Is Evolution Arkansas's "Hidden" Curriculum

RNCSE 25 (1-2)/National Center for Science Education ^ | Jan.-April. | by Jason Wiles

[furball4paws]

The Spontaneous Generation canard has raised its ugly head, again. In response, I give the following quote from The Microbial World, 4th edition, 1976 by Stanier, Adelberg and Ingraham. This used to be a top notch Microbiology text, but unfortunately the authors have gone to the great test tube in the sky or the Florida.

"It has been stated that the work of Pasteur and Tyndall "disproved" the possibility of spontaneous generation, and their experimental findings have been used to support the contention that spontaneous generation has never occurred. This is an unjustifiable extension of their actual findings. The conclusion that we may safely draw is a much more limited one: that at the present time microorganisms do not arise spontaneously in properly sterilized organic infusions. It is probable that the primary origin of life on earth did involve a kind of spontaneous generation, although a far more gradual and subtle one than that envisaged by the proponents of the doctrine during the 18th and 19th centuries" - p.9 (the words are of R.Y. Stanier)

[sweetliberty]

"I am sure Arkies wil remain tops in snake handling and telling people to 'squeal like a pig'."

HEY!

[sweetliberty]

Another justification for private education.

[Servant of the 9]

"I am sure Arkies wil remain tops in snake handling and telling people to 'squeal like a pig'."

HEY!

SMOOOCH

So9

[microgood]

Not matter that no longer exists; conditions that no longer exist.

Thanks. Wikipedia states it like this:

Such scientists pointed out that the disproof of Aristotelian abiogenesis applied only to "known existing organisms", not to unknown forms of life or proto-life which may have existed under the vastly different conditions of the early Earth.

[b_sharp]

"Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life.

Sure it does. Don't you know that anything and everything that could possibly threaten the Biblical account of creation is 'Evolution'?

Ever notice how much science we really need to know to counter the anti-evolutionists? All they need to know is the weekly anti-evolution sound bite.

[b_sharp]

"And Tom Wolfe's scientific credentials are what, exactly?

He watched 100 Huntley St. once? (A Canadian based creationist show)

[furball4paws]

Are yours as good as ours?

[b_sharp]

"Oooh, I'm an evo"

Yes, but are you a truly evil evo? PH can't spend valuable time pinging slightly bad, or marginally naughty evos you know.

[Oztrich Boy]

Why can't students hear the evidence of the problems with Biblical Creationism and make up their own minds? Teach the controversy!

[b_sharp]

Huckabee appeals to our sense of democracy and free expression.

So?

Americans are more likely to accept information, truthful or not, if that sense is appealed to. In this case the information is false, so appealing to the sense of democracy and free expression is manipulative.

So what are we supposed to teach? Spontaneous generation? That concept was proven false 200 years ago and also violates the Law of Biogenesis (Pasteur, I think). Since spontaneous generation is obviously false, what other choice is there besides Creation, whether thought of religiously or not.

Actually what was proved all those years ago was that modern organisms do not originate in refuse and rotting meat. It said nothing about simple molecules.

Is arbitrarily disqualifying alternatives to Biblical creation based on improper interpretation of prior science or on cherry picking information from prior science acceptable behaviour in your world?

[b_sharp]

"Are yours as good as ours?

I don't know. When I watch ours, I can't make my mind up whether to laugh or cry, so I usually spew a little choice invective then laugh my butt off.

[kublia khan]

If Bob doesn't have a last name, His institution and it's administrators, the other Museum and it's directors don't wish to be identified where to I go to check the accuracy of this story?????????????? Sorry; it may all be true, but then again how is one to know??????????

[Virginia-American]

Spontaneous Generation has never been disproved, and, by its very nature, can never be.

Pasteur disproved a particular form of it - maggots, mice and mold, etc don't appear in broth or meat if flies, spores, etc, are blocked.

[microgood]

Americans are more likely to accept information, truthful or not, if that sense is appealed to. In this case the information is false, so appealing to the sense of democracy and free expression is manipulative.

He expressed his opinion that both sides should be taught. That cannot be classified as either true or false. You may disagree with his opinion but you cannot say it is false. In any case, when it comes to manipulative, Huckabee cannot put a candle to the gut that wrote this article.

Is arbitrarily disqualifying alternatives to Biblical creation based on improper interpretation of prior science or on cherry picking information from prior science acceptable behaviour in your world?

Let me guess, your friends call you Snidely Whiplash.

From what I understand, there is no alternative to creation from the origin of life perspective since evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. There is a hypothesis of abiogenesis now but I thought it was the same thing as spontaneous generation because when you search on one you always get both. However, I was corrected by furball4paws and Carolina Guitarman that there is an older version of abiogenesis called Aristotelean abiogenesis and a newer version. I was not trying to slam science, I just did not know people actually still believed life came from non-life after Pasteur. Apparently it still lives in the modern theory of abiogenesis. I do not know how well the theory is supported by evidence, however, so I did not see it as an alternative to creation. I thought it was Creation or we don't know. Since then I have learned about Pasmeria as another alternative

[furball4paws]

Please see post #61.

[b_sharp]

"Let me guess, your friends call you Snidely Whiplash.

Only when I'm overly tired and acting like a twit. My apologies.

"From what I understand, there is no alternative to creation from the origin of life perspective since evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. There is a hypothesis of abiogenesis now but I thought it was the same thing as spontaneous generation because when you search on one you always get both. However, I was corrected by furball4paws and Carolina Guitarman that there is an older version of abiogenesis called Aristotelean abiogenesis and a newer version. I was not trying to slam science, I just did not know people actually still believed life came from non-life after Pasteur. Apparently it still lives in the modern theory of abiogenesis. I do not know how well the theory is supported by evidence, however, so I did not see it as an alternative to creation. I thought it was Creation or we don't know. Since then I have learned about Pasmeria as another alternative

I commend your attempt to learn and wish more would take that to heart.

Sheesh, what a bad week. Perhaps I should quite posting for a while, I seem to be making more mistakes than a man has a right to.

[Virginia-American]

Thanks, I saw it after I had posted.

[jammer]

My question is, why do you or I or anyone but the parents of Arkansas schoolchildren, through their elected representatives, have any say whatsoever what their children are taught?

They can teach that the moon is made of green cheese and, while I regret it, I have no right to change that. Of course, in Arkansas, they may need to start with reading, but that's another discussion.

[phantomworker]

Why can't students hear the evidence of the problems with Biblical Creationism and make up their own minds? Teach the controversy!

Excellent idea! I gave my kids the chance to make up their own mind. I brought them to Sunday school and I sent them to public school. Guess what they chose?