Yeah ... I know this is a quote conglomeration --- big deal (( fed case )) to the trivia - psuedo science cult FR freeks (( vs freeps )) !
Posted on 11/01/2003 4:14:09 AM PST by I Am Not A Mod
AUSTIN -- Texas will be under the microscope this week in the fight over teaching evolution in public schools as the State Board of Education votes on adopting biology textbooks that have been at the center of the debate.
The board meets Thursday and Friday and is set to consider proposed changes submitted by 11 publishers. The board's decisions -- which could determine which textbooks publishers offer to dozens of states -- will end a review process that has been marked by months of heated debate over the theory of evolution.
Religious activists and proponents of alternative science urged publishers to revise some of the 10th-grade books and want the board to reject others, saying they contain factual errors regarding the theory of evolution. Mainstream scientists assert that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a cornerstone of modern research and technology.
Board members can only vote to reject books based on factual errors or failure to follow state curriculum as mandated by the Legislature.
"There's a bait and switch going on here because the critics want the textbooks to question whether evolution occurred. And of course they don't because scientists don't question whether evolution occurred," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the California-based National Center for Science Education.
Among those questioning the textbooks are about 60 biologists from around the country who signed a "statement of dissent" about teaching evolution and said both sides of the issue should be taught. Several religious leaders also testified against teaching evolution.
Any changes to the textbooks will have implications across the country.
Texas is the nation's second largest buyer of textbooks, and books sold in the state are often marketed by publishers nationwide. Texas, California and Florida account for more than 30 percent of the nation's $4 billion public school book market. Three dozen publishers invest millions of dollars in Texas.
One of the most vocal advocates of changing the textbooks is the Discovery Institute, a nonprofit think tank based in Seattle. Institute officials have argued at board hearings that alternatives to commonly accepted theories of evolution should be included in textbooks to comply with a state requirement that both strengths and weaknesses are presented.
"These things are widely criticized as being problematic. They aren't criticisms we made up; they're criticisms widely held in the scientific community," said Discovery Institute fellow John West.
Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science, said there are no weaknesses in current textbooks' explanation of evolution. Publishers are required to cover evolution in science books.
The institute has referred to a theory dubbed intelligent design -- a belief that life did not evolve randomly but progressed according to a plan or design. No book on the mainstream market presents the intelligent design theory of evolution.
"We know that this is a very contentious issue. We know that, but the sorts of things we were proposing we thought were moderate," West said.
Samantha Smoot, executive director of the Texas Freedom Network, which monitors religious activists, argues that the Discovery Institute's arguments are rooted in religion. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that the teaching of creationism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state.
"It says that the theory of evolution can't explain the diversity of life on this planet and that there must have been a designer," Smoot said. "That is a very valid and commonly held religious perspective, but not one that is upheld by scientific evidence. Therefore it's not one that belongs in science classrooms."
The Discovery Institute has maintained that its arguments have no religious foundation, but Smoot disagrees.
"The concept of intelligent design was crafted specifically to get around legal prohibitions against teaching religion in public schools," she said. "And as long as proponents of intelligent design deny that they're referring to God when they talk about the designer, they hope to be able to pull this off."
At least one publisher has submitted changes in line with the institute's recommendations.
Holt, Rinehart & Winston has submitted a change that directs students to "study hypotheses for the origin of life that are alternatives" to the others in the book. Students also are encouraged to research alternative theories on the Internet.
Again, this is nut-job level nonsense. Most of Darwin's writings have long been available in COMPLETE AND UNEXPURGIATED editions for many years (the largest job, a complete edition of his correspondence, is well along with many volumes published), and the originals, in Darwin's own hand, have been available to scholars for decades.
Yeah ... I know this is a quote conglomeration --- big deal (( fed case )) to the trivia - psuedo science cult FR freeks (( vs freeps )) !
There had been, and were at the time, many fatuous and overblown speculations on subjects such as the nature and origin of species, earth/cosmic history, and the like. Darwin didn't want to be classified with such dilletantes. He had a carefully constructed and sober case for his views, and the chance that it would be fairly considered was better if the initial presentation was "toned down".
Apologies, that was overly harsh. I guess what I'm trying to express is that you come across a bit like a Darwinian gnostic: suggesting that there is some "hidden" Darwin out there, only known to the initiate conversant with the "lost books." That's how you come across to me anyway. If you have a more sober or substantive case to make than I am percieving, I would be happy to hear it.
I agree that the Burdick print and other Palauxy site prints are probably not human.
The whale's tilt is not amazing since the strata is tilted also, however it still seems likely that the whale was buried quickly to prevent decomposition.
Same thing with the Polystrate trees. The site Dimensio sent me to, acknowledges that the best explanation for polystrate trees is that the sediment formed in place around them over long periods and that they are not "misplaced". But unless I missed it , it doesn't explain why the tree didn't decompose over that long of period.
The point I was making was that there is an awful lot of wiggle room with evolution. Evolution is hard to falsify. If the results don't bear out the expected prediction, another natural explanation can easily be substituted.
How does evolution explain it? Please tell me, this should be good.
Mechanics.
No, there isn't.
If it's the one I think then it's from two different conversations with two different people, so the ellipses there are ellipsizing a lot. Not sure who researched that one. Maybe js1138?
Your theory, in order to replace the theory of evolution, should be better at explaining such things than evolution. I suspect that creationism can't explain why dandelions should produce flowers, beyond the trivial "God wanted it that way" reasoning. My suspicion is further reinforced by your declining to lay out how your theory explains such things. And that's why creationism never gets anywhere in the scientific world - because as bad as the theory of evolution may be, a bad explanation beats no explanation every time.
Plants have sex. Fungi kinda do.
Got any suggestions of where I can find them collected? Or which of them might be most important. There are only 15 letters from, to or concerning Fiske, and only 10 of those from Darwin to Fiske. Here is the complete list from the Darwin Correspondence Project:
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.