Maybe these scientists really are skeptical of random mutation and selective pressures being the engine behind evolution, but they seem not too willing to provide an alternative. Human beings are one of many species of animals.
|
Posted on 10/18/2003 4:43:10 AM PDT by Zender500
Some people think evolution should not be mentioned at all in public schools, while others think any evidence that may contradict evolution should not be allowed.
Both views reflect poor science, and if either side wins, students will lose. Unfortunately, that's just what might happen in Minnesota.
Although many people view Darwinian evolution as a valid explanation, others have begun questioning parts of this theory.
For example, a growing number of prominent biologists are signing on to the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Written in 2001 to encourage open-mindedness within the scientific community, the statement has been supported by Nobel Prize nominee Fritz Schaeffer, Smithsonian Institution molecular biologist Richard Sternberg and Stanley Salthe, author of "Evolutionary Biology."
Minnesota is setting new content standards for K-12 science education. Committees have written a draft of these standards and, along with Education Commissioner Cheri Yecke, are inviting feedback from people like you at public hearings and through e-mail letters. (See The Minnesota Department of Education for information and a copy of the standards.)
I commend the standards committee for its emphasis on knowledge and the scientific method. However, I'm concerned that some citizens and committee members want Darwinian evolution taught as undisputed fact while prohibiting any critical analysis of this and other scientific theories. This is no less biased than those who do not want evolution mentioned at all. History reveals how such suppression of data actually hinders science, while honest inquiry promotes it.
For example, the Earth-centered theory of the solar system proposed by Ptolemy in the first century was upheld as absolute truth for 1,500 years. Unfortunately, the church suppressed the work of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and others who challenged this theory with scientific evidence. Isaac Newton's publication about gravity and the sun-centered theory in 1687 finally overcame this bias and exposed the Earth-centered theory as dogma, not scientific fact.
Faith in God influenced these latter four scientists' pursuit of scientific discovery, so their conflict was not with religion but rather with bias against other theories. Those who would forbid any challenges to Darwinian theory are displaying this same kind of partiality.
Instead of answering these challenges with evidence that supports their theory, some defenders of "evolution-only" are taking another tactic — accusing all critics of trying to bring religion into the classroom. However, critical scientific analysis of Darwinian evolution is not religion, and exploration of all the facts should be encouraged.
Such exploration exemplifies the scientific method, which begins with observation and leads to a hypothesis (an educated guess that tries to explain the observation). This hypothesis is then tested, and if test results contradict the hypothesis, it is discarded or revised. A hypothesis that has been tested and supported by large amounts of data becomes a theory. A theory that withstands rigorous testing by independent scientists over time eventually becomes a scientific law.
All theories and even scientific laws must be tentative. For example, who would have thought Newton's Laws could ever be contradicted? Yet, Einstein and other scientists found that these laws could not explain certain complex problems.
Quantum mechanics became the new guiding principle, though Newton's Laws are sufficiently accurate for most aspects of daily activity.
The scientific method that has been so instrumental in advancing science requires that all scientific theories and even scientific laws at least be open to further testing. We should not be afraid to question and analyze scientific evidence; data that is valid will stand the tests.
We have the opportunity to set responsible and rigorous standards for science education in Minnesota. We should help students practice the scientific method in all areas of science, including the study of evolution — let's not encourage them to violate it.
Echo.
No, not at all. The article's first sentence says this:
Some people think evolution should not be mentioned at all in public schools, while others think any evidence that may contradict evolution should not be allowed.No truth in the part I underlined. The article goes on to say this:
For example, a growing number of prominent biologists are signing on to the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Written in 2001 to encourage open-mindedness within the scientific community ...That gives an entirely false impression. The genuine scientists who question evolution are an extremely small number. (When I say "genuine scientists" I'm aware of the 2 or 3 biologists who have been said to be "leaving evolution in droves"; and I intentionally exclude charlatans who, like Duane Gish, are trained primarily in the engineering of sanitation facilities.) The article ignores items like this: Project Steve: FAQs (National Center for Science Education) which demonstrates what a joke the "anti-evolution bandwagon" really is. The article also says:
However, I'm concerned that some citizens and committee members want Darwinian evolution taught as undisputed fact while prohibiting any critical analysis of this and other scientific theories. This is no less biased than those who do not want evolution mentioned at all. History reveals how such suppression of data actually hinders science, while honest inquiry promotes it.Purest garbage. Evolution is a theory, and should be tought as such. It explains facts, which is what theories are supposed to do. There are no competing scientific theories, so it's insane to speak of "suppression" of honest inquiry.
The problem I have with creationist theory of any sort is that, at some point, one must abandon reason and factual science and rely on faith. That's fine, within the confines of religion or philosophy, but not for science.
When or if creationism aquires sufficient verifiable evidence to support it as a competing theory to evolution, it will, trust me, be regarded seriously by scientists. Until then, it is religious dogma, and should remain of that province.
And what are you? A ground-breaking biologist who has his own naming and classification nomenclature fit to replace the existing model?
With good reason. It's yet another creationist stalking horse. It comes almost verbatim from a press release from the Discovery Institute.
Maybe these scientists really are skeptical of random mutation and selective pressures being the engine behind evolution, but they seem not too willing to provide an alternative. Human beings are one of many species of animals.
|
Right. Does the evidence show (or not) that the universe and the Earth reform similarly each Yuga from the eternal dance of Vishnu and Shiva?
I admit that, from my perspective, it's hard to tell. ;^)
Where's the list of evidence? Given that list, what can you conclude/not conclude about the VishIva Dance?
What is the liberal fear about this subject, claiming mixed messages.. Geeeze our kids are getting mixed messages everywhere they turn. Why is this debate so damned dangerous to their future , and the Queer vs straight contradiction so friggin healthy?
What do you mean both? Are you going to exclude any other creation "theories" in favor of your own favorite? If so, why?
Scientists do not, as a rule, "marry" a theory. In fact, evolution is almost constantly tested and refined.
I fail to see where "faith" comes in to play in science. The scientist either has evidence and repeatable results or he does not. If he does not, the method demands that the theory or conclusion be rejected, or altered.
Those who claim that evolutionists engage in "faith" of some sort only seek, once again, to blur the distinction between science and creationism. They are in no way that similar.
Because we are talking about science, not politics. There is only one "side" of this which is, by virtue of the verifiable evidence supporting it, scientific in nature.
If the "other side" were mentioned, honesty would require the disclaimer that no verifiable evidence supported it.
When geographers and cartogaphers draw up maps and globes, they do not invite comment from people who believe in a flat Earth. Just because something is "another side" doesn't mean it is valid or should be heard.
I notice that the press makes this mistake often, to the point of, after a murder for example, getting the killer's "side of the story".
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.