Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List

New York Times ^ | August 24, 2006 | Cornelia Dean

[balch3]

Evolutionary biology has vanished from the list of acceptable fields of study for recipients of a federal education grant for low-income college students.

The omission is inadvertent, said Katherine McLane, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, which administers the grants. “There is no explanation for it being left off the list,” Ms. McLane said. “It has always been an eligible major.”

Another spokeswoman, Samara Yudof, said evolutionary biology would be restored to the list, but as of last night it was still missing.

If a major is not on the list, students in that major cannot get grants unless they declare another major, said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Mr. Nassirian said students seeking the grants went first to their college registrar, who determined whether they were full-time students majoring in an eligible field.

“If a field is missing, that student would not even get into the process,” he said.

That the omission occurred at all is worrying scientists concerned about threats to the teaching of evolution.

One of them, Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University, said he learned about it from someone at the Department of Education, who got in touch with him after his essay on the necessity of teaching evolution appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 15. Dr. Krauss would not name his source, who he said was concerned about being publicly identified as having drawn attention to the matter.

[MHGinTN]

Cryptic? ... Okay, I'll leave you alone.

[fabian]

it's pretty sad that someone would actually major in a theory that has major flaws; although the believers of evolution just won't see or admitt to those flaws. For example; clear transitional fossils showing a slow transformation of one life form into another as so many of the illustrations in textbooks show. They simply don't exist. Many scientists who once believed TOE have seen this fact and do not believe it any longer.

[Dimensio]

Why must I provide evidence? I was only addressing the impossibility of abiogenesis as defined. I personally choose to believe there is therefore a designer.

You claimed that a "designer" is an "obvious, default conclusion". You are incorrect. The only default conclusion available when no credible explanation can be constructied based upon available evidence is that the explanation is unknown.

[Dimensio]

For example; clear transitional fossils showing a slow transformation of one life form into another as so many of the illustrations in textbooks show. They simply don't exist.

What, then, are these? Also, are you under the mistaken impression that fossil remains are the only evidence used to support the theory of evolution?

[fabian]

I agree with you...there is so much that many scientists believe to be true but is merely speculation supported by what they honestly believe to be evidence. But to an objective student the evidence is lacking in the evolution theory. If it wasn't the case, many reputable creation scientists would be forced to believe TOE.

[fabian]

those honestly are speculation...they don't clearly show the morphing of one type of animal into another. And the site you provided doesn't show any photos.

[Dimensio]

.they don't clearly show the morphing of one type of animal into another.

How would you expect this to appear?