- I agree with you that public funding does seem to be the crux of the problem, though.
Thanks! That's all I'm saying. ;-)
Posted on 09/20/2005 7:02:45 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
ITHACA, N.Y. - Lenore Durkee, a retired biology professor, was volunteering as a docent at the Museum of the Earth here when she was confronted by a group of seven or eight people, creationists eager to challenge the museum exhibitions on evolution.
They peppered Dr. Durkee with questions about everything from techniques for dating fossils to the second law of thermodynamics, their queries coming so thick and fast that she found it hard to reply.
After about 45 minutes, "I told them I needed to take a break," she recalled. "My mouth was dry."
That encounter and others like it provided the impetus for a training session here in August. Dr. Durkee and scores of other volunteers and staff members from the museum and elsewhere crowded into a meeting room to hear advice from the museum director, Warren D. Allmon, on ways to deal with visitors who reject settled precepts of science on religious grounds.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You've alluded to this before. Would you be willing to expand n it?
Not at all. My point is that it's important to let children know early that science doesn't know everything. A fairly easy way to do that, other than to just say it, it so expose them to some opposing theories early on so they can understand that everything isn't settled. And as I've said, I think this would be useful far beyond the sciences. I have my screen name for a reason. Too many people are not taught to question their assumptions. That includes scientists, too.
I hope that's an incorrect read. But it leaves me puzzling over, what is your answer, if not the above?
Teach the limits of theories, the existing evidence, and explain what's simply speculation. At the lowest grade leves, teaching things in the context of "scientists think" rather than "scientists know" might be enough. At higher grades, students should be exposed to controversies and opposing sides of various issues. And as I said in another reply, I think this would help dispel the notion that science is boring and there is nothing left to discover or learn. Basically, teach science as something that's dynamic and explorative rather than static and explanatory.
As for Intelligent Design, I think the most basic thing it does is to tell students that science is not necessarily incompatible with religion. The fact that it pains many evolutionists to even allow that God might have some role in the process of evolution suggests that the issue has gone beyond science and has become a battle over religion. If science automatically excludes any consideration of divinity, science has become incompatible with religion and one shouldn't be surprised if religious people disagree and start to treat science as the enemy.
Thanks! That's all I'm saying. ;-)
False dichotomy, but of course you knew that :-)
Right. I didn't say with whom she was affiliated, but apparently she was the one who needed the fainting couch before she incessantly nagged Summers about reinforcing negative female stereotypes.
And yet no one claimed they did, but that didn't stop YOU from doing so in your last reply, and I quote you verbatim:
" NO ONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE AND UNDERSTAND IS ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS! IT'S OFFENSIVE!"
.... so they should be prevented from asking questions or expressing ideas that profane your temple. [emphasis added]
Here we get to the nub of the matter; it's a Museum; it isn't a public forum for every patron to "express ideas" -- it's a forum for people interested in the science to come learn about it. Haranguing a volunteer docent for 45 minutes with questions that include utterly bogus and thoroughly discredited arguments such as the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes Evolution" isn't for the purpose if intellectual inquiry, it's for the purpose of filibustering and disrupting the normal presentation on scientific knowledge to the patrons of the museum.
The patrons don't get to make speeches at a museum; if it's speech making these people want, then they can fly to England and go to Hyde Park and stand there and get laughed at like the rest of the schizophrenics who launch tireless tirades at the unfortunately realities that impinge upon their delusional fantasies.
Get a grip.
The astutue readers of this thread can see who's shouting and who isn't, and it is apparent to all who are grounded in reality which one of us is losing his grip.
And about 30 minutes later, I shall form the RWP personal upkeep foundation, dedicated entirely to the wants and needs of yours truly. You can then form the sheltonmac personal upkeep foundation. I'll contribute 100% of my income (tax-deductably, of course) to your foundation, and you can contribute 100% of your income to mine :-)
from that understanding: The core of the issue IS the theology of the entire Bible and its basis or foundation in the beginning of Genesis. Specifically the fall of man through sin which introduced death as payment for sin and brought about the ultimate payment of that sin debt in the death of the human form of God on the cross.
So if death existed before the fall of man into sin then why? And not just "why" to death but "why" to the specific death on the cross (and subsequent resurrection) which is core to the Christian faith.
(Again I'm not asking you specifically any questions, but that is my understanding of the issue for "young earth" creationists.)
I conceded the point............actually this is the third time I've done it.
I heard her speak a couple of years ago: the only man in an audience of 100. Talk about a whine-a-thon. "The boys have bigger labs than me, that's why I haven't won a Nobel Prize"
On behalf of DarwinCentral, and the Grand Master thereof, we welcome you from your journey in the wilderness.....
;-)
Thank you for your courtesy. Too often others choose up "sides" and even an observation like "it's raining in Tennessee" has to get countered.
If you would do me the favor of approaching this actively non-hostile question:
Since many people, as an act of Faith, accept a literal interpretation of Genesis, what do you suggest as a way of talking about museum exhibits involving evolution without making such folk uncomfortable.
They make a presentation on a particular subject matter and then answer questions. That's what I said. Good job!
Non responsive answer.
I must say, the evo's on this thread are sure making themselves look like reasonable, open-minded people they claim to be.
Sir, if you know this woman, why not call her and get some quotes about what actually happened and then you could present what really happened, i.e. her side of the story? I cannot ever trust the NYT to do such. They are totally agenda based.
For all to ponder:
It amazes me that on THIS site, a NEW YORK TIMES article is posted, and because it attacks Christians, the evos go crazy with their anti-Christian bigotry.
How can the NYT be considered a legitimate news source with all the fraud that has been uncovered? Should it not be obvious that the NYT hates Christians as much as they hate America.
Do you believe this poor woman was actually mobbed? Did she get assulted or rapped? Was she threatened? Did they call her bad names? What the heck happened? Is this a PUBLIC or PRIVATE museum? Are churches PUBLIC property or PRIVATE property? Did those pesky Christians have as much right as the next person to ask their questions when they visited this museum? I would think that most scientists would relish the opportunity to set these guys straight, but that is just me.
Some of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for automatically assuming the worse of Christians, especially from such a disreputable news organization as the NYT. I know this doesn't include you Right Wing Professor, when I make this allegation.
My kid sister did it for a while and she's pretty awesome, and patient, too.
"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation...His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." -- Albert Einstein.
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man." -- Albert Einstein
“Immediately you would like to know where this number [ α] for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi, or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It’s one of the greatest da-- mysteries in physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the “hand of God” wrote the number, and ‘we don’t know how He pushed His pencil’.”" -- Richard Feynman, Nobel Laurette Physics, QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Page 129., Princeton University Press, 1985.
"One of the most fundamental laws of natural science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a cause. There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of spiritual creator." -- Werner von Braun
"This beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...." -- Sir Isaac newton, inventor of the scientific method, calculus and orbital mechanics.
From what I hear on this thread, the nasty mob threw feces at her, or something just as bad.
Present all the information as theory, and not fact. Present supposition on the part of scientists as supposition, and not as hard and fast law.
In a word........tell the truth.
Don't say that the Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado River over millions of years, as if there's no other opinion. Say that "most scientists think" that the Colorado River created the Grand Canyon. Don't present the evolution of man from ape as reality, but say "most scientists think" that man descended from animals.
That way, in a few years when the evolutionary 'facts' once again are refuted, as they have been repeatedly in the past, then you don't have to spend taxpayer's money, and buy all new signs for the exhibit. :)
Fair enough?
I'm going to have to take a posting break but I will respond.
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.