Posted on 08/05/2005 5:22:08 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
The following is a statement by Antonia Cortese, executive vice president, American Federation of Teachers, on President Bush’s Comments that ’Intelligent Design’ should be taught in the nation’s science classrooms:
President Bush’s misinformed comments on "intelligent design" signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States. The president’s endorsement of such a discredited, nonscientific view is akin to suggesting that students be taught the "alternative theory" that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. Intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom because it is not science.
By backing concepts that lack scientific merit, President Bush is undermining his own pledge to "leave no child behind." If students are to reach higher standards, and if they are to compete effectively with their international peers, they must be exposed to high-quality curricula that are research based and that reflect the best available knowledge in any given field. In the science classroom, that necessitates the study of evolution, one of the most important, powerful, and well-substantiated concepts in science.
Intelligent design has been repudiated by every respected scientific organization in the nation, including the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Science Teachers Association. Even President Bush’s top science adviser, John H. Marburger III, has acknowledged that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and that "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." To preserve the integrity of science education, President Bush should heed this advice.
The AFT represents 1.3 million pre-K through 12th-grade teachers; paraprofessionals and other school-related personnel; higher education faculty and professional staff; nurses and healthcare workers; and federal, state and local government employees.
Killjoy!
That is unfortunate. IMHO, TOE should be taught right along side of physics and chemistry.
It's just a theory. Why does everyone go ape when some people object to it? Isn't that the point of a theory?
First:
Here is a nice page of what a theory is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
"In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified slightly.
Theories start out with empirical observations such as “sometimes water turns into ice.” At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations."
For Laws:
"A well-known example is that of Newton's law of gravity: while it describes the world accurately for most pertinent observations, such as of the movements of astronomical objects in the solar system, it was found to be inaccurate when applied to extremely large masses or velocities. Einstein's theory of general relativity, however, accurately handles gravitational interactions at those extreme conditions, in addition to the range covered by Newton's law. Newton's formula for gravity is still used in most circumstances, as an easier-to-calculate approximation of gravitational law. A similar relationship exists between Maxwell's equations and the theory of quantum electrodynamics; there are several such cases. This suggests the (unanswered) question of whether there are any ultimately true physical laws, or whether they are all just cases where our sensory and rational apparatus have generated mathematically simple approximations, valid within the range of normal human experience, to unobtainable true formulas."
Let me post my personal example of gravity:
A little history here: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
“Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.”
F=Gm1m2/r2
Where:
F equals the gravitational force between two objects
m1 equals the mass of the first object
m2 equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10-11 N*m2/kg2 (which is still being refined and tested today)
(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)
Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.
A few of the problems are:
It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.
Enter Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity
In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.
A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.
And finally:
From an NSF abstract:
“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.
In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Second:
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
I guess you could look at it that way.
Indeed you can. Often satellite software is coded in this manner. Just change the reference frame.
Theories never become laws.
Like pushing their socialist, whacked out agenda on all our kids. Don't you find it a bit strange at all to be in bed with these kind of mind numbed, poorly educated, "public servants" who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag.....
And somehow you think "the teachers" should convince us?
Ok..ok, now that I know "the teachers" are for it I'm absolutely convinced. What was I thinking?
That is how I, and most of the other science teachers I know, approach the subject. Actually very few parents or students seem to object to that approach.
Perhaps being a relative newbie, you weren't aware there are public school teachers on FR?
Does your membership here put you "in bed" with us?
Do you think I am a "mind numbed, poorly educated, "public servant" who couldn't think her way out of a paper bag?
Where is their statement on teachers having sex with their students?
Henry's post deserved that response....it's a note from the teacher's Unions, and it's those unions that shame the profession, IMHO. I respect a lot of teachers, but have no respect for the unions and their supporters.
Sorry about that.....
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we conservatives believed in making our decisions based on logic and critical thinking, rather than judging the message based on the messenger.
If you believe that everything President Bush says is correct because he's "our guy" and everything liberals say is incorrect because they are "the other team", I can't help you.
By the way, I like to teach my students critical thinking and analysis skills. Is that a bad idea, or should I just teach them that conservative ideas are correct and liberal ideas are wrong?
Now show me some "sane" propositions and positions from the teachers unions so I can discover how fair and open minded you are........
Republican Rick Santorum apparently agrees with the AFT on this matter - is Santorum now a liberal or a union hack?
Holy conflagration, balrog. It's a good thing you are already swathed in fire, because I sense a flame or two downthread.
Yep. Take a look and see what the American Fundamentalist Taliban's Thought Police want do for to us all.
Or their master, Leon Russell?
I think people who say nu-ku-ler sound at least semi-ignorant. YMMV.
It drives me up the wall, especially since it is phony.
SO9
Good point! When looking at the history of life in this world, and trying to apply the claimsof ID, one would naturally conclude life progressed via trial and error. THis would lead to the abandonment of ID and produce a theory that suggests life changed in response to natural phenomena. Wait a minute - that's evolution!
Wait a minute - that's evolution!
Oops. Logic throws a wrench into the works again.
Now if only the IDers can come up with something to stealthily substitute for logic they might get somewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.