A while back we posted a video of actual Miss USA contestants being asked “Should Evolution Be Taught in Schools?” Now someone has posed an even greater question to some would be “Miss USA contestants.” Should math be taught in schools? Their answers may shock you. Watch second video at bottom of link post.
http://www.markfisherevolution.com/2011/06/math-should-just-be-left-out-of-the-equation/
The "serious" version is just as funny.
This is nearly a word-for-word parody of the real Miss USA contestants stating their opinions on the subject of evolution being taught in schools (including their use of "words" like "creationtism" and "knowledged").
Obviously "evolution" was replaced with "math," highlighting what a ridiculous question it is in the first place.
*not to piss anyone off, but there is a difference between believing and just downright ignoring other views.
Our educational system fails us when what is taught in school is taken for direct realization of truth and not an abstract formula for modelling an inherently indirect perception of the world.
All words are merely representative of some cognitive actuality that the words themselves cannot fully represent. Take math for example; without 0 it is relatively useless. Before 0 was "discovered" mathematics was impotent. But how could we discover NOTHING? Was it invented? Is nothing a real something, such that it is necessary for our math to be useful?
Suppose nothing is a something; nothing is a real value which can be found in the world. Then why can't I divide something by zero? Why can't I perform the equation 1/0 = ??
Mathmaticians assert that 1/0 is a "meaningless" and "undefined" expression. As far as it's objectivity is concerned it is "senseless" to the human mind. But none of this means it doesn't represent factual reality. Maths like anything else uses imaginary figures, barely defined objects and "senseless" phenomena for it to operate. ALL of mathmatics has dependencies which are not-defined within mathmatics.
Math like anything else is a system of symbol-manipulation. Just another language. All REAL phenomena which aren't just place-holders are vague subjective QUALIA that have no concrete symbolic representation. We know what is meant by "Zero" because we have inferred it by its relationship to other symbols, but we may not understand that the potency of mathmatics somehow depends on it. Thus our understanding of the phenomena of zero is incomplete and what "zero" represents to us is not factually complete either. To say "zero is real" is meaningless unless everyone who hears the sentence has the exact same QUALIA behind the symbolism of language.
The distinction between your particular expression and the real QUALE behind the expression is an important one for rooting out dogmatism in science.
You can say the same thing about gravity. That is a tired argument made by countless creationists hoping to provide some sort of rational defense to something that --by definition-- cannot be rationally defended.
To call evolution a "theory," while not technically incorrect, implies that there's some sort of doubt about the certainty of its tenets. That's simply not the reality of it.
There is NO doubt about evolution because it's based on mountains and mountains of observed data; faith does not come into play at any time. In the face of such thorough observation, even the Catholic Church acknowledges and accepts evolution, amending that it was "guided by God."
It is a theory only in name.