Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

[Alamo-Girl]

For the discussion, here are some of the reasons I am concerned about science and wish that others – especially conservative scientists - would become concerned as well (emphasis mine):

Peter Singer, Princeton

A controversial professor who advocates killing the disabled up to 28 days after birth, has been honored with an international ethics award.

Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, has been given the 2003 World Technology Award for Ethics by the World Technology Network.

The organization says its members are dedicated to the business and science of emerging technologies such as biotechnology and new energy sources.

The Fundamental Principles of the Universe and the Origin of Physical Laws

But if living organisms, the psychic phenomena, moral and social processes have wholly physical nature, this would mean that the laws of physics would govern live, psychic phenomena, moral decisions and social activity. Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin, a Marxist expressed his attitude in the followings (Johnson, 1997):

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute.

In How the Mind Works, MIT professor Harold Pinker argues that the fundamental premise of ethics has been disproved by science. "Ethical theory," he writes, "requires idealisations like free, sentient, rational, equivalent agents whose behaviour is uncaused." Yet, "the world, as seen by science, does not really have uncaused events." In other words, moral reasoning assumes the existence of things that science tells us are unreal (Pearcey, 2000). These formulations demonstrate that in practice scientific materialism is a monist view ignoring completely the autonomy of any other ontological levels.

Harvard Law School adds Animal Rights course

Harvard Law School will offer its first animal rights course next year. Harvard went out and hired animal rights activist attorney Steven Wise to teach the new course. Wise, a past president of the Animal Legal Defense Fun and current president of the Center for Expansion of Fundamental Rights has litigated numerous animal rights cases at the state and federal level. .

Science as Falsification – Sir Karl Popper

I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analyzed" and crying aloud for treatment.

The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which "verified" the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation — which revealed the class bias of the paper — and especially of course what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their "clinical observations." …

These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows.

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.

2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.

3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")

7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

I hate to post-and-run, but I'm helping my husband get some cabinets ready to stain. I'll check back this evening.

[RightWhale]

I will never allow any school to teach such voodoo science to my children.

Ooo-wee. Shoo, they won' be teachin' voodoo down in that school anyways. That teacher, if she know somethin', she say nothin', her.

[f.Christian]

Catholics - evolution ... just goes to show you what an abortion - unrecognized lie deceptive evil the whole thing is !

[js1138]

My motives here aren't evangelical in nature ...

Good thing. I'm sure your D.I. approach to the Gospel says something to the lurkers about your brand of Christianity.

[exmarine]

Good thing. I'm sure your D.I. approach to the Gospel says something to the lurkers about your brand of Christianity.

Yeah, maybe it makes them feel that the nasty bigoted evos deserve what they get.

[george wythe]

Answer my questions or go away. I don't have time for your games

I answered your questions, sorry you don't like my answers.

You sound like a cult member convinced that rejection of his cultic beliefs is the same as rejection of the Bible.

Your 24-hour-creation day Young Earth Creationism is not taught in the Bible; it is a sectarian interpretion of the Bible, and most Christians do not believe such sectarian view.

And most Christians will not tolerate such sectarian view to be taught in public schools.

[exmarine]

Not from what I have read. Many are Catholic and have stated such.

Affiliation with a church says nothing about one's beliefs toward God. Churches today are full og agnostics and even atheists.

[RadioAstronomer]

And most Christians will not tolerate such sectarian view to be taught in public schools.

Good! :-)

[f.Christian]

many Christians who do believe in "darwinism."

No logical sane person can be a creationist and atheist at the same time unless you believe in evolution and therefore ... they are crazy !

Evolution is evil ... satanic --- communist - fascist !

[scripter]

As a general rule, the more personal knowledge you have of a newspaper story, the less accurate the story looks.

I'm sure that's true. What the reporter in the homeschooling piece did was outright misrepresentation of what we did say. Apparently the reporter couldn't find anybody to say what she wanted said in the article, so she twisted what we said.

We expected it, just not as bad as it was. Homeschoolers who know the law apparently aren't good copy so reporters twist what was said to sell newspapers.

[RadioAstronomer]

Affiliation with a church says nothing about one's beliefs toward God. Churches today are full og agnostics and even atheists.

Hmmm.... I though I read a passage about not judging lest yea be judged?

[js1138]

What right is it that would be overridden by teaching creationism alongside evolution?

How about Voodoo, pyramid power, psychic phenomena, UFOlogy, grapefruit dieting? When creationism has an active research program that publishes real information, then it can be taught as science. Until then, it will remain at the fringe with polywater, cold fusion and other "scientific" rubbish that sounds good but doesn't pan out.

[f.Christian]

And most Christians will not tolerate such sectarian view to be taught in public schools.

The most intolerant bigotted sectarian view is evolution -- NAZIS !

Syllables: sec-tar-i-an
Parts of speech: adjective , noun

Part of Speech adjective
Pronunciation sehk te ri En
Definition 1. of, concerning, or typical of a sect, sects, or members of sects.
Definition 2. overly or belligerently insistent on one's group's beliefs or positions; dogmatic.
Related Words clannish , religious , party

[RightWhale]

Churches today are full of agnostics and even atheists.

Nothing new there. Would help if the most egregious backsliders were to sit in the front pew so they might get some of the message a little more clearly.

[exmarine]

Your 24-hour-creation day Young Earth Creationism is not taught in the Bible; it is a sectarian interpretion of the Bible, and most Christians do not believe such sectarian view.

Again, for the third time, What is a Christian? You need to define your terms, otherwise, your statements about Christianity are meaningless to me. Are you afraid that if you define your Christianity, I will expose it for the heresy that it is?

By the way, what makes you think I care what you think of 24-hour creation? I don't. If you won't define your terms, don't go away mad, just go away. I have run fresh out of time for you.

[f.Christian]

Hmmm.... I though I read a passage about not judging lest yea be judged?

3,451 posted on 07/16/2003 11:08 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer

A LOT confused aren't you all evolutionistas !

Obviously evolutionists are ignoramouses - bots ... don't have a clue --- bias interpreyted - WHACKS !

The bible says ...

" evil people do not understand judgement ... but they that seek the Lord - Truth ---- will know all things " !

[balrog666]

I think this poor fool needs to be prayed for as much as those other hate-filled, bile-spewing posters from last night.

[exmarine]

How about Voodoo, pyramid power, psychic phenomena, UFOlogy, grapefruit dieting? When creationism has an active research program that publishes real information, then it can be taught as science. Until then, it will remain at the fringe with polywater, cold fusion and other "scientific" rubbish that sounds good but doesn't pan out.

In this country, we have representative democracy. If my city council votes to include creationism, then you should butt out. It's none of your bees wax. My community doesn't care what your opinion of our beliefs are. Get that thru your head.

Show me how believing in special creation is inconsistent with the rational pursuit of scientific truth.

[Nebullis]

Isaac Newton was not a creationist.

[exmarine]

Hmmm.... I though I read a passage about not judging lest yea be judged?

I stated a simple fact. Stating truth is not synonymous with judging.