> > "This is not a scientific issue, it's a political issue," he said.
> > "There isn't a scientific issue about the validity of evolution. The
> > only issue is whether schoolchildren will learn real science or
> > not."
> >          -- Adrian Melott
> 
> I've no idea of the original context.
> 
> This promises to be short and brutal.
> But lets see if the rule set allows an interesting discussion.

Or long and brutal.  Did we not learn from the "ACLU Opposes
School Children Thinking for Themselves" thread?

> Observing the Newton tag dictat the tag is now [OT]
> Observing the Newton 'non specific-word usage with any amount of
> innuendo allows vast lattitude' dictat, I attempt, hopefully
> successfully [:-) ] to employ non specific words.
> 
> Responding to sig lines is seldom a good idea.
> 
> I found this one motivational. It seems to embody such truth although,
> after having looked at the owners other siglines, presumably
> semi-randomly chosen from a file, it may be intended to say other that
> what it seems to.

I can tell you aren't from the USA, Russell.  ;-)  Anyone in the US who
pays even cursory attention to this "issue" would IMMEDIATELY know
the context of this quote:  on one side are people who believe that ca.
2 billion years ago, some goop began to self-replicate, and that all life
on Earth descended from that puddle of pudding, while on the other,
there are those who believe that sometime within the last 6000 years
or so, God spoke four fateful words and from that, all else has arisen.

The middle ground, which I am reasonably certain Russell inhabits and
I am also reasonably sure he overestimates the population of, is a
barren wasteland.  "Science" has "proven" evolution, as far as the
first group above is concerned (call them SHs).  The CFs (other group)
believe that such teaching will "corrupt" their children, taking them off
of the path their parents have chosen.

<snipping a good deal>

> SO - will children learn real science or not?
> A good question.
> If they are taught that Science is as Popper says and the rest is
> flavours of religion, and that there is no demerit in this being so,
> then they will indeed learn real Science.

Ideally, school children should be taught little more than the fact
that Creation happened before any living human was around, and
that no written records have survived since then.  They should then
be taught basic biology of modern, observable things, and after a
few years, when they have a good grasp on how living things work,
be exposed to the fossil record, and be allowed to form hypotheses
on their own at that point.  At this point, the most critical juncture
occurs:  under NO circumstances should a teacher state that the
hypothesis brought forth by a student is "wrong".

> But if they are told, as they all too often are,  that the theory of X
> and the postulate of Y are facts most true, to be bowed down to, and
> worshipped, and set in stone and most certainly not to be questioned
> in any way, and that THIS is science, then no, they will not learn
> real science. And the world will be poorer for it. As indeed it
> already is.

!

Note that the way things ARE done is precisely the opposite of the
above.  It is very difficult to "unlearn" the "facts" of "science" which
have been drilled into your head at an early age.

Mike H.

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist