Politics in Books

My science teacher said scientific thought must be unbias. Right now people are asking for political bias in science books. What I want to know is if Intelligent Design or Global Warming are as big scientific issues as politicans make it? Do these theories need a lot of time in science books?

The principles of scientific investigation should be given in unbias methods & attitude. On the the other hand well-educated, highly intelligent (or otherwise) people tend to be strongly biased toward their own view. A math teacher (probability/ statistics) once said that you can bias the statistics such to prove anything you wanted too!
In other words if you look hard enough you can justify your opinion. Ex. Smoking is bad for your health, breathing pollution is bad for your health. The air is polluted so breathing is bad for your health?

Intelligent Design is not scientific. It should not be taught as a 'science'. There's two working ideas. One would be science is what scientists say it is. The second would be that science involves testable hypotheses. Intelligent design isn't testable in the way that we normally think about scientific hypothesis being testable. They don't provide the details by which that design happened because they couldn't. They couldn't possibly show us the designer.
Intelligent Design has been rejected by all scientific institutions, academies and societies around the world. For the scientists, the case of 'intelligent design' is closed- it's simply not science.
On the other hand, global warming is real science.

This is getting difficult for me, because a couple days ago I got an email from a friend asking to help keep Intellegent Design out of schools, but I disagree and deleted the email and won't help.

I think maybe we can compromise and teach intellegent design in a theory class, but I don't think it is such a big deal that schools should be sued over it. I think we're making an ant hill into a mountain to climb a non existant cause against imaginary enemies.

To battle this is based on lower forms of human emotions and any logical person who takes part in it proves themselves illogical.

It doesn't matter. I will believe whatever I will believe nomatter what you teach in school and I don't believe my ancistor was an ape - you've wasted your time on me and my son also dissigrees, currently in college earning his masters degree, so what does it matter what you teach in grade school?

quote:

---

so what does it matter what you teach in grade school?

---

it doesn't matter as long as parents teach their kids to think independently.

quote:

---

so what does it matter what you teach in grade school?

---

What turns true belief into knowledge is the reliability of our cognitive processes. Knowledge is a resource for life. It depends which path the person takes that will ultimately define how and what they accept/reject or query over.

Knowledge is best absorbed and reflected through independent thought (as Azhrei mentioned). Self-knowledge is pure.

Elementary school is a stepping stone to high school. You can't do algebra before you can add.

quote:

---

Intelligent Design or Global Warming are as big scientific issues as politicans make it? Do these theories need a lot of time in science books?

---

So its important that we teach these things in school, so why are parents sueing the school because they want to>

quote:

---

Intelligent Design is not scientific. It should not be taught as a 'science'. There's two working ideas. One would be science is what scientists say it is. The second would be that science involves testable hypotheses.

---

Really now, schools should only teach proven facts, not theory? That would certainly reduce the amount of material covered.
As random chance is random by definition it would be hard to Prove the Theory? But math does cover some aspects of chance in calculating odds based on theories of probability

cturtle: It seems your confused. I never claimed anything ideology as fact, only theory. I mentioned that intelligent design should not be taught as a 'science', but rather a theology of religion.

quote:

---

I mentioned that intelligent design should not be taught as a 'science', but rather a theology of religion.

---

cturtle: It seems your confused. It would seem that if creation of life in this universe is a religious idealogy then so is the opposite theory? Then should we teach selective adaption as science theory & evolution as a religious dogma?

quote:

---

It would seem that if creation of life in this universe is a religious idealogy then so is the opposite theory?

---

that doesn't make sense

quote:

---

Then should we teach selective adaption as science theory & evolution as a religious dogma?

---

this also doesn't make sense. evolution is science.

evolution is science however darwin's theory of evolution is not. it is a hope there is no missing link. theories of evolution can be inferred as religious dogma

quote:

---

evolution is science darwin's theory of evolution is not. it is a hope there is no missing link. theories of evolution can be inferred as religious dogma

---

That is a contradiction. Can you elaborate this?

Application of random possibilities: Card game called Phase 10
Simple card game containing cards of 1 - 12 in 4 colors & 3 sets of alternate (action) cards. Objective to pass through 10 phases which form > progressive (increase in difficultity).
Simple, want to calculate the probability of certain cards? Astronomical yet I can see certain patterns appear in the playing. For an eye to see, an ear to hear certainly is no less yet look at the tremendious number of animals seem to have independently developed these same functions?