Posted on 02/03/2005 8:12:41 PM PST by MRMEAN
Actually, most of the so called "research" on animals is totally useless and very often produces results that are at best unhelpful, and at worst, detrimental to actual progress in developng human medical advances. Very often many, not all, so called animal researchers are "scientists" making a lot of money on useless animal research.
Worship in church, study science in school. That is the combination that has made America great.
Why is that Creationists just can't stand to leave a winning combination alone.
What exactly is it you are afraid of?
Do you expect God to step in and save America after our children become so dumb they can no longer compete in the world market?
Oh, please! What a hyperbole.
I suppose with this logic, atheists are also ruining mathematics research. There are very many religious people who believe in God, and science and evolution. the two are not mutually exclusive. I can solve an algebra problem and believe in God. I can understand that genetics and evolution of plant develpment is scientifically based and still believe in my faith.
Our children will hate our generation for destroying America's greatness. At the rate we are going, within 100 years, Chinese will be the dominate world language while Americans are laughed at for being ignorant fools..
Many people believe in God and accept evolutionary theory.
By this reasoning....Einstein would never have come up with his theories, and I certainly could not understand how light travels from a star because I can't "make a star".
Dean quotes someone who claims “the practice of avoiding the topic was widespread, particularly in districts where many people adhere to fundamentalist faiths.” But why would teachers fear discussing it because of that? It’s open season on “fundamentalist” faiths (loaded words for Bible-believing Christians). Most teachers have no problem with attributing everything bad in the world to Christianity. Maybe the students from those districts are better at asking the hard questions that give Darwin Party biology teachers stomach aches .
Most creationists support the teaching of evolution, as long as the problems and controversies are taught instead of one-sided indoctrination. Teaching evolution can be a valuable lesson on how smart people can believe dumb things. So don’t avoid it; let’s open the Darwin Hall of Shame and talk about Piltdown man, pigtooth man, peppered moths, doctored drawings of embryos, National Geographic misinfomercials and all the rest. Students need a little humor to break up the day. Be creative; with February 12 coming, you can celebrate Darwin Day with games and contests, and even sing some evolution songs. Evolution teaching can be fun!
Sweeping such an important controversy under the rug is not a healthy educational policy. Like it or not, evolution has had a major influence on the world for 140 years. Today, the subject is in a state of major ferment and reconsideration. The teacher doesn’t have to take sides. Many bright young people will actually wake up to science if evolution is taught as a controversial subject: that is, if they get a chance to exercise critical thinking about the evidence for and against it, and can debate the issues in class openly without ridicule, rather than hearing a borrrrrring one-sided sales pitch. It’s only the teachers on a mission to indoctrinate blank slates into the Cult of Charlie that have anything to fear.
For those teachers still afraid, we have a simple solution; get the film Where Does the Evidence Lead? and show it as a six-part series (10 minutes each). It will take you off the hook, and teach the students sufficient information to cover the curriculum requirement, without worries about religion in the biology class.
They aren't teaching spontaneous generation any more, either.
Microevolution can be demonstrated in a lab; significant variations in short-lived organisms can be induced in observable time-frames. Some of the diversity of life on this planet is certainly a result of evolution. The $64,000 question is "how much".
I don't understand why so many people seem to have a trouble with the notion that Darwinian mechanics provide a good explanation for some of the planet's biodiversity, but don't really provide a good explanation for all of it.
Also, I think it's important to note that the concept of "species" is not an equivalence relation. It is possible to have four animals, A, B, X, and Y, such that A and X can mate to produce fertile offspring, as can B and X or B and Y, but A and Y cannot mate to produce fertile offspring [note that the normal test for equivalence relations would use three items A, B, and C, but in many species animals have two sexes and two animals of the same sex cannot mate]. By the normal definition of species, A and X would be the same species, as would B and X, as would B and Y. But A and Y would be different species.
Students should be taught about how Darwinian mechanics operate, but should also be taught that there are limits as to how well one can try to ascertain the past based upon the present. That a particular theorized chain of events fits the current evidence does not imply that that chain of events actually occurred.
If you are referring to Einstein, Maxwell, Dirac, Henderson, or a thousand more then they should be studied in Science class. If you are referring to God, he should be studied in Church. What is difficult about that?
What should not be taught is the religious dogma that from one simple animal form, all animal forms (species etc.)came into being. Teaching that man and all life came about over millions of years from simple lifeforms is religious, philosophical speculation, not to be confused with empirical science.
Testing new medicine on animals and any other science can be practiced fine without the ultra-evolutionary religious dogma coming along with it.
Since this is a fact, we will make sure every child knows this and believes this. Public schools teach facts of science, not outdated myths like creationismismismismism.
I think your point is not supported by the history of our educaiton system. I'm not saying that the introduction of evolution is the cause, and poor performance is the result, but there is a definate trend of poorer performance since evolution has begun being taught in our schools.
So your suggestion that the "combination" that you refer to has made America great, is counter intuitive to the downward trend in our education system. It could easier be argued that evolution being taught is the cause.
Again, I'm not sugesting that is the cause, but there IS a statistical correlation, and the statistical correlation that your assertion would expect, does not exist.
What I believe is the true cause of detrimental effect is the spread of liberalism. Poorer performance seems to follow liberalism, as does the agenda to teach evolution.
There are rational arguments to suggest evolution is indeed part of the cause, but I don't think it, in and of itself is the only cause.
You seem pretty sure, were you there? Macro evolution is just the latest fable put out to explain how we got here. I guess some think if you call this magic voodoo science, it must be true. The best minds of science once thought our earth is flat and rests on elephants. 21st century superstition is still superstition.
You may be interested in an alternative perspective on this topic.
the Fossil Record shows that species have changed over time. It provides concrete evidence that man has evolved from an ape-like ancestor. There is no reason to assume that this change will stop today, it will continue.
The genetic, DNA stuff just provides a mechanism for this change. That we haven't observed much change is only because we haven't been looking for very long.
The scientific fact is that macroevolution happens, regardless of how whether we know a 100% working mechanism for how it happens.
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.