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 ...
I'm referring to the modern neo-darwinian theory of evolution. It's called a "synthesis" because it incorporates Darwin's theory of natural selection along with modern genetics, geology, and paleontology. This article summarizes it very nicely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
Anyhow, if you've seen the thread you get my point.
Yes, but I don't see how it applies to modern evolutionary theory.
That's fine. Why object to matter in motion or theories about matter in motion?
Let me try to help you one last time. The original article contains the following paragraph:
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.
To which I replied,
I don't believe this for a moment. When making admission decisions, medical schools look at MCAT scores, college courses, college GPA, and so on; they generally do not consider high school work.
So far, so good. But I added the following question, which I intended to be rhetorical:
Besides, what does a evolution have to do with one's suitability to practice medicine? (Emphasis added.)
Note that I did not say that evolution is irrelevant to medicine. Nor did I say that doctors (or anyone else) should reject evolution. I merely questioned whether the theory of evolution has anything to do with a student's suitability to practice medicine. Since medical schools devote no time in their curriculum to the study of evolutionary theory, they must not consider it important to the practice of medicine.
In answer to my rhetorical question, orionblamblam wrote (Post 18),
Same thing a rejection of the "astrology" and "humours" theories of disease do. A doctor who rejects science.... not a good doctor.
Of course, I never said that anyone—doctor or otherwise—should reject evolution, much less science. I was merely saying that however important the theory of evolution might be to some fields, it does not have much to with the practice of medicine. So I replied (Post 43),
I was also bothered by the suggestion that evolution is a kind of litmus test, and that a lack of belief in evolution is a rejection of science. So I continued:First of all, medicine is as much art as science. Very little of what a practicing physician does is affected one way or the other by the theory of evolution. Surgeons, for instance, learn their specialty by doing surgery, not by studying evolutionary biology.
In other words, a person can be an excellent chemist or physicist or astronomer and find ID to be plausible. That is not necessarily a rejection of science; more likely, it is the inevitable result of specialization in the sciences. No one can know it all.Second, I am not convinced that a belief in Intelligent Design is necessarily a rejection of science. (Young-earth creationism is another matter—it is both bad science and bad theology.) Neither evolution nor ID are relevant to the physical sciences: a person could accept ID and still do excellent work in astronomy, chemistry, physics, or geology. Even in some biological fields, evolution is not a big issue.
Perhaps I did not express myself well, because several others took issue with the idea that evolutionary theory was irrelevant to the practice of medicine. Then you can along (Post 160) with what I thought was an excellent analogy:
So you tell me: How does an understanding of QED affect what a practicing electrician does?
Aha! I thought. Here at last is someone who gets what I am trying to say. So I replied (Post 161):
An excellent example. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) won Richard Feynman and his colleagues a Nobel Prize, but it is of little use to the electrician wiring your house.
Clearly, QED is important enough to award the Nobel Prize to its discoverers; but QED is not used by the practicing electricians in their work. (I confirmed that with an electrician today.)
Alas, you took my post to mean that QED is not important all all. That led to still more posts, including some about medicine and driving.
I hope that helps.
That's a dodge, and you know it. The vast bulk of what's taught in biology does not need macroevolution held in order to teach it. It's often sprinkled into the discourses, but it's usually as necessary to the point as a piece of coal is to a Christmas tree.
To examine each other's appearances and judgments, when each person's are correct--this is surely an extremely tiresome piece of nonsense - Thaeatetus 180e
I don't necessarily like this analogy, but I'll continue with this anyway. Consider the different types of work done by a technologist, an engineer, and a scientist. Let's take the example of an electrician who installs and repairs circuits in a commercial building. An electrician is considered to be somewhat of a trade skill. As a technology worker, perhaps an electrician doesn't need to understand quantum mechanics. He is working on problems that are relatively well-understood. By contrast, however, engineers try to solve new problems and design new electrical circuits for new applications, and scientists investigate the physical principles for the purpose of better understanding how electricity works. Engineers and scientists had better know something about quantum physics.
Going back to medicine and biology. A doctor is generally considered more highly educated than an electrician, who may have attended a trade school or vocational college. Does a general practitioner necessarily need to agree with evolution? Perhaps not, strictly speaking. I would personally feel better going to a doctor who does, but may someone practice medicine while believing in the six-day creation and the young earth? The answer is 'yes.' Despite all the accusations of "Darwin idolatry" I don't know of anyone here that claims a general practitioner who does not believe in the theory of natural selection should be disqualified from having a license. Does a doctor who is investigating the effects of the over prescription of antibiotics need to understand evolution? Absolutely. I don't like how you're trying to separate evolutionary theory from modern medicine. Our modern biology and modern medicine rest firmly on the synthesis theory of evolution, comprised of Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritance, and the theories of molecular biology that have come about since the discovery and description of the DNA molecule by Watson, Crick, Wilkins, and others. Your rhetorical question is hand-waving, in my opinion. "Oh, it's not really all that important after all." You claim you're not trying to reduce it's importance, but I'm not convinced. Evolutionary theory is a fundamental part of our understanding of biology, just as quantum theory is a fundamental part of our understanding of physics. I think an appreciation of evolution will only become more important to medicine in the future.
> suppose someone were to discover in the fossil record a fully formed organism that could not have arisen by natural selection or mutation from other organisms according to current evolutionary models.
An even simpler one: find a fossil human, cat or bunny rabbit. In a Jurassic strata. Once it was established as being The Real Deal, then evolution, geology and much of physics goes right out the window.
> Your comments about acts of God, gremlins, and demons are puzzling. I hope you do not believe that a religious engineer would resort to such explanations rather than seek physical causes for problems in a system.
I have seen such. Such engineers tend to not go far, because nobody trusts 'em. Typically, doesn't take too much longer before they haul the guy off to the padded room. There was the feller at my previolsu employer who eventually disappeared for a few days, finally being found having wallpapered his house with aluminum foil....
> I merely questioned whether the theory of evolution has anything to do with a student's suitability to practice medicine.
Indeed it does. A doctor who rejects evolution by definition will be takena bit by surprise when the next evolution of the avian flu kills everyone around him.
Then someone stole your FR account and wrote back in Post #199:
I think you just made my point for me: The theory of evolution is irrelevant to many fields, including medicine.
What gives?
I almost prefer my creationists to be of the brazen YEC variety. At least the Clintonian spin-doctoring is kept to a minimum with those folks.
Nah. He will take it as the work of Satan and then go back to his snake handling.
For good reason. I shoudve pung you to Post #230
NB4TZ!
The theory of evolution is irrelevant to many fields, including medicine.
Oh. I stand corrected.
Stay tuned for more backpedaling from logophile.
I have about had it with this anti-Kansas rhetoric.
And by the way, welcome to FR, troll.
You are so ignorant that you do not understand the state curriculum means nothing.
The State Board is not a big deal in Kansas.
I can guarantee you virtually no schools will stop teaching evolution if this passes. In fact, I would be shocked if even one stopped teaching evolution.
Local districts will continue to teach it.
What I find funny is a NEBRASKAN trying to insult Kansas.
That tickles. Nebraska could not be a more boring state and makes Kansas look fascinating since we actually have some trees.
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.