That was a very eloquent way of saying no. If science learns about something tomorrow than science could have learned about it the day before. The question was not whether a scientist would admit to not knowing something, but if science would simply be unable to ever explain something. Alas I have already addressed this issue if you care to go back and see.
This makes zero sense. If science learns something new, it does not make it a given that they "could've learned about it the day before". Knowledge is always changing and evolving as new perspectives, new tests, new data, etc., all become available to us. If that isn't what you're trying to say, I'm curious as to what you mean, but as it is, it's ridiculous to say "If we can someday send a manned ship to the next galaxy over, we always could've!"
The question as to whether or not science would simply be unable to ever explain something is absolutely pointless and proves nothing. We would never know the answer because science would be constantly looking to explain it. They would admit they don't know the answer or that it is "currently unexplained", but they're looking for the cause nonetheless. What's your point?
As for imminent danger, what are you talking about? Enrollment in science courses is growing every year, budget cuts are made to the liberal arts in favor of more financed science programs and across the country tests increasingly favor science over the arts.
Because believe it or not, our students in the US are failing at math and science, especially compared to the rest of the world. We have a shortage of students who are prepared to take over in math and science-related fields, students who are severely behind, taking basic algebra later and later in their schooling because they just weren't ready. Evidence? Sure, I have some.
TIMSS report from 2007 (the most recent I could find):
4th Grade Students
1. Hong Kong
3. Chinese Taipei
6. Russian Federation
11. United States
8th Grade Students
1. Chinese Taipei
2. Republic of Korea
4. Hong Kong
8. Russian Federation
9. United States
Dunno about you, but when these kids grow up and we need doctors and scientists (you know, if religion hasn't taken over *tongueincheek*), I'd kind of like them to be well-educated so when I need to rely on them as surgeons and dentists and researchers looking for cures and advancements and the like, I know they are more than qualified to do their jobs. I'm telling this to you as an artist.
As someone who has graduated with a degree in liberal arts.
We are in no danger of running out of artists or musicians or writers, and though I enjoyed my liberal arts education, it's not for everybody and shouldn't be forced to be for everybody because it's simply nowhere near as practical as focusing on improving our students where they're failing. It's just a fact that science is going to save more lives than philosophy is and to argue that is completely absurd.
Courses in philosophy and theology are being drained of funds and students, while the sciences continue to fill to the brim. Where is science in decline in the Western World that an imminent danger and threat persists that requires diligent defense against religion. What advances in science are slowed by cries from religious figures to halt progress? What religious protest recently has halted some form of research or progress?
Science is gradually shifting towards an incline in schools
because we've made it a priority because we were failing
at it. It's not hard to put two and two together, Jude's already posted plenty of telling statistics otherwise.
But let's talk about what religion has slowed/stopped.
Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, the Pope informing third-world countries that condoms are evil and thereby limiting advancements HIV/AIDS prevention, stem cell research, evolution, cloning, genetic modification, preemptive genetic screening. Any questions?
I’m sorry, but from all indications science is driving the bus right now. Perhaps it’s time people accepted responsibility for what comes from such a heavy focus on science and the consequences of that education.
Yes. All indications that, as I previously stated, most people don't think science is trustworthy even though it provides them with modern conveniences and longer and more comfortable lives. Science must
be prevalent in peoples' minds if that's the case, right? ...Anyone?
As for Will’s example, he went to a poor school. He even admits that his school had little money. Some poor teacher barely making enough to support herself in a public school system skips over evolution. A subject that I doubt she feels many of her students would need. Rural schools tend to focus on what they believe their students will need over more theoretical and what they might feel is less necessary. Perhaps a federal mandate should be issued detailing the exact lesson plan for teachers. Mayhap even a paper submitted with pre-printed statements for the teacher. In fact all lesson plans can be constructed so that every teacher across the country at any given time is saying the same exact statement at the same exact time in order to curb the imminent danger.
Will already pointed out that you don't actually know any of this, and in fact, you're wrong. It's hard to debate when you're making your points on non-facts.
He went to a poor school with a teacher that probably lived in the area. That teacher, more than likely, did not feel that many of her students would go onto college. So she probably skipped over something that she felt would not interest them, would not help them in life and probably cause her a headache from religious extremist parents. There are some schools in other countries that have this selective education built into their system and call them track programs.
And you think this is okay? This is biased teaching based on religion, thus furthering my point that it has no place in our education system, and also blatantly contradicting your claim that science is "driving the bus".
Maybe you feel differently, but I wouldn't want my theoretical children to be taught by someone who doesn't believe in higher education and doesn't believe in their students' potential. You don't just NOT teach someone something because "it might not interest them" -- that completely defeats the purpose of education to begin with. Why would you not want to give them a wealth of knowledge? You're advocating liberal arts, but liberal arts also encourages a student to explore MULTIPLE disciplines to expand their general scope, which includes
math and science. So many contradictions.