Posted on 02/05/2005 11:37:51 AM PST by gobucks
ELKTON - Charles Darwin and his intellectual descendants have taken a lashing here lately.
With the Cecil County Board of Education about to vote on a new high school biology textbook, some school board members are asking whether students should be taught that the theory of evolution, a fundamental tenet of modern science, falls short of explaining how life on Earth took shape.
*snip*
The politically conservative county of about 90,000 people bordering Pennsylvania and Delaware is joining communities around the country that are publicly stirring this stew of science, education and faith.
*snip*
At the Board of Education's regular monthly meeting Feb. 14, the five voting board members are scheduled to decide whether to accept the new edition of the book and might discuss Herold's call for new anti-evolution materials in addition to the book.
*snip*
The consensus in mainstream science, represented in such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Smithsonian Institution and the American Museum of Natural History, was, in effect, captured in 31 pages of text and illustrations published in November in National Geographic magazine. In big red letters, the magazine cover asks: "WAS DARWIN WRONG?" In bigger letters inside, the answer is: "NO. The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming."
*snip*
Joel Cracraft, immediate past president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, compared the scientific agreement on evolutionary theory to "the Earth revolving around the sun."
*snip*
Then there's the matter of teaching the meaning and method of good science.
"The issue is science," Roberts said. "What is science, and, if there's a conflicting view, does it meet the rigor of science we're seeking?"
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Welcome to FR NDGG; I see you are rather new. Bold of you to jump into an evo thread, but I'm sure you'll have fun.
But still, watch out. Lots of smart folks here, working hard to throw doubt into vulnerable minds...
Plenty more at my freeper homepage. Among them are these:
Facts, Faith, and Fairness. Why creationism isn't science.
Creation "Science" Debunked. Why creationism is NOT science.
An Index to Creationist Claims. From Talk.Origins. Exhaustive list.
Please go play with yourself as I'm just not interested
I'm just an ordinary Christian ...
A lot of debate on FR devolves into name-calling. Perhaps the zealot appellation adheres to those who insist in interpreting the Bible as a scientific text--i.e., reading the story of Genesis literallly and trying to mine scientific data from it. The arguments that derive from such a reading do appear to be abjectly illogical and unscientific.
"Evolution picked up baggage....."
I was a student when the primordial soup experiments were happening. It's a different branch of biology..or biochemistry if you like. It was very exciting at that time.
Didn't quite pan out but did add to our knowledge base.
As for stand-theory-on-its-head stuff, that would be the viral insertion of information material. One of the other posters has it on his home page. I'll see if I can track it. The whole thing is standing on a cliff with your toes curled over exciting to biologists.
Unfortunately most anti-evolutionists never get to learn about the good parts.
I think for most scientists, the "problems" posed by creation "science" advocates are irrelevant to the natural phenomena they study. That some people's faith is so wrapped up in using science to prove God's existence is ironic evidence that their beliefs are very weak.
The funniest part of "intelligent design" for me is its inherent paradox, not mentioned in the 15 answers: if design is required for any phenomena of sufficient complexity, then who designed God?
Then if we do not have an transcendent God who created us, what do you believe? Does it take more faith to believe that a premordial soup was struck by a shot of energy and a single celled mechanism was the direct result? Do you also believe that Mt. Rushmore was the direct result of erosion?
The antropic principle states that the physical structure of the universe is exactly what is needed to sustain life (any closer to the sun and we would burn and any farther away and we would freeze). Do you believe that all the intricacies of the universe are just the result of happen-stance?
"Why do those who seem to worship something that was not part of Darwin's findings also seem to fear being shown any other alternative?"
The implications are upsetting them, that's why. For the forecast upon their perceived future standard of living shows stormy weather ahead. They fear they won't get to rent Dr. Strangelove on demand....
In teaching a class on biology for non-science majors I gave them a working definition of a scientist as someone who believed effects have causes.
I have posted on many different threads, both scientific and theological, and exchanged polite comments with a great many others who have shown far more evidence of brilliant thinking than you are doing here. A sad fact of life, and one you may want to contemplate, is, that you can buy a lot of things, but you can't buy class
"Because every human person is entitled to human rights ..."
This is getting good. We are still on the same page thank god. Now, to be entitled to anything implies someone/something grants us the 'title'. From whence originates these 'human rights'?
If you persist in seeing the Bible as a scientific text, you run into insoluble conflicts with the scientific evidence. You wouldn't use a musical score to interpret architectural plans--why do you use a theological text to explain the nuts and bolts of matter?
In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition.Not everyone's favorite theologean, but in this case he knows what he's talking about.
Another thing I forgot: the story of Genesis was radical at the time in its assertion that God was before anything else. Other creation stories from humans living in the ssame area asserted that chaos existed and then a divine being of some sort entered the picture.
A very interesting analogy, which recalls to mind something the philosopher Schelling wrote, "that architecture is frozen music."
However, and I do want to continue our discussion, but I have plans to go out in a bit, so if i disappear I will return.
Have you studied Hebrew at all?
Chemical and Engineering News publishes an annual survey of chemical employment. Last year, 55.8% of all chemists were emplyed in manufacturing, 23.9% in academia, and 20.4% in neither. Of the last category, 7.4% worked in government. Of the 23.9% who work in academia, 20.2% work in Universities, four year colleges and medical schools. I'd estimate about a quarter of these work in four year colleges, which usually don't receive significant research funding. Even in research universities, usually about one third do not have federal funding. So we have about 1 chemist in 10 receiving federal funding in an academic job, and 7.5% working directly for government.
Roughly 50 percent of grants goes straight to the university as 'overhead'. Professors salaries are 'overhead'. Salaries are part of overhead.
Nonsense. Salaries are not part of overhead. Salaries are direct costs.
http://departments.oxy.edu/urc/faculty/allowable_costs.htm
In a public university, the only people receiving salaries as part of direct costs are those of us on 9 month contracts, where we can draw up to 3 months summer salary from grants. People on 12 month contracts (e.g. ag. schools) don't get any salary from the feds.
This amounts to another sub-fraction of the 10%. So much for your 'Scientists are overwhelmingly paid by government grants, not student tuition money.'.
Telling untruths out of negligence or wanton disregard for the truth is lying.
Thankyou for accepting evolution.
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.