Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

University of Idaho Bans All Alternatives to Evolution
Discovery Institute ^ | 10/06/05 | John MIller

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Idaho
KEYWORDS: antichristian; censorship; crationism; crevolist; evolution; highereducation; moralabsolutes; science; scienceeducation; unbiblical
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 221-236 next last
To: trisham

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.


101 posted on 10/07/2005 9:41:45 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; staytrue
Have you read "Darwin's Black Box"? Or "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism"? (Which last, btw, was written by Richard Milton who holds no religious beliefs.)

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.

102 posted on 10/07/2005 9:42:27 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Amish with an attitude
LOL, By arbitrary decree of of the Royal Danish court?

No but along the same lines, its the court of cosmo-evo evo-cosmo cult flying spaghetti monster tribunal.

Professing poorly to be Right Wing is one of the great minds /sarc>, high council prognosticator for cosmo-evo evo-cosmo cult of the flying spaghetti monster.

Wolf
103 posted on 10/07/2005 9:42:59 AM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Amish with an attitude
["Do you have a problem with the concept that things deteriorate with age?"]

Right, someone ate the evidence?

Well, I guess you do have a problem with the concept of time.

104 posted on 10/07/2005 9:46:51 AM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
I will say that for TEACHING ONLY science is advanced by the a priori dimissal of all but a single preferred theory. That is what TEACHING IS.

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.

105 posted on 10/07/2005 9:47:50 AM PDT by TN4Liberty (American... conservative... southern.... It doesn't get any better than this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Sopater; PatrickHenry; <1/1,000,000th%; balrog666; BMCDA; Condorman; Dimensio; Doctor Stochastic; ..
If more university presidents were this smart, our students wouldn't be so dumb! Hat's off to the University of Idaho!
106 posted on 10/07/2005 9:50:12 AM PDT by shuckmaster (Bring back SeaLion and ModernMan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob
Creationism has its evidence as well.

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.

107 posted on 10/07/2005 9:51:00 AM PDT by A Mississippian (Proud 7th generaion Mississippian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

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".


108 posted on 10/07/2005 9:52:34 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

Ah, right on cue, a call for reinforcements to join the filibuster.


109 posted on 10/07/2005 9:55:09 AM PDT by TN4Liberty (American... conservative... southern.... It doesn't get any better than this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

"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.


110 posted on 10/07/2005 9:57:12 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a philosophical world view

This is true, Evolution is a scientific theory based on a natrualistic/materialistic/humanistic philisophical worldview. Satisfied?
111 posted on 10/07/2005 9:57:45 AM PDT by Sopater (Creatio Ex Nihilo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty

If there's one thing people who hide in darkness can't stand, it's light!


112 posted on 10/07/2005 9:58:39 AM PDT by shuckmaster (Bring back SeaLion and ModernMan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: zook
Please, I don't want to start a brawl or anything, but what sort of *scientific* response does "intelligent design" offer when confronted with the question, "what created the designer?"

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.

113 posted on 10/07/2005 9:59:38 AM PDT by Anthem (Never mind the love, where's the muscle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: A Mississippian
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.

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.

114 posted on 10/07/2005 10:02:18 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

Light is welcome, but oh, so rare when the street gang mentality is invoked.


115 posted on 10/07/2005 10:03:19 AM PDT by TN4Liberty (American... conservative... southern.... It doesn't get any better than this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
This is true, Evolution is a scientific theory based on a natrualistic/materialistic/humanistic philisophical worldview. Satisfied?

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.

116 posted on 10/07/2005 10:03:55 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
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.

*************

That may be true of most first year courses.

Are you now a scientist?

117 posted on 10/07/2005 10:04:54 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Look, since universities are replete with homo-studies, womyn's studies, marxist crap, special ethnic indoctrination, what's the point?

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.

118 posted on 10/07/2005 10:07:29 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
...real-time observations of changes in the heritable characteristics of organisms...

Do you mean "real-time changes" or just "real-time observations" of those changes?

119 posted on 10/07/2005 10:07:36 AM PDT by KMJames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: two134711

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.


120 posted on 10/07/2005 10:13:25 AM PDT by WKUHilltopper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 221-236 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson