Posted on 10/16/2005 12:02:32 PM PDT by gobucks
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.
Snip
"I think everyone is realizing that we need to be doing a great deal more. We just haven't made the effort to communicate evolution to people in terms they can understand. Evolution is exciting," Diamond said.
snip
"One of the big misunderstandings, I think, is that a lot of people have stopped realizing that science is a secular activity," said Lance Grande. Field's $17 million, 20,000-square foot, "Evolving Planet" exhibit is slated to open on March 10, 2006.
snip
"In many ways, I blame science itself in that we have done a terrible job of explaining what science is," said Leonard Krishtalka of ... Kansas in Lawrence.
"I would imagine to non-scientists a lot of science and technology sounds like so much magic," he said. "Is it any surprise that so many people are choosing one kind of magic over another kind of magic?"
In an effort to deepen visitors' understanding of evolution, the Field Museum has designed "Evolving Planet" to showcase dinosaurs without allowing them to overshadow everything else. In past evolution exhibits, McCarter said, people "whipped through the origin of life, and everything before the dinosaurs, to go look at the dinosaurs. And by the time they got done looking at the dinosaurs, they were so tired that they whipped out."
This time, he said, "we're using the dinosaurs as kind of the marquee to draw them in and saying, this is a very complicated story, which you've got to dig into over a long period of time."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
"Evolution is based upon an ancient brew of acids getting struck by lightning."
My Dear Mrs. Mark,
Actually, the Theory of Evolution doesn't deal with the origins of life at all, so you're quite mistaken. There are scientists who study that, but it's not part of the Theory of Evolution.
In any case, your original statement remains nonsense. There is no theory which says what you claimed in your earlier message.
Really...if you are planning an assault on the Theory of Evolution, you will need better ammunition. The stuff you're using is very out of date and no longer fires. I recommend a beginning book on the Theory of Evolution. There are many fine such books. Or you can do some research on the internet, although that's somewhat more tedious.
I do suggest, though, that you skip this nonsense you've begun, right away. Life is not a "mish-mash of carbon," like you said. Nobody claims that it is, so you're arguing with nobody.
I know you can do better.
Sincerely yours,
MineralMan
Take a deep breath, if you would read what I actually said, the debate about the actual merits of evolution is a side show. What is really going on is a battle in the CULTURE WARS!
WHY DO YOU THINK I SAID "The whole argument really has nothing to do with fossils or biology." It is because the debate over ID is not about evolution, but trying to keep morals in society.
Why you think I am trying to discuss evolution baffles me.
It could be argued that God was smart enough to author the Law of Gravity, which saves Him from the chore of pushing every leaf to the ground.
The same could be said for Evolution: God set the rules then set them into motion.
Perhaps God no more needs to tinker with genes than He needs to use his supernatural powers to bind nuclear forces together.
"Take a deep breath, if you would read what I actually said, the debate about the actual merits of evolution is a side show. What is really going on is a battle in the CULTURE WARS!
WHY DO YOU THINK I SAID "The whole argument really has nothing to do with fossils or biology." It is because the debate over ID is not about evolution, but trying to keep morals in society.
Why you think I am trying to discuss evolution baffles me."
My favorite scientific type books include one called the "Ascent of Man" by Jacob Bronowski. It was also a television series. I was really struck by the part where this old man in his suit and shoes walks into a pond, and talking about all the scientific achievements we have made, reaches down and pulls up a handful of mud, and says we still have to reach out and touch people. He was at a nazi prison camp. I took it to mean Science can not loose track of morals.
The debate is really over what it means to "explain" something.
Those calling themselves "scientists" are not satisfied with "a super-being did it", while IDers are. What we really need is agreement over what it means to have explained something.
I can tell you why I personally don't like the super-being theory: it's because it assumes unlimited action and completely arbitrary choice. This "super-being" can do anything at anytime. I reject this because most of my experience shows that there are hard constraints on what is possible and I've never seen anything that can overcome these constraints.
IDers, on the other hand, like the "super-being" theory for the very reason I reject it: because anything for the superbeing is possible. If you want life, make it so. Poof. Instant explanation. This is especially appealing because it takes a lot less work to mentally simulate than something like evolution. If you don't understand evolution, then for all intents and purposes it's impossible.
Many people, on the other hand, do believe they have free will, so it's easy to imagine a "super-being" that can make arbitrary decisions. This makes the "super-being" theory easier for them to accept.
I don't think so.
MrsMark has made up her mind that this is all a "cultural war," I think because of a profound lack of understanding of science in general, a misconception of evolutionary science in particular and a propensity to confabulate a theory to fit her(?) viewpoint. To this viewpoint, the science of evolution is reduced to being no more valid than any other possible viewpoint.
Chill out, descend your High Horse and actually read the post. I do believe the Battle between Evolutionist and those who push Intelligent Design, is not really about science, but about culture.
It's not reading between the lines, but rather seeing the big picture in context.
"MrsMark has made up her mind that this is all a "cultural war,""
That appears to be so. That is the reason I told her that I would no longer be able to communicate with her in these threads. Since I cannot discern from what she writes what she means to say, it is a waste of my energy to engage her. I'm sure she understands. As far as I have been able to determine, the Theory of Evolution says nothing about "cultural wars," so I cannot find the relevance in the discussion.
You may be correct from the point of view of the ID proponents, but you couldn't be more wrong about scientists.
"Chill out, descend your High Horse and actually read the post. I do believe the Battle between Evolutionist and those who push Intelligent Design, is not really about science, but about culture. "
The issue is not evolution, ID is a political response to those who push evolution, in my opinion. I was stating why there was a political response. It is part of the culture wars.
Junior, for the catalog.
Between the advancement of science and a return to the Middle Ages. Oh, what great fun.
From the Article
"One of the big misunderstandings, I think, is that a lot of people have stopped realizing that science is a secular activity," said Lance Grande. Field's $17 million, 20,000-square foot, "Evolving Planet" exhibit is slated to open on March 10, 2006.
Trying to change a misunderstanding about science, sounds like a cultural issue to me.
Well, your mind is made up. But you do not accurately represent the point of view of scientists regarding this matter. The reason for that is, I suspect, that you do not have a good grasp of the nature of science. But..I've said this before here and you keep repeating the same error in your presumption about science and scientists, so I must conclude you aren't open to learning more about science. Correct me if I error in that regard.
Bet ya a quarter that within the next 20 years, fundamentalist Christians will join forces with Muslims for a united front against evolution. Already you can't tell their web sites apart.
I don't think the issue is between the Luddites and those who want to learn and explore. If you could separate the "Science" from the "Scientific Establishment" I would say the battle is more with the Scientific Establishment as they are part of the establishment of the liberal universities, that tend to follow the liberal line on all the issues.
That one, or a few, persons want to correct a misunderstanding about science is not the what the great majority of scientists do for a living, nor does it characterize science. So, to say that the battle between ID proponents and evolutionary scientists is nothing more than a cultrual war (which you have asserted) miss-characterizes science.
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.