Posted on 01/19/2005 12:27:00 AM PST by JohnHuang2
The lib-dem teachers were afraid to read the statement; the union warned them of the consequences of doing so. I spoke to one last evening, who lives in my condo complex.
This Dover school is just down the road from me (in York, PA).
Evolution and intelligent design are not things that should be taught in biology class. Paleontology is not a subject that should be taught in elementary school.
Evolution and intelligent design are topics more appropriate specialized courses in biological philosophy and logic and should be electives for college prep. Frankly I find it ridiculous that precious resources are spent on the subject of paleontology in elementary school, instead of something that may actually benefit the students in some fashion: arithmetic, English grammar, spelling, geography, U.S. and world history, physical sciences such as geology, mineralology, meteorolgy, astronomy, taxonomy and classification, anatomy, chemistry, physical excercise, art, american government.
The applicability and usefulness of either evolution, or intelligent design, to anything but an extremely select career path makes the general study of these topics an abysmal waste of time and resources.
And so we think other nations have a monopoly on oppression and state-controlled doctrine forcefed to young people! I find the Dover event a small slit in the otherwise seamless blanket of ignorance suffocating our children. Intelligent design? What a novel idea! Sensible, reasonable people have purported it since the dawn of time. Let's see who is right, finally.
Like it or not, evolution is the basis of biology. If you'r going to teach biology, you teach evolution. "Intelligent Design" is simply creationism wearing a veneer of scientific jargon to disguise itself. There is no "science" to "intelligent design".
bump
Main Entry: bi·ol·o·gy
Pronunciation: -jE
Function: noun
1 : a branch of science that deals with living organisms and vital processes
2 a : the plant and animal life of a region or environment
b : the laws and phenomena relating to an organism or group
3 : a treatise on biology
Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
biology
n 1: the science that studies living organisms [syn: biological science]
2: characteristic life processes and phenomena of living organisms; "the biology of viruses"
3: all the plant and animal life of a particular region [syn: biota]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Gee, it seems even a university as esteemed as Princeton fails to see the connection of biology and evolution. Furthermore, according to CancerWeb, MD, published at the Dept. of Medical Oncology, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, biology is defined as: "the scientific study of living organisms." Frankly, evolution, the contemplation of the origin of life, and the study of extinct species is not only irrelevent, its utterly immaterial to biology i.e. the study of living things. Well, maybe not entirely immaterial ie. the study of why species went extinct may have some value.
Riddle me this Batman, what relevance does knowlege of the philosophy of evolution play in the study of haemolysis that may be caused by bacterial haemolysins, antibodies that cause complement dependent lysis, by placing red cells in a hypotonic solution or by defects in the red cell membrane? Is evolution related to any of these speculative causes of haemolysis? Is evolution important in understanding what haemolysis is, or what its complications may be? From a criminologists point of view, what does evolution bring to the party concerning haemolysis?
What further illumination does evolution provide respecting the functioning of adenosine tri-phosphate? Or the Krebs cycle? Would you be more or less comfortable knowing that the surgeon about to excise that tumor from your brain, has a doctorate in evolutionary biology, or would you prefer one that that knows anatomy stone cold? What relevance does the philosophy of evolutionary biology possibly have to your doctor concerning the mode of action with respect to monoamine oxidase inhibitors?
You bring your 18 month old to the hospital with a 105.7 deg temperature, how valuable is it to you that the doctor is extremely knowlegeable about philosophically and eisegetically inferred speciation of extinct animals? Are the evolutionary implications respecting to encephalitis more important to that doctor, or perhaps pondering the evolutionary origins or Ryes Syndrome? What value does evolutionary biology have respecting the study of radiometric tagged monolconal antibodies? Quite frankly I do not see any applicability of evolution with respect to the treatment of leukemia (or any other cancer for that matter). You go to the emergency room with stabbing chest pains, I'll guarantee you one thing absolutely for certain: the treating physician isn't consulting his Darwin, or Richard Dawkins books. If your wife is diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, you're not going to give a rat's ass about Darwin, or Dawkins (and neither is your doctor because its utterly irrelevant and absolutely immaterial). It contributes nothing of any value whatsoever to anything. Ask your ophthamologist, your dentist, your veterinarian, your pharmacist, your proctologist what bearing evolution has on their jobs.
Doctors are not biologists. They are doctors. What a shame you wasted all that time typing all that. Of course, I seem to recall that you've been caught passing other people's material off as your own before, so maybe it didn't take you any time at all for a a little cut'n'paste job.
No need to teach creationism or ID.
Just point out all of the scientifice holes in the THEORY of evoloution.
'..oh, this slime just decided to quit cell splitting and start having sex, then the resulting creatures started specializing and adapting down millions of different paths...'
So if I'm understanding your position correctly, doctors do not need to study biology, eh?
Your attempt at putting me on the defensive is feeble at best. The DUmmies are better debaters than you. When the facts aren't to a liberals liking, they obfuscate, ad hominem attack, and irrelavent and immaterial argument. So which is it here? If you want to make allegations of plagerism then prove it, or keep your mouth shut.
What a shame that you felt compelled to push the electrons necessary to repsond with the worthless drivel that you did (regardless of how few were utilized to do so).
So you don't think that the evolutionary acquisition by the bacteria causing that 105.7 degree fever of resistance to antibiotics just "might" be of interest to the doctor??
And since you raise that ugly little snake's head: what species does MRSA belong to?
Why start now? Obviously, you don't, and you're in no hurry to change that. Doctors are not biologists, so claiming that doctors don't need to study evolution is hardly the same as saying that biologists don't need to study evolution, or that evolution shouldn't be taught in biology. In addition, your description of evolutionary biology as a "philosophy" is absurd on its face - just because you can't figure out the science behind it, that doesn't mean nobody can.
You should go back to stealing other people's material - it was wrong too, but at least it made more sense than your own.
ROFLMAO! You're a raving loon.
It's a start. Thanks for the good news.
That seems to be all that intelligent design tries to do.
Is this your DU material, then, the ad hominem attack?
Ad hominem begets ad hominem you moron, don't you know that? And you started it first. Go crawl back under that rock you came from and try to figure out where you went wrong with your argument you little freakin' putrid malicious maligning inveigler.
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.