Posted on 03/29/2005 6:06:07 AM PST by gobucks
What a breath of fresh air. Coming from the enemy no less!! I bet Jay caught, ahem, hell for this article.
Jay, here is some free advice from a Freeper: if you want to keep your secularist 'reporter' career intact, you had better start accepting that KEEPING high schoolers STUPID is the POINT!!!!!
Don't you understand that? If you were truely a Darwinist properly on the reservation you'd understand how damaging your article is! I'm guessing you are going to get skewered by your peers, and made an example of ....
I just couldn't believe that this article originally wound up inside the pages of the W-compost. I respectfully submit, our side is gaining ground. Figured you'd two would like to know.
It's just one word too: "Beta". Here, the two (or three) sides of the issue claim that treating highschoolers like "Betas" is preferable to dealing with them as though they might be "Alphas".
exactly, where else are they going to find people to work their butts off for the tax machines
wow
Very interesting article, gobucks! Thanks for the ping!
You underestimate our educrats. What they'll do is present evolution in a favorable light, and then throw rocks at ID for weeks on end, as a way to condition the little urchins to belittle religion. It'll be the same ol' indoctrination, but now a bit more pointed.
Leftists are not going to toss their dependence upon Darwinian evolution, because they view themselves as the "fittest" survivors. It's a subtle justification for the ruthless horrors attendant to socialism that keep the "fittest" (fistest?) in control.
BUMP!
If you'll check my post history, you'll see that I'm a pretty staunch advocate of the theory of evolution. I know it's scientifically correct, and I believe it's fundamentally correct. I have to say, though, reading this article has me wondering if it wouldn't be such a bad idea to include some ID hypotheses in biology classes for discussion. The problem I see is that you'd really have to trust the science teachers to make clear the distinction between the scientifically verified theory of evolution and the scientifically unverified (and in some cases, unverifiable) ID hypotheses. From what I remember of my high school science teachers, I don't think I would trust them with this responsability.
This should be interesting. I wonder if other columnists will follow suit and come out of hiding. It's good to see some balanced journalism in an unexpected place. I've read Behe's book, I see his logic, and can't see the logic behind not teaching both ID and evolution. But this is an emotional issue, so logic does not always hold sway.
Thank you for your reply! I don't keep a ping list for Intelligent Design/Creationism - but I believe bondserv does...
Evolution is not a Leftist mantra (nor is it a 'theory')...it is scientific fact. and it is in plain view of anyone who will open thier eyes wide enough see it.
Creationism is not a Conservative mantra....it is a belief system held by certain fundamentalist Christian groups who align themselves with conservatism more often than not. And these groups have been a valuable voting block for the right.
But please don't assume that it is a Conservative certainty or even a part of a Conservative majority. It is not.
Thank you so much for your reply! Sadly, it is an emotional issue as you say - but with more respected persons asking to hear both sides of the story, perhaps that will change.
Natural selection is observable. Evolution is a well established theory.
Classical Mechanics was a well established theory too. That didn't stop physicist from beginning a critique where the theory had some blind spots. That's how we got Quantum Mechanics. It is by critique of current theory that small and large advances in science happen. If those critiques can be supported by evidence, eventually they will enhance or slupplant the previous theory. Evolution should be no exception.
The problem I have with I.D. is that I'm not sure that it rises to the level of a scientific theory (or ever well), and is very tentative at this point. We don't usually introduce very tentative theoretical science at the high school level, but just stick to the conventional wisdom. OTOH, if it had been introduced to me in high school, I think I probably would have delighted in picking it apart - it doesn't seem to really explain anything or make any predictions. Can't see that it would hurt to discuss it in passing, and it's always good to encourage kids to think critically for themselves.
Precisely why it isn't "science". Having said that, I am NOT so sure that ID isn't "real". There may be something to it. After all, you really can't disprove it, and it does bring up some really cool points. Of course then there are the counter theories (many Universes, for one) that could keep you going for a long time.
All in all, I'd stick with evolution as the "best model" out there for now, but I'd gladly show the holes in it.
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.