Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blackflagx Evolution should be taught and religion should not. It is called science for a reason! Religion is not science. Plus, religion has no place in a state run institution (seperation of church and state). Ban all religious education in public schools and teach evolution. |
Which form of evolution should be taught? Marxist, or capitalist? So much for 'science' because depending on your political view you'll be able to find the science of your choice.
There's Nazi Science
Marxist Science
Feminist Science
Capitalist Science
various Nationalist Sciences
Finnish nationalist science! (see
http://www.hf-fak.uib.no/smi/paj/isotalo.html)
Indian (see
http://www.ljudmila.org/nettime/zkp4/08.htm)
Chinese
various religious-Sciences
Pythaogrean Science
Christian (Creationist) Science
Islamic Science
(some of these are psueduo sceinces, depending upon your a priori understandings of normative science)
For example, Marxists claim to have a special insight into science...applying Maxian ideas of construction to science...
“ According to the traditional 'internalist' view of science, scientists make up their minds on scientific issues primarily through reason, argument and evidence. Other factors may be involved, but they should be weeded out.”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/revie...iobiology.html
“In Marxism, groups are more important than individuals. Capitalists view nature as competitive, whereas these Marxist critics tend to view it as being much more cooperative.”
Ibid.
That therefore the science in each society is relative of these a priori beliefs.
That is, they believe that scientists are biased, based on class distinctions. They are of course biased in their critique of science, everyone is, inside and outside of science.
The Chinese are quick to show the prominent role China played in our evolution. There is evidence that we evolved in Africa, or that we evolved elsewhere.
http://www.chineseprehistory.org/beard.htm
Suggests that man arose in China, not Africa!* (or rather an ancestor of man arose there)
http://www.chineseprehistory.org//index.htm
is the introduction to this site. It is evidence of the nature of evidence, wholly subjective; that Chinese nationalism is behind these particular pieces of 'scientific evidence.' This increases the over-all number of different forms of science there are.
Why so many? Because people are people, and they bring subjective reasoning to the table. When 'evidence' is interpreted, it is interpreted by flawed and failed humans with biases just like everyone else's.
Addendum:
Marxist Science (see
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/study_guide2.html
for how it is applied to history of materialism)
Feminist Science (
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/sci.html)
Feminists will find fault with Darwinsm, based on the male-orientated view-point that is taught.
Darwin postulated that females are ''coy,'' mating rarely and choosing their mates carefully, presumably betting their odds on the males with the best genes to contribute to their offspring. For their part, males are ''ardent'' and promiscuous, and fight amongst themselves for female partners. Later theories added that males are promiscuous because they have less to lose by making babies - unlike eggs, sperm are plentiful and small. Plus, females usually do most of the work to raise the offspring”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-sag021003.php
See also
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/re...ection219.html
“In the mid-nineteenth century, social Darwinists invoked evolutionary biology to argue that a woman was a man whose evolution - both physical and mental - had been arrested in a primitive stage. In this same period, doctors used their authority as scientists to discourage women's attempts to gain access to higher education. Women's intellectual development, it was argued, would proceed only at great cost to reproductive development. As the brain developed, so the logic went, the ovaries shrivel. In the twentieth century, scientists have given modern dress to these prejudices. Arguments for women's different (and inferior) nature have been based on hormonal research, brain lateralization, and sociobiology.?
Londa Schiebinger, “History and Philosophy”, in Sex and Scientific Inquiry, eds. Sandra Harding and Jean F. O'Barr, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), p. 26-27.
Quoted at:
http://www.dean.sbc.edu/bart.html
Feminists claim that evolution, long the domain of men has present biased accounts of science in order to explain gender.
“Men's claims to “know” women's natures, abilities, limitations, and so forth have been a fundamental element of feminist criticisms since its genesis, primarily because it is precisely these claims which are used to justify the social and political subordination of women.”
Ibid.
Linear Mode
Main
Extras
