Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

[Tgace]

What if its the few pro-evolution scientists that want to shove their theory down the throats of the (majority) "bible thumpin" crowd?? Thats the issue I see him making.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yes, it would be truly terrible if we were to live up to the standards espoused by Joshua Lawr. Chamberlain among countless other reputable educators, and teach the best we have in knowledge.

Funny how some oppose political correctness in favor of what they incessantly call the actual facts, until some pointy-head is so inconsiderate as to point out actual facts about science, about history, about culture.

Then, by gum, we're all in favor of being as p.c. as possible.

Still waiting on answers to inconvenient questions:

1. So we should teach things we know to be scientifically false?
2. So we should lie to students about what science is?
3. So we should only teach Protestant fundamentalist ideas?
4. So we should ignore the express desire to remove evolution from schools?
5. So we should do exactly what they do in Iran, in other words?

 

[Tgace]

Hmmm...has anybody said evolution shouldnt be taught? Would it be possible for the citizenry to add or remove a religious belief in Iran?

Seems this is more about keeping an idea/belief some people dont like out, regardless of what the majority of taxpayers in that district want, than any other reason. Its being disguised as "preservation of scientific theory" but come on...its really because of a distaste for religion, evangelists, Bush policy, etc. etc. etc.

Im pretty certain that these educators are smart enough to figure out a way to please the bible thumpers by including creationism (in social studies, science class or wherever..) while still teaching the current scientific theories. They just dont want to.

Personally I could care less if my kids are taught creationism in school. I dont "believe" in the biblical interpretation (perhaps in a metaphorical interp.) anyway. And if I did I would teach them it at home or through Church. If the school decided to teach it, Id be fairly confident it would be as PC/nondenominational as possible. "Many religions believe in a creation model, the native Americans believe......"

Anxiously awaiting a snide reply.....

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yes, indeed. Please read the actual Creationist websites, upon which they make it very clear that they consider getting rid of the false doctrine of evolution to be essential. For them, Darwin is tied directly to the decline of morality in this country, the rise of homosexuality, attacks on Americanism, and a host of other fantasized ills.

For the fourth time: some of us WERE taught about Creationisms in biology class, just as we were taught about other pre-scientific beliefs, and about the differences between religious and scientific world-views.

For the sixth time: the problem is that religious and scientifc approaches to reality--though quite possibly equally valid--are fundamentally different.

Hey, here's a concept: why aren't folks demanding that places like Bob Jones' "Liberty University," teach evolution? They get public funds...which is why they were forced to drop their ban on inter-racial dating recently.

Oh, and incidentally--wouldn't you agree that an educator's loyalty ought to be to the truth, without fear or favor? Or do you prefer an affirmative actionism of ideas, and enforcing a right-wing political correctness? Are you militating for quotas for ideas?

 

[kenpo tiger]

Yes, indeed. Please read the actual Creationist websites, upon which they make it very clear that they consider getting rid of the false doctrine of evolution to be essential. For them, Darwin is tied directly to the decline of morality in this country, the rise of homosexuality, attacks on Americanism, and a host of other fantasized ills.

For the fourth time: some of us WERE taught about Creationisms in biology class, just as we were taught about other pre-scientific beliefs, and about the differences between religious and scientific world-views.

For the sixth time: the problem is that religious and scientifc approaches to reality--though quite possibly equally valid--are fundamentally different.

Hey, here's a concept: why aren't folks demanding that places like Bob Jones' "Liberty University," teach evolution? They get public funds...which is why they were forced to drop their ban on inter-racial dating recently.

Oh, and incidentally--wouldn't you agree that an educator's loyalty ought to be to the truth, without fear or favor? Or do you prefer an affirmative actionism of ideas, and enforcing a right-wing political correctness? Are you militating for quotas for ideas?

Would you be willing to test whether your university would keep you if your 'truth' isn't their 'truth'? (Not a personal attack -- you know better than to play that card if I'm the one who's asking. It's a valid question based upon your posts.)

After reading some more of the replies from this afternoon, it seems to all come down to economics -- again/still/however you'd like to express it -- and the most vocal and politically/economically forward in the community have their say. It's not about political correctness, either. It's about who's in charge and who can shout the loudest. Why is it necessary to include a theoretical approach to something which already has been shown to have a scientific basis? Because all viewpoints should be included? And that's because... ?

 

[Tgace]

Exactly KT!

Is it really the "idea" thats at issue, or the politics of the "idea"???????????

 

[heretic888]

Exactly KT!

Is it really the "idea" thats at issue, or the politics of the "idea"???????????

You say that as if there's a difference.

 

[Tgace]

point taken....

 

[rmcrobertson]

Bad news--no place I've ever taught has let out so much as a peep about the intellectual/political content of what's taught. It's what's called, "intellectual freedom," and it's a central academic value.

The problem--for the nth time--with the Creationist types is that, indeed, they are bullies. They aren't willing to simply examine the ideas, the hypotheses, the facts--they insist that their way, and only their way, is the Truth.

SCIENCE IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT. Science, in fact, is a way of adjudicating who's right and who's wrong--and in scientific terms, the creationsts are wrong. In fact, they're wacko wrong, lacking--as has several times been pointed out--facts of any sort. What's more, they aren't even employing scientific methods to reach their conclusions.

It's interesting that repeated questions don't get answered, in order to harp continually upon the, "diversity of ideas," false trail. (Which is a false trail because Creationist ideas are well-represented in all sorts of places.) At this point, that looks a lot like what other threads have brought out--these folks are out to repress their ideas, and they are quite willing to adopt the "politicall correct," language of the Left, if that's what it takes.

Have you folks looked at their statements? They make their agendas clear. That's why this is Lysenkoism, nutbar biology pushed on behalf of a weird ideology and supported by various political groups--including, unfortunately, our current President.

"In 1871, Chamberlain was elected president of Bowdoin by the trustees of the college. His presidency, which would conclude in 1883, found him introducing progressive and occasionally unpopular ideas to the conservative institution. He endorsed studies in science and engineering, which were relatively unheard of at the time, and also had students participate in military drills in preparation for the possibility of war."

 

[Flatlander]

For the fourth time: some of us WERE taught about Creationisms in biology class, just as we were taught about other pre-scientific beliefs, and about the differences between religious and scientific world-views.

So, I have to ask, has this hindered your intellectual development? Has it altered your idea of reality? If so, then I can understand how it supports your position. If not, then what are you saying?

 

[loki09789]

Bad news--no place I've ever taught has let out so much as a peep about the intellectual/political content of what's taught. It's what's called, "intellectual freedom," and it's a central academic value.

The problem--for the nth time--with the Creationist types is that, indeed, they are bullies. They aren't willing to simply examine the ideas, the hypotheses, the facts--they insist that their way, and only their way, is the Truth.

SCIENCE IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT. Science, in fact, is a way of adjudicating who's right and who's wrong--and in scientific terms, the creationsts are wrong. In fact, they're wacko wrong, lacking--as has several times been pointed out--facts of any sort. What's more, they aren't even employing scientific methods to reach their conclusions.

Bad news, Mac Man, since the actual details of this curriculum isn't about squashing anyones 'intellectual freedom' but including material that the community wants....what is your point specifically about this issue? I think at higher learning the idea of 'intellectual freedom' would mean inclusiveness and tolerance when the issue of creationism would be presented as an academic topic...that is the difference here. It is being presented as an academic topic NOT evangelical mission. And in actual practice, there are still 'moral/ethical' limits on this idea of intellectual freedom - can't teach chemists how to make a nuclear bomb as a class experiment (if they find it on their own by using the discipline you taught them it is not the same). Can't bring hookers in for human sexuallity classes (though it would be the most attended class!).


YES, I know that the fundamentalists are evangelical and want to spread their beliefs, but in this case it is a community that already has a fundamentalist community. They are not out to convert the converted.

Bullies....hmmmmmmm, I think they exist in fundamentalism/intellectialism , science.... Just because you adhere to a certain mental construct does not mean that you automatically are going to be a bully or not. I have met some pretty bullyish people from all different walks of life, directly and through various mediums.

When you use terms like 'right' and 'wrong' it really concerns me when your talking about science. "right/wrong" issues are moral (philosophical science) that are defined differently between different philosophical disciplines.

Now if you had said 'valid' or 'invalid,' or 'supportable/evidencially sound'.... it would support your 'scientific' support.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Robertson said:

"Bad news--no place I've ever taught has let out so much as a peep about the intellectual/political content of what's taught. It's what's called, "intellectual freedom," and it's a central academic value."

Yes, all that is true, but it doesn't answer my question to you.

Assuming arguendo that 'intellectual freedom' is a 'central academic value', then why shouldn't all points of view be taught? The points made above concerning the morality of teaching chemistry students specifically how to make a bomb is a good point and backs up what I said earlier about merely presenting all sides. That gives one all the information available in order to make an informed choice.

Same goes for us martial artists. We're given the tools in kenpo (since it's our art - yours and mine) to be able to kill an attacker -- if necessary. We are not taught to kill. The admonition is made very clear in the kenpo creed that we are to employ other avenues to avoid the fight and only fight if necessary. Even then, we do not fight to kill, unless it is a matter of kill or be killed.

Same for this argument of allowing creationism to be part of the curriculum. Someone else stated upthread that he would teach his children the creationism view of life through their religious training. That's pretty much how we all learn it, isn't it? I honestly can't remember if I was taught creationism in school. I do remember reciting the Lord's Prayer and singing Christmas carols until around fifth grade. Do I remember the prayer? Nope. My religious training overrode it, and I chose, from the information available to me, to pray in my own manner. Same reason I pursued studying Charles Darwin and his theory (also had a prof who took it a step further - great seminar on Darwinism in lit and other courses stemming from it).

My point here: people will choose to believe what they want to believe, regardless of what they might be taught.

 

[Makalakumu]

YES, I know that the fundamentalists are evangelical and want to spread their beliefs, but in this case it is a community that already has a fundamentalist community. They are not out to convert the converted.

They are out to justify their own faith, in which they view evolution as a direct attack. Therefore strengthening their faith positions means weakening the evolution position. Fundamentalist Christians have a huge problem when it comes to the teaching of evolution in biology. The science is grounded in facts and learning these facts leads people away from this belief set. Again and again and again, even at Christian colleges like Wheaton, when students learn the facts, overwhelmingly they turn their belief in the bible from a literal interpretation to an allogorical.

Bullies....hmmmmmmm, I think they exist in fundamentalism/intellectialism , science.... Just because you adhere to a certain mental construct does not mean that you automatically are going to be a bully or not. I have met some pretty bullyish people from all different walks of life, directly and through various mediums.

Would comparing the two theories to the evidence and showing that creation science, as a theory, is totally insufficiant to compete with evolution make me an intellectual bully?

Am I being non-inclusive and predjudicial when I lay an effective logical attack on creationism based on observable evidence about the world around us?

As a scientist, can I even present a vastly inferior theory based on the observable evidence presented at this time?

Bullying in science is not a democratic process. It is based on the evidence. A minority of scientists can present a vastly unpopular theory and if they have the evidence to support that theory, then the opposition has no alternative but to accept it. This does not mean that they will roll over and not try to find holes in the theory, it means that in science, reality always trumps ideology...

Now if you had said 'valid' or 'invalid,' or 'supportable/evidencially sound'.... it would support your 'scientific' support.

As a scientist and a teacher, if the local school board required me to teach creationism in my classes, I would do it. Ask and thou shalt recieve. Kids would learn the facts and judge for themselves. Yet, I would have no choice but to present evolution as a vastly superior theory based on the evidence. I think it would be a good lesson on how science is done, yet I know it would not be a popular lesson by any means. The words valid and invalid based on supportable evidentially sound information would be used quite frequently though...

As far as their civil liberties go, a community of fundamentalist christians has the right to mobilize and redefine science. I have the right to disagree. I have the right to mobilize. I also have the right to attack their beliefs now that they threw their ball into my court.

Does the fact they they have the right to do so suddenly make it right for them to do so? I don't think so, because as I've stated above, reality trumps point of view and if creationism is suddenly science, then a fundamentalist reading of the bible suddenly becomes reality and all else is false...

 

[qizmoduis]

Robertson said:

"Bad news--no place I've ever taught has let out so much as a peep about the intellectual/political content of what's taught. It's what's called, "intellectual freedom," and it's a central academic value."

Yes, all that is true, but it doesn't answer my question to you.

Assuming arguendo that 'intellectual freedom' is a 'central academic value', then why shouldn't all points of view be taught? The points made above concerning the morality of teaching chemistry students specifically how to make a bomb is a good point and backs up what I said earlier about merely presenting all sides. That gives one all the information available in order to make an informed choice.

Because, again, this isn't about the presentation of "Points of View". This is about teaching non-science in science class. Schools exist to educate children and turn them into functional adults. Teaching them nonsensical "alternatives" that are pure gibberish does not advance that purpose at all. Creationism is pure gibberish.

There's another, even more practical aspect to this. We don't spend enough time as it is educating children properly in school. Where are we going to find the time to throw all this "alternative" crap into the mix? It's a total waste of time, money, and children's brains. Teach them what works. Teach them critical thinking skills. If they then want to fill their brains with delusions, they can do it on their own time. Same thing for their parents. They can fill their kids' heads to as much silliness as they want, so long as it doesn't affect my daughter's education. They can keep their religion and their "alternative" gibberish to themselves, where it belongs.

Heck, if we're going to teach these alternatives, let's teach them all. Here's a handy-dandy list:

www.crank.net

Let's toss the following into science classes:

Velikovsky's electrical universe
Astrology
Expanding Earth Geology
Flat Earth
Geocentrism
Planet X and Sitchinism
Creationsim/Intellligent Design
etc.

Maybe, just maybe, after all those "alternatives" are taught, we'll be able to address F = ma. I doubt it, though.

 

[loki09789]

1. They are out to justify their own faith, in which they view evolution as a direct attack. Therefore strengthening their faith positions means weakening the evolution position. Fundamentalist Christians have a huge problem when it comes to the teaching of evolution in biology. The science is grounded in facts and learning these facts leads people away from this belief set. Again and again and again, even at Christian colleges like Wheaton, when students learn the facts, overwhelmingly they turn their belief in the bible from a literal interpretation to an allogorical.

2. Bullying in science is not a democratic process. It is based on the evidence. A minority of scientists can present a vastly unpopular theory and if they have the evidence to support that theory, then the opposition has no alternative but to accept it. This does not mean that they will roll over and not try to find holes in the theory, it means that in science, reality always trumps ideology...

3. As a scientist and a teacher, if the local school board required me to teach creationism in my classes....I would have no choice but to present evolution as a vastly superior theory based on the evidence.


4. As far as their civil liberties go, a community of fundamentalist christians has the right to mobilize and redefine science. I have the right to disagree. I have the right to mobilize. I also have the right to attack their beliefs now that they threw their ball into my court.

5. Does the fact they they have the right to do so suddenly make it right for them to do so? I don't think so, because as I've stated above, reality trumps point of view and if creationism is suddenly science, then a fundamentalist reading of the bible suddenly becomes reality and all else is false...

1. As you and everyone else is out to justify your own beliefs, whether science, faith, martial arts or otherwise.

2. Bullying is in the word choice and the tone of discussions. "Those people" and statements about how 'inferior' their values are (when it is clearly stated that faith and science can not be compared reasonably side by side on this issue). Bullying is what happens in the scientific community, in the faith community, in schools....when someone tries to impose his/her will on another person unfairly to demonstrate 'power' over them - that can be mugging someone for lunch money or shooting down a theory in science/faith that contrast the status quo...

3. You do have a choice, that is my point. You are choosing to present Science as superior, in another community someone will be presenting Creationism as superior (if it is actually force into the science class -which is not what is clearly stated in this case)....is it right in either case? The point, as you said, is to present the information and let them see for themselves - that is if you are even capable of doing a fair presentation of both theories...
why should you need to even present one or the other as 'superior.' As has been mentioned in martial arts and credibility - quality speaks for itself.

4. You have the right to disagree....'attack' as a term does not sound very objective or 'unbias' as an observer, thus my bullying comment. And, no you don't have the right to 'attack' another person's ideas/POV - you do have the right to free speech just like these folks.

5. And, again, I have made the point that Science does not define reality, it only makes observations, measurements and draws theoretical conclusions...notice theoretical....about what is 'real' based on how well things can be observed. Technology alone has changed the face of science so that the stuff that some people still hold on to as 'true' today is really about as 'real' as the modern scientist would consider 'creationism.'

 

[loki09789]

They are out to justify their own faith, in which they view evolution as a direct attack. Therefore strengthening their faith positions means weakening the evolution position. Fundamentalist Christians have a huge problem when it comes to the teaching of evolution in biology. The science is grounded in facts and learning these facts leads people away from this belief set. Again and again and again, even at Christian colleges like Wheaton, when students learn the facts, overwhelmingly they turn their belief in the bible from a literal interpretation to an allogorical.

College years are full of those type of transitions, whether political, religious, philosophical, personal..... that is the nature of that period in life. That is why terms like Sophomore translate to 'SOPHisticated MORon' and such. Just enough material to 'know about' things but not enough processing/experience to really know what it means to you or how it all fits together.

How many people return to more respect/appreciation of faith ideas as life goes on after college?

I was very good friends with a Bible college grad and we had many great conversations about this stuff. Like in all religions/ideological views, there are those who are truly and sophisticatedly educated in their views - Heretics deep and historical understanding of religion and philosophy for instance vs. the majority of our varying degrees of 'elementary level' education on the same issue. As person who has really explored the deep and sophisticated ideas behind his 'fundamentalist' views, he still believes. He, as a fundamentalist, said that it didn't matter what anyone - including him - said about faith, god and so on - it mattered that I understood...doesn't sound too agendized to me.

My strong opinion on this is that the media and these interest groups are like the 'Muslim' thing in regards to terrorism: It is NOT a representation of the majority of 'those people' but because of the media focus on that extreme, subscription selling/viewer grabbing/advertising time selling small percentage... the average person gets the impression that it IS a representation of the majority.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Because, again, this isn't about the presentation of "Points of View". This is about teaching non-science in science class. Schools exist to educate children and turn them into functional adults. Teaching them nonsensical "alternatives" that are pure gibberish does not advance that purpose at all. Creationism is pure gibberish.

There's another, even more practical aspect to this. We don't spend enough time as it is educating children properly in school. Where are we going to find the time to throw all this "alternative" crap into the mix? It's a total waste of time, money, and children's brains. Teach them what works. Teach them critical thinking skills. If they then want to fill their brains with delusions, they can do it on their own time. Same thing for their parents. They can fill their kids' heads to as much silliness as they want, so long as it doesn't affect my daughter's education. They can keep their religion and their "alternative" gibberish to themselves, where it belongs.

Heck, if we're going to teach these alternatives, let's teach them all. Here's a handy-dandy list:

www.crank.net

Let's toss the following into science classes:

Velikovsky's electrical universe
Astrology
Expanding Earth Geology
Flat Earth
Geocentrism
Planet X and Sitchinism
Creationsim/Intellligent Design
etc.

Maybe, just maybe, after all those "alternatives" are taught, we'll be able to address F = ma. I doubt it, though.

Point taken. However, isn't repression of ideas a *bad* thing?

BTW - What's wrong with astrology?

 

[Makalakumu]

1. As you and everyone else is out to justify your own beliefs, whether science, faith, martial arts or otherwise.

I don't need to justify my beliefs in scientific postulations, the evidence does it for me. That is the POINT of science.

2. Bullying is in the word choice and the tone of discussions. "Those people" and statements about how 'inferior' their values are (when it is clearly stated that faith and science can not be compared reasonably side by side on this issue).

You are taking these words out of the context in which they have been placed. "Those people" only refers to a group of people who share a particular belief set. There is nothing sinister nor degrading about it and you are not being honest to the ideas presented by implying that there is. Secondly, inferior refers to the scientific realm. Creationism, judged under the auspices of scientific scrutiny is an obviously inferior theory. We are not talking about any form of totalitarianism or anything sinister, we are only talking about a set of criteria that defines WHAT SCIENCE IS and then trying to judge based on that criteria. Your conclusions do not follow from what has been written.

Bullying is what happens in the scientific community, in the faith community, in schools....when someone tries to impose his/her will on another person unfairly to demonstrate 'power' over them - that can be mugging someone for lunch money or shooting down a theory in science/faith that contrast the status quo.

In the scientific realm, where creationism is supposedly being asked to come and play, there is no such thing as "fairness" or "imposition of belief" or even "faith" as we see it in a religious sense. In the scientific community, the evidence trumps reality. The evidence tips the scales. The evidence demonstrates "power" over one theory or another. This is not like mugging someone for their lunch money and it most certainly is not a blind shooting down of any theory that contrasts with the status quo. In fact, the term "bullying", really has no meaning in science. There are theories that describe the world and then there are theories that describe the world better...determination of this is based on the evidence and making this determination is in no way bullying.

3. You do have a choice, that is my point. You are choosing to present Science as superior, in another community someone will be presenting Creationism as superior (if it is actually force into the science class -which is not what is clearly stated in this case)....is it right in either case? The point, as you said, is to present the information and let them see for themselves - that is if you are even capable of doing a fair presentation of both theories...why should you need to even present one or the other as 'superior.' As has been mentioned in martial arts and credibility - quality speaks for itself.

The quality DOES speak for itself...which is why in this case the fundamentalist christians are trying to cast doubt on evolution. In a science class, it is entirely proper for me to present evolution as a superior theory because the theory of evolution has way more evidence behind it. By presenting both theories and talking about the evidence behind each of them and helping students see which theory has more evidence backing it, I am teaching students how to do science.

4. You have the right to disagree....'attack' as a term does not sound very objective or 'unbias' as an observer, thus my bullying comment. And, no you don't have the right to 'attack' another person's ideas/POV - you do have the right to free speech just like these folks.

"Attack" is what the evidence does. I present. There is no bullying involved. Also, if a person wishes to contribute ideas to the scientific realm, then their POV and their ideas will be subject to "attack" from all comers. It is expected. Science is a brutal competition of ideas based on the evidence, the rigor involved is not easy to deal with and does not embrace diversity of opinion unless that opinion is backed by an equal amount of evidence.

5. And, again, I have made the point that Science does not define reality, it only makes observations, measurements and draws theoretical conclusions...notice theoretical....about what is 'real' based on how well things can be observed. Technology alone has changed the face of science so that the stuff that some people still hold on to as 'true' today is really about as 'real' as the modern scientist would consider 'creationism.'

Science DOES define reality. That is the point of doing science. Technology has only provided scientists with tools to better observe and define reality.

 

[kenpo tiger]

I don't need to justify my beliefs in scientific postulations, the evidence does it for me. That is the POINT of science.

Until someone else disproves it with more/better science.

"Attack" is what the evidence does. I present. There is no bullying involved. Also, if a person wishes to contribute ideas to the scientific realm, then their POV and their ideas will be subject to "attack" from all comers. It is expected. Science is a brutal competition of ideas based on the evidence, the rigor involved is not easy to deal with and does not embrace diversity of opinion unless that opinion is backed by an equal amount of evidence.

See above.

Science DOES define reality. That is the point of doing science. Technology has only provided scientists with tools to better observe and define reality.

Reality by whose definition? (tiger is playing devil's advocate here.) Those people who believe in Creationism truly believe it's the way we got here. No amount of scientific evidence will change their minds. Therefore, the point is really:
1) define the science used to arrive at 'your' theory;
2) present 'your' scientific rebuttal as to why 'their' theory is incorrect;
3) present a convincing argument as to why 'your' *scientific* theory should be taught as gospel (*chuckles* sorry -- couldn't resist that one).

 

[qizmoduis]

Point taken. However, isn't repression of ideas a *bad* thing?

BTW - What's wrong with astrology?

First, ideas aren't being repressed. Pseudoscientists are free to express themselves as much as they want, and people are free to read (and often pay lot's of $$$$ for) their ideas. A quick perusal of the Internet or the nonsense sections of your local library and bookstores should suffice to support that. Public schools, however, have a very important, even critical, responsibility to educate our children. The decision to NOT present "alternative ideas" is not equivalent to repression of those ideas. It's the school's responsibility to teach that PI = 3.1415926.... because it produces correct results. It is NOT the school's responsibility also teach that PI = 3 (because it's in the bible) or PI = 3.146264 as advocated by supercrank Ralph Rene http://www.rene-r.com/circle_squared.html, who has quite a following among hyper-conspiracists.

Second, the real question should be: What's right with astrology? The answer: Nothing. Astrology is pure bunkum that has no basis in reality. It is exactly like creationism in that respect, and yet, there are millions of people that believe in it, including groups that would like to have it taught alongside astronomy in public schools. Astrologers in this country, fortunately, don't have the political power that their creationist counterparts have.

More ideas that we could teach in science class:
Phlogiston Theory
Aetheric Vacuum
Hot Comets
Electric Stars, which is loosely associated with Velikovskyism

The list is almost literally endlless, and every cranky idea out there has it's supporters. We should only teach what has been demonstrated to work, and that is what we do (not well enough, unfortunately). There's no need whatsoever to teach that which doesn't work.

I want to emphasize my use of the word demonstrated above. That's EXTREMELY important. In fact, it's paramount. Demonstration is irrelevant to belief and point of view. As martial artists, that's something we should ALL be familiar with.