Posted on 03/11/2005 3:47:39 AM PST by PatrickHenry
WHAT SHOULD public schools teach about life's origins? Should science educators teach only contemporary Darwinian theory or not mention it? Should school boards mandate that students learn about alternative theories? If so, which ones? Or should schools forbid discussion of all theories except neo-Darwinism?
These questions arise frequently as school districts around the country consider how to respond to the growing controversy over biological origins.
Of course, many educators wish such controversies would simply go away. If science teachers teach only Darwinian evolution, many parents and religious activists will protest. But if teachers present religiously based creationism, they run afoul of Supreme Court rulings.
There is a way to teach evolution that would benefit students and satisfy all but the most extreme ideologues. Rather than ignoring the controversy or teaching religiously based ideas, teachers should teach about the scientific controversy that now exists over Darwinian evolution. This is simply good education.
When credible experts disagree about a controversial subject, students should learn about competing perspectives.
In such cases, teachers should not teach as true only one view. Instead, teachers should describe competing views to students and explain the arguments for and against these views as made by their chief proponents. We call this "teaching the controversy."
[Snip]
Stephen C. Meyer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, and John Angus Campbell, a professor of communications at the University of Memphis, are the editors of Darwinism, Design and Public Education.
The rest of the article is here.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Alamo-Girl, how dare you throw out commonsense facts into this discussion. I you don't follow our ideology here on the evo-thread, we will excommunicate you!
Secondly, Darwinism (macro-evolution) is precisely an attempt to escape the implications of Christian truth! Why else would such an outlandish fanstasy gain so much credibility among God-hating secularists?
Your remarks are just plain ignorant. Evolutionary biology neither denies God's Word or has any anti-Christian agenda. Although, I admit, there are people who would use it that way.
Produce your billion-year-old human fossil and end the controversy.
moo
I could be wrong, but I think you have just been called a Christian pervert
Get ready for the heaping:
Which brave darwinite/so-called christian,
wants to answer Ken Ham's question as to
how could God begin a Good World
on stacks of bones?
you: Yes, that's what I said.
js1138, all things considered, that looks pretty infeasible to me. Perhaps you are reluctant to depart from a model that's become like a life-long friend to you by now.
Forgive the indelicacy of this quote from Dr. Chien:
...Darwinian theory is not just a scientific inquiry anymore. It has become a religion for many people although they do not confess it or recognize it. Once it becomes a paradigm or reference for all other areas of life, the resistence to change is paramount. Many scientists build their life studies on the basis of [Darwinian] evolution; they can't see anything differently. But for some people, including myself, we are seeing big cracks in the Darwinian theory. When objections to it from different fields gather momentum, we'll see it crumble like the Berlin Wall. We may see it happen in our lifetime.
Dr. Chien also points out that the earliest adversaries of Darwinist theory were not the so-called "Bible-thumpers," but the paleontologists.
He does allow a possible explanation of how such incredible diversity could have appeared all at once: drastic macro-mutation, of global extent. He says, "If you can have macro-mutation, anything can happen." But then notes that macro-mutation "is not scientific theory at all." What it is, is a philosophical view, specifically an ontological one, that cannot be tested or falsified.
FWIW.
Lack of dat is not a problem in the sense you imply. Every science has areas where data is insufficient. Otherwise there would be little to do.
Evolution is a forensic science. It works exactly like a criminal investigation, investigating, collecting data and hypothesising. the Cambrian is an open cse, being worked. there is little disagreement about what happend, but not enough details to tell a complete story.
You might compare it to a scene containing microscopic bits of body parts, shards of glass and traces of gunpowder, but no witnesses, no body and no fingerprints. You know roughly what happened, but reconstructing the story is difficult. The question is, do you give up and say it's a miracle, or do you seek a natural explanation?
BB, the Cambrian period was at least 50 million years long, which is hardly "all at once." Please re-visit post 142 by js1138. It's quite good.
He says, "If you can have macro-mutation, anything can happen." But then notes that macro-mutation "is not scientific theory at all."
That's true. It's a creationist strawman. It's the equivalent of saying: "Ok, 1+1=2, I can go with that. But don't tell me you can keep that going all the way to 20."
You continue to dance without addressing anything I said. I'm not going to continue repeating my argument. I put some thought into it and you haven't addresses a single point I made.
If you care to continue posting to me, go back to my post on body plans and take it apart point by point.
belly bttt
I am aware of the history of evolutionary thought. Darwin himself was the first to let the "trade secret" of the Cambrian out of the bag. Some secret. Some conspiracy.
What is it about creationists that they have absolutely no memory or no sense of history?
The stigma of creationism rubs off on political conservatives and damages them, just as it damages Christians. Creationist Christians (a specific group, because not all christians are creationists) are damaging their religion but are too close to the subject to see it. I'm merely attempting to hold the damage to a minimum all around.
There are way too many important subjects that conservatives need to concentrate on. Like supreme court judges.
In politics, there's a long tradition of opponents supporting spoilers such as Ross Perot that will attract just enough support away from one side to defeat them. I know of one very large Kerry supporter who has a history of supporting the libertarian party, undoubtedly to damage the Republicans, since the libs won't get elected to anything.
I think its quite possible that the Discovery Institute has some support from rich Democrats as well, because they know that any effort to promote creationism damages Republicans, as well as sucks energy and money away from conservative causes.
You creationists need to wake up and realize that you're being played for fools by people with agendas completly opposite of yours.
Do you think Dr. Chien is a creationist?
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.