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 ...
I'd say we are about to find that out. Stay tuned.
Then you have made me cynical of anything you say about Christians and pro lifers because I know them up front and personal, from the group homes that take in preganant girls to the people that collect the money to support them and their babies.
If you are seriously interested in my musings on the subject:
Evolution through the back door
How is it possible to martial the pro-lifer troops when many of the pro-lifer troops really don't want to do anything about abortion?
5 Judges and a neutered Congress. But times are changing Professor. Illinois today ruled an embryo a human being.
Day five was creatures of the sea. Day six was creatures of the ground. Plants was day...two or three, I think.
Do you really--literally--believe that the living world was created in 6 days?
Yes, I really do. I realize that you have probably now officially decided that I have no brain at all, but remember you have never met me and are therefore not truly qualified to make that judgment. That's what I believe and I stand by it.
We were discussing America and its citizens, remember?
I didn't think so. I believe someone was attempting to make it on your behalf at #404. At any rate I'm sure you'll address it as needed.
That example is from economics, which relies heavily upon complex, self-organizing systems. Classic economics from Smith through Ricardo through Hayek to Friedman clearly concludes that a designed system (e.g. socialism) can never compete with a self-organized system (which in practice always means a free market). This is not meant to apply to the entire universe, but it does show that evolutionary concepts are influential and valid beyond biology. (I would like to presume that you are a believer in the self-organizing system of the free market instead of designed, command-and-control economic systems, yes?)
I would not ascribe consciousness to genetic material, but all the evidence points to processes, information, and communication that cannot take place without both intelligence and design.
You may believe that if you wish. But all you're really saying is "I don't see how these processes, information, and communication could take place without intelligence and design". Just because you can't see how it's possible doesn't mean it isn't possible.
If you really study the field of self-organizing systems, you will be astonished how complex systems can evolve from unconscious and dumb parts. For example, the engineers have created systems of small, dumb robots with very simple rules for behavior, and the ability to sense their immediate surroundings, and then turned them loose. The resulting complex behavior of the group was never designed. It's what's called an "emergent property".
Now, you're going to say, "But, but, the robots were designed", and thereby miss the point. The group behavior (i.e. the characteristics of the overall system) were never designed. They just popped up. And that shows the power of self-organizing systems, which is only a small part of the engine of evolution.
The fight is not simply Creation. To claim that it is is naive. I have no problem with evolution as a mechanism but I have big problems with producing embryos and then killing them to mine them for stem cells. That is where the battleground really is between science and religion.
Science in science class and religion in church. What could be wrong with that.
BTW, a religious history course in public school like any other history couse would be okay.
If your parents teach you right from wrong, you will know right from wrong, we all have different right and wrongs anyway; if they don't know right from wrong then they will not survive, they'll be weeded out.
Right wing fanatic religion has no place in a secular government that is pointed out in the first amendment. If you want your children to be excluded from the 21st century, teach them old fables from a book full fables and outdated morality. Someone ought to update it to catch up with and stop opposing modern factual science like evolution. Let Stephen Hawking do a rewrite.
Religion is the problem in the country because it has created rifts in the populace, embarasses other Republicans, tries to legislate morality and it perpetuates the war on drugs.
Me, I had a daughter born at 33 weeks gestation. I saw kids in the preemie ward who had been born at 24 weeks, well within the second trimester. You don't need to instruct me on killing babies.
We got a lot of schemes to stick Genesis into the biology curriculum, but surprisingly little of any effectiveness to stop abortion. Yeah, we got little old ladies doing prayer vigils outside Planned Parenthood in Lincoln, and more power to them, but the GOP is scared to do anything but rattle sabers on the subject. And you know it as well as I do.
We were also discussing religion and morality in the abstract, whatever the context. The only reason I brought up anything specific to America before is because gobucks is subject to the laws of the United States.
Unless I otherwise qualify my remarks, they are invariably designed to be universal and absolute. =)
How about with your claim that we don't legislate morality?
Why don't you tell us one law in the US Code that doesn't contain a moral component. That should be an easy one for ya.
You got that right - every time I see the word "scientist" (and I am an electrical engineer, so have done plenty of studying of science), my antennae activate. These are guys who are on the government dole, so what else are they going to conclude?
If you are seriously interested in my musings on the subjectWell, now, to be perfectly honest, I'm not.
I'm interested 'in results', and to get there, and to that end, I'm interested in only the 'facts' and from those 'facts' what may be determined to be, to some varying degree of assuredness, 'the truth'.
Since we are human, we will never quite know the entire 'truth' of a matter; even Moses doubted for a moment - after all he had seen with his own eyes - so I have more than sufficient precedent to be saying this ...
My fear is that too many people, perhaps yourself included, are ill-equipped yet over-inter-connected with modern communications capabilities ('the web') that populism (verily, the purporting by a body or group, under-equipped and ill-equipped to explore 'an issue' nonetheless makes claims and publishes 'findings' of dubious value) is over-taking serious, determined, methodical, detailed study on a wide range of subjects, including the current subject matter at hand ...
The havoc you may wreak, in this 'populist' approach of disregarding and throwing aside determined, rigorous research and study is, IMNSHO, immeasurable.
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.