Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
| Quote (skeptic @ June 04 2008,16:19) | | Actually, Occam, we already teach the strengths and weaknesses in all other courses. A real good example is the critical analysis currently underway with string theory so why should evolution be any different. The truth is both sides have an agenda and neither has much to do with science education. |
String theory is not an apt comparison because, unlike evolutionary theory, which has massive and consilient empirical support that in broad outlines (e.g. common descent, essential mechanisms) is not subject to rational doubt, no one has yet conceived of string theory in a way that is subject to empirical test. As observed by physicist Lawrence Krauss:
"I wrote a piece where I argued that is a disservice to evolutionary theory to call string theory a theory, for example. Because it's clearly not a theory in the same sense that evolutionary theory is, or that quantum electrodynamics is, because those are robust theories that make rigorous predictions that can be falsified. And string theory is just a formalism now that one day might be a theory. And when I'm lecturing, talking about science, people say to me, evolution is just a theory, I say, in science theory means a different thing, and they say, what do you mean? Look at string theory, how can you falsify that? It's no worse than intelligent design.
I do think there are huge differences between string theory and intelligent design. People who are doing string theory are earnest scientists who are trying to come up with ideas that are viable. People who are doing intelligent design aren't doing any of that."
--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
|
