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 ...
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.
"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.
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).
Wolf
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.
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."
please read post 83.
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.
"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?
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.
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'.
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.
Mind you, I'm not talking about "Young Earth" creationism...just basic creationism.
Moral Absolutes ping to my post above. It would be good if I actually alerted you all. I'm going too fast this AM.
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.
TEACHING IS FOR TEACHING THE SINGLE PREFERRED THEORY.
RESEARCH IS FOR EXPLORING ALTERNATIVES
*************
Are you a teacher?
Moral absolutes, like "Thou shalt not kill?"
"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.
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.
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.