Posted on 05/12/2005 5:30:04 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
With its lavish illustrations of colorful, cuddly critters, "Our Family Tree" looks like the kind of book kids keep by their bedside to read again and again.
But when its St. Paul author, Lisa Westberg Peters, planned to talk about the book in classroom appearances today and Friday at a Monticello, Minn., elementary school, educators got cold feet.
"Our Family Tree" focuses on evolution, the scientific explanation for human origins that some believe contradicts biblical teachings. Peters' appearances, which were to focus on helping kids learn how to write, were canceled.
"It's a cute book. There's nothing wrong with it. We just don't need that kind of debate," said Brad Sanderson, principal at Pinewood Elementary.
Monticello's assistant superintendent, Jim Johnson, said school officials made a reasonable request of Peters to talk about writing but leave the discussion about evolution to teachers. When she refused, the visit was scuttled.
Across the country, there has been increasing opposition to teaching evolution. Peters said officials at two other Minnesota school districts have asked her not to talk about the book in visits over the past year.
The author believes that she is being censored -- something the schools deny.
"Once you start censoring, it's a slippery slope. Are geology and physics next? You have to stop it right away," said Peters, who won a Minnesota Book Award for "Our Family Tree," published in 2003.
In Kansas, the State Board of Education is expected to require that teachers tell students that evolution is controversial. Bills have been introduced in Georgia and Alabama to allow educators to question evolution in the classroom and offer alternatives.
Last year, the Grantsburg, Wis., school district drew widespread attention when a new policy urged teachers to explore alternative theories to evolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
My best friend in high school started his own religion while still in high school. I haven't heard from him in decades, but I suspect he has more money than I do.
My Dad used to joke about starting a religion based on making whiskey and stealing cars. Don't think he got around to it ... he goes to the Presbyterian Church with Mom on Christmas and Easter.
This is entirely out of curiosity, but did you teach at a seminary or some other religious institution?
You have made the initial discovery! I wish to validate the theorem. It is indeed an authentically reported case of Campion's law.
Frank
Campion's Law
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi!
---However, in science class, the dominant scientific theory is what should be taught. From a practical standpoint, there isn't enough time to teach alternative theories and minority viewpoints for every scientific field.---
So let me get this straight. It is okay to reject 2,000 years of Christian history and 6,000 years of Jewish history before that, but a theory of 150 years duration should take precedence. That would appear to be your argument. We would all have believed in "bleeding people" or applying leeches to cure them as rational until disease was traced to microbes. Now which position is rational and which is insane?
Frank
I DO believe in evolution. I completely reject Darwinism, a neo-relgious belief of the Enlightenment.
It makes sense because the schools are an agency of the government, and the government has an interest in subjects without an attachment to an absolute Truth above the state.
Fox News tonight covered a story in which children (can't remember the grade or the state) were asked to have their "mum" come in to read a story from their favorite book. One woman was forbidden to do so to prevent a law suit. She begged and pleaded to no avail. It was the Bible, of course. The woman has filed a lawsuit. I hope she is awarded the National Debt plus $1.
Frank
I saw a thread on that earlier, I think. Eventually everyone is going to have to choose between "free" government education and the exercise of their religious rights.
I am not rejecting Christianity and Judaism, nor am I rejecting Jewish or Christian history.
I'm not talking about history class, and I'm not talking about religious studies. I'm talking about science class. All of the sciences have made rapid advances in the century. We don't teach geo-centricism in astronomy class. And why should we? Just because a belief is held for a long time does not make it the correct one. We don't teach the theory of the aether. For thousands of years people believed the sun went around the earth, but now we know different. Why should biology be any different? We know vastly more about biology than we did even 150 years ago.
I have serious criticisms of the public school system and I am a strong supporter of homeschooling and private schools. I believe people have the right to teach their children as they see fit. I intend to try homeschooling when my wife and I have children, but I have every intention of teaching them modern biology not creationist pap.
I DO believe in evolution. I completely reject Darwinism, a neo-relgious belief of the Enlightenment.
This doesn't really mean anything. For one thing, the Enlightenment period was the 18th century, and Darwin was a product of the 19th century.
Darwin's contribution to evolutionary theory was his theory of natural selection. Modern evolutionary theory combines his theory of natural selection with Mendel's theory of inheritence, and further advances in molecular biology that have come about since the description of the DNA molecule by Watson, Crick, Wilkins, and others.
You show a lack of understanding of the scientific method.
A scientist learns everything possible about the background in order to determine what is not known, and to narrow down the research focus to an area that (hopefully) twenty or thirty competing scientists aren't already working on. It's not that easy. A good scientist keeps up with the literature (and I'm not talking Shakespeare). It's not prejudicing oneself to know everything knowable about the subject.
As far as the hypothesis goes, there are many levels of hypotheses. There's the big hypothesis that provides a framework upon which to design an experimental approach. From that big hypothesis, one makes little hypotheses that are useful for designing individual experiments. Yes, you try to predict the results. So what if the result doesn't match the prediction? You revise the hypothesis, design a new experiment, run it, repeat it if it works and supports the hypothesis (everything is repeated at least 3 times to verify), or if it doesn't work, sit down and think about it some more.
It doesn't matter if the hypothesis is incorrect. That's not what granting committees are looking for. They want to see a hypothesis based on valid scientific principle, and a reasonable experimental outline that will confirm or disprove the hypothesis. That's all.
It is possible to publish results that do not agree with the stated hypothesis, and to use those results to propose one or more new hypotheses--and they can contradict each other, and that is okay. It is also okay to publish results that contradict previously published results.
I once proposed a hypothesis on which to base my research. I got a PhD, but never did prove my hypothesis. I never disproved it, either, so it's still usable...
In a manner of speaking: No. :> Good to see you AQG!
Thank you goodness the boy's mother showed some conscience. So sorry for your Tom. Hoping his head is feeling much better. Anoreth showed good crisis-management behavior!
Very good!! Yes, even children are aware of social gaffes and lack of social skills when presented with good ones. Good job!
Would you consider CalTech professor David L. Goodstein competent to address the point of theory? I was referred to him as a top "scientist" in another thread and watched his video series and was struck by the following (an exact quote):
"As a matter of fact there’s a point of view that says, that the only way that science can make progress is by showing that theories are wrong. The argument goes like this: It’s impossible to prove that a theory is right, no matter how many experiments agree with it. But if one single experiment disagrees with it, then the theory must be wrong."
I don't want to misrepresent the professor, certainly he goes on to discuss other theories on theory, but he doesn't dismiss the above as being invalid in the scientific community.
Is he wrong, did I misunderstand or is the above indeed one of the accepted points of view within the scientific community?
My apologies. I don't think I was clear enough in my post to you. Since you were questioning wikopedia, I wanted you to know part of that post I wrote myself. If you notice, I did put in quotes what was taken from wikopedia and what was not quoted, I wrote.
Hmmm... Here is a site that might help clear up any misconceptions about the big bang:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
As far as "man from ape", I would start with the links found on PatrickHenry's and Ichneumon's home pages. :-)
I know there were no ill intentions. :-) You obviously noticed that I had added more to my post than just the wikopedia stuff. Just further clarification.
Whoops, I meant in my post to wallcrawlr.
Tom was fine in a couple of days, and very proud of himself. The paramedic, who was (gasp!) an Eagle Scout, told Tom he'd done very well under the circumstances.
I am an electrical engineer, if that helps. :-)I think you will find the following interesting, if you haven't seen it yet: Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation - Electrical engineering. The whole article is worth reading, even though it's rather long, but the link is to the section most relevant to your field of work.
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.