Posted on 01/20/2005 12:54:58 PM PST by Jay777
ANN ARBOR, MI — The small town of Dover, Pennsylvania today became the first school district in the nation to officially inform students of the theory of Intelligent Design, as an alternative to Darwin’s theory of Evolution. In what has been called a “measured step”, ninth grade biology students in the Dover Area School District were read a four-paragraph statement Tuesday morning explaining that Darwin’s theory is not a fact and continues to be tested. The statement continued, “Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.” Since the late 1950s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, information that Darwin did not have in the 1850s, have revealed that the machine like complexity of living cells - the fundamental unit of life- possessing the ability to store, edit, and transmit and use information to regulate biological systems, suggests the theory of intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of life and living cells.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm representing the school district against an ACLU lawsuit, commented, “Biology students in this small town received perhaps the most balanced science education regarding Darwin’s theory of evolution than any other public school student in the nation. This is not a case of science versus religion, but science versus science, with credible scientists now determining that based upon scientific data, the theory of evolution cannot explain the complexity of living cells.”
“It is ironic that the ACLU after having worked so hard to prevent the suppression of Darwin’s theory in the Scopes trial, is now doing everything it can to suppress any effort to challenge it,” continued Thompson.
(Excerpt) Read more at thomasmore.org ...
Do you also have the same problem when playing catch trying to correct for the curvature of gravity waves?
I'm a PhD research chemist and I know just enough to be able to read some of these papers. You are right. The burden of U.S. R&D in most topics is carried by foreign grad students and post-docs. And now, more and more of them are returning home rather than staying here. What the U.S. is losing, China, India and a few other countries are gaining.
My wife, who is also Japanese, decided she wants to become a pharmacist. She learned the hard way that the frame for her degree in sociology is worth more than the degree itself. We are churning out liberal arts majors, complete with left wing ideology, but there is almost no demand for anyone with a liberal arts degree. She is taking the prerequisites and was astonished how freshman chemistry and biology attendance drops in half by the end of the semester. She was also deeply offended at the attitude of many of the American students - talking in class, not paying attention, playing games on their laptops during lectures, etc. And now people are trying to get bastardized creationism into the schools. We will be drowing in ignorance in 20 years.
We should teach our best guess that comes the closest to the truth, simplify where necessary but only simplify by ommision never simplify by substitution. What's wrong with ONLY teaching the truth? We get irritated at the media every day for their lies, why do teachers get a pass? I understand there isn't necessarily time to go into every detail, I understand that younger minds have a harder time learning all the bits, I understand that some stuff simply must be left out to be learned later if the student wishes to go in that direction. But what I refuse to understand, what I think is a blight on our nation's youth AND adults, is making stuff up and pretending it's simplification, that's not simplification that's BS, and BS has no place in education until it becomes letters after someone's name.
I bet you really flipped when they introduced fractions, and then low and behold, IRRATIONAL numbers and then, WOW, complex numbers! Why didn't they just start off with complex numbers instead of teaching that INCORRECT, OVERSIMPLIFIED visualization of integers. It sticks, right?
No because one of the more interesting aspects of the human mind is that it intuitively grasps the highly complex physics of the projectile and can tell you where to stick your hand to catch the ball with a remarkably high degree of accuracy. Now if I actually tried to calculate it I'd be done an hour after the ball hit the ground, so I suppose that's some sort of conflict of knowledges there, but I've always been pretty good at knowing when to go by instinct.
Every nation that has gone to 'war' against science has both lost the war and failed as a nation. Hopefully we won't go that route.
I have to assume that anyone who disagrees with you about the age of the earth or the interlatedness of life is thereby claiming there is no God.
It's not made up. It is the Bohr model and it worked well for ages. In fact, it still works. I have done many a calculation in my career using this simplified model.
Which year did you finally understand the derivation of the Schrodinger Wave Equation?
eek!
As a matter of fact...
In third grade I was seriously excited when I figured out a way to take more away from less (that's how I thought of it)
The teacher absolutely and authoritatively told me it was not possible and to behave and do the problems.
It did stick and was hard to unlearn.
Its another matter to expand learning. Fractions were major fun..the did not falsify whole numbers, they added.
Look, I'm seriously bad at some things. Music for one; however much I enjoy it, I really don't understand it. I don't try to teach it. I could only do harm.
The ToE or Darwin have nothing to say on the matter of how life originates in your public schools
You are right. We should not be teaching the chemistry of combustion until one has mastered the Schrodinger Wave theory and Eiensteins Conservation of Mass and Energy theorms.
I know, and I'm worried.
That is my fear as well. My only hope is that the educated will do well and people will learn this from example and try to learn new things without the fear of the sulfur and brimstone crowd clouding their judgement.
You had better stop with your extreme examples. I'm getting damn sick of you LYING about what I've said. If you can't argue without LIES then you aren't needed in this discussion. I've said repeatedly that I have no problem with simplification by omission, it's when we lie to our students that I object to, and I find it especially hilarious that you chose to defend lying to children by lying about what I've posted. One more lie about what I've said and we're done, completely, you will be beneath my contempt and no longer read or responded to. I do not tolerate liars.
There's nothing wrong with what we teach in high school about combustion, it's truthful, simple but all simplification is of omission. Acceptable. Doesn't follow the model of how we teach about the atom, to do that we'd have to teach phlogiston, and old formerly accepted theorom that we've since learned is 100% BS. BS doesn't belong in the high school class room, unless it's after the name of a highly over qualified teacher slumming it.
From what I am hearing from y'all, is that we shouldn't teach the theory of sound unless the model is accurate in the strict sense of Quantum Mechanics.
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.