Posted on 03/25/2002 7:53:24 PM PST by ThinkPlease
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:52:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
"I hate your opinions, but I would die to defend your right to express them." This famous quote by the 18th-century philosopher Voltaire applies to the debate currently raging in Ohio. The Board of Education is discussing whether to include alternate theories of evolution in the classroom. Some board members however, are opposed to Voltaire's defense of rational inquiry and intellectual tolerance. They are seeking to prohibit different theories other than Darwinism, from being taught to students. This threatens freedom of thought and academic excellence.
(Excerpt) Read more at asp.washtimes.com ...
That's a silly thing to say. When you begin to pay for my church with your tax dollars, you might have a reason to draw such an off the wall comparison.
Insisting that this odd set of musings be introduced to public school students (apropos of absolutely nothing else being taught in biology,BTW) is tantamount to preaching in my schools.
Since I must submit to taxation to pay for the public schools and must also pay tuition for my child to attend a private school where fairytales aren't presented as fact, I'm not very amused by what you fancy to be a cute statement.
No, not all of them do. You would be hard pressed to find many jr.high biology teachers who believe what they're teaching as introductory evolutionary dogma. The people who are isnisting that it be part of a curriculum which isn't even at a level to introduce such ideas believe only in preserving their own positions in administration.
The academecians who believe this sort of thing are far distanced from our children in public schools and have nothing to do with teaching it at that level. It isn't overstating the case to say this at all.
Perhaps if you had read the documents I had provided, you would know the answer to that question.
Back to my point if you will; where did the review of Darwin's SWAG take place before it was presented to the first school district? Darwin's musings were adopted based on legal cases, not on academic presentations.
How Darwin presented his work went beyond just writing The Origin of Species, as he had presented his work to his peers before publication. They didn't have (many) peer reviewed journals back then where people could lay out their work, but instead they did give presentations to their peers. And that is what he did, as well as providing published work. Darwin's work may have had to have been forced into public schools, but that's only because the evidence was much to strong for it to stay out.
The "theory" of evolution is a political tool and not the basis for any scientific discipline. There is a reason for teaching impressionable young people to accept a rigid dogma such as the evolutionary twaddle introduced to students in biology classes in jr.high school. That reason is to get young people used to the idea of being told what to think instead of leading them into learning how to think. That's the difference between education and indoctrination. Indoctrination is telling a student what to think. Education is helping him discover how to think for himself.
If you think that's how the current school system works, then perhaps you didn't learn anything at all. Ignorance is bliss, eh?
Let me save you the trouble: there IS no good reason.
The academecians who believe this sort of thing are far distanced from our children in public schools and have nothing to do with teaching it at that level. It isn't overstating the case to say this at all.
Sadly, you are right about this. Demographically, science education sucks. Here's a spreadsheet done by the National Science Foundation not too long ago. For those who can't read Excel Docs, here's the highlights:
29% of those surveyed believe that all radioactivity is man made.
57% think that Lasers work by focusing sound waves.
54% believe that atoms are smaller than electrons.
51% don't know that the Earth revolves around the sun in a year.
37% believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
In the two categories that interest us, 67% have never heard of the Big Bang, and 55% don't think that humans developed from earlier species of animals.
The methodology is listed here.
The sentiments you express could only have come from someone who has never read Darwin. Once you have rectified that shortcoming you can move into the 21st century by reading Gould's latest massive tome, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory."
Far be it for me to speak for Kronecker. It would be speculative on my part; perhaps he felt that the integers were the most basic element of Mathematics, and wanted to ascribe it to a deity. But that's just a guess.
Is there a difference in the two data sets the two are needing explained, or is there a contradiction between their respective hypotheses -- was Laplace trying to explain the mathematical order (it's an honest question; I'm not trained in science)?.
I'm afraid you lost me. Can you rephrase your question to make it more clear; I don't want to guess as to what you are trying to say here.
This would be completely counter to the whole thrust of creationism, including ID. In normal science a theory can only acheive success by risking failure (i.e. being subjected to searching critical review and scientific testing).
What it comes down to is that creationists are not willing (wisely, one must admit) to subject their ideas to the risk of real scientific debate, where, much as in the economic marketplace, new products fail more often than they succeed. This is why they couch their rhetoric in terms of a kind of intellectual "affirmative action," where "alternative" ideas should be presented to students even though they have not acheived scientific standing on the basis of proven merit.
In short, creationists refuse to play the game of science, but want (in textbooks and curricula) to be declared winners anyway.
Evolution does not deny the Creator. It refutes a bunch of ancient man-made myths that are mistaken for truth by people who cannot distinguish myth from fact. Which is an altogether good thing.
But surely there is just such an organ? I know, with absolute certainty, that there is an infinite number of primes. But nobody has ever seen, heard, touched &c as much as one measly prime number. That's just a reprise of Socrates' argument in the Meno, but I find it very convincing.
Hence, (a) there is a place containing the prime numbers, and it can't be this finite universe since a finite container cannot hold an infinite set. And (b) we can reason about some of the things in this funny place with - at least - a degree of confidence that cannot be obtained from our five physical senses. And finally (c) the physical universe around us obeys, systematically and totally, abstract mathematical laws.
Which strongly suggests that this universe was designed, and it tells us something about the designer. If a watch ran for ever by itself, that would be strong evidence of a perfect - and hence divine - watchmaker. To me, the very regularity of the universe - the absence of miracles, to put it plainly - is evidence of a perfect Designer.
Actually the problem is that ID has not been established as a coherent scientific theory. I am neither a creationist nor evolutionist. I would given credence to ID if ID advocates would create a coherent and defensible scientific theory form of ID. The problem is that ID proponents cannot seem to understand that the Bible isn't sufficient for proving something in a scientific debate.
based on your argument then all science should be banned from being taught in classrooms. Welcome to the new dark ages, brought to you by your local wacko religious righters and friendly neighborhood marxists
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.