Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gideongallery
simple answer (grade 9 science class)
Because the underlying assumptions of of the theory have not been proven or disproven (the enviroment that evolution exists was created by absolutely random events).
Laws have their underlying assumptions proven
The laws of physics that specify that Gravity is a constant force is a law because some on successfully proved that if you removed the air resistance a feather would fall at the same speed as a buckshot. Before that time the "theory" of gravity said that force of gravity was varied depending on the mass of the object. This "theory" was put in place to explain observed event of a heavy object (cannon ball) hitting the ground before the lighter object (feather).
For evolution to become a law like the law of constant gravity you must prove that the originally proto mass that was the universe popped into existance via random event even though such an act violates the laws of thermodynamics (conservation of mass and energy).
The problem with not teaching creationism is people stop realizing the difference between "theories", observed events and true "facts". If we blindly believe anything (creationism or darwinism) we close our minds to posibilities and is the greatest detriment to scientific research that can exist.
|
Your answer is indeed one suitable for ninth grade. It completely fails to take into account the findings of twentieth century philosophy of science, such as the rather important (at least for this discussion) refutation of the whole concept of verification by Karl Popper. It is a simple fact that laws of nature are, by logical definition, theories which can never be fully proven.
As for not teaching creationism, that is not a problem at all. Creationism is a non-scientific belief, not a scientific theory. As a scientific theory, it would be laughably weak, since it is essentially untestable and derived solely from mythology rather than any form of empiric data.
Creationism, bluntly put, is a really, really bad theory, which is completely unscientific and extremely weak. Evolution, on the other hand, is a really, really strong theory. Suggesting that the two be taught alongside eachother shows a blatant ignorance of the very nature of science.