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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-236 next last
To: L98Fiero

Read the article. ID wasn't banned from discussion. It was segregated to be taught in the appropriate forums. Science classes and the college level are not where ID should be placed. It's not science. It's bad enough it's screwing around with the education of high schoolers, but it is really foul for pople who elect to be science majors have this nonsense thrown at them.


81 posted on 10/07/2005 9:14:47 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot

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

That's not part of evolution. Evolution does not claim where human awareness came from nor is it definitive about how early life was formed.


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

Modern oil exploration is based on tectonic theory and the earth being billions of years old - those are two things that cannot be replicated with an experiment, like human evolution. If the ID people were in charge of science teaching that the earth was only thousands of years old and that dinosaurs lived along side humans we would have no modern oil exploration.


82 posted on 10/07/2005 9:15:25 AM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | 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 this. 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.

TEACHING IS FOR TEACHING THE SINGLE PREFERRED THEORY.

RESEARCH IS FOR EXPLORING ALTERNATIVES. Research by definition is for exploring alternatives to the prefered theory.

Teaching binary number system as an alternative to base 10 number system is totally inappropriate in most cases.

10 plus 10 equals 20 for most of us. In binary (computer code) 10 plus 10 equals 100 (or 4 in base 10).

83 posted on 10/07/2005 9:15:42 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; Amish with an attitude
Hey, what the hey, your time is better spent issuing ad hominems.

Fallacy, like your screen name, more apropos it should read 'Professing to be Right Wing' and very poorly too.

Wolf

84 posted on 10/07/2005 9:16:24 AM PDT by RunningWolf (U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. It is a cosmology/physics problem and there are a lot of graduate level proigrams studying that very question. I guess we should cut off their funding becasue ID has the answer and they don't need to do that research.


85 posted on 10/07/2005 9:17:39 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Can't permit students to hear any legitimate questioning of the secularist religion.

Wrong. The correct statement is "Can't permit students to hear any legitimate questioning of the secularist religion IN SCIENCE CLASSES" AND "WILL permit students to hear any legitimate questioning of the secularist religion IN ANY OTHER CLASS."

86 posted on 10/07/2005 9:19:04 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: trisham

please read post 83.


87 posted on 10/07/2005 9:20:50 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

Comment #88 Removed by Moderator

To: B Knotts
I'm a bit confused. Why was this necessary? Are there science professors there teaching creationism? Or is this just being done to make a point?

The point is tha tthe ID people don't want to stop at highschool biology classes. They want ID to be the main framework for understanding our universe because it is compatible with creationsism. They want that to replace all of science with a Christian world view that offers room for supernatural events. To them, biology is the low hanging fruit. Physics and chemistry are next. Physics because it teaches the universe is billions of years old and there was an explosion of space that we can trace the universe's history back to. It also teaches nuclear theory used by various radiometric dating methods so that has to go. Basic chemical principles have to be erased because they define how biochemistry, a link in evolution, works.

On a broader scale, all of science needs to be reworded because science does not permit 'God did it' as an objective explanation for observations. THe universities are seeing the writing on the wall and are preparing defenses against the corruption of science by the religious right.

89 posted on 10/07/2005 9:25:35 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

"You didn't look at the link, did you?"

I did visit the link, talk about ad hominems, the Evolutionists bible web site.

"However, since you have now been given a clear refutation of your contention that there are no transitonal forms,"

Do the math.

"the next time you deny it, it will be a deliberate lie, since telling untruths as a result of culpable negligence is still lying."

LOL, By arbitrary decree of of the Royal Danish court?





90 posted on 10/07/2005 9:28:09 AM PDT by Amish with an attitude (An armed society is a polite society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: QuiMundus
Isn't "Theory" just another form of "philosophy"? A theory by it's very nature is something unproven. If it was proven it would be scientific fact. So, to exclude all "philosphical" elements out of a scientific curriculum would necessitate the removal of theoretical science as well, wouldn't it?

You are right and wrong. Scientific theories are never proven correct. Attempts to disprove them that fail support the theory, but do not prove them. Scientific facts are observations used to build scientific theories. Scientific theories, by defintion, are not facts. If IDer's want any theory not proven as fact, then you are right. All of science must be deleted from education.

91 posted on 10/07/2005 9:28:41 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
Hey, what the hey, your time is better spent issuing ad hominems.

Fallacy, like your screen name, more apropos it should read 'Professing to be Right Wing' and very poorly too.

Snicker.

Go look up 'unconscious irony'.

92 posted on 10/07/2005 9:29:45 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: 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.) If not, read them and get back to the discussion. There is plenty of legitimate criticism of neo-Darwinism that does not use the word "God" or "Intelligent Design". But if someone believes in God, his questions, no matter how legitimate, are verboten.

Only faithful followers of High Priest Darwin and his holy apostlehood are allowed. It is censorship at its worst.


93 posted on 10/07/2005 9:31:24 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 86 | View Replies]

To: doc30
I have no particular issues one way or the other with ID; but I don't understand the reasoning which supposes that evolutionary theory is wholly incompatible with creationism.

Mind you, I'm not talking about "Young Earth" creationism...just basic creationism.

94 posted on 10/07/2005 9:33:45 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: thompsonsjkc; odoso; animoveritas; mercygrace; Laissez-faire capitalist; bellevuesbest; ...

Moral Absolutes ping to my post above. It would be good if I actually alerted you all. I'm going too fast this AM.


95 posted on 10/07/2005 9:34:01 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 76 | View Replies]

To: Amish with an attitude
I did visit the link, talk about ad hominems, the Evolutionists bible web site.

There elapsed less than 8 minutes between post and response. The link contains 23 sections, most of them several thousand words long.

Do the math.

I just did.

LOL, By arbitrary decree of of the Royal Danish court?

No, your conscience, if you had one.

96 posted on 10/07/2005 9:34:56 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
No one said this. 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.

TEACHING IS FOR TEACHING THE SINGLE PREFERRED THEORY.

RESEARCH IS FOR EXPLORING ALTERNATIVES

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

Are you a teacher?

97 posted on 10/07/2005 9:35:06 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 83 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Moral absolutes, like "Thou shalt not kill?"


98 posted on 10/07/2005 9:38:02 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: doc30

"I guess we should cut off their funding becasue ID has the answer and they don't need to do that research."

I'm betting there should have been a /sarc tag there. ;)

Personally I believe in some sort of God-inspired evoloution. It might be as simple as Him creating the "spark of life" or as complex and pre-planned Intelligent Design. I don't believe that God wiggled his nose and all of a sudden the earth was full of all the plants and animals we know today. I do believe some sort of creation AND evoloution had to take place and would like to explore both possibilites further as they relate to all life, not just human. Religion, sociology, and philosophy are all great but they do not deal with animal and plant origins (outside Genesis), other life forms that share this earth with us and came from somewhere.

My point about the Big Bang was not about it as it related to evoloution. It was about theories with little or no basis in fact being accepted and taught as science while others, which happen to allude to a higher power, are not taught in science.


99 posted on 10/07/2005 9:38:41 AM PDT by L98Fiero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: joebuck
Isn't this the same mentality which convicted Galileo to life imprisonment for arguing that Coppernicus was right and that the Earth and planets DID revolve around the Sun? Ironicly enough, this time it's the secular authorities repressing alternitive views becasue they may be tained with a religious componant, rather than the other way around as with Galileo.

I was thinking about this earlier today. It is not a matter of religionists versus scientists - it is a matter of "only what I can now understand according to the tools currently availabe" versus "there are other possibilities".

Those who opposed Galileo did so because they were sure of their rational "scientific" perception of the universe. They are the ancestors who have "given rise to" the paranoid evolutionists of our day.

100 posted on 10/07/2005 9:40:47 AM PDT by KMJames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 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