I certainly understand that. However, the teachers' salaries are paid by the taxpayers; therefore, they should probably try to teach some of the things that the taxpayers would like them to teach...
It has zero content, but it has a following. In school (not at the university level, but at the middle or high school level) teaching both and comparing them can be very educational.
Of course, the real question is not what to teach but what she meant when she said "teach both".
Because the word "both" implies that there only two alternatives. What about my Pastafarian worldview? Should creationism be split into two theories - one implying that the Man was created in the image of God, and another (the only true one!) implying that God has a form of a giant bowl of spaghetti?
Because the majority of the taxpayers, who pay the teachers' salaries narrowed down their desires to the two theories - (1) Darwin and (2)Intelligent Design
Did they ask the taxpayers whether to start war in Iraq? No, the elected president and Congress had the responsibility to command the military and protect the country, and they made this decision. Much as I dislike it, I still don't think these questions should be decided by a referendum. Same way, teachers have the responsibility to tech science to kids, but the taxpayers don't get to decide what is science and what isn't. If the voters think president is wrong, they can elect another next time. If the parents think teachers are wrong, they can complain to the director, or if the director holds the same opinion, leave for another school.
If it's Ok to not introduce students to (the only true) Pastafarian worldview because we Pastafarians are in the minority, why isn't it Ok to not introduce them to the ID worldview, should the ID-minded taxpayers be in the minority as well?
>emphasis on the fact that both are just theories and are quite impossible to prove?
Доказательства (в вашем смысле) бывают только в математике.
С научной точки зрения синтетическая теория эволюции давно «доказана», более того, её успешно применяют на практике. Статус доказанности синтетической теории эволюции в настоящий момент схож со статусом доказанности теории гравитации Эйнштейна, квантовой механики и многих других наук.
Креационизм упоминать не следует, поскольку он не имеет никакого отношения к науке. Его невозможно подтвердить или опровергнуть экспериментально. О том, чтобы применять его на практике и речи не идёт (хотя практическая применимость не является необходимым критерием).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-29 10:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-29 10:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-29 10:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-03 12:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-29 10:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-30 03:32 am (UTC)Of course, the real question is not what to teach but what she meant when she said "teach both".
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-30 02:36 pm (UTC)My guess would be that if a textbook does not mention creationism it does not emphasize evolution that much either.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-02 06:38 pm (UTC)What about my Pastafarian worldview? Should creationism be split into two theories - one implying that the Man was created in the image of God, and another (the only true one!) implying that God has a form of a giant bowl of spaghetti?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-03 12:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-03 12:51 am (UTC)Same way, teachers have the responsibility to tech science to kids, but the taxpayers don't get to decide what is science and what isn't. If the voters think president is wrong, they can elect another next time. If the parents think teachers are wrong, they can complain to the director, or if the director holds the same opinion, leave for another school.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-04 11:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-03 05:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-04 02:20 am (UTC)Доказательства (в вашем смысле) бывают только в математике.
С научной точки зрения синтетическая теория эволюции давно «доказана»,
более того, её успешно применяют на практике.
Статус доказанности синтетической теории эволюции в настоящий момент
схож со статусом доказанности теории гравитации Эйнштейна, квантовой
механики и многих других наук.
Креационизм упоминать не следует, поскольку он не имеет никакого
отношения к науке. Его невозможно подтвердить или опровергнуть
экспериментально. О том, чтобы применять его на практике и речи не идёт
(хотя практическая применимость не является необходимым критерием).