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 ...
Huh? Combustion is taught using the simplifies Bohr model of the atom which you said was inaccurate and over-simplified. In order to understand combustion correctly, you have to understand the Schrodinger Wave theory and Eienstein's Conservation of Mass and Energy principles. Do you? You know, that old E=MC2 stuff? Mass defects? I am sure you understand all this, right?
How and why were these Chinese villagers doing this in Germany? Enquiring minds want to know.
Combustion is taught as a chemical reaction, we never screwed around with Bohr models learning combustion, just a simple matter of what chemicals are present that make something combustible and what chemicals are emitted during combustion.
there you go again, taking things to far. I'm not demanding COMPLETE teaching, only teaching that lacks LIES. Once more for the logic impared:
Simplification by omission - perfectly acceptable
Simplification by substitution -lies
No lies in the class room. Kids can learn combustion without having to learn about Schrodingers Wave and Conservation of Mass, well they need to learn a little about conservation of mass but not much. What they shouldn't learn about combustion is a post dated theory that we now know is bunk. There's no reason to learn combustion via phlogiston or Bohrs model, because neither of them is actually learning.
Riiiight. I think the conjecture of those suffering mental confusion as a result of cognitive dissonance should be taught instead:
"In spite of the fact that most mutations are harmful and 2/3 of all mutations are recessive, we evolved because natural selection chose helpful mutations by eliminating those which are harmful. We believe that natural selection can eliminate recessive mutations, and we know that the proof for our belief is out there, we just haven't found it yet."
You were never taught about electron bonding, valent and co-valent electrons, or reaction tables to determine how to determine which chemicals would react with which? That is the basics of combustion.
That might be what you believe you are hearing, but it is not what I am attempting to communicate.
I suspect it is not what the others responding to you are saying either.
Then they are taught lies that they will have to un-learn later in their studies. If you don't understand Eienstein's theories, you don't understand combustion.
Are you saying that it is ok to teach sound theory using inaccurate, over-simplified models?
There are degrees of understanding.
The object, though, is to avoid mis-understanding.
This has been reiterated several times.
Not as part of combustion. That was just general chemistry. In combustion we learned the specific chemicle reaction of combustion, by that point we'd moved well past drawing little circles and were just dealing with the molecules by symbol. We were done with Bohr, thank God.
Simplified, yes.
Define oversimplified.
Inaccurate: no
Incomplete (my addition for clarification) yes
I am hearing nothing of what should be taught. Please tell me, what model of the atom should be taught at JHS? At High School?
Perhaps you have forgotten that I prefer to limit what is taught before college.
Since it is not my field, I will bow to others on the thread if they have suggestions.
No they aren't. They just aren't taught the whole thing. It's the difference between knowing who won WWII and knowing the casualty levels of all involved nations. It's not a lie to teach kids just the basics, but the Bohr model isn't just the basics, the Bohr model is junk, it's how we used to think but learned better. Why make the kids go through the same relearning process our scientist in history went through? Just wasted effort.
Oh, you went from an over-simplified model to an over-over-simplified model to do your calculations. Well done. you are aware that the (symbol) model is inaccurate due to not properly accounting for gravitational forces, don't you?
No, I have not forgotten. It is your position that one should never hear the word "atom" till college.
Can you show me where I said that?
Either none or the most current model believed accurate. They don't necessarily have to get into orbit mechanics and how they all get shaped, it's enough to give a general overview that the orbits are complex and involve every part of the atom. No lying to students, we know atoms don't follow some goofy celular structure with a nucleus and simple rings of electrons around it, there's no reason to "teach" what we know isn't the truth. Simplify by omission, not substitution.
We didn't need to account for gravitational forces, it's high school water chemistry. This is why it burns, this is how you find out how well it burns, these are the chemicals emitted when it burns, lets move on to something else. Simple, and just as simple to teach with a realistic model of atoms instead of a fictious model.
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.