Posted on 08/11/2003 7:31:08 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
(Santa Fe-AP)
The stage is set for another public showdown between the scientific community and Charles Darwin’s critics over evolution’s place in New Mexico public schools.
Proponents of a theory that treats evolution with considerable skepticism say they’ll offer alternative revisions to the state’s science standards when the state Board of Education meets later this month.
The board is scheduled to discuss and vote on a final draft of revised standards.
The draft endorses biological evolution as a pillar of scientific knowledge. It went out for public comment last month after the state Department of Education spent more than a year revising the standards.
In 1999, the state Board of Education voted to change a standard that would have required New Mexico teachers to also present alternative views to evolution.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. From Scientific American
Project Steve: FAQs (National Center for Science Education)
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis.
The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 21].
Fine, I'll start one.
PHenry told me that f.Christian is a doo-doo head.
Just kiddin.
A couple of Yooper legislators have reintroduced the evolution bill from two years ago. NCSE link. Like the one two years ago, this one isn't expected to make it out of committee.
Minnesota has a new Education Commissioner, and just in time for the new science standards to be addressed for K-12. She's invoking the Santorum Amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act to try to get a references to a higher being added when discussions to evolutionary theory are mentioned (which higher being do YOU think she wants to mention). You can read her comments here.
Why do creationist insist on legislating things that they have no research plan for (like intelligent design), or have no scientific work in favor of (like creationism). It's doubly depressing when you look at the political affiliations of the individuals involved.
If you exchange the above word from "knowledge" to "dogma", this sentence would certainly be accurate.
The Santorum amendment is a fiction. It was removed from the No Child Left Behind Act by conference committee. Santorum lobbied to have the text included in the conference report, which has no force of law.
I don't see this in the linked article. I admit to falling asleep halfway through.
The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.
That's Santorum's contribution. For What it's worth, the same quote was tossed out in Ohio and was rejected.
ID is evolution, just not Darwinian evolution.
That's the bugger in the cookie dough, isn't it? What are the "scientific views"? I'm not aware of any controversies that don't involve molecular biology -- heavy stuff for high school kids.
So what kind of research would ID propose that is different from what is already being done?
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.