Museums take up evolution challenge

Chicago Tribune ^ | October 16, 2005 | Lisa Anderson

[Crackingham]

Natural history museums around the country are mounting new exhibits they hope will succeed where high school biology classes have faltered: convincing Americans that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a rigorously tested cornerstone of modern science. At Chicago's Field Museum, curators call their upcoming effort "Evolving Planet." The University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln calls its program "Explore Evolution." And here at the American Museum of Natural History, the exhibit that opens next month is called simply "Darwin."

[BamaGirl]

'So...do you think scientists carefully isolate themselves from "real facts", in assessing biological questions?'

Of course not! Although when you study any scientific controversies, you'll find that they weigh facts very differently, to get different conclusions.

But in this case, I still maintain that most of the confusion has come from the media. They have bent the facts and introduced much confusion. Just look at the different interpretations of ID on this single thread. I'm still not sure I know what the basic tenets are.

' On the basis of what? A world-wide conspiracy to keep their cushy jobs?'

Hoo hoo you are funny. Yeah scientists are living the high life.

Have a nice night,
BamaGirl

[donh]

Yes they are taking it to an extreme. The Constitution never says anything about "separation of church and state," the 1st amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That sounds like separation of church and state to me. Jefferson and Madison were the architects of the 1st Amendment, and their preserved letter exchanges make it abundantly clear that separation of church and state were precisely what they had in mind. Jefferson wanted to insert the same clause into the Virginia constitution. The horrors and depridations of the church-affiliated european nations during the 100 years war in Europe, and long before, not in the least including the horrors of the inquistion, were fresh, and promenent on the minds of the founding fathers when the Constitution was drafted.

I've heard this nonsense before from creationists--I think it's a pretty sadly self-serving interpretation from putatively conservative, putatively strict-constructionists.

[donh]

Wow you have a pretty negative view of anyone religious.

Based on what? Not appreciating having science teaching re-organized by non-scientists? I'm a catholic in good standing. That doesn't make me blind to history.

May I ask what has made you come to this conclusion?

In these sprawling threads, you need to preserve some context when you respond, so your respondent know what you are talking about.

[donh]

'So...do you think scientists carefully isolate themselves from "real facts", in assessing biological questions?'

Of course not! Although when you study any scientific controversies, you'll find that they weigh facts very differently, to get different conclusions.

Which does not gainsay that 1) what scientists think is what should be taught in science class, and 2) Overwhelmingly, scientists think that the evidence for evolution by variation and selection is one of the most important and profoundly verified theories in natural science.

But in this case, I still maintain that most of the confusion has come from the media.

Than, offhand, it is the media, and not science classes that needs correcting.

They have bent the facts and introduced much confusion. Just look at the different interpretations of ID on this single thread. I'm still not sure I know what the basic tenets are.

In that case, it probably shouldn't be considered a theory of natural science so well established as to deserve a place in a science classroom alongside of the likes of Darwinian evolutionary theory.

' On the basis of what? A world-wide conspiracy to keep their cushy jobs?'

Hoo hoo you are funny. Yeah scientists are living the high life.

I didn't invent this theory to explain why scientists favor Darwin to the exclusion of ID. But I agree that it's pretty funny.

[MHalblaub]

"I didn't invent this theory to explain why scientists favor Darwin to the exclusion of ID. But I agree that it's pretty funny."

The IAT (Intelligent Atomic Theory) is also pretty funny. The cause why decay happens is an intelligent atomic designer plays to hard with his billiard nucleis. The standard scientific theory provides no solution why decay really happened.

[donh]

The IAT (Intelligent Atomic Theory) is also pretty funny. The cause why decay happens is an intelligent atomic designer plays to hard with his billiard nucleis. The standard scientific theory provides no solution why decay really happened.

There are an infinite number of things that scientific theory cannot explain. That proves the existence of tree sprites, doesn't it?

[MHalblaub]

There are an infinite number of things that scientific theory cannot explain. That proves the existence of tree sprites, doesn't it?

No. The existence of tree sprites is proven by the scientific ITS theory-
Intelligent Tree Sprites Theory.