[flagged]
Good news: He figured out which one was right quickly enough...
Bad news: ....because someone spoiled it for him
It's easy enough to show experimentally.
Atoms, we're simply wrong about. Most of the things taught K-12 are based on obsolete models like the Bohr model. That one, I'm struggling with how to teach quite a lot.
Dinosaurs and tectonic plates aren't really all that fundamental, so I'd present them as facts. I might have some fun with young earth creationism, though, if I were feeling particularly inspired.
As for evolution:
1) The theory taught in school is wrong in enough ways which matter that I do single it out. There's also a mixture of facts, hypotheses, and errors.
2) The reasoning models underlie a lot of things, from evolutionary psychology to machine learning.
3) It's politicized, and in my local school district, used to tarnish the other political side in entirely inappropriate ways.
4) My school district spends less time on tectonic plates, dinosaurs, atoms, and planets combined than they do on any of (a) evolution (b) climate change (c) critical race theory (d) virtually anything other polarized.
5) They also do it before kids are ready to engage critically.
Teaching this at home would be laughable. It's like how the right politicizes sex ed.
You can even simulate evolution and see it at work.
https://rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/
You can also see evolution taking place within our lifetime (nylonase evolved to eat nylon, a man-made substance from the 20th century).
I do not mean to be rude or start a flamewar, but we have to stand our ground when it comes to scientific progress.
The collective survival of humanity requires us to teach these subjects. Understanding evolution across the geological eras and extinction events is crucial to steering the new generations towards a sustainable future.
I think science needs to be taught through a different lens, without unquestionable facts, all the way from childhood. If done properly it only has positive effects in improving critical thinking and adding a sense of wonder about all the facets of the universe that remain to further understand.
Unfortunately it likely comes down to the unfortunate observation that political powers want a public that is trained to be obedient and accept facts handed down from above.
If you have proof for a better explanation then that explanation becomes the accepted one.
For evolution in particular, I am not religious at all and probably have as much 'faith' in the basics of it as any evolutionary biologist would, but there are massive questions still open, like abiogensis being completely unsolved
>If you have proof for a better explanation then that explanation becomes the accepted one.
There is no proof, there is only evidence. It simply takes some softer wording to say 'we observe x, so we conclude y' instead of proof and facts
This is not to say evolution doesn't occur, of course it does, and most rational people without an overzealous religious bent recognize this. It's an obvious explanation and it fits, it predicts successfully and it explains satisfactorily.
But it's important to differentiate between a fact and a theory. A fact is simple observable phenomena without explanation. An apple fell to the ground is fact. "Why" the apple fell the ground (gravity) is theory.
This doesn't dispute predictive power or best fit explanation of gravity at all. Likewise with evolution. That is how things work, yes almost certainly, but it is still a theory.
It's what science is about and how it defines things!
Apparently some people are looking at the first sentence and assuming "Evolution Denier!" and this is not the case at all. This is simply an argument for good science and correct terminology when talking about scientific principals!
Gravity, and Evolution are theories. That is what they are. They are not facts (scientifically speaking). A fact is something else.
This has no relevance to evolution being best fit explanation for biological diversity (which, just to be clear, I agree with 100%) or gravity being best fit explanation for why things fall down at a consistent rate.
Evolutionary biologists tend to be very defensive though. If you say to a particle physicist "hey the standard model isn't that great" he'll say "yep, wish we could do better." If you say to an evolutionary biologist "hey the theory of evolution by natural selection isn't that great" he'll resort to ad hominems. This is probably because the standard model is hard science, whereas evolution by natural selection is more of a best effort conjecture.
And there is a really important distinction to be made. Evolution in the sense of heritable traits being selected for is undeniable fact. Dogs are a thing after all so we've verified the effects of selection in a controlled setting. So when someone critiques the theory of evolution by natural selection it should be understood as part of the process of coming up with a better theory, not "muh anti science."
Genetic algorithms, evolutionary computing, etc.
So no.
(1) Evolution by natural selection
(2) Evolution guided by God
(3) God created the world 5000 years ago, but didn't want to leave evidence to leave open the question of faith
There are many others. You will find some more reasonable than others, and for others, it's the reverse. A big part of what I'd like my son to develop is empathy: being able to step into the mind of others, and understand what they think.
Even if "they're wrong" and we're fighting "them." If he were growing up in Ukraine, I'd like him to be able to understand the Russian soldiers' mindset. That fits into Sun Tzu / Understand Your Enemy.
In the scientific process I learned in high school, we have hypotheses confirmed with experiments (the current process adds things like preregistration and replication). For things which only happened in the past, we can't follow this process; it's fundamentally extrapolation.
Yes, we can observe and simulate evolution right now, but unless we invent a time machine, we can't know -- in a scientific sense -- that's what led to where we are today over millions of years. That's the whole micro-/macro-evolution debate.
Getting back to Sun Tzu, without understanding the intellectual basis, it's impossible for you to have a meaningful conversation with a well-educated young earth creationist. In a debate, they WILL win. You might be right, but your arguments won't be. In a discussion, you'll look like an idiot. Stepping up a level, politics will become more polarizing because your side will be painted as idiots to them, and vice-versa.
That's what I don't want for my child.
So no.
Also, show me the code and I’ll show you that you’re simplifying so grossly it has no bearing on reality.
So no.
Then, classify those fossils and keep track of where in the geological record you found them. Then try to come up with a plausible explanation of how those fossils ended up there, keeping in consideration their classification and age.
Maybe you will find a consistent trend and then hear about people that have been doing exactly that for many years now. They all seem to have reached a consensus around how those fossils ended up there. It's about a little word that begins with E. You'll find that story very interesting.
I think we can all agree that physics is farther along than biology. But I bet you’d have no problem telling me at least one major open problem with General Relativity. Can you bring yourself to tell me even one major open problem with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection? If not is that a psychological deficiency on your part, or is that theory somehow uniquely flawless?
As for consensus, it’s as irrelevant to reality as computer simulations. Historically speaking the vast majority of human consensuses on anything, including science, have been wrong almost all of the time. The overwhelming arrogance to believe that we’re now fundamentally different is stultifying.
and school is taking more and more of the child's life
I for one am glad that Europe expects and enforced certain education standards.
And of course for many people it's an emotional issue because they think it has some kind of religious significance. Interestingly, I see that kind of religious obsession from atheists as well as the, in my view, less intellectually sophisticated theists. Personally, being Catholic, I have no problem with the theory of evolution by natural selection. I think the open questions are interesting and like any theory describing something as complex as the entire biosphere there are going to be many difficulties and perhaps there is a better theory waiting to be discovered, but the notion that God might have effected creation gradually through natural processes that He established just isn't a problem for my faith.