Posted by: FLPatriot | February 19, 2009

What is the purpose of science class?

A lot of the debates I come across between Darwinists and Christians, when the subject of science classes in a government school, revolves arounf what should and should not be allowed to be taught.

The Darwinist falls back on “you can’t teach religion in a science class” argument. Now this opens the question, what should be taught in a science class? Should we teach only facts of science? Should we only teach scientific laws? Should we stick to the scientific method?

Of course this is my blog so here is my opinion.

Science class should be to teach kids how to perform science. Simple enough, right? I think most people come out of school wiht out any real understanding on how science is performed or how sciencetists reach their conclusions. Not enough time is spent teaching kids how to be a scientist. I remember the bunson burner fondley, dissecting the frog was a highlight and nothing will beat when my teacher (Mr. Zinc, no kidding that was his name) showed us what happens when certian hosehold chemicals where mixed incorrectly. That is what science class should be.

Teach the kids what the scientific method is. Teach them how to perform experiments and how to keep records of thoe experiments. Show kids how to correctly mix checmicals to get a proper reaction. Demonstrate how different science lab equipment works and how to use them safely.

That should keep them busy. No need to cloud there thinking with theories or disputed facts. Instead of telling the kids that rocks are millions of years old, teach them how radiometric dating works and let them find the answers for themselves. Instead of telling the kids that we evolved from monkies, show them examples of chaneg within species due to natural selection and how to obseve them, then let them make their own observations and come to their own conclusions.

I can sum it up as, let teachers teach how science works and stick to only the proven laws. If you have to trust someone elses research in order to come to your own conclusion, that is not science. In science you should have to do the work yourself and then come to your own conclusion.



  1. I’VE GOT IT!

    Anything you believe is true to you [strawman – strike one]. Facts are entirely irrelevant[strawman – strike two]. Every man is an island of his own beliefs[and strawman – strike three].

    Bye [your out of here, I love baseball. mcoville].

  2. “Science is not about telling someone what the correct answer is, in my opinion. Science is about finding the answer for yourself.”

    Science isn’t. But science CLASS is.

    Kids thinking for themselves is fine. But not when we have definite answers.

    Despite your religious opinion, we did evolve from common ancestors with the great apes. That is scientific fact. Not even Michael Behe, the poster boy for ID, denies that.

    It is just one of those many scientific facts that make up the theory of evolution.

    Science is not a democracy. You don’t get too choose what to believe in or vote on it. Just like you don’t get to vote on the answers in math class.

    There are plenty of actual controversies in science, mostly where there is not enough evidence to go on. But evolution, despite your wishes, isn’t one of those actual controversies.

  3. if you keep saying there is no controversy it will not make it true. If any scientist disputes the evidence then there is a controversy. If there was no controversy why is there so many web sites, books, TV shows and of course blogs dedicated to the discussion of evolution and creation?

    If you feel the controversy is dead, why are you here arguing against the controversy?

  4. “If any scientist disputes the evidence then there is a controversy.”

    Not true.

    Again, I keep bringing up holocaust deniers, but it’s a good analogy. There is no controversy about whether or not the holocaust took place. But there are historians who say it didn’t happen.

    So why is there no controversy? Because the evidence is all on one side. The same is true for evolution.

    “If there was no controversy why is there so many web sites, books, TV shows and of course blogs dedicated to the discussion of evolution and creation?”

    Are you suggesting that only scientists can do those things?

    The only controversy about evolution is political and religious. In other words, there is no scientific controversy. That living things evolve is scientific fact. It doesn’t matter if certain politicians or religious people disagree, because the evidence backs it up.

    “If you feel the controversy is dead, why are you here arguing against the controversy?”

    Because I enjoy discussing these things.

    And some people just don’t understand evolution. I know I won’t change your mind because you are ideologically against the idea of evolution. But there could be people reading these blogs who just don’t understand it, and get a benefit when the ideological objectors are pointed out for what they are. Ideological and not evidence based.

  5. mosec0de: I respect you answer to why you comment on blogs like this one, thank you for a great answer.

    The difference between the holocaust and evolution is that we have first hand eyewitness testimony to the holocaust happening. All though we have evidence to changes with in a species, I have not seen evidence of one kind of animal changing into another. Therefore there is a controversy to the factuality of evolution.

    I think I should take a moment to clarify what form of evolution I feel there is a controversy over. I have no problem with the fact that species change over time to suite their environment. If you want to call this evolution thats fine, I would prefer to call that adaptation.

    When I discuss the controversy of evolution I am speaking to the belief that one kind of animal changes to another kind over millions of years. I have not seen enough empirical evidence that a fish ever gave birth to a bird. I know you like to use Tiktallik as one example, but I have seen articles on a science website that disputes the assumed facts of that case. Besides I am not willing to concede fossils as proof for that form of evolution, what some would label “macro-evolution”.

    So going forward I will use the term macro-evolution to describe what I feel is being debated as controversial.

    I think this is going to lead to a post about Tiktallik coming soon, I may have to work on that one now so please save your comments on that topic if you don’t mind.

    Thank you again for some great insight and I look forward to hearing more from you.

  6. “I have not seen enough empirical evidence that a fish ever gave birth to a bird.”

    This statement indicates that in addition to being ideologically against evolution, you don’t understand it. At least that sentence implies that you are grossly misinformed of the process.

    Perhaps I can help with an analogy. It will probably fail, but why not try.

    Picture, if you will, a large amount of men standing in line. Dozens if not hundreds.

    At the beginning of the line is a man who has shaved his head bald. Next in line is a man who’s hair has grown 1 centimeter. As we go down the line, each person has 1 centimeter more of hair than the person before them.

    Eventually we will reach a man who has hair all the way down to his shoulders.

    Now compare the shoulder-length guy to the first person in line. They don’t look similar at all, do they? There’s no way that the bald guy could suddenly have shoulder-length hair.

    But it wasn’t sudden.

    Furthermore, randomly pick two men from anywhere in the line, and they will look almost identical. Their hair is only a centimeter different in length. But the hair at the beginning of the line and the end are extremes.

    That, my friend, is evolution.

    “I think this is going to lead to a post about Tiktallik coming soon”

    Tiktaalik roseae is my favorite transitional form. It’s in my banner on my site. Would love to talk about it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: