So if the idea is constantly changing, why do we teach it as fact?
To use what was said in another thread…
Ancient Mayans were documented in history books as being a passive, peaceful nation of people. Children in school were tested on this knowledge. They took quizzes, they recited before their classmates, they memorized. Then, years later, it was discovered that not only were the Mayans expressly
not passive, they were sadistically ritualistic and extremely violent. So much for those children who committed the exact opposite to memory! Maybe the ones who failed their tests on the Mayans back then actually should have gotten an A. This is one example of many.
Yet…why do I get the impression that these kinds of fallacies in the history books don’t bother the kinds of people who argue about taking evolution out of science books?
There are a lot of things in school books which are downright false but taught as fact. Don’t interpret it as fact or some vast conspiracy to change the minds of children everywhere. It’s simply a model of the current level of knowledge. Evolution, though potentially false, is currently the most superior model to explain our origins. Evolution has more documentation than so called “Intelligent Design”, diplomas are awarded for evolution, libraries are chock full of literature on the subject – the same cannot be said for creation. Creation is based on theologically-fueled philosophy and disproving things rather than proving them.
The main problem that I have with the subject is that supposedly Evolution is "based on science." Yet science is just the current level of discovery
Right and since it is the current level of discovery (and, of your own volition, the ONLY level of discovery) we work with what’s available – not what what’s not available.
