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 ...
No, no, no! the cow came first!
The great fire mixed with the great ice, and from the mist the frost giant Ymir and the giant cow were formed. The cow nourished Ymir, and from the cow's saltlick, the god Buri emerged.
Odin (the son of Buri) killed Ymir (and the other giants formed from the sweat of Ymir) and created the universe from Ymir's corpse.
Odin and his brothers first fashioned the earth (Midgard) from Ymir's flesh and, using his eyebrows, encircled it with a protective wall. Using Ymir's unbroken bones, they created mountains and from his teeth the rocks, boulders and stones. Using Ymir's blood, they created the sea and lakes. Using the dead giant's skull, they created the endless expanse of the sky and supported its corners with four dwarfs (Nordi, Surdi, Austri, Westri) from whose names we get the four main points of the compass; North, South, East and West.
From Ymir's brains they created the clouds and from the sparks of Muspell, they created the sun, moon and stars to give light to the world.
While the stars were fixed, the sun and moon were placed in golden chariots. Two riders named Day and Night were charged with guiding the sun and moon on their daily journey across the sky. They were pursued by a wolf intent on devouring them and from time to time, it did catch them in his mouth. Because of the cries of the terrified people of Midgard, the wolf released them, only to pursue them once again.
After the creation of Midgard, Odin and his brothers created the first humans. From a branch of an ash tree they created a man named Askr and from the branch of an elm tree, they created a woman named Embla.
The nine worlds of the universe existed within a world tree named Yggdrasil
The Yggdrasil tree had three large roots, each one of which dipped into three different wells. The first root dipped into the waters of Mimir's spring. These waters were filled with wisdom. The second root lay in the Well of Urd, where mythical creatures weaved the fates of mankind and tended to the needs of the tree. The third root fell into the dark waters where a dragon tore gnawed unceasingly at the tree. Four stags nibbled hungrily at the tree's green buds, while goats tore at the bark. High in the branches an eagle sat with a hawk perched upon his brow. a squirrel scurried up and down the Ash all day carrying insults between the eagle above to the dragon below.
-- The Creation
Actually, so did I. :-)
In the beginning the universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Many races believe that it was created by some sort of god, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure.
The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.
We also sing, dance, and tell jokes :-).
Campion's Law in action!
Oh, its a cryin' shame! Another FReeper loses an argument due to culpable ignorance of Campion's Law!
""As a FR discussion lengthens, the probability of a libertarian or atheist FReeper comparing a Christian FReeper to al Qaeda or a Talibanic theocrat approaches one. Any FReeper who compares their opponent to al Queda or declares their oppenent an advocate of a "theocracy" has automatically lost that point of debate."
There has never been a time in my life when schools and teachers weren't being blasted for some book or another.
If I were designing a science curriculum I would include some sort of mythbuster class to get kids used to the idea that arguments can be settled by experiment.
At some point, perhaps around eighth grade, they should be taught the concept of the double blind experiment.
If all the libertarians were banned from FR, this wouldn't be a problem.
Ah yes, The Viltvodle Apocalypse. That's my favorite!
Aren't you a libertarian?
I agree completely!
Hmmmm.. I already knew about double blind experiments by the time I was in 8th grade. :-)
theory = belief
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory
the·o·ry
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
[Late Latin theria, from Greek theri, from theros, spectator : probably the, a viewing + -oros, seeing (from horn, to see).]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
If I were, would that make what I said any less true?
You do have a point. I've had to restrain myself from getting in flame wars with those who are vehemently opposed to social conservatism.
Please let that phrase die...its not an intelligent or respectful way to discuss.
I can come up with just as many pointless metaphors to make myself feel better over your conservative beliefs too...difference is I wont.
Can your argument be tested experimentally?
Nope.
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 own 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
Would you also permit them to teach children from a kid's book about global warming (excluding the contradictary data)?
How about a children's book that claims as absolute fact that Asians sailed to South America and were the first societies established there?
There are theories, but that's all they are. Nothing concrete.
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.