Is Evolution Arkansas's "Hidden" Curriculum

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

[PatrickHenry]

Just added to The List-O-Links:

NEW How Old is the Earth. A Response to “Scientific” Creationism.
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

[phantomworker]

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

There are too many negatives here, aren't there? Never been disproved ==> proved and thus 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.

This is a very common experiment now in high school using covered jars.

[furball4paws]

Current work on Abiogenesis is probably just at the hypothesis level, certainly not yet a theory. There is a lot of work, but a clear picture is not yet available.

Do you see Creation as Abiogenesis?

Panspermia is not a solution, since it just puts off the place of the beginning of life to another world and time.

As I see it, there are only two competing ideas, both Abiogenesis variants:

1. Creation by (a) God.
2. Chemical abiogenesis.

I'm open to other possibilities. I am hoping to see some real progress in chemical abiogenesis in my life time, but you never know.

[furball4paws]

The original quote is mine. I say "by its very nature" since it is basically impossible to prove a negative (in this case "prove that there can be no spontaneous generation")

[Doctor Stochastic]

Unlike Christian creationism, it is a critical part of the rise of an extreme religious movement...

The author may need to rethink here. The Kansas Conservatives did hire a BAV guy as an "expert."

[Doctor Stochastic]

One thinks that Wolfe's Bonfire may be larger than even he thinks.

[PatrickHenry]

1. Creation by (a) God. 2. Chemical abiogenesis. I'm open to other possibilities.

3. Creation by humans (or whatever) with a time machine, going back to start the whole thing going, possibly by dumping their garbage on a pristine earth. Crazy? Consider ... we have evidence of humans, and we have evidence of humans dumping garbage. All we need is a time machine.

[Coyoteman]

That is a very good addition to the list.

Thanks!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Thanks, Diktor!

[PatrickHenry]

Ah, another Heinlein fan.

[furball4paws]

Since we are the creator and have always been, that must make us Gods. Hmmmmm..... I'm not ready for that. Just where did the cycle begin?

Nevertheless, I'll keep your idea around in case we run out of TP at Darwin Central.

[microgood]

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.

Don't worry about it. Stuff happens.

[phantomworker]

All we need is a time machine.

Teleporting? Not so far out there! Atoms being both positive and negative at the same time?

[stands2reason]

I am an experienced troll hunter, trapper and torturer for one, plus I'm an unorthodox Theravada Buddhist, which means I don't give a rat's ass about anyones soul save my own. Pure-dee evil.

[Coyoteman]

Ah, another Heinlein fan.

Lots of us out here.

Given all that we are seeing on the crevo threads, I'm awaiting the imminent appearance of Nehemiah Scudder (q.v.); he's due any time now.

[PatrickHenry]

Since we are the creator and have always been, that must make us Gods. Hmmmmm..... I'm not ready for that. Just where did the cycle begin?

No, it doesn't make us gods. Just sloppy campers. The only improbability [he casually said] is the time machine. If that gets invented, the rest is pretty much inevitable.

Where did it all begin? Doesn't matter, does it? It's an endless loop. Enjoy the ride.

[furball4paws]

What makes you think he's not here, alive and well in Mullahood.

[furball4paws]

Well, maybe the DI will fund some research.

[Ichneumon]

The first four panels of the following cartoon are satire (but an accurate portrayal of many of the anti-evolutionists' fallacies, just applied to a different topic for humor value), but the last panel is DEADLY SERIOUS.

Read the article which started this thread, then ponder the fact that science students in many other countries are learning *real* science, not just the watered-down neutered version which won't offend the touchiest parents in Arkansas and elsewhere...

[microgood]

Do you see Creation as Abiogenesis?

Interesting question. I guess the answer would depend on how it was done. If non-living matter was created first and then life was created from that, it would be abiogenesis. Otherwise, who knows?

Panspermia is not a solution, since it just puts off the place of the beginning of life to another world and time.

True, but it was interesting that Crick was one of the proponents of it, since he was a famous biologist somewhat involved in the discovery of DNA(from Wikipedia).

As I see it, there are only two competing ideas, both Abiogenesis variants:

1. Creation by (a) God.
2. Chemical abiogenesis.

Do they teach abiogenesis in high school or just evolution?