This is both right and wrong.

It's true that science doesn't prove anything.
Science is the creation of models based on past observation with the intent of explaining them and predicting future events.
Models which succeed in accurately predicting future events gain increased credibility and in time general acceptance.
But even then, these models don't necessarily reflect the reality of things.
The most obvious example is Newtonian physics. For hundreds of years it accurately predicting terrestrial phenomenon and the motion of heavenly bodies.
Yet relativity theory overturned the Newtonian model in the 20th century. And even then, relativity wasn't an accurate picture of the reality of things.
The search for a unified field theory continues with M-theory being the current best candidate (though some would argue in favor of others).
The same sort of developments can be seen in other fields of science as well, chemistry/psychology/etc
In a scientific sense evolution is a weak theory because it's largely untestable and can't be used to predict future events, while there are also past developments that aren't (fully) explained (yet).
[of course creationism is a weak theory for the same reasons]

Now despite some accuracy in that statement... teaching a child to be anti-science on the basis that it "doesn't prove anything" is silly and wrong.
The only reasonable basis to be anti-science is that it's somehow immoral (tree of knowledge?) or dangerous (I think we can all agree on that one... fucking nukes man).

There's more to be afraid of than that. I think he's afraid of people like Becky Fischer indoctrinating children to be political soldiers. I think he's afraid of young kids being prepared to lay down their lives for the Lord. That entire documentary depicts extremism.

I'm fairly sure she wouldn't be educated enough to have an opinion like that if she is teaching her kids creationism.

Lol probably.

What? At which point in constructing this argument did you decide it was logical? Your Christian extremists actually exist with an alarming population. 40% of Americans in this country believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. There are approximately 120,000,000 people in the united states who are evangelical extremists, that's hardly a fringe movement. It's fallacious to assert being afraid of that woman and her potential 120,000,000 man army is like thinking 40% of Americans are Olympic class swimmers.




Medicine is a field of science that has habitually proven itself accurate.

@The bold, How dangerous is a nuke on an unpopulated planet? Alone the advanced weapon is harmless, so it's not weapons we should fear, it's the ignorance to use them.

Herp derp. Like our planet is empty. Nope, no one in any country at all. Especially since there aren't country borders that cover most of the earth.

Hypothetical..

Yes, hypothetical used to further an argument. Without nukes we wouldn't have the capacity to use them. Therefore, it's both the weapon and the capacity to use them that are the culprit.

Well in your hypothetical the nuke wouldn't exist in the first place...

As for science being dangerous: science in itself poses no threat to anyone. It was the military, through science, which developed the nuke. Science was the tool. So I guess what I'm saying is guns don't kill people; people kill people.

I think that may be the point you were going for?

This post was edited by Derkaderk on May 16 2012 12:32pm

Which is silly, because guns make people who kill people much, much more efficient.