Posted on 10/07/2005 7:35:38 AM PDT by Sopater
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.
That should read "fine." To lazy fer spel chekkin.
"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.
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.
Cosmology is the science of "very very big".
Humans and their technological influence is very very small.
Humans currently have zero role in cosmology.
"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.
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.
"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.
and since neiother evolution nor creationism can be proven, to teach one over the other censors the untaught, and endorses the unproven, eh?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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!
It does? Where?
"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.
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.
**************
Excellent observation.
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.