Posted on 10/28/2005 2:36:03 PM PDT by scientificbeliever
3. Kansas Biology Teacher On the front lines of science's devolution "The evolution debate is consuming almost everything we do," says Brad Williamson, a 30-year science veteran at suburban Olathe East High School and a past president of the National Association of Biology Teachers. "It's politicized the classroom. Parents will say their child can't be in class during any discussion of evolution, and students will say things like 'My grandfather wasn't a monkey!'"
First, a history lesson. In 1999 a group of religious fundamentalists won election to the Kansas State Board of Education and tried to introduce creationism into the state's classrooms. They wanted to delete references to radiocarbon dating, continental drift and the fossil record from the education standards. In 2001 more-temperate forces prevailed in elections, but the anti-evolutionists garnered a 6-4 majority again last November. This year Intelligent Design (ID) theory is their anti-evolution tool of choice.
At the heart of ID is the idea that certain elements of the natural world—the human eye, say—are "irreducibly complex" and have not and cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Therefore, IDers say, they must be the work of an intelligent designer (that is, God).
The problem for teachers is that ID can't be tested using the scientific method, the system of making, testing and retesting hypotheses that is the bedrock of science. That's because underpinning ID is religious belief. In science class, Williamson says, "students have to trust that I'm just dealing with science."
Alas, for Kansas's educational reputation, the damage may be done. "We've heard anecdotally that our students are getting much more scrutiny at places like medical schools. I get calls from teachers in other states who say things like 'You rubes!'" Williamson says. "But this is happening across the country. It's not just Kansas anymore."
(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...
I do not need to understand the workings of an internal combustion engine to drive a car, therefore the science behind it is irrelevant to driving.
> My doctorate is in Engineering. Evolution plays no role whatsoever in my research or teaching. It simply never comes up. If somehow some great discovery were made tomorrow that completely invalidated the theory of evolution (imagine a fossil bearing the label "Made by God"), it would have no effect on what I do or how I do it. None.
Well, then you and I differ. My degree is also in engineering, aerospace to be exact. If it was suddenly demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that fully-formed organisms suddenly pop into existence in full violation of physical laws, then all of science becomes rather shaky. When a rocket motor we've spent thousands of man-hours does soemthing mysterious, we could *not* ignore the arguement that it was an "act of God," or demons tampering with the AP particle size distribution, or gremlins messing with the pressure transducers. When a new player becomes a valid source of variability, you cannot ignore it or discount it.
If I had the foggiest notion of what you mean by the above sentence I'd agree or disagree with you...
I do not need to understand how TCP/IP works to use the internet, therefore TCP/IP is irrelevant to the internet.
Aint ignorance bliss?
Just make sure that your xeno-transplant surgeon understands evolution, or he might do a damnfool thing like putting a baboon heart in you. After all, since all created "kinds" are different he might as well give you a baboon heart as that of any other species.
Is it the same as Darwin's criterion when he describes biological motion as a kind of fitness? By what criterion does he determine this?
I say that the meaning of such words as fitness refer to some kind of totality of things to make sense. It's always interesting to note what totality people choose.
Science is the study of the natural, by definition. To do science you have to assume that the universe behaves in a predictable way, statistically at least. The supernatural does not behave in a predictable way, so science cannot study it. No test can falsify the notion of invisible pink unicorns that happen to like shoving bodies about as if they attracted each other being the source of gravity (and that might change their whim tomorrow) for example, so the idea is unscientific. Deities may be true, but science can never comment one way or the other (though science may say that specific creation stories appear to be false, according to the available physical evidence). Likewise the idea that the universe was created intact one second ago cannot be falsified, so it is also unscientific, even though it might be true. 300 years of Western Science ignoring the possibility of divine/supernatural intervention in the material universe has led to a staggering increase in human knowledge, and our ability to control our world.
I say that the meaning of such words as fitness refer to some kind of totality of things to make sense. It's always interesting to note what totality people choose.
Fitness to Darwin meant solely increased likelihood of successful reproduction. Those organisms which reproduce more successfully in the environment that they inhabit are the fittest. Fitness in this sense is relative to environment. When Darwin used the word "fittest" he wasn't applying any moral judgement or even any absolute standard at all about what constitutes fitness; solely reproductive success.
What if nature is unpredictable. Does that mean it is not part of nature?
If anything is statistically unpredictable then it is beyond the capacity of science to explain it. For the last 300 years science has assumed that nature is predictable, and thus far that assumption has led to enormous progress. Chaotic systems and emergent phenomena are taken to be the sum result of a myriad of individually predictable actions.
Evolution is the central and unifying principle of biology.
That's what it would have to be in order for your ridiculously overblown allegation to be true.
I don't ask vegetarians for their opinion of cuts of beef, not creationists their opinions on biology instruction.
I am not sure that we do differ all that much.
Suppose that fully formed organisms were observed to pop into existence out of nothing. I grant that that would that would definitely affect my research and teaching—but not because it violates the theory of evolution. Such an event, as you note, would violate a number of established physical models that are important to my work. The implications for the theory of evolution would be the last of my worries.
By the way, it would not have to be organisms. If fully assembled rocket motors were to pop into existence—and we could establish that it was no hoax—that fact would have a tremendous effect on all areas of science.
On the other hand, suppose someone were to discover in the fossil record a fully formed organism that could not have arisen by natural selection or mutation from other organisms according to current evolutionary models. That would have enormous implications for biologists, but it would mean little to most engineers.
Your comments about acts of God, gremlins, and demons are puzzling. I hope you do not believe that a religious engineer would resort to such explanations rather than seek physical causes for problems in a system.
BTW for the last 1000 and more being part of nature is not the same as being part of science; for the last 2000 years, progress in the field of science has nothing to say about the nature of other sciences. And for the last 3000 years, science concerns itself quite a bit with things that fall outside of statistics.
Amazing how so many religious conservatives are adopting the language of postmodernism.
As a Christian, it worries me greatly.
On of the best Christian explanations of this issue is Alisdair MacIntyre's Three Rival Versions of Moral Inquiry.
One point to remember about the post-modern critique is that the assumption of atomism in rationalism is a choice. It loses the larger context for the sake of certainty. You can see some of that kind of dogmatism at work in the last few replies on this thread.
Clearly one does not need to understand IC engines to drive a car.
I hasten to add that it would be a good thing if every driver did understand the inner workings of his vehicle. The more knowledge, the better.
Of course, engineers must have a deeper understanding of science necessary to do their jobs. So while science may be irrelevant to driving cars, it is vital to designing, building, and maintaining them.
I agree, to an extent. But what does hyperrationalism have to do with interpreting genetic, geological or palentological data? I don't see hyperrationalism at work in the neo-darwinian synthesis. If you do, please elaborate.
If you are interested, some of this is elaborated on this thread on scientism
There is a difference between one's understanding IC being relevant, versus IC itself being relevant (unless you believe car's run on magic).
A physician's understanding of molecular biology may be irrelevant, but molecular biology is incredibly relevant to medicine (unless you believe doctors use magic).
And I am *still* struggling to discover your point in all of this.
What does any of this have to do with the neo-Darwinian synthesis?
Perhaps I should become more acquainted with your understanding of neo-Darwinian synthesis to be able to answer that.
Anyhow, if you've seen the thread you get my point.
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.