Posted on 12/26/2008 1:44:08 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Steve Jones
I find this very depressing. Do those teachers believe that they should also teach the possibility that water is H3O, that Bacon wrote Shakespeare and that babies are brought by storks?
The logic is exactly the same: and there is just as little, or as much, scientific controversy about the idea of evolution as there is about those of physics and chemistry.
Next year is, of course, Darwin Year – the 200th anniversary of his birth and 150th anniversary of publication On The Origin of Species). It is my profound hope (likely to be disappointed) that teachers and everyone else should learn to stop treating him as a prophet, or a pariah, or a philosopher, or even as a trained ecclesiastic who turned to atheism – and just take him for what he was, the greatest biologist in history.
He made biology into a single science linked by the idea of evolution, rather than a bunch of ideologies.
Steve Jones is professor of genetics and head of the biology department at University College London. His latest book – due for publication in the New Year – is Darwin's Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Dawkins
The 'Michael Reiss position' is defensible. Just as chemistry teacher might discuss the phlogiston theory, or a physics teacher might discuss the Ptolemaic theory of the planets as history of science, so it is defensible to teach that there are people called creationists, and they believe what they believe.
But if teaching creationism 'alongside' evolution means what it seems to mean, it is no more defensible than teaching the stork theory alongside the sex theory of where babies come from.
If 29% of science teachers really think creationism should be taught as a valid alternative to evolution, we have a national disgrace on our hands
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
The above comments are based on the most recent Mori poll in the UK. The survey found that 29% of UK science teachers want to allow teaching of creationism in school science classes. Presumably that includes intelligent design, which is usually lumped into a ‘one-size-fits-all’ creationism.
Furthermore, 73 percent of science teachers think creationism should be discussed in other lessons.
yeah, a real shame when a false paradigm of humanism continues to crumble....
“Only recently has truth begun to triumph. Continuing research in many fields is finally sorting fact from fiction” ... Written words on a small-lettered inscription found in California’s Death Valley Museum.
And his name is Richard Dawkins.
What does it really mean if people want to believe that God created the universe and gave life on earth a jump start? Does it really hurt anything? If you ignore the laws of physics or chemistry then you can harm or kill yourself. But if you ignore the “laws of evolution” absolutely nothing will happen. Someone can believe that God created it all and still be a good chemist.
I find the arguing to be pretty silly really. Except when people want to use the theories for the purposes of political oppression.
So, is physics "humanism?" Chemistry? Astrophysics? What science, outside of the natural sciences, do you NOT consider "humanism?"
These two continue to live in a fantasy world!
So, you are OK with teaching that there was a worldwide flood to budding geologists?
Also, what does it say when you teach religion AS science? It suggests that religion is a valid substitute for the scientific method.
Last question: WHICH version of religion should the State endorse as an "alternative" to science? Shinto? Hindu? Cherokee?
Millions of scientists across the world understand Evolution -- how does that make their statements "fantasy?"
So as not to be too extreme, 29% of all UK saying that creationism is an "alternative" to TToE is as bad as if 29% of all UK saying the Universe is 6,000 years old.
im referring to the false humanistic lie of evolutionism.....science is based on verifiable, repeatable, observable expirementation...
these do not hold true for the humanist religion of evolutionism.....
Neither "uniformitarianism" nor "gradualism" have withstood closer analysis.
Certainly wasn't Darwin's idea to challenge the major philosophical dichotomies of his time ~ so he didn't.
Wallace had a lot more observations and observed the clear differences in major biological structures on either side of what became known as "the Wallace line". The fact that he observed and established that there could be totally competing and different biota in the same period of time definitely upset the old "uniformitarian" applecart. I'm certainly that with a little thought on the matter I could also show that Wallace crushed "gradualism" as well.
Which is to say, Darwin is given credit for things he didn't do, and Wallace is denied credit for things he did do.
Why not? They teach budding geologists that Leakey's "Lucy" (a handful of small bone fragments at best) is an "ancestor" of ours, don't they?
I hope you aren’t so stupid as to misconstrue religion for science ~ you aren’t are you?
Bah! Humbug! Darwinists Spreading Usual Christmastime Drear
John West
While the Christmas season brings out the best in most people, it seems to have the opposite effect on many Darwinists, who become even more sour and dismal than usual. Even Eugenie Scott, who perennially tries to be the happy face of Darwinists everywhere, can’t resist sounding like a Scrooge. In an article co-authored with Glenn Branch in this month’s Scientific American, Scott sounds the alarms against the “dangerous lie” that Darwinism is a theory in crisis, and implies that civilization itself will collapse if we allow teachers and students the freedom to discuss criticisms of Darwinian theory--because as every thinking person knows, all of our knowledge of everything depends on Darwin. Seriously. Anyone tempted to believe such predictions of the end of the world should read this essay by National Academy of Science member Philip Skell, or consult biologist Jonathan Wells’ delightful book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (especially chapter 7, “You’d Think Darwin Created the Internet”). Corrections to Scott’s distortions on other issues like the Louisiana Science Education Act and the film Expelled can be found here and here and here.
Pity the poor Darwinists during this season of hope and good cheer. For people who insist they have overwhelming evidence for their views, they seem awfully unhappy and insecure. Those of us who celebrate Christmas might want to remember to say a prayer for them, or maybe even send local Darwinists a copy of It’s A Wonderful Life. They certainly seem to need some cheering up.
Posted by John West at 12:45 AM
Bah! Humbug! Darwinists Spreading Usual Christmastime Drear
John West
While the Christmas season brings out the best in most people, it seems to have the opposite effect on many Darwinists, who become even more sour and dismal than usual. Even Eugenie Scott, who perennially tries to be the happy face of Darwinists everywhere, can’t resist sounding like a Scrooge. In an article co-authored with Glenn Branch in this month’s Scientific American, Scott sounds the alarms against the “dangerous lie” that Darwinism is a theory in crisis, and implies that civilization itself will collapse if we allow teachers and students the freedom to discuss criticisms of Darwinian theory--because as every thinking person knows, all of our knowledge of everything depends on Darwin. Seriously. Anyone tempted to believe such predictions of the end of the world should read this essay by National Academy of Science member Philip Skell, or consult biologist Jonathan Wells’ delightful book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (especially chapter 7, “You’d Think Darwin Created the Internet”). Corrections to Scott’s distortions on other issues like the Louisiana Science Education Act and the film Expelled can be found here and here and here.
Pity the poor Darwinists during this season of hope and good cheer. For people who insist they have overwhelming evidence for their views, they seem awfully unhappy and insecure. Those of us who celebrate Christmas might want to remember to say a prayer for them, or maybe even send local Darwinists a copy of It’s A Wonderful Life. They certainly seem to need some cheering up.
Posted by John West at 12:45 AM
these do not hold true for the humanist religion of evolutionism.....
#1 So you are saying that The Theory of Gravity meets all those? Think hard before you answer.
#2 May I suggest you learn what a Scientific Theory is? Google it -- that would be faster than me repeating it here. Once you understand that, the role of TToE will be clearer to you. It is not "humanist" any more than astronomy is.
Teaching creation as theory is like teaching kids the when anything burns, phlogiston is realeased.
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.