Posted on 02/05/2005 11:37:51 AM PST by gobucks
ELKTON - Charles Darwin and his intellectual descendants have taken a lashing here lately.
With the Cecil County Board of Education about to vote on a new high school biology textbook, some school board members are asking whether students should be taught that the theory of evolution, a fundamental tenet of modern science, falls short of explaining how life on Earth took shape.
*snip*
The politically conservative county of about 90,000 people bordering Pennsylvania and Delaware is joining communities around the country that are publicly stirring this stew of science, education and faith.
*snip*
At the Board of Education's regular monthly meeting Feb. 14, the five voting board members are scheduled to decide whether to accept the new edition of the book and might discuss Herold's call for new anti-evolution materials in addition to the book.
*snip*
The consensus in mainstream science, represented in such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Smithsonian Institution and the American Museum of Natural History, was, in effect, captured in 31 pages of text and illustrations published in November in National Geographic magazine. In big red letters, the magazine cover asks: "WAS DARWIN WRONG?" In bigger letters inside, the answer is: "NO. The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming."
*snip*
Joel Cracraft, immediate past president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, compared the scientific agreement on evolutionary theory to "the Earth revolving around the sun."
*snip*
Then there's the matter of teaching the meaning and method of good science.
"The issue is science," Roberts said. "What is science, and, if there's a conflicting view, does it meet the rigor of science we're seeking?"
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Wait, I thought we were all born 'good', but that outside environmental forces are the cause of anyone doing 'bad' stuff. You mean to imply that we're imperfect from the very start?
What a novel concept. And to me, quite recognizable.
Which makes it a perfect philosophy and/or religion purposely foisted upon the young to further the aims of atheists, Communists and all those set upon destroying America
You forgot contaminating our precious bodily fluids.
" There are plenty more, but it would start going very much off the topic of thread. I only went this far because you asked."
And I very much appreciate your willingness to go off topic. Let me ask you this: do you think creative thinking is an inborn trait, or do you think it is something that can be taught?
lol, which would be funny if not for AIDS
Me too, but I don't expect inconvenient things like facts will cause the hard-core creationoids to change their mantra.
Remember, gobucks said "atheistic evolutionist". But then, that brings up the question of whether or not he was directing only to atheists who accept evolution, or if he is dishonstly (as many creationists do) asserting that all who accept evolution are atheists...
Dude, you are way ahead of me!
I took the regents in 1975, by the time my daughter took honors bio at Bayonne HS 5 years ago, I could barely understand the first lesson! I only had a clue because I took bio in college too.
We complain about the state of the schools, but I must say that in science and math the cirriculumn today is much advanced over what I took.
And I always was terrible in math, so you can keep the astronomy, for my kid it was an "easy A", to me it is something I must take on faith. That is to say, I have faith that most astronomers are good people and aren't just making stuff up. I cannot judge it for myself. And no, I can't spell either. But my mother blamed the nuns for that.
"Well, we can fix that. I'm pro-life and think Roe v Wade should get overturned."
Thank god. We agree. But, I know why I think it should be overturned. But, you ... why?
What does that have to do with logic? If you can't put biases aside to look at logic, you have no business talking about what science is or is not.
Part of science is accepting results as you find them, not demanding in advance that they conform to some stupid religious crackpottery.
>
Wow. I love them!
I think there are many abilities, such as creative thinking, writing, and musical ability to name a few, which require inborn talent but also require the right environment and training to allow them to flower. I don't think you can teach someone to be a writer or musician unless they already have the talent for it.
On creative thinking, the mind needs to be trained by being exposed to many different aspects of the world. That exposure provides the "raw material" used in the creative process. But only a person with inborn creative ability can use that raw material to generate new insights.
Ooooooooooh. That is really scary. So who exactly has been doing this? Where do they meet and when? Are their meetings secret? Do they publish their proposed meanings of science in the Federal Register for public comment?
'Science', then, is what liberal democrats use to spread godlessness, and to confuse ordinary citizens, who can't afford a private education, and so thereby prevent them from voting Republican.
Science is the reason you are still alive to post this paranoid nonsense on FR.
Not again, no, please.... not more quoting of that movie the far left gay movement worships, Dr. Stranglove? Please... no mas...
Can I have some of that popcorn, without butter?
"or if he is dishonstly (as many creationists do) asserting that all who accept evolution are atheists..."
Not all, but most.
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.