Florida, Florida, Florida

[PrimalxConvoy]

Oh, same as Britain then! Well, at least if you go to a state school – “public school” means elite private school over here, bizarrely.

(Incidentally, I was taught Biology A-level by a teacher who refused to teach the evolution part of the syllabus for religious reasons, and claimed palaeontologists made most of the fossils up to give themselves jobs. She got uproariously laughed at by the students.)

Edit: I’ll add that I didn’t know what creationism was until I saw some of the online reaction to the Beast Wars episode Code of Hero.

The term "public" in the British use of "public school" and "public house" (or pub) were used to denote institutions, services or buildings that were open to, or for use by, the general public. Previously, education in the UK was only open to royalty and/or related parties but public schools in the UK were still privately run and funded (and thus still expensive and of relevance to mainly the upper classes). The American use of the term (especially in terms of education), refers to "STATE education" (which means GOVERNMENT, at either the American state or federal level).

When I was taught about evolution at school, we were given a short disclaimer by the teacher that mentioned creationism very briefly and then it was onto the science. We were taught more about the Bible's views on creationism, or how it differed from science or other aspects, in various parts of our R.E. (Religious Education) or Sociology lessons.

 

[Cybersnark]

Meanwhile in Canada, I went to Catholic Schools, but it was still a non-issue because we had separate classes. Our religion classes talked about creationism, but our science classes talked about evolution.

(And our history classes taught that history began in 1791 with the establishment of Upper and Lower Canada. )

 

[CoffeeHorse]

I went to Catholic schools and never learned a single thing in my science classes.

 

[Sjogre]

Edit: I’ll add that I didn’t know what creationism was until I saw some of the online reaction to the Beast Wars episode Code of Hero.

I'm.... Morbidly curious, but pretty sure I don't want a lot of detail

 

[KidTDragon]

My curiosity's overriding my need to stay sane. What was being said about "Code of Hero" that revealed creationism to you, Anonymous?

 

[Nevermore]

My curiosity's overriding my need to stay sane. What was being said about "Code of Hero" that revealed creationism to you, Anonymous?

Pretty sure it relates to the proto-humans.

 

[Anonymous X]

My curiosity's overriding my need to stay sane. What was being said about "Code of Hero" that revealed creationism to you, Anonymous?

Oh, I was reading the reactions to the episode on usenet, and it was mostly very positive, but I saw some “how dare they treat evolution as fact” responses , about the presence of hominids in the story of the episode, and it turned out that there was a specific belief system denying evolution, which I hadn’t know before.

(Watched the episode a month or two later, after a friend in the States had recorded it on VHS for me, FWIW. I can still see why it’s considered a classic TF episode.)

 

[The Mighty Mollusk]

The series also treats transforming alien robots wearing fursuits as fact, but why bother thinking when it's so much easier to just be mad about things.

 

[PrimalxConvoy]

Oh, I was reading the reactions to the episode on usenet, and it was mostly very positive, but I saw some “how dare they treat evolution as fact” responses , about the presence of hominids in the story of the episode, and it turned out that there was a specific belief system denying evolution, which I hadn’t know before.

(Watched the episode a month or two later, after a friend in the States had recorded it on VHS for me, FWIW. I can still see why it’s considered a classic TF episode.)

Well, technically, evolution isn't a fact, but a theory:

- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

[Plutoniumboss]

So is gravity.

 

[Pocket]

And literally everything else. "Theory" doesn't mean "hypothesis" in the scientific world, because why use a word to mean the same thing it does to the layman when you can just co-opt it to mean something completely different and then get mad at the laymen for continuing to use it the way they always have?

 

[NovaSaber]

Well, technically, evolution isn't a fact, but a theory:

- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

That evolution happens is a fact.

The theory of evolution is the accepted explanation of how it happens...and is literally more certain than the current theory of gravity.

 

[PrimalxConvoy]

And literally everything else. "Theory" doesn't mean "hypothesis" in the scientific world, because why use a word to mean the same thing it does to the layman when you can just co-opt it to mean something completely different and then get mad at the laymen for continuing to use it the way they always have?

From what I've gathered, gravity is a fact, described by the theory of relativity:

- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Evolution isn't a fact though, as it's not been conclusively proven (whereas we can see gravity in action and thus can prove it, I think), but I'm no scientist myself.

I believe there are concrete scientific facts that have been conclusively proven, so if that's true, they not "everything" is a theory, right?

That said, "Intelligent Design" isn't a scientific theory, but rather a "psuedo-scientific argument", right?

- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

 

[NovaSaber]

Evolution is a fact. Not even creationists dispute that life has changed over time anymore, they just assert that there are limits to how much...and if they're obnoxious they'll refuse to admit that the word "evolution" applies to the part they do accept. (It does, though.)

Also, speciation has been observed.

Honestly, though, even the specific accepted theory of evolution has more evidence for it than the bare facts about most subjects.

 

[Anonymous X]

Well, technically, evolution isn't a fact, but a theory:

- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

On the ignore list you go!

 

[Ungnome]

We know gravity exists the same as we know evolution exist, do to actual observation. What we know with more certainty is how evolution actually works mechanically(microbes and insects are good test cases). Gravity is a bit harder to crack... Is it caused by warped spacetime as Einstein proposed(and most of the evidence we have suggests) or is it something else. Problem is gravity is SO weak that prodding it's inner workings is extremely difficult at the scales we are able to experiment with.

 

[PrimalxConvoy]

We know gravity exists the same as we know evolution exist, due to actual observation...

That's the thing, evolution is a still a (scientific) theory because it hasn't been proven conclusively and it's open to additional facts that might evolve (no pun intended) it. At least, that's what we were taught during science class. This was due to no full "missing links"being found to conclusively prove an organism has evolved from "point A" to "point B".

From what I recall, Darwin's original theory of evolution has been updated several times since it first came out, right?

The problem with those wishing to dismiss it and/or promote intelligent design, is that a "scientific theory" is still light years ahead in proof than an "pseudoscientific argument" , such as creationism, as such an argument lacks any credible scientific methodology, etc.

- https://contemporaryvocabularium.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/theory-vs-scientific-theory/

Edit: -

According to the link below, there are other reasons for why something is a theory, or a "law", too:

- https://examples.yourdictionary.com/scientific-law-vs-theory-how-are-they-different

-

 

[The Predaking]

Let's all be nice. Debate the post, not insult the poster.

 

[NovaSaber]

That's the thing, evolution is a still a (scientific) theory because it hasn't been proven conclusively and it's open to additional facts that might evolve (no pun intended) it.

Every detailed explanation of anything in science is a theory, and there is no theory that wouldn't be modified if we found new relevant data.
That doesn't mean the basics of the theory aren't "conclusively" known...and certainly not that the facts the theory explains are in dispute.

At least, that's what we were taught during science class. This was due to no full "missing links"being found to conclusively prove an organism has evolved from "point A" to "point B".

That was already wrong then, and the number of transitional fossils discovered has grown at a rapid pace in recent decades. (Also, these days the genetic evidence is so overwhelming that you could prove evolution without even using any fossils.)

I'll be charitable to your teachers and textbooks and assume it was just that common misunderstanding, where a scientist would say we don't conclusively know that a fossil is the exact ancestor of another organism, and someone would misinterpret that as meaning we didn't even know that it's a close enough relative of the ancestor to be sure of its relevance to how it evolved.

 

[abates]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631405240187592707

This feels like it's a violation of the first amendment, at very least.