Posted on 10/07/2005 7:35:38 AM PDT by Sopater
University of Idaho President Tim White has entered the debate pitting Charles Darwin's theories of life against religious-based alternatives by forbidding anything other than evolution from being taught in the Moscow school's life, earth and physical science classes.
"This (evolution) is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our biophysical sciences," he wrote. "Teaching of views that differ from evolution may occur in faculty-approved curricula in religion, sociology, philosophy, political science or similar courses. However, teaching of such views is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses."
(Excerpt) Read more at discovery.org ...
I was a grad teaching assistant in 1st year physics.
And we left out 90% of the nuance in the theory we were teaching.
It is hard enough getting the basics across.
For a perspective on Richard Milton, it's informative and fun to visit his 'Alternative Science' site, where you can find out what he does believe in -- psychic spies, that the sun's core is frozen, that bacterial antibiotic resistance doesn't evolve, that sunspots and lottery numbers are correlated, and that 'Scans have found more than 100 people with "No detectable brain" in their heads'.
Of those 100, of course, 81 were FReeper creationists.
Right, someone ate the evidence?
Well, I guess you do have a problem with the concept of time.
I thought the purpose of a university was to teach people to do research, think for themselves, and, yes, make arguments about theories. Apparently that is not the case. Clearly they view their roll as teaching that there is one single answer, teaching there is only a single answer to any question. Grad students who wish to challenge existing beliefs are not welcome, and such discussions are not permitted in the classroom or as part of any science course. These aren't nine-year olds. These are college students.
Frankly, that doesn't speak well for the university.
Actually, the evidence (data) is the evidence; the only difference is the interpretation of evidence.
For years the scientific community has made interpretations based on many assumptions, such as that all life processes must be explained by natural processes and NOT with any external (supernatural or "Intelligent") intervention. If those assumtions are wrong, then those interpretations are wrong.
It is kind of funny... back in my med school days, a professor said "Half of what we are teaching you is wrong and half is right. We just don't know which is which." And looking back over the last 20 years, I see that many things we were taught as "fact" are no longer "true". Why? Because the assumptions that certain "facts" were based on was found to be in error. I am sure that the same is true in almost every area of science.
It is unfortunate that those who preach that the theory of Evolution is "the only way" are constantly have to change what that "way" is.
It is also nice that those of us that believe in young earth creationism don't have to constantly do that.
As I said. Behe and others issue valid criticism of evolution. If valid, logical questions and criticisms are verboten, what's the point of education? Might as well just have subliminal indoctrination going on. Oh wait, it's already happening.
Look, since universities are replete with homo-studies, womyn's studies, marxist crap, special ethnic indoctrination, what's the point? Now they're going to disallow even a timid raised hand of any questioning of the Darwinist catechism on the grounds that anyone who has any criticism must be a religious believer (which isn't even true, but if it was, so what)?
"Irish need not apply".
Ah, right on cue, a call for reinforcements to join the filibuster.
"Well, the point is that U of I has banned such discussions. How are answers to question like yours to be answered if universities ban the discussion of such concepts?"
Such questions belong, and will be discussed, in philosophy classes. Science cannot answer them.
If there's one thing people who hide in darkness can't stand, it's light!
Had this same question when I was about 8. Realized that the whole universe was probably just an experiment in a fishbowl and then realized that that fishbowl was in a universe that was itself in a fishbowl... Soon I was running around outside shouting at the beings looking into my fishbowl that they were just in a fishbowl too. I was soon apprenended and taken to see a bunch of doctors who at first couldn't get me to calm down. One finally gave me a cigarette to calm me down, but I was only 8 so I got sick and puked all over their shoes. Then I asked to go home, having forgotton all about the fishbowls.
It is also nice that those of us that believe in young earth creationism don't have to constantly do that.
All you have to do to believe in a young earth is pervert any science that disagrees with your preconceived notions. Look at the Grand Canyon geology lessons and what is being done to various radiometric dating techniques for a starter.
Light is welcome, but oh, so rare when the street gang mentality is invoked.
No. Evolution is a scientific theory based on observations of fossils, physical and genetic homologies between living organisms, real-time observations of changes in the heritable characteristics of organisms, and discoveries in molecular biology. Many evolutionary biologists are neither humanists nor materialists.
And we left out 90% of the nuance in the theory we were teaching.
It is hard enough getting the basics across.
*************
That may be true of most first year courses.
Are you now a scientist?
They probably should get rid of a lot of that crap too as those studies have a few things right but are mostly wrong. I do find you to be self contradictory as you seem to advocate tolerance to teach ID and evolution side by side, but advocate dismissal when they teach maxist crap and capitalism side by side.
What you will find is that in busness classes, the maxist crap is ignored. This is what they are trying to do here, and that is get ID/creationsims out of science class and move it somewhere else.
Do you mean "real-time changes" or just "real-time observations" of those changes?
I don't consider it a waste, but I think these guys do. Consider that throughout history the lone scientist who has come up with a theory, only to be proved 50 some years later he/she was right. But during the meantime, scoffed by his/her peers and discounted--why? Maybe because they didn't come up with it or maybe because they're just not going to go outside their peer group (wouldn't want my buddies thinking I'm nuts). I think alot of it has more to do with protecting their own egos rather than proving what's right. So from that regard, "isn't that what science has always been about looking at old ideas, pondering new ones..." is not necessarily their mantra.
How many decades did science embrace the Piltdown man and only to find out it was a hoax. My only point is many of these folks are too accepting to swallow the company line if someone else tells them too. It's like a social club really.
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.