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 ...
Where before had I encountered so much faux-science used to bolster an explicitly and undeniably theological proposition?
Then I remembered an issue from the ecology movement in the 1970s and '80s. Is anyone here familiar with James Lovelock and The Gaia Hypothesis??
Evolution does not deal with the beginning of life, only what happened once it was here. If it could be proven that God personally reached down with his hand and seeded the earth with the very first life, it would not affect evolution a whit. I presume that now that this impediment has been removed, the path to understanding is clear for you ;)
WHAT SHOULD public schools teach about life's origins?
This is the first statement from your post
Evolution does not deal with the beginning of life,
So ... one of us is not in harmony with the universe here ...
I presume that now that this impediment has been removed, the path to understanding is clear for you ;)
I'll leave it at that
Not one of us, but Stephen Meyer. It's that simple. Evolution deals with the development of the diversity of life. Naturally, that does not allow him to make the rhetorical points he wants, so he casts the theory in terms more friendly to his argument, but it's a misleading characterization of the theory of evolution. Be skeptical, especially of people telling you things you want to hear.
see my post above
... yes .. that origin of life thing ...
The article said ...
WHAT SHOULD public schools teach about life's origins?
then you said ...
Origin of species does not, repeat not, mean, imply or refer to origin of life.
.... a mind is a terrible thing to waste ...
"What should public schools teach about life's origins?"
As I state in post 17, right now they don't teach anything about it.
Some of them teach the mechanisms of evolution, but that's a totally different subject.
Actually he asks a simple question ..
WHAT SHOULD public schools teach about life's origins?
And then offers a bit of argument ...
There are after all, many who would teach evolution as the "origin of life", which you and others seem to be very aware it does not reach.
What is the problem with expounding on the mystery of the origin of life?
When there are no set, visible, concrete facts that can be presented ... present the question...
Thinking is a good thing.
Oh, geeeeeeeeshh.........
In 150 years, while a scientist was watching right? I really doubt you ever understood anything about evolution if you would even ask for observations on that time scale. How about this. I've heard that can mountains grow from continental plates colliding. Show me a scientist who saw a mountain grow from colliding plates. I have absolutly no objection to a mountain growing a centemeter or two, but I want to know how a mountain can grow from flat earth. You have to take too much faith to keep beliving the Cult of continental drifters had it right!
Name three. And then notice that Meyer doesn't bother to name even a single example of someone teaching the theory of evolution in that manner.
He's refuting an argument that nobody we know of is actually arguing for. This is simple rhetorical trickery, not a serious argument - Meyer cannot even be bothered to argue against the theory of evolution and its proper scope. Instead, he simply invents some aspect of the theory calculated to be objectionable to people, and then beats up on his own invention. And then does a little touchdown dance and gives himself a high-five at how successfully he's carried his plan off. Meyer would have you believe that he is only interested in teaching the controversy over the origins of life, but if that's the case there's no reason to implicate the theory of evolution at all - what he is, in fact, interested in doing is ginning up a controversy over evolution that simply doesn't exist, in order to promote his own pet non-scientific theory. Don't believe the hype.
Is this legitimate science?
"The chief thing we know about Tyrannosaurus rex, the fabled king of the Late Cretaceous, is that we still have much to learn about it, which should be a signal for caution, although it is also a license for speculation. There are only 25 or so specimens of T. rex, most incomplete, even though the species may have survived for several million years and tens of thousands of them, if not more, must have lived at one time or another.
In popular imagination, T. rex started out as a ferocious tyrant. How are the mighty fallen, however! In 2001, Warhol's curse struck T. rex and ushered in a drastic makeover for the capo di capo of dinosaurs. (How easy it is to fall into the style!) It had already been noised about that the thing was really only a scavenger of something else's kills, more a hyena than a lion. By May 2001, T. rex had become cuddly and possibly even covered with feathers. By October, it had become the "Woody Allen of dinosaurs," even neurotic.
This may turn out to be a just-not-so story. T. rex is a member of a large group of dinosaurs called theropods. The idea that theropod dinosaurs and birds are related is very old, dating back at least to T. H. Huxley and now having much modern support. So far, so good. But how did T. rex get feathers? In 1999, National Geographic magazine published a story under the title "Feathers for T. rex" in which an amazing new find from China, intermediate between a bird and a dromaeosaur, was described. Amazing indeed; it was a fake. In April 2001 in Nature, Qiang Ji et al. published an account of a new Chinese theropod that had evidence of a kind of proto-feathers. Once again the media homed in on Tyrannosaurus: "Maybe even mighty Tyrannosaurus rex had feathers," and "Maybe baby tyrannosaurus looked something like a cute, fuzzy baby chick," said ABCNEWS.com. Perhaps the best line went to science writer Deborah Smith of the Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald, April 27, 2001: "T-Rex in a feather boa turns heads among fossil hunters." (T-rex instead of T. rex seems very popular with journalists.)
Next, Jim Kirkland of the Utah Geological Survey and Doug Wolfe of Mesa Southwest Museum released an account of a new North American theropod—Nothronychus—at a Discovery Channel press conference. Nothronychus was evidently a vegetarian but with "bird-like characters and ? probably covered with feathers, said the scientists" (Reuters, June 19, 2001), to the newspapers' delight. But was there any evidence? At the press conference it was stated that no feathers were found with Nothronychus. Certainly none have been found with Tyrannosaurus. So far the sequence is as follows: T. rex is related (but not closely) to Nothronychus, where there is no evidence of feathers; Nothronychus is more closely related to the Chinese dinosaur Beipaosaurus, where there is disputed evidence of proto-feathers. Score: feathers 3, logic 0."
That is from a science magazine. Forgive me if I have a little skepticism with a "science" that deals with speculation, "maybes" and "probablys"
That's a commentary, not research. And the language of science is always tentative - read any journal on any scientific subject and you'll find the same sort of thing. That's because science is always subject to revision as new evidence comes in. Language suitable for stone tablets just won't do, sorry.
Name three
All the biology teachers I had in high school.
The practical facts of application tend to lean in that direction.
As a matter of fact, the cry gets louder whenever it's mentioned that "evolution" does not address the origin of life.
....And your still trying to answer an argument that was never made.
What should public schools teach about the origin of life?
Nothing?
How bizarre
This is high school we're talking about - all theories of abiogenesis are controversial, all of them are fairly technical and complex, and none are particularly well supported or compelling. Why not save it for college level courses, when they'll have the background necessary to evaluate the various arguments? I can't think of any reason to teach children things which they don't yet have the tools to evaluate, and for which there's no real consensus. Physics classes manage to get along just fine without getting into the deep mathematical arguments behind string theory - why should biology be different?
I like it!
If it weren't for back doors,(With apologies to some anonymous writer for the old Hee Haw show.)
I'd pass no doors at all!
Gloom, despair, and agony on me!
My point is this. This debate is always framed as the "certainty" of science versus the blind, unsubstantiated belief of religion. In other words, the really smart people believe in the "truth" of science, and religion is left for the unenlightened.
The fact is that many bright, discerning people look at evolution and see many uncertainties. And the folks that marginalize and ridicule them really have gone beyong the mere science and into materialistic philosophy.
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.