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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-236 next last
To: Sopater
The scientific response would be "let's see if we can find out", certainly not "don't go there".

Not really. This may be a topic of research, but not a topic of teaching.

For example, there is no mention of relativistic quantum mechanics (combines quantum field theory with relativity) in first year physics because it is mostly inappropriate from a teaching standpoint. Further, F=ma is taught as gospel even though is is only an approximation for everything that moves at a slow speed is of a large size. However, relativistic quantum mechanics is very appropriate from a research level.

61 posted on 10/07/2005 8:48:12 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: two134711

That should read "fine." To lazy fer spel chekkin.


62 posted on 10/07/2005 8:48:39 AM PDT by two134711 (If you're too open minded, your brains will fall out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot

"Not to mention the theory of evolution can not be tested by empirical means, which is the basis of science, period."

Evolution can be seen in real time with micro-organisms that have short lifespans. Over a period of months it can be seen in fruit flies.

To look at animals that live longer if takes the fossil record to get enough generations.

Your argument would mean no longer scientifically examining anything that takes longer than a human lifetime and would preclude, for example oil exploration, earthquake prediction, climate change, and a host of other advances.


63 posted on 10/07/2005 8:50:10 AM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
At the University of Idaho, 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 or curricula.

I guess I should have read the letter before my first reaction. To me, this policy does not seem unreasonable. It sounds to me like they don't want the sciences of geology and biology to get bogged down by religion, and I can understand that.

64 posted on 10/07/2005 8:50:16 AM PDT by SaveTheChief ("I can't wait until I'm old enough to feel ways about stuff." - Phillip J. Fry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: two134711

Cosmology is the science of "very very big".

Humans and their technological influence is very very small.

Humans currently have zero role in cosmology.


65 posted on 10/07/2005 8:51:34 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: camle

"if evolution is true AND God is true, why teach one but not the other?"

Excellent question.

I think we should teach both.

Science class is about what we can prove and use to create new technologies.

God should be taught to save souls.

Using God as an excuse to give up trying to understand the world he provided goes against the very notion of God giving us dominion over the earth - we are supposed to explore it and try ti understand it.

On a practical note, the ID in science class movement threatens our economy.


66 posted on 10/07/2005 8:54:14 AM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty
So you believe that science is advanced by the a priori dismissal of all but a single preferred theory?

No one said that. But teaching science often is about a single most commonly accepted theory. Research is something different. The Idaho edict involves teaching and says nothing about research. Further, evolution is the single most commonly currently accepted theory regarding origins of species.

67 posted on 10/07/2005 8:55:37 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Wings-n-Wind

"Tax-funded academic and intellectual freedoms at work....[/sarcasm]"

Professors are still free to do any research they like and to say and print whatever they like.

What they are not free to do in general is to teach something as fact that has no supporting evidence. This is not limited to intelligent design, it applies to anything non-scientific a professor of science might try to introduce as fact.


68 posted on 10/07/2005 8:57:05 AM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

and since neiother evolution nor creationism can be proven, to teach one over the other censors the untaught, and endorses the unproven, eh?


69 posted on 10/07/2005 8:58:41 AM PDT by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it full of something for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot
Not to mention the theory of evolution can not be tested by empirical means, which is the basis of science, period.

You meant to say "Not to mention the theory of MACROevolution can not be tested by empirical means, which is the basis of science, period.

Fact is that MICROevolution (where one species evolves into another by natural selection, or one bird evolves into a different closely related bird but a clearly different species) is testable, and is a confirmed fact.

70 posted on 10/07/2005 9:01:24 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Amish with an attitude
Your faith is commendable.

You didn't look at the link, did you? Hey, what the hey, your time is better spent issuing ad hominems.

However, since you have now been given a clear refutation of your contention that there are no transitonal forms, the next time you deny it, it will be a deliberate lie, since telling untruths as a result of culpable negligence is still lying.

71 posted on 10/07/2005 9:02:17 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: camle

The body of physical evidence is much stronger for evolution than for creationism (as currently esposed).

Frankly evolution does not deny creationism in general. It does contradict creationism as currently expoused like the earth is 10k years old.


72 posted on 10/07/2005 9:04:11 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: camle

"and since neiother evolution nor creationism can be proven, to teach one over the other censors the untaught, and endorses the unproven, eh?"

No.

The basics of evolution -that more complex lifeforms developed from less complex life forms is a fact.

And even if scientific error is found, you don't replace science with religion, you replace it with better science.


73 posted on 10/07/2005 9:04:36 AM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
No one said that.

That is exactly what the article said. "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. "

The fact that people who claim to be interested in pure science would agree to eliminate all but one hypothesis from consideration belies their stated beliefs in scientific method. This isn't about science anymore. I'm not sure it ever was.

74 posted on 10/07/2005 9:05:41 AM PDT by TN4Liberty (American... conservative... southern.... It doesn't get any better than this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Reproduction of simple life forms and the associated genetic recombinations does not provide evidence sufficient for me to believe that humans are spontaenously evolved chemical packages with self-awareness.

I don't see the tenuous connection of empirical science to oil exploration, etc.


75 posted on 10/07/2005 9:08:54 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot (Conservatism: doing what is right instead of what is easy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Moral Absolutes Ping.

Uncanny how the town is named "Moscow" - shades of "Pravda" (which means "Truth" in Russian). Everyone in Russia and eastern Europe knew that "Pravda" printed solely Communist Party line, nothing else. I guess Universities such as the Univ. of Idaho are proudly following their standard bearer - only the truth that fits in with the elitist ideology of atheism is allowed. Can't permit students to hear any legitimate questioning of the secularist religion. No apostates allowed.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

Note the article I hoped I pinged out last night (have to see if I did - it was late!) about the Smithsonian honcho who dared - DARED! - to allow into print an article which questioned some of the hallowed tenets of the Darwinism. Plus, the honcho had the audacity (he doesn't deserver to ever have a job again) to be a - get this - Catholic!


76 posted on 10/07/2005 9:09:24 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 1 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

It does? Where?


77 posted on 10/07/2005 9:09:25 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty

"The fact that people who claim to be interested in pure science would agree to eliminate all but one hypothesis from consideration belies their stated beliefs in scientific method. This isn't about science anymore. I'm not sure it ever was."

It was definitely bad phrasing and a heavy handed tone.

It would have been better to say that Evolution, as only current viable scientific theory will be taught until the scientific community concludes that scientific evidence suggests a different theory.


78 posted on 10/07/2005 9:11:07 AM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

It's not censorship. Students go into science classes to learn science, not theology. It would be a disservice to students that spend thousands of dollars on an education only to be mislead by being taught material inappropriate for the courses they need. It's like liberal professors in social sciences ramming socialist propaganda instead of the relevant coursework down student's throats. ID can be taught in appropriate social science classes, but it has no place being in any science class.


79 posted on 10/07/2005 9:12:15 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty
The fact that people who claim to be interested in pure science would agree to eliminate all but one hypothesis from consideration belies their stated beliefs in scientific method.

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

Excellent observation.

80 posted on 10/07/2005 9:12:32 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 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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