Learn from the mistakes of others

the issue of why teach scientific theories in school science classes, but not non-scientific theories, is a constant source of amusement and annoyance.

many fundamentalist christians argue that if, for example, evolution is 'just a theory'™, then their theories ought to be taught in science classes as well.

this 'argument'™ is flawed for several reasons:

science classes are about teaching science. no matter how you dress theology, it is not science. that difference is the reason church™ and science™ had a falling out in the 'age of reason'™. science is not about proving things; it is about asking questions, and testing plausible answers, and trying to explain what is going on in the physical world.

theology is about belief, and the metaphysical world. science can no more prove the existence or otherwise of deities than theology can. and despite the curious digressions of individual scientists, science makes no attempt to do so.

just because you find physical evidence that correlates with descriptions in a story, that does not prove that the story itself is true. otherwise james bond, perry mason, and kay scarpetta are now historical figures. it should surprise no one that the stories in the new testament include places and people that existed at some point in time. we have historical fiction and political tracts today that do just the same.

establishing the existence of things does not automatically establish the occurrence of events. or that one of the people involved in any series of events was the 'son of god'™

that is a matter of faith. the kind of belief that characterises religions. belief in a thing without requiring evidence.

science, in contrast, requires evidence. observable, repeatable, concrete evidence. in science, a belief must be supported by evidence. the more evidence a particular belief/model/theory explains, the more likely it will gain widespread acceptance [eventually becoming part of the so-called 'mainstream'].

in theology, belief/faith is not about evidence. in religion, belief is baout the values that ought to underpin a meaningful life.

science is not about values, it is about the physical world.that, however, does not mean there is no place for values in the pursuit of science. rather, science is only equipped to provide us with models of how things work. that can be very useful to inform decisions: in short, science can answer how, but not necessarily why.

back to the creationism v evolution game.

creationism, even if dressed up as 'intelligent design' is theology. it is a belief derived from part of a collection of texts that are believed to be true in themselves. and that belief often brooks no questioning. apparently, the bible is true because it is believed to be true because that is a fundamental foundation of the belief in the first place. it is taken on faith.[about as unscientific as can be imagined.]

one can find evidence to support practically any belief one cares to entertain. the evidence may not stand up to scrutiny from others, but hey - that may only serve to prove the belief is right in the first place. especially if you build that into the fabric of your beliefs in the first place. [many 'conspiracy theorists'™ live here.]

christianity, per se, is not a minority belief system (though some variants certainly are in some places). modern western science grew out of the church in the west. but the two belief systems parted ways because adherents of the two found themselves arguing over who was right. they have been arguing ever since.

evolution, as a theory, has proven to be pretty robust. in it's 150+ year lifetime, the basic idea that organisms pass on characteristics to their offspring, and those characteristics play a role in the survival of the offspring, with survival meaning living long enough to reproduce and actually reproducing. the details have been examined, contested, argued over, and refined. but the basic idea has remained.

the idea does not preclude some cosmic creator entity popping along to get things started or fiddling with the process. but such arbitrary events are not readily observed or explained by the available scientific™ evidence. like the pre-gallilei/copernicus religious model of the heavens, a great deal of clever work can be done to explain what we actually observe so that it fits with any particular description (of the several given) in the particular set of texts chosen for the particular variant of the bible that one may chose to believe on faith to be true.

'god'™ may have chosen to do things as described in the opening of genesis. but why go to such lengths to fool 'his own people'™, when the gods of 'the other people'™ were not bothering? [the god of the jewish being one of the host of the elohim, that people being identified as special because he had chosen them. everyone else seems to have been happy with the gods they had where they were. but i digress into theology.]

one of the guiding principles that has become part of the package we know and love as science today is the variously named occam's razor ("pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity.") - essentially, the simplest answer is usually the best. evolution is a pretty simple explanation that fits a heck of a lot of evidence. indeed, so much that it has yet to be seriously challenged as a scientific explanation for how organisms have come to be the way they are. theology can wave its wand, but thats not scientific.

and consequently, while evolution may be only a 'theory', it is a scientific theory. unlike creationism. and therefore gets taught in science classes. creationism belongs in theology classes - christian theology classes, taught by whatever sect you might choose for your particular sect. or perhaps we should be arguing that evolution must be taught in religion lessons? thought not.

[i'll write about the idea of beauty some other time. i think this is enough for now.]