Posted on 02/02/2004 5:58:33 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
I have always been amazed at the ability of the Christian right to bully educators into diluting the teaching of evolution and promoting so-called creation science in public school classrooms. I suspect that part of the reason for this is a misappreciation of the importance of evolution by the general public. Evolution is not an isolated concept that can be expediently omitted from a high-school biology syllabus. Rather, it is the single unifying concept of modern biology. It unites all areas of biology, from ecology to physiology to biochemistry and beyond. Without it, students are denied a framework to understand how these different areas are related and interdependent. Can you imagine asking a physics teacher to cover everything except Newton's laws? Maybe soon a small group of reactionaries will persuade a school board to teach students that apples do not fall to earth because of gravity, but because of some mystical phenomenon that can neither be studied nor understood. ALBERT E. PRICE New Haven, Jan. 30, 2004 The writer is a research fellow, department of cell biology, Yale University School of Medicine.
You're right about the ACLU, but alas, wrong in everything else. The "deathbed renuciation" is even laughted at by a creationist website (Answers in Genesis): Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.
As for Stalin, you couldn't be more wrong: Stalin decreed that genetics and evolution were bogus, and the "theory" of Lamarckism, propounded by Trofim Denisovich Lysenko would be official soviet doctrine.
A well-known creationist website (Institute for Creation Research) publishes this article:
DARWIN'S INFLUENCE ON RUTHLESS LAISSEZ FAIRE CAPITALISM.
The underlying mechanics are common to both.
Why do you have to believe man evolved from ape to study biology? There have been many great accomplishments in Biology by deeply religious people who believed in devine intervention. I really don't see why it is absolutely neccessary to accept every aspect of evolution to study biology. In fact, it is detrimental to science to insist that everyone believes and views the world in the exact same way.
Maybe, but I can understand the workings of genetics and other Biology principles without blanketly accepting evolution. Believing in evolution is not that critical, but requiring that belief to study biology eliminates many great minds from the field. Just because genetics or whatever is a mechanic of evolution, doesn't mean you must accept evolution to study genetics. The arguement decreeing Evolution as THE unifying principle is a political rather than scientific statement.
You signed up just to post this? Interesting that the Soviets executed people for teaching Darwin.
I am stating that it is a factor. Think of the view of the constitution as a 'living' document that 'evolves' over time. That would be one example, ther are many more that should be easily observable by anyone looking for them.
What's this mean? We should never advocate change/growth? Sometimes?
It means we are abandoning absolute principles in favor of 'evolving' standards: that we no longer accept unchanging truth as self evident, but that we now believe that what is true today need not be true tomorrow (morally, ethically, legally, politically). This is the end result of accepting evolution as a valid fact and expanding it to encompass all of our life (whether we wish to aknowlege we have done so or not).
Off of the top of my head, I've only read about such "bullying" in biology when it comes from a couple of "scientists" who happen to be, for lack of a better term, crackpots. Even if they weren't crackpots, the number of them actually complaining ads up to statistical irrelevance (2? 4? Out of thousands?). If I am incorrect, please quote some numbers? And then, ofcourse, please discuss which alternatescientific theory the bullies are quashing.
I know there was this guy name Einstein who believed in devine intervention. Maybe you have heard of him...
Denying GLOBAL WARMING is denying biology.
Denying that capitalism is evil is denying economics.
Denying that Islam is the religion of peace is denying history.
Denying that homosexuality is an inherited DNA trait is denying genetics.
Denying that Reagan was stupid and that the 80's were the worst decade ever is denying history.
Denying that the USA is the root of all problems in the world is denying multiculturalism and diversity.
(and other BS they teach kids in college.)
No doubt you came to this conclusion through logical scientific methods.
Since I've been studying in a scientific field for the past 12 years, yes, I have.
LOL! I should just "rest my case" here, but I can't resist yammering on (in print) at least a bit more.
When my mechanic told me my left front wheel bearing was near failure and he needed $450 to replace it I did question it, and did nothing; then, at least. Being an engineer, I know nothing about science, but a bit about things that go vroom-vroom. Nine months later the wheel bearing did fail - the right front. I replaced it myself for $150. Thirteen months later the left became "iffy" and I replaced that one too - $120 this time (the extra $30 the first time around was for tools).
When my daughter was prescribed anti seizure medication I was "bold" enough to question at length this vaunted "man of science". Without going into lengthy detail, there were many factors that contraindicated a need for this medication. I literally cornered him with his own assessment and information until his only suggestion was that "we could try the medication and discontinue it if it doesn't have the desired effect". Frankly, anyone who doesn't educate themselves and use their doctors as consultants in order to decide on their own treatment is acting foolishly IMO. Read "It's Not About The Bike" by Lance Armstrong if you would like to know more about the potential difference in results.
As for the police, I have never heard of a case where someone was arrested or convicted and then later found to be innocent and I'm sure you haven't either, so I guess you have me there.
But, hey, what do I know? You have been studying in the field of science for the past 12 years. I'm sure you know what is best, for you and for me. Silly of me to question - lets forget the whole thing.
(your screen name goes here for the sake of irony)
Interesting. From what I can gather, it appears to me that you feel our current understanding of the universe, society, and ethics is right on the money. There is no need to progress. We've achieved enlightenment. Is this correct?
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.