Posted on 08/21/2005 7:56:53 AM PDT by CO Gal
Quick: Define miosis and mitosis. Explain mitochondrion and chloroplast. Now briefly, what's RNA?
The biology teachers assembled at the University of Colorado last week for a seminar on teaching evolution know most Americans are clueless about basic science.
They find our ignorance exasperating.
But it also explains a lot.
With most people content with being scientifically illiterate, it's no wonder so many believe intelligent design is a scientific theory.
It unequivocally is not.
It's a religious belief, a political issue or an abomination destined to cripple Americans in global scientific achievement, depending on your point of view. But it is not a legitimate counterpart to the theory of evolution.
In the hall full of schoolteachers, graduate students and science professors, there was no argument on that point.
The debate instead was on how to overcome the challenge from political groups that want to undercut science education with their religious agenda.
The problem is "we've got people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old and that God put the fossils in the ground," said Matt Young, senior lecturer in physics at the Colorado School of Mines. "That's not scientific. People have a right under the law to believe it. But it's wrong," no matter how many people choose to believe it.
"We have the proof. It's unequivocal," said Norm Pace, a professor of molecular, cellular and developmental biology at CU. The astronomical, geological and biological evidence of evolution is overwhelming.
Most of the time in the classroom, micro-evolution - the development of antibiotic resistance, for example - is accepted, said one teacher. It's the concept of macro-evolution - the study of changes over eons - that sparks objections.
"That's like saying, 'I believe in feet but not miles,"' said Jeff Mitton, chairman of the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at CU, who called the case for evolution "indisputable."
But to understand that, schools must do a better job of teaching science, starting in kindergarten, Mitton said.
If people understand reproduction, fossils, genetics, the scientific method and the fundamentals of scientific theory and how it differs from casual theorizing, the case for evolution is obvious.
And allowing creationists to undermine the teaching of science through some misguided demand for equal classroom time for a supposition that has nothing to do with science is hardly benign. Lives depend on scientific advances.
"Mosquitoes are constantly evolving and developing resistance to insecticides, and 300 million people have malaria," Mitton said. "The AIDS virus rapidly mutates into an array of AIDS viruses that are resistant to drugs, and whole villages in Africa are disappearing because of it. Intelligent design can't do anything for them."
Still, some at the seminar suggested that creationism or its politically correct descendant, intelligent design, should be taught in social studies, history or philosophy class along with other creation ideas such as those of the Iroquois, the Chinese and the Egyptians.
"The goal is to teach science, not to change beliefs," said Sarah Wise, a Ph.D. candidate at CU and a former high school biology teacher in California.
But legislation to require that creationism be taught as a counterpoint to evolution is being discussed in Colorado and across the country. And if history is any guide, we all should be very afraid of politicians legislating science education.
Mitton recalled an Indiana legislator's attempt in 1897 to require that schools simplify pi (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter) from the clumsy but accurate 3.141592... to 3.2.
If this had been enforced and the products of Indiana schools tried to apply it, he said, "bridges would fall down, structures couldn't be built," engineering would be impossible.
It's simple: Without pi, there is no mathematics.
And without the teaching of evolution, biology doesn't have a prayer.
Biology just created itself. Amazing.
Both Creationists and Evolutionists despise Intelligent Design.
It's always fun trying to guess which side they are on when they trash it.
I'm a monkey with a drivers license.
Cool.
Not a barf.
Evolution is what scientists use to study much of biology.
ID and Creation do not belong in science classes because there is no scientific approach to studying them.
Can someone clarify this authors statement :The problem is "we've got people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old and that God put the fossils in the ground,"
Is this representative of the ID argument?
They have be the same reasons, and exactly the right way ("Oh - which just happens to be MY way!"), or else you can't reach the same conclusions independently... That's just not allowed!
Pure editorializing on the part of the reporter.
This is my concern - faith is a gift and when there is a need to find scientific support for faith something is wrong.
Why does this have a barf alert?
The article nails it.
We're smart, your dumb, we know what is best for your children.
Thank you, most sincerely, for your post.
I keep saying this but not as clearly.
And your wallet.
What about my dumb?
..and....your perfectly free to have your religion...its fine really....just DON'T go trying to apply it to the world around you.
"its like believing in feet and not miles"...
That is the problem...they take mico-evolution and try to stretch the evidence "a mile" to fit their God-less beliefs.
But then, it is an editorial.
It's a common misunderstanding that those who believe in evolution necessarily do not believe in God.
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.