Evidence of Evolution

I don't think the teaching of evolution and the teaching of math are analogous, as one concept completely upsets the worldview parents might want to pass on to their children, and the other one doesn't.

It's not the business of science teachers to worry about the religious or political worldviews of the parents of students. Only to teach facts. The absurdity of questioning scientific facts on the basis of "worldview" is illuminated by a parody in which mathematical facts are questioned on the basis of "worldview."

If researchers discovered that blacks were inferior to whites, would you want your children to be taught that?

I wouldn't, because I would wish to teach my children that all people are equal.

The point is, one diminishes the importance of worldview with respect to scientific fact if and only if the scientific fact fits in nicely with one's worldview.

Meaningless question. "Inferior" is a word with little value in a scientific context. You're asking a social/values question and that's got nothing to do with the teaching of science, any more than it does with the teaching of mathematics.

If researchers were to discover that there were distinct and verifiable differences between people of African vs. European descent -- which there are, by the way; aside from the melanin levels contributing to differential skin coloration, those of African descent are more prone to sickle-cell anemia, for example -- then I see no reason that those facts shouldn't be taught.

That such differences make one line of descent "inferior" to another is a value judgment -- an opinion, not a fact -- and therefore has no place in science curriculum.

The point of the question wasn't "is the word "inferior" meaningful in a scientific context"? The point of the question was "what happens when science conflicts with your worldview?"

So, ignoring the fact that you feel "inferiority" isn't measurable, would you want your children taught that one race was inferior to another?

And if you do want them taught that, can you at least understand why some people would not their children taught that?

Then you should come up with a better example of that, because as the word "inferior" is not meaningful in a scientific context, it is not meaningful to ask a hypothetical about science declaring one race or another "inferior."

My answer to the latter question, by the way, is "I change my worldview, assuming the scientific case has been fairly well-established and isn't simply in the stage of preliminary findings."

I'm sorry, I'm not going to ignore the fact that you're asking a meaningless question, because you're asking me to respond to a straw-man, emotionally-loaded "have you stopped beating your wife yet" style argument, and I'm not going to dignify it by doing so.

Either give a concrete (if hypothetical) example of what "inferior" might mean in a scientific context -- how it might be measurable -- or come up with a different, actually relevant example of how science might conflict with my worldview if you want my response to such a situation.

I ignored your post because it seemed unrelated to mine.

You gave an anecdote about your family not making a fuss over differences they had with the educational system. Then you said creationists should do the same. Both of those things have nothing to do with my post.

Then you categorized my analogy as a "slippery slope argument," which I don't think it is, but I didn't want to sidetrack the discussion with what is the definition of a slippery slope argument.

So that's why I ignored you. It's not because your logic is unassailable. It's just unrelated to what I'm talking about.

I wanted to give an example where, in a hypothetical world, there was a scientific fact that contradicted the way you wanted to look at the world. Since you don't like my example, and want me to construct a more elaborate analogy, I will say here that the actual example doesn't matter.

The point is, there is a fact that you vehemently disagree with, and, if taught to your children, would have ramifications for what kind of person they would turn out to be.

Would you want your children taught that fact? And if you would want them taught it, can you understand why some people would not?

When your worldview requires the moon to be made of green cheese, the problem isn't with the moon, wannasee.

There are no facts that I vehemently disagree with. You can't disagree with facts. They are what they are. If it is a demonstrated fact then I accept it. To do otherwise is deliberate self-delusion.

Now, there could be certain social opinions drawn from facts that I may disagree with, but as I stated already I don't believe that social opinions ought to be taught in science curriculum.

The only ramification teaching facts can have is to make people more informed.

Yes, because I would want them to be informed.

Yes, because they're uninformed.

EDIT:

Oh my god. I'm adding this to my signature.

Go for it. I use it in my classes all the time.

I have not said one word about what the educational system should do.

I chose the example of inequality of races because I thought everyone would agree that they wouldn't want their children taught that, fact or not.

It wasn't to put people in a corner. It was just give an easy (or what I thought was an easy) example of a fact conflicting with our worldview that everyone could relate to.

I disagree that because you feel an argument will eventually become a slippery slope argument that that makes the current argument a slippery slope argument.

I think that a person losing their religious faith as a result of being taught evolution is profoundly affected.

Plenty of people are capable of accepting evolution and believing in religion.

And to riff off what Quix said, it's not the facts' fault that religion doesn't align with them.

source?

You said:

Emphasis mine. By stating that you would not want your children to be taught X by the educational system because of your worldview, and by claiming that teaching evolution might upset students whose worldview figures creationism prominently, you are making an argument -- if not that you think the educational system should avoid teaching facts which are potentially upsetting, then at the very least that you sympathize with those who would want it to work that way.

I suppose my argument could be used in an argument that the school system should take into account parents' preferences.

Of course, that doesn't mean that I am making that argument.

Trust me, guys. If anybody knows what I am saying, it's me.

That's always seemed like a bigger if than it ought to be.

Back in the day, the Catholic Church opposed the concept of zero because nothing could not possibly be something. Just saying.

How does that relate to the discussion at hand?