Now evolving in biology classes: a testier climate - students question evolution

Christian Science Monitor ^ | May 3, 2005 | G. Jeffrey MacDonald

[ValenB4]

That is why ID is doomed to fail. It is not scientific. ID is an attempt by the scientifically uninformed to use the state to force a change in an academic field against the wishes of those teaching in that field. In no other field would that be accepted - from medical schools, law schools, business schools, anything. So long as scientists and instructors of biology oppose ID, then it is doomed. It cannot succeed unless outsiders force them to change. One of the hallmarks of Western civilization is that there is an independent civil society. Forcing ID upon the biological sciences violates that independence. The inmates cannot run the asylum.

[narby]

Science does not recognize a difference between "macro" and "micro" evolution. That's an invention of the professional creationists to explain away the evidence on hand for evolution.

[dread78645]

JohnDoedidit place mark

[MacDorcha]

That was rather left-fieldish of you.

[narby]

ID is an attempt to "scientifically prove" the existence of God. I just don't think that can be done. And if it were, then it would imply that we could invent a meter to guage the presence of God and determine His will with that device. I think that such a concept should be abhorent to any believer.

[Dimensio]

But students asking questions in class is always a good thing.

Unless they keep asking the same questions over and over again even after the questions have been answered ad nauseum.

Before anyone doubts the likelyhood of that, consider the number of creationists who come here and think that they're being insightful by asking "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

[Dimensio]

That growling sound you hear are believers in God at last taking positions against the evolution-idiots.

To which "God", out of the thousands of deities acknowledged and worshipped throughout human history, do you refer, and why do you specifically single out followers of that specific God over all others? Also, do you assume that all followers of this particular "God" reject evolution, or are you simply ignoring the fact that there are many theists who accept that evolution is valid science?

[Dimensio]

Surely you are not trying to posit that "evolution" is more than a theory!

What "more" could it be than theory?

[Dimensio]

Evolutionary theory is also commonly understood as including explanations for the origin of life. And rightly so, since neither evolutionary theory nor origin of life theory will admit of the possibility of supernatural causality.

By this "reasoning", gravity should also be lumped in with the origin of life and evolution, because it too will not admit to the possibility of supernatural causality. Oh, and atomic theory. And electromagnetic theory. And let's not forget germ theory.

Are you really going to believe that we're not going to call you out on singling out evolution and abiogenesis for critical analysis because they don't allow for the supernatural when anyone here who has had any level of a decent education already knows that nothing in science can consider the supernatural?

[ValenB4]

Hardly. You are confused about left and right. I am the one opposing this government interference. I'm to the right of you.

[Dimensio]

We've all seen it in these threads and responded with a great breadth of knowledge

Yes, and the problem is that in spite of all of the well-reasoned and informed corrections that are provided to every creationist misconception and flat-out lie that gets dredged up here, less than a week later we're sure to see some of them cropping back up again.

That's why this is problematic in a public school environment. Even if the instructor is capable of addressing every question brought forth, what are the chances that the same questions founded in the same ignorance are going to be popping up week after week by students who, like the creationists here, refuse to learn?

[Dimensio]

Science, being a philosophy (reasoning, way of knowing, etc.) SHOULD include the idea that ID is a legitimate means to existance.

Okay, then. What would falsify ID?

[Dimensio]

A hippopotamus is not a dinosaur.

[MacDorcha]

Not "left-winginsh"

"left-fieldish"

Learn to be an American! It's a baseball term! It refers to the least active position in the baseball fielding positions.

It's vernacular for "unrelated"

[JohnnyM]

I dont know how many hippos you have seen, but if you have you would laugh at the idea that they are the size of a cedar tree.

JM

[JohnnyM]

err

That should read
"but if you have you would laugh at the idea that their tails are the size of a cedar tree."

JM

[plain talk]

No, its a cover for evolutionists' lack of evidence for macro evolution and a way to hide behind micro evolution. "Science does not recognize a difference between ..." What a load of crap. What is "science"? You mean scientists which are individual people with opinionated people. Academia loves evolution and global warming and is about as critical of their own ideas as hollywood is.

There is no compelling evidence for macro evolution which is at the center of the debate. Nice try.

[mlc9852]

Maybe it used to be! LOL

[MacDorcha]

Falsification is an aspect of empirical thought and it's methodology.

ID is suggesting that Empiricism is NOT the *only* method of knowing, though science is important in knowing "how" it does not answer "why"

ID is "what if" the *why* of traditionaly philosophies and the *how* of newer scietific philosphies met.

[Doctor Stochastic]

ID is an attempt by the scientifically uninformed to use the state to force a change in an academic field against the wishes of those teaching in that field.

ID's just the continuation of the general dumbing down of schools. Some people don't want to learn history, some don't want to learn English, some don't want to learn science.