Posted on 12/09/2005 3:55:11 AM PST by mlc9852
Broward County on Thursday narrowed its choices for high school Biology I textbooks to two finalists, both of which have been under scrutiny by Christian conservatives who want to change the way students learn about the origin of life.
Both have edited passages about evolution theory during the past few years after receiving complaints from the Discovery Institute. The think tank sponsors research on intelligent design, which argues life is so complicated, it must have been fashioned by a higher being. One of the books also has added a short section on creationism.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
Look at your children
See their faces in golden rays
Don’t kid yourself they belong to you
They’re the start of a coming race
The earth is a bitch
We’ve finished our news
Homo sapiens have outgrown their use
All the strangers came today
And it looks as though they’re here to stay
Oh you pretty things (oh you pretty things)
Don’t you know you’re driving your
Mamas and papas insane
Oh you pretty things (oh you pretty things)
Don’t you know you’re driving your
Mamas and papas insane
Let me make it plain
You gotta make way for the homo superior
David Bowie.
But you know that, I've posted them before.
"Oh, You Pretty Things" was off his first successful album "Hunky Dory" in 1971. (successful in the US, his "Man Who Sold The World" did well in the UK but never quite caught on across the pond)
Another single from the same album was so popular that it convinced Bowie's producers to salvage castoff "Hunky Dory" tracks and release the even more successful "Changes" the next month.
The next year, Bowie went into his Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders thing.
With "Hunky Dory", "Changes", and "Ziggy Stardust" under his belt; Bowie re-released a half Zen - half Science Fiction single he recorded in 1969 : "Space Oddity" (Major Tom)
Joni who?
;->
How 'bout the Circus magazine's interviews of Jimi and Janis separately, and then later their obits within 3 weeks of each other late 1970.
GodDidit?
Circus magazine also interviewed Alice Cooper, Gene Simmons, Deborah Harry, Elvis Costello, and Brian Eno. No obits in sight.
Some how they missed Otis Redding, Buddy Holly, the Big Bopper, Jerry Garcia, and Warren Zevon.
So much for the probabilities.
You must have skipped over the part where I said it would not be necessary to bring God into every scientific statement, much as the director of a play does not need to assert himself in the play just to assure everyone he has a role. As it is, a good many science textbooks make positive statements without qualification. This does a disservice to science. The assumptions with which one undertakes science will necessarily color the interpretation and explanation of evidence. Not all taxpayers are atheists. Apparently a good many of them are tired of footing the bill for strictly atheistic science classes.
That's the way science works: concrete mechanisms and concrete evidence. If you want to blandly wave your hand and say "god might play a role", fine. But that's philosophy (or theology) and should be taught as such. Unless you can offer specific mechanisms and evidence.
That's science, Fester.
The Genesis tends to lay itself out in linear fashion when first read but in a world where multiple dynamic processes are occuring, there was obviously overlap. While Genesis said God rested on the 7th day, it implies that the "major heavy lifting" was finished for a season. Hence the creation of Man while certain animals and birds are still being made...with man being told to "name them".
Who is talking about SETI? SETI is by definition speculative because last I checked, there is no evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations (the odd UFO incident not withstanding). The scientists in favor of SETI acknowledge the odds of detecting a signal of intelligent origin are long.
Not exactly. No more than one has to introduce the director of a play into the play at some point in order to make him relevant. As far as introducing a concept and leaving it at that, a good many science books suggest a "chance occurence of chemical combinations" as causative of prehistoric life and "leave it at that."
Scientific American is also not taken particularly seriously by scientists, it's just a popular magazine (not publishing actual research papers).
So maybe the several heretics are right and the large number of climate scientists are wrong. Maybe the ID people are right and the enormous number of biologists who support evolution are wrong. But I don't think so. Nor do I think politics is driving the science in either case. Politics does influence science but by its nature, science is resistant to politically-driven agendas: you can look at the data and the reasoning in any well-written scientific paper yourself and see that it is reasonable. If you have appropriate training of course.
So is a large part of science in general.
"Who is talking about SETI? SETI is by definition speculative because last I checked, there is no evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations (the odd UFO incident not withstanding). The scientists in favor of SETI acknowledge the odds of detecting a signal of intelligent origin are long." ~ megatherium
Your focus was on something you called, speculative and poorly-supported, when you wrote: "But the truth is that ID is speculative and poorly-supported." ~ megatherium
Since that was your focus, that's why I asked you, "You mean like SETI?"
You could have merely answered, "yes". LOL
I know he's not taken seriously by those who embrace "consensus science". :)
He graduated from Harvard in 1965 with a major in anthropology. During a one-year visit to Europe, Crichton became a visiting lecturer of anthropology at Cambridge University. Crichton returned to the United States and put himself through medical school by writing novels under various psuedonyms. He graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1969. After a short time (1969-1970) as a postdoctoral fellow at the Jonas Salk Institute for Biological Science, Crichton focused on a full-time writing career.
"I don't ...think politics is driving the science ... Politics does influence science but by its nature, science is resistant to politically-driven agendas: you can look at the data and the reasoning in any well-written scientific paper yourself and see that it is reasonable. If you have appropriate training of course." ~ megatherium
Testimony of Michael Crichton before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 9/28/05 Michael Crichton ^ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496339/posts
Michael Crichton has done a lot of research into this area, and appears quite knowledgeable on the subject. However, anyone who (justifiably) has trouble taking the word of a SCIFI writer should check out these two books on the subject:
Big Fat Liars By Morris E. Chafetz, M.D.
Kicking the sacred cow By James P. Hogan
10 posted on 10/04/2005 7:28:14 AM PDT by SpngebulletSquarepants (More Info)
Michael Crichton was born to John Henderson Crichton and Zula Miller Crichton and raised in Roslyn, Long Island, USA. He attended Harvard University, where he graduated summa cum laude in anthropology. He went on to teach anthropology at Cambridge in England, later returning to Massachusetts to gain an M.D. degree from Harvard Medical School.
Crichton then served (1969-70) as a postdoctoral fellow at the Jonas Salk Institute for Biological Science in La Jolla, California, before taking up writing full time. Later, Crichton said of his decision: "To quit medicine to become a writer struck most people like quitting the Supreme Court to become a bail bondsman."
Basically, Crichton is a scientist who knows from where he speaks. He has done some great articles on how science has become politicized and "scientific" studies distorted to achieve desired outcomes.
15 posted on 10/04/2005 7:34:15 AM PDT by kabar
"....As Time Magazine wrote, "Michael Crichton didn't really have to get the science right to make sure The Lost World would be a bestseller. But he got the science right anyway." His books, Time said, are "suffused with scientific detail that has clearly been lifted from the latest research journals...Crichton knows more than just how to tell a riveting story." ..."
16 posted on 10/04/2005 7:34:26 AM PDT by marty60
His "Enivronmentalism as Religion" http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html should be required reading for every Congressman and policymaker.
22 posted on 10/04/2005 7:38:35 AM PDT by kabar
I can't let a thread featuring Michael Crichton go without posting a speech he gave to the National Press Corp in the early 1990's that predicted the fate of the mainstream media. That guy is brilliant. Please, please read this speech if you get a chance. I see it was made in 1993, I remember watching this like it was yesterday and just nodding my head in agreement. Here it is: Mediasaurus: The decline of conventional media" http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/index.html
53 posted on 10/04/2005 11:43:45 AM EDT by Hildy
".. social scientists are the primary proponents of the global warming hoax ...
PS - "State of Fear" is the only novel I have ever read with an extensive bibliography of documentation from scientific journals. Crichton has done his research, not just attended meetings of socialist academics who think wearing "Earth First" buttons and ribbons makes them special.
55 posted on 10/04/2005 11:43:56 AM EDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Scientific advocacy has become embedded in our political debate - do fetuses feel pain? Is being gay genetic or learned? These issues are addressed, manipulated and spun by those with other agendas then allowing for unbiased research.
As a result, organization with august names, and the appearance of knowledgable authority have moved in the direction of pushing a political agenda - the Journal of the American Medical Association's unsupported and grossly biased attack on gun ownership, and others - the Union of Concerned Scientists, and even the American Pediatric Association have discarded reasoned discourse with the promotion of a clear agenda based on their pet causes.
Moral rules - those difficult personal choices and sacrifices we make - can be rationalized away in a heartbeat by those with mastery of sophistry, and "proven" by their weak minions looking for a moment of recognition and fame. Do not doubt the weakness and powerful vanity of those that consider themselves high priests of the god of knowledge. Like magicians and alchemists of the past, it is a small and easy step from attempting honest guidance to slipping into self-serving charlatanism. The answer is, instead, total honesty. Intellectual, ethical and moral honesty, for anything created with less will be in error.
62 posted on 10/04/2005 1:20:25 PM EDT by Fido969
What the problem is boiling down to these days is that science is expensive. The deeper we dig into the inner workings of the world around us the higher the equipment costs become, and somebody has to pay for that equipment. But nobody is going to sink millions of dollars into some kind of research without a vested interest, and researchers are getting a lot of pressure to respect their funder's vested interest. In theory that's what peer review and publishing raw data are supposed to take care of, eventually somebody is going to look at the raw data who isn't influenced by somebody's vested interest. But increasingly fear of that neutral 3rd party is causing scientists to avoid those things that make science useful.
66 posted on 10/04/2005 1:40:02 PM EDT by discostu
Alas, who pays the Piper calls the tune. Due to limited, and often interlocking funding sources, most scientists are members of the "Great American Scientific Castrati Association." They have been neutered to sing in the agency/academic institution chorus. We pay taxes to support a scientific community where Agenda Uber Alles is as accepted as Deutschland Uber Alles was in the Third Reich.
68 posted on 10/04/2005 2:46:49 PM EDT by GladesGuru
All scientists must go through the leftist liberal arts university system, where they will be exposed to such garbage as Howard Zinn, Ward Churchill, and others whose sole purpose in life is to destroy the "traditional" American system.
As such, so many of these so-called scientists have a warped political bent which influences their research and conclusions.
70 posted on 10/04/2005 2:57:30 PM EDT by Fido969
Crichton delivered an important speech on this and related subjects in 2003. He's definitely well qualified to speak out on matters of science.
Aliens Cause Global Warming (MUST READ) crichton-official.com ^ | January 17, 2003 | Michael Crichton Posted on 12/13/2004 5:48:24 PM EST by swilhelm73
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300661/posts
72 posted on 10/04/2005 3:56:02 PM EDT by beckett
Well, we were talking about the freeper forum. I would never make the claim that no-one ever has changed their mind on the evolution/creation debate.
And since we typically take the same side of this debate, I didn't think your feelings would be hurt if I didn't respond.
Fester Chugabrew: So is a large part of science in general.
When professional scientists communicate to each other, they are precise and cautious in their language. Speculation is clearly labeled as such, and even if a scientist is careless and doesn't label his conclusions as speculative, his readers are certain to understand what is speculative and isn't. Thus a scientist will say "our results are consistent with the theory that blah blah blah" or else they will say "it is possible based on these results that blah blah blah", for example, to indicate the level of reliability of their conclusions. Fraudulent or dishonest research is published from time to time, but this usually gets found out sooner or later -- because of the uniquely self-correcting nature of science. A good scientific paper is detailed and clear enough that a reader with appropriate training can determine for him or her self whether the paper is credible -- and the reader will (if suitably equipped) be able to verify the results on their own for him or her self. Results that are not valid will fail to be replicated. This is what happened in the infamous "cold fusion" debacle back in the 80s: Scientists (good scientists) were unable to replicate the results of Pons and Fleischman.
Please be careful when you read popular accounts about science. There is a lot of puffery, speculation and out-right malarky in popular science writing. Much popular science writing is written by reporters who may or may not have a good understanding of the issues. Some popular writing is tendentious or in the service of political agendas. Some popular writing (particularly in health and nutrition) is in the service of quackery or hucksterism.
I'm sorry, that's nonsense. I've had extensive experience in higher education, as a student or faculty at five different schools (ranging from a national research liberal arts college, to major engineering universities). It is true that professors tend to be liberal, often quite liberal. But not all professors, especially in the hard sciences. I've met a variety of conservatives in the university (and you know not a few post here on FR). Nobody asked me my political beliefs when I got my PhD. It would have been thought of as in screaming bad taste for anyone to have done so.
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.