... so just an hypothesis. Newton's Laws have been enhanced and supplemented, not as I understand it 'superseded' or replaced. --- But has everthing to do with what parents want their children taught in 'science classes'. Chimpy Chompy I don't alway know where people are posting from. I'm glad that both Australia and Britian have these classes. Personal I think all children would benefit from classes in comparative religon. Including the meaning of athesist and agnostic, most americans don't understand the meaning of the former term. One hundred and twenty years ago in america, native american children in government schools were given no instruction in their native languages, partially in the hope that their cultures would die. Chimpy Chompy correct what I've heard, one hundred and twenty years ago in scotland, children in government schools were given no instruction in gaelic, partially in the hope that their culture would die. Today, children are not taught christanity in american government schools because ...
No, it's not just a hypothesis. The theories are tested agains the observed data, coming in from stars at all the different stages in their lives.
i saw Creation more than a week ago at TIFF http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/films/creation the film is more about Darwin's family life and how he dealt with the death of his eldest daughter, than it does about his work on the Origin of Species (which, by the way, can be equally attributed to Alfred Wallace). overall, i greatly enjoyed the film. we learn more about the man and less about the theory. it's a shame many Americans may not see this quality film in their homeland.
I think in the thrust-and-parry of debating the origins of the species, an important point has been overlooked (by some) and that is that: Of course this movie will be shown in the U.S. It won't go on IMAX screens nationwide or anything - biopics about scientists, no matter how influential, don't usually do blockbuster business, do they? - but it'll pop up here and there, and people will be able to buy or rent it. Anybody who wants to see it will be able to see it.
O Lord. Plus some very bad Latin spoken with obvious southern Italian accents (since part of the movie was filmed there). Hilarious to Italian viewers.
Maybe if Darwin's wife and kids were murdered in the opening moments by a gang of renegade bikers...or better yet a gang of terrorists... Pitch the movie as a gore soaked revenge story...Darwin stripped to the waistcoat hefting a blunderbuss.. "It's survival of the fittest,baby..and you're not fit enough!".
The Jewish people spoke Aramaic (or something resembling it, I don't think there is a consensus on that) and Hebrew, the Roman legionaries and public officials spoke (heavily accented) Latin.