Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:
Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.
I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.
Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)
If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.
Evolution doesn't discuss the origin of life, and I'm not aware of any alternative to evolution to explain the diversity of life, other than "insert miracle here."
If you have an alternate theory that is supported by evidence, feel free to present it, and free to discuss how it predicts evidence and data better than evolution.
You might discuss how it handles impending fossil finds better than evolution, or how it predicts the placement of ERVs better than evolution.
Selecting the most favored 5% or most plausible 5% or top 2% of the foundational beliefs of the main constituencies in a culture is not that horrible, by a long shot.
Glad to hear he and his fellow soldiers are doing OK.
Would you mind translating that into English? Listing some specifics would help.
I have not problem with teaching a history of science course in public schools, but within a science class, there really isn't much time to wallow in Galileo's troubles, or the burning of Bruno.
Just to poke . . . well . . .
alternatives . . . for a bit . . . or just to be ornery or something . . .
All the ET races I've read much about insist that ET's seeded life on earth and then modified it genetically at different periods throughout past eons.
I believe this is a well prepared hoax over many millenia. But that's my belief about it.
What I expect is that the EVO's will jump on the band wagon of such ET's along with their puppet master collaborators in behalf of the global government in order to trash Christianity and all other religions toward establishment of one world religion.
Discrimminating reason and good scientific judgment will largely fly out the window. The rush to support of such notions will be wholesale and greatly trumpetted in the MSM. Those who disagree or are hesitant will be labeled traditional idiots and eventually sidelined from teaching options and eventually driven out of the publilc square. Eventually, they'll be rounded up.
Consider the above paragraph to be whatever level of luncacy helps one feel comfortable. However, it will now be lodged in most readers' brains . . . and will be vividly called to mind when such events occur.
I pray that wise decisions are made at THAT point . . . toward eternal life . . . even at the sacrifice of this more finite form of life.
Pimento placemark
Julius and Ethel will be pleased to hear that.
A 5-7 or even 7-12 paragraph presentation of this culture's major alternative explanation vis a vis biological creation in any relevant text book is not something most balanced people should lose any sleep over even if they violently disagree with that perspective.
IF TToE is all THAT superior--it will survive quite well on it's own, anyway.
All the dust and pontificating about it is soooooooo INQUISITIONAL and for mostly very straw dog sorts of reasons.
The opposition to such is EMOTIONAL and not scientific at foundational levels.
This thread has been a circus. We have people who believe the face on mars is the product of intelligent handiwork, people who believe in alien abduction and crop circles, people who think there is a grand conspiracy to deceive the public about the Apollo missions, people who believe that western medicine can't cure anything and that surgery is evil, people who believe in non-biogenic oil, people who believe man walked with dinosaurs, etc.
My purpose in these threads is counter-balance the general level of anti-science nuttiness and advocate the position that modern conservativism should be strongly allied with modern science.
Feel free to post a draft that you think would be acceptable in a science class. Be sure to include supporting evidence, and explain how it comports with the findings of physics, chemistry, geology and astronomy.
I'm not saying it has to be compatible with science, but it does need to address areas of conflict with the hard sciences.
Oh, yeah, that dreary evo-spam linked from Dork Central, posted thousands of times on FR.
As for real scientists, they don't have the leisure for this kind of obsessive behavior. You can't examine a patient if all you ever do is wash your hands. Over and over. Over and over.
Sounds somewhat agreeable. But I'll leave that to others. Not my priority at that level.
As for real scientists, they don't have the leisure for this kind of obsessive behavior. You can't examine a patient if all you ever do is wash your hands. Over and over. Over and over.
= = = =
Obviously no scientific evidence of arrogant, derisive, dismissive, punative haughtiness there! LOL.
Fr.Pr. -- Mandating only one view be can be taught does not enhance the educational process.
I'll certainly agree that teaching the habits and skills of critical thought and self-directed research are important, but do the two of you disagree with the notion that high school students and undergraduates should first master accepted rudiments of a topic?
For example, there are certainly "alternative" views regarding proper grammar and english usage (ebonics comes to mind, and Stephen Pinker has some interesting views on innate grammatical abilities). Is "mandating only one view" in this area therefore improper indoctrination?
And how would that differ in science education?
My class mate?
Thank you, and God Bless.
There are no scientific alternatives to TToE. You could have a "view" of Math that begins with 1+1=3 but I don't think this should be taught in school. There is also "only one view" on chemistry, physics, astronomy (despite poor Pluto's diss), etc.
ID is Religion. If you want it taught in philosphy class, sure. But not as part of any part of the Sciences.
1. The Bible is not a science text.
2. If the Bible were to be taken literally, there would only be one Christian religion (it also contradicts itself). The Bible is (properly) silent on the meaning of a Scientific Theory.
By learning (1) how to read, (2) how to use a library, and (3) the basics of widely accepted scientific knowledge. And by mastering (3), the student will have a firm grasp of the information necessary to individually critique claims of "crop circles, alien anal probes, communication with the dead, and so forth."
Or would you have teachers simultaneously introduce such topics as "equals" alongside currently accepted scientific knowledge?
Those are the definitions as accepted by the scientific community. The fact you don't like them doesn't change anything.
As for real scientists, they don't have the leisure for this kind of obsessive behavior. You can't examine a patient if all you ever do is wash your hands. Over and over. Over and over.
So what's your point? We have REAL scientists who post on these threads. And I may not be a Life Science professional, I know of what I speak.
Or can only politicians speak about politics? Non-Politicians posting about politics is like a doctor washing his hands. Over and over. Over and over.
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.