Posted on 10/28/2005 2:36:03 PM PDT by scientificbeliever
3. Kansas Biology Teacher On the front lines of science's devolution "The evolution debate is consuming almost everything we do," says Brad Williamson, a 30-year science veteran at suburban Olathe East High School and a past president of the National Association of Biology Teachers. "It's politicized the classroom. Parents will say their child can't be in class during any discussion of evolution, and students will say things like 'My grandfather wasn't a monkey!'"
First, a history lesson. In 1999 a group of religious fundamentalists won election to the Kansas State Board of Education and tried to introduce creationism into the state's classrooms. They wanted to delete references to radiocarbon dating, continental drift and the fossil record from the education standards. In 2001 more-temperate forces prevailed in elections, but the anti-evolutionists garnered a 6-4 majority again last November. This year Intelligent Design (ID) theory is their anti-evolution tool of choice.
At the heart of ID is the idea that certain elements of the natural world—the human eye, say—are "irreducibly complex" and have not and cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Therefore, IDers say, they must be the work of an intelligent designer (that is, God).
The problem for teachers is that ID can't be tested using the scientific method, the system of making, testing and retesting hypotheses that is the bedrock of science. That's because underpinning ID is religious belief. In science class, Williamson says, "students have to trust that I'm just dealing with science."
Alas, for Kansas's educational reputation, the damage may be done. "We've heard anecdotally that our students are getting much more scrutiny at places like medical schools. I get calls from teachers in other states who say things like 'You rubes!'" Williamson says. "But this is happening across the country. It's not just Kansas anymore."
(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...
And that's why there's no empire left (among other reasons) :-)
Glad to be rid of the ingrates.
It is High Wycombe.
I live about 10 miles away, in Reading. I think it was the Scots who formed the empire really. They did it to get away from the English. Now the Scottish Empire encompasses London.
Try removing the reference to your being a Republican. According to the MSM, conservative scientists aren't supposed to exist!
Please do calm down and read what I have actually written. I do not promote Luddism: I do not oppose technology or "pure science theory," whether it be quantum mechanics, general relativity, or evolution.
That said, I doubt you can find an electrician anywhere who uses quantum electrodynamics to figure out how to wire your house. QED isn't necessary for that kind of work; AC circuit theory will do just fine.
Is it necessary or even helpful for a practicing physician to know the theory of evolution? I put that question to my brother, who is a physician. He replied that it might be helpful if he every had to treat a Neanderthal.
But what about the training of physicians? Surely evolution is discussed in medical schools, right? My brother thought the question silly: the medical curriculum is so full that there is no room for even a cursory discussion of evolution. It never came up while he was in medical school. Nor does it come up in the daily practice of medicine.
The same is true of my profession. My doctorate is in Engineering. Evolution plays no role whatsoever in my research or teaching. It simply never comes up. If somehow some great discovery were made tomorrow that completely invalidated the theory of evolution (imagine a fossil bearing the label "Made by God"), it would have no effect on what I do or how I do it. None.
So do I believe in evolution? Well, my colleagues in Biology assure me that evolutionary theory is useful to them, so I accept evolution as a valid model, and I believe in it as much as I believe in any other useful scientific model. If and when it ever ceases to be useful, biologists will undoubtedly replace it with a better model. They (and I) will accept that one too—until something better comes along.
I'd say rhetoric class. CS/ID is right up there with advertising and politics in providing examples of faulty logic (expecially emotional appeals).
Pure science? Is that something like PC science?
Why? Human life is integral and we should be able to handle a little overlap after analysis. Besides, there's something else busy here: taking it to court runs on the false assumption of content neutrality.
But New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware keep asking it to turn down the volume level.
Not really. Science also has to make the words such make sense. It's about meaning. And often this meaning is referential to some kind of totality called Nature--with a capital N, no less.
Verrry interesting.
Richard Weaver writes: Those who regard the synthesizing power of language with horror are the atomists.
I might comment on this, if I could figure out what it means.
VadeRetro is attune to one of the problems on these threads. He says its one of scope. And if you'll notice a few replies above to Thatcherite, I point out where the scope of one field of study overlaps that of another. I had an inkling that this you were also thinking something along these lines when you mentioned Dawkin's forays across the line. And the quote from Weaver merely points out that language is something that involves a very broad scope. The concept of pure science supposes that pure analysis is possible. Language is not friendly to that kind of private ecumenicism.
I taught medical micro labs for a few years. None of the med students cared about how assays worked, they just needed to learn enough to pass the practical. (I dont blame them, their curriculum is too busy to get into details of everything).
Most MDs dont understand the molecular mechanism of the drugs they perscribe. Does this somehow invalidate all of the underlying science that went into discovering that drug?
Most dishwashers do not understand how detergents are able to clean glassware either.
So what exactly is your point?
so I accept evolution as a valid model, and I believe in it as much as I believe in any other useful scientific model.
Wonderful. What was your point again?
Basic science. Science done without any immediate practical application in mind.
Is the sum total of a biology class to teach evolution and that's it? That's what it would have to be in order for your ridiculously overblown allegation to be true.
I think you just made my point for me: The theory of evolution is irrelevant to many fields, including medicine.
Wonderful. What was your point again?
I will try one more time. You accused me (in Post #179) of promoting Luddism because (you believe) I oppose pure science—including the subject of this thread, evolution. I was defending myself against that accusation.
Wow. I think you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
Where exactly did I say it was irrelevant?
On the contrary it is extremely relevant to medicine. Without biomedical research (you know the guys in the lab white coats who actually discover and design the drugs that doctors prescribe) physicians would still be using leeches and shaking rattles.
Capiche?
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.