Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

[Calpernia]

I'm impressed. Many assume my nickname is from Kill a Mockingbird.

[Junior]

Various parts of evolution are constantly being questioned and tested for. How do you think all those biologists meet their "publish or perish" quotas? No theory ever simply stands still; once it's put on paper, every researcher and his brother in that particular field will begin to play with it -- it is, after all, simply a tool.

[js1138]

Empiricists work without hypotheses.

Interesting. I would assume that folks collecting data are working within a framework and guided by a hypothesis. I suspect that most researchers are guided by a rather narrow hypothesis and could certainly perform their duties without having an opinion about something as overarching as evolution.

But not having an opinion about the controlling paradigm of their profession would preclude them from noticing something new and exciting.

[PatrickHenry]

Troll detected. Troll deflected. Resume normal operations.

[Aric2000]

And so it begins.

[CobaltBlue]

"Liars for Christ" is a good one.

After watching the evolution vs. creationism debate played out many times over the years, it appears to me that the sole factor that tips the balance is the percentage of fundamentalists that are in on the decision-making process.

I don't think very many school board members are coming to the table without already having an opinion on the matter.

I haven't labored in the trenches as long as some on this thread have, but it's crystal clear to me that the vast majority of creationists are fundamentalist literalists who believe that the fossil record is due to one of the following:

1. Put here by the Devil to fool mankind; OR
2. Put here by God to test mankind; OR
3. Can be explained entirely by the Noachian flood.

Of evolutionists, I believe that the majority believe in theistic creation, that is, that God created the universe in a way that can be explained by scientific methods, and a minority are agnostics or atheists.

In the Red Zone, creationists outnumber evolutionists. In the Blue Zone, evolutionists outnumber creationists.

The "swing votes" are theistic evolutionists who are persuaded by the "arguments" of Intelligent Design, namely, that some things are too complicated to be explained by present day scientific knowledge and therefor MUST NOT have happened by chance and therefore are ipso facto evidence of Intelligent Design.

These tend to be the same type of people who subscribe to Biblical Archeology and are fascinated by attempts to prove that biblical events actually happened.

In other words, they want science AND the Bible to be compatible, and don't question the fallacious arguments advanced on behalf of Intelligent Design.

[Junior]

That's right. She was the maid, right? I read that book (twice) in High School, but that was more than 20 years ago.

[RightWhale]

folks collecting data are working within a framework and guided by a hypothesis.

That's one kind of empiricist. The other works without hypothesis and is deservedly shunned by the first.

[PatrickHenry]

Amazing. If, as the trolls proclaim, they are innocent of all misconduct and we are the ones trying desperately to get these threads pulled, then ... why do we bother to create these threads in the first place?

Again, I urge everyone to ignore the trolls. Let's have a thread that Jim Robinson will be proud of.

[only1percent]

A good science textbook should present, in a fashion that schoolchildren can comprehend, the current principals and theories of the scientific establishment, period. Parents who wish to teach their children that the Bible has a different explanation are free to do so. Parents insisting that their children be entirely ignorant of actual science are free to place their children in schools that teach no real science. Once we have school choice, that will be a fiscally-neutral move, but, for now, that may cost 'em.

Anything else, regardless of the motivation, is simply a recipe for further devestating the state of American science and technology education, where there are fewer native-born B.S.'s every year, and where 50% or more of graduate students are imported from abroad.

And those of you who complain about H1Bs and outsourcing -- do you think that the elite prep schools and engineering colleges in India devote much time to life-giving breath of Vishnu or whatever else the Hindu theory of creation might be?

[Support Free Republic]

Don't tell the Penguin.

[Dimensio]

What trolls? I didn't see any trolls.
Oh, and did anyone notice the odd number-skipping in this discussion? I saw a post #37 and a post #39, but no post #38, like it just skipped over that. I wonder why that is...

[Onelifetogive]

Various parts of evolution are constantly being questioned and tested for.

My very point. "Parts" are questioned. The whole is not. There is a "thought police" in academia that will not allow serious questioning of the whole due to fear of the only other suspected option.

Men have gone hundreds (or thousands) of years knowing things to be true only to find that they weren't when allowed to actually question them.

The Catholic Church of the Middle Ages exacted a significant price from people who dared to question their currently accepted beliefs. The liberal academic world is today's equivalent of the Middle Ages Catholic Church.

You, my friend, are a bishop!

[js1138]

I believe that the majority believe in theistic creation, that is, that God created the universe in a way that can be explained by scientific methods...

I don't think the way (of creation) can be explained. I would say that a universe was created that has consistent natural laws, which we can study and approximate to varying degrees of precision.

[Jeff Gordon]

One of these days, the ID kooks will get their way with some dim-witted school board. The end result will be with the issue before the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS will then declare that ID has no more place in public schools then does the Ten Commandments.

Until then, a few kooks will continue to cause various amounts of public education funding to be flushed down the toilet rather than used for education.

Sad.

[CobaltBlue]

OK, but can we agree that the universe wasn't created, fully formed, in 4004 BC? And that the process from the beginning of the universe to the arrival of mankind took more than 6 days of 24 earth hours?

[PatrickHenry]

ID has no more place in public schools then does the Ten Commandments.

In a secular (government run) school system, the Ten Commandments can have a very real place as part of a course teaching our cultural history. ID, however, belongs only in a catalog of misguided fringe movements.

[Calpernia]

>>>Of evolutionists, I believe that the majority believe in theistic creation, that is, that God created the universe in a way that can be explained by scientific methods, and a minority are agnostics or atheists.

....other words, they want science AND the Bible to be compatible, and don't question the fallacious arguments advanced on behalf of Intelligent Design.

BUMP!!!!

[CobaltBlue]

>>I urge everyone to ignore the trolls.<<

The definiton of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again, and expecting the outcome to be different.

So, I may be late in coming to my senses, but I intend to ignore the trolls.

[CobaltBlue]

What can we, as evolutionists, do to assist the evolutionary side in Texas with this struggle?

Suggestions, anyone?