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.
Guess I missed those posts. I don't know of folks hereon who believe such.
people who believe in alien abduction and crop circles,
I think you're bright enough to believe such, too, had you access to the evidence I've had access to and seen tons of.
I realize it's a lot more comfortable for some to throw rocks and deny what they're annoyed by--than it is to engage in solid research and investigation before pontificating.
ID is Religion.
= = =
No. But THAT is a RELIGIOUS perspective! LOL.
Or would you have teachers simultaneously introduce such topics as "equals" alongside currently accepted scientific knowledge?
= = =
I wouldn't even be that prissy and demanding about "equal billing" as long as the presentation of ID was fair-minded--i.e. a fair representation in an objective tone and attitude of the scientific evidence for it.
See how restating your position changes what you said dramatically. I thought for a moment there you were equating early Christian martyrs to modern Islamofascist terrorists.
You are speaking of science fiction, I presume?
To which you replied:
Guess I missed those posts. I don't know of folks hereon who believe such.
Here are some links.
Anybody who looks at that and sees a natural rock formation is in denial.
When you've done a couple decades (less than half mine) of serious research into the topic . . . please come back and ask your questions. I might feel like bothering with them, then.
I guess there's no accounting for taste.
Ok. So what would a high school science teacher actually teach upon being told that he or she must present a "fair representation . . . of the scientific evidence for" ID?
There is a very vocal group advocating the introduction of ID into high school science classes, and it seem to me that somebody ought to actually answer this question.
Anybody who looks at that and sees a natural rock formation is in denial.
I'll leave that to others who'd summarize better than I would.
Just a basic outline of the SCIENTIFIC findings in support of ID . . . though I'd prefer the absence of what I consider the nonsense of a 6,000 year old earth.
Each of the books reports on the observations of different witnesses than the other books.
One of the primary "books" available at the time was the "Gospel of Peter", which paralleled the others quite well, so it was not included in the final product, although it does constitute a 5th witness.
Going beyond that, there is a possibility that the Shroud of Turin constitutes a 6th witness, albeit in photographic form. Even if it doesn't, the Shroud is a rare exhibition of what crucifixion was all about. For all its popularity in Classical Rome, little about the practice was discussed, and there are no learned scientific dissertations that report how it worked to kill a human being. That, BTW, is not evidence that crucifixion wasn't done.
It's been noted that if the Shroud of Turin is a true witness, then the blood stains constitute what is certainly a scientifically valid "sample".
BTW, I've seen others dig into the question of what the scientific evidence is for Jesus' existence, and although I'm not very good at it, I'd suggest the doubters dig some of it up and take a look. Otherwise, they're just talkin' street trash.
Lamarck was, to say the least, speculating in an area where our current knowledge is so much superior that it's misleading to suggest that his ideas (or observations about ideas) were ever part of science.
Give it up. The guy's a fraud.
Don't play dumb. The wily Coyoteman.
He said nothing suggesting "How the moon landings were faked." He commented on the abrasive stonewall job by the very priviledged astronauts, who should have been quite gratefull for the experience provided by we, the taxpayers.
"For all of us who believe the moon landing to be fiction this just lends more credence to the conspiracy theory. This and the first ever interview with Neil Armstrong on 60 minutes a couple weeks ago. No wonder he doesn't get interviewed about the moon landing. He had absolutely nothing of substance to relate. You would think that someone who had walked on the moon would be dying to give interviews. Not so with all those who say they walked on the moon."
"My high school biology instructor repeated her presupposition that "evolution is a fact" over and over and over again, sounding more like a broken record then a science teacher. The vast majority of classroom time was wasted studying antiquated, disproved 'evidences' for evolution. There was very little classroom time was spent on learning fundamental biological concepts: analyzing structure and function, cell division and mitosis, meiosis, biochemistry, genetics, etc. or performing laboratory experiments. It was self-evident that it was more important to the instructor that the students in my class believe in evolution then understand fundamental biology concepts. If I asked a typical student in my class after her lectures, “Did the Miller-Urey experiments demonstrate that life could come from non-life?” --the typical answer was an unscientific, “yes”. The law of abiogenesis was not important, life miraculously arising from non-life was."
Here is the first indicator that you not only do not understand the SToE but are completely unaware of the significance of Pasteur's work on origins of life. There is no 'Law of Abiogenesis'; it is a construct of anti-evolutoinists looking for some way to convince themselves that life could not form from pre-life. In fact the only place you find mention of it is on Anti-evolution sites or sites where scientists refute it.
What Pasteur 'proved' is that complex multicellular life does not arise from dead flesh. This is far from the development of earliest life from the self organization of simple replicating molecules.
"If I asked one of my peers in the class after her lectures: “If someone was to lift weights and increase their muscle mass, would genetic traits of bigger muscle would be passed on to their children?” --the typical answer was an unscientific, “yes”. The laws of genetics were not important, miraculously changing from one species to another was. "
Here is the second indicator that you do not understand the SToE or are purposely trying to mislead. What you have described above is Lamarckism, something that never was part of Evolution and in fact was shown to be incorrect by Evolution.
"The perspective my biology class was taught from hindered the understanding of fundamental biological laws of many of my peers. Teaching evolution ‘as fact’, as the ‘only view allowed’ did not enhance the educational process, it hindered it."
Apparently that class was taught incorrectly if the above passages are any indication. If that instructor taught Lamarckism in place of Darwinian Evolution, and spontaneous formation of complex multicellular organisms in place of the simplest molecules gaining complexity gradually through time, he/she should be removed from teaching and required to update her/his knowledge.
"All hope was not lost. Heros are born in unlikely times.
So now you are a hero? And this is because you refused to learn what is not taught as evolution in the first place? All the heroes who died or who saved countless lives on 9/11 and those giving their lives in Iraq would be most interested that you consider yourself a hero through such a minor act.
"While most of class was sadly merely regurgitating the antiquated, disproved 'evidences’ for evolution on tests, FreedomProtector learned how to think independently and to prove the regurgitated antiquated ‘evidences’ are invalid, have that proof stand up to the very hostile, well-educated peer-review test, and write both on tests in the time most of the class was just regurgitating.
Fascinating. Care to share those peer reviewed refutations of Evolutionary evidences? Just reprint a paper here, you can even remove your real name if you want.
"Batman was born when the Joker killed his parents. FreedomProtector was born in this biology class when the instructor tried to kill freedom of intellectual inquiry. The very hostile, well-educated peer-review carried over to FreedomProtector’s high school physics class where the Physics instructor had a Master’s degree in evolutionary biology, but in his words “could only get a job teaching physics”."
Now you talk about yourself in the third person? Hmmm.
Hooray!
Maybe, just maybe, you'll see where I'm going with this.
Lots of people have pet theories or peeves or unorthodox beliefs about one thing or another. I have an uncle who sees trilaterals and build-a-burgers everywhere. It takes all kinds.
Anyway, it sounds like to me that you're in agreement that the Apollo missions were not frauds and that we put men on the moon and brought them back safely to earth. However, there exists a whole cottage industry catering to those people who want to read about the fraud that was the Apollo missions. They have their conventions and periodicals and books and "researchers" and their "scientific documented evidence" and so forth.
I believe they have every right to their believes, to publish their ideas, sell video tapes, and so on. However, I don't want their ideas taught in science class.
Why? Because they're wrong? No. The simple underlying idea to my conservatism with regards to science class is this: There aren't enough hours in the day. Students spend precious few hours getting math and science training as it is. There is simply not enough time to address every minority viewpoint and controversial idea in science. If we tried to teach that, students wouldn't learn anything at all!
The reason I voted 'no' on the poll is because students need to be taught the currently prevailing scientific theories. Students are not in science class to "debate" science any more than students are in math class to debate math. They are there to learn the material. Their job is to learn the material, and be able to answer questions based on it.
I have no problem with students debating creationism and intelligent design in forensics club, writing papers on it in English class, discussing creation in Bible club, etc, etc. However, I strongly believe that science class is for science, and we're doing students a dis-service by teaching anything else.
See, I knew it. You haven't read the Bible but by golly you can criticize it. And you are truly an expert on it, if only in your own fathomable mind, as far as evos think of you.
Thanks for pointing out the average character of evolution-true-believers: Un-believers.
Well, there's the problem. Everybody (and I mean everybody) vociferously advocating for the introduction of ID into high school science classes leaves "to others" the answer to the very basic question of what will actually be taught.
The emperor, it seems, has no clothes.
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.