Subject:
|
Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:44:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
359 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Markus Wolf writes:
> > > http://www.drdino.com/SeminarVideo/Part4/04apt16PepMoth.ram, horse
> > > evolution:
> > > http://www.drdino.com/SeminarVideo/Part4/04bptHorse.ram).....but I guess
> > > if we eventually prove the bunkum wrong it's still okay that we lied for
> > > a long time. Seeing that there is overwhelming evidence of intelligent
> > > design (see original message in this thread), why wouldn't it be a good
> > > idea to point this out?
> >
> > Absolutely it should be pointed out, and science textbooks that suppress
> > this information are as faulty as creationist "science" textbooks for
> > purveying false information. These errors don't invalidate evolutionary
> > theory as a whole, any more than (as someone else observed) one bogus faith
> > healer doesn't invalidate all of Christianity.
> > You've hit on a key strength of science, though; the ability to reject and
> > learn from past errors creates an ever stronger method of explanation, which
> > is the fundamental goal of scientific pursuit.
> I guess the problem I have is that the peppered moth was shown as THE
> proof of evolution in our time to the masses. There should be some sort of
> accountability that expresses, "We were wrong here" in a very public way.
Maybe, but only insofar as the peppered moth was espoused as proof in a
very public way, which it wasn't. Correction in future texts would be
appropriate, as would a mention of the erroneous conclusions about the moth.
For that matter, in my classes the moth was shown as evidence, not proof,
and in fact all scientific observation yields evidence rather than proof.
Your textbook, if claiming such proof, is at fault, not "science" itself.
> You can't be so boisterous when you're using it to support your "facts" and
> then sweep it under the rug when it's no longer a convenient lie. That's
> irresponsible, and such witnesses in a court of law would be dismissed as
> invalid.
This sort of man-on-the-street communication is a problem of all science;
that is, what is known and accepted in the scientific community isn't
circulated to every last person as quickly as would be ideal. However,
you're confusing "the moth is no longer being taught" with "the moth never
happened."
The Catholic Church rather recently admitted that Galileo was right, in a
once and done "oops" statement. Will the church now spend 400 years
publicly apologizing because its doctrine was wrong? I'm making a
rhetorical point here--whether you are Catholic or not is irrelevant.
> As someone who's not as versed in science as you all, I resent the fact
> that I was led astray by the public school system with this bunk. Someone
> owes a whole bunch of people an apology, regardless of whether you think the
> evolutionary model is still valid.
See your schoolboard about that apology, since they're the ones who bought
the textbook. It's a shame that your were led astray, but it if information
was presented because it was held to be true, you can hardly fault someone
if that information is later found to be incorrect; they did the best with
what was available. On the other hand, if they persist in presenting
information as true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they
should certainly be held accountable.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
| (...) I guess the problem I have is that the peppered moth was shown as THE proof of evolution in our time to the masses. There should be some sort of accountability that expresses, "We were wrong here" in a very public way. You can't be so (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
