One of the problems is that, like the article claims, many people do not have basic scientific literacy, yet they try to argue science with scientists. It's like bringing a knife to a gun fight. The scientists are faced with arguements that are below a freshman level in a lot of areas and the non-scientists lack sufficent versing to comprehend the arguements made by scientists. Frustration boils up on both sides and you get a situation where PatrickHenry has to remind everyone to be civil.
There is no problem with thinking there is a creative hand in our existence, but the problem comes when people try to introduce it as science. There is no evidence for it and, if one argues complexity, then there must also be an explanation for what this creative source is and how it operates. ID is an interesting philosophical concept, but does not rise to the level of science. Only those who do not understand the nature of science do not comprehend this situation.
One of the problems is that, like the article claims, many people do not have basic scientific literacy, yet they try to argue science with scientists. It's like bringing a knife to a gun fight. The scientists are faced with arguements that are below a freshman level in a lot of areas and the non-scientists lack sufficent versing to comprehend the arguements made by scientists. Frustration boils up on both sides and you get a situation where PatrickHenry has to remind everyone to be civil.
If adults are scientifically illiterate....what level are elementary, middle school, and high schoolers on? How can evolution be presented to them that doesn't sound magical ( religious)?
K-12 students are incapable of studying science. They don't have the basics to do it. What they are learning is merely general information about the natural world. Calling this general knowledge "science" teaches them a profoundly erroneous concept about the true work of scientists.
Children are by nature very accepting and lack critical thinking. They do indeed have a magical outlook on life. There is NO possible way for government to educate children in a manner that does not PROFOUNDLY influence their political, cultural, and religious worldview. Government must get out of the education business if we are to ever end these curriculum wars.
Yup. Of course, together with the government schools, this has elements of its own "chicken or the egg" conodrum.
Are the students so ignorant of science because of the dismal state of the schools?
Or are so many of the students uninterested in science (Math Class is ToughTM!) that even the best instruction can't reach them and they fall prey to fads?
Interesting side point: Why is it that other controversial non-scientific things (crystal healing, astrology, alternative medicine) generate just as much laughter but not as much contempt as Creationism? Is there an element of intellectual pride? Is it that other non-scientific-mainstream worldviews are not as, well, pushy? Or is it that the other worldviews are rejected by nearly everyone as quacks, and therefore thought to be not nearly such a threat?
Just stirring the pot...
Cheers!
Actually, from what I've observed, its quite the opposite. For the most part, the evomaniacs on FR are NOT scientists and are unwilling to scientifically discuss uncertain fossil evidence and other inconsistencies within the body of evidence in support of evolution.
They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way.
Without philosophy and its wisdom your "science" is nothing but an efficient means to maleficence.
P.S. evidence --- "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "