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 ...
It is really stupid to delete those from the record because even people who criticize evolution (well, INTELLIGENT people) recognize that obviously, continental drift exists etc. There is a reason Africa seems to fit into South America!
Nice non-sequitor.
The humours theory relates directly to medicine.
Last I checked, my doctor did not bring up evolution when determining what ailed me.
You don't have to believe in evolution to understand microbes can become resistent to antibiotics.
Nice try.
mutation
Again, this is microevolution/mutation.
You have still failed to show why an understanding of evolution is required to be a good doctor.
And I say all this stuff as a person who is pretty sympathetic to evolution (my roommate is a YEC, but I keep my mouth shut) since the evidence seems pretty strong.
But, as a conservative Christian, it still worries me that Genesis said it happened in literal days. Plus, there are not gaps in the creation story that would allow for evolution. Animals just appear.
If evolution is true, God's Word is a lie. And, I can't accept the latter or my faith is worthless.
> this is microevolution/mutation.
Yes... mutation leads to evolution. There is no "micro vs. macro" distinction.
> You have still failed to show why an understanding of evolution is required to be a good doctor.
Heck, we weren't even talking about having an "understanding" of evolution. If a doctor-to-be cannot even comprehend the basic concepts underlying evolution... don't let him near a q-tip. He'll put your eye out.
> as a conservative Christian, it still worries me that Genesis said it happened in literal days.
Then take it as parable. Jesus his own self used such.
> there are not gaps in the creation story that would allow for evolution. Animals just appear.
Err... no. God has the Earth "bring them forth." One could argue he had the Earth do this via evolution.
Oh yeah, the central and unifying principle is a dodge.
The vast bulk of what's taught in biology does not need macroevolution held in order to teach it.
You don't need Newton's laws to teach astronomy either. You can simply describe planets and stars and galaxies. You can even get a pretty fair prediction of planetary positions in the sky using purely empirical equations, such as those of Ptolemy. However, you will have no fundamental understanding of the cosmos, nor any way to predict anything that varies from the circumscribed conditions of your empirical equations. Ditto with evolution; you can teach classification of organisms, and genomics, and homologies, but none of them make any sense.
I didn't say that, as you would know if you read my post and its context.
Nice try.
Yepp, a common designer.
LOL. I want Intelligent Drift Theory taught in schools!
That is simply an assumption on your part, which doesn't match up with the facts.
Because when you ask most people why they believe in evolution, they usually start with a defense of natural selection. In many people's minds, the two are synonomous, so creationists have to differentiate the two so people understand that while there is scientific basis for natural selection, there is little scientific basis for evolution.
Sorry, I missed that one. But in my previous posts, I was careful to specify that I was talking about the practice of medicine.
Then you are saying it is not possible to distinguish human skulls from those of other apes.
Apparently we agree.
Going back to medicine and biology. A doctor is generally considered more highly educated than an electrician, who may have attended a trade school or vocational college. Does a general practitioner necessarily need to agree with evolution? Perhaps not, strictly speaking. I would personally feel better going to a doctor who does, but may someone practice medicine while believing in the six-day creation and the young earth? The answer is 'yes.'
Again, we agree.
Despite all the accusations of "Darwin idolatry" I don't know of anyone here that claims a general practitioner who does not believe in the theory of natural selection should be disqualified from having a license.
Well, the original article suggested that Kansas high-school graduates may have more difficulty getting into medical school because of their perceived lack of preparation in evolution. (I think that is unlikely, as I said before.) And some posters on this thread seem to believe that anyone who accepts ID must be a religious nut, likely to dabble in astrology and all kinds of superstitions. I will leave it to them to say whether also believe that such a person should be disqualified from holding a license to practice medicine
Does a doctor who is investigating the effects of the over prescription of antibiotics need to understand evolution? Absolutely.
At last someone has written something sensible about the practical value of evolutionary theory. Yes, the problem of drug resistance in microorganisms is a fine example of adaptation by natural selection. It is something that everyone should know about, physicians and laymen alike. I cannot imagine that even the staunchest Young-Earth creationist could deny it.
I don't like how you're trying to separate evolutionary theory from modern medicine. Our modern biology and modern medicine rest firmly on the synthesis theory of evolution, comprised of Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritance, and the theories of molecular biology that have come about since the discovery and description of the DNA molecule by Watson, Crick, Wilkins, and others.
I have not read Watson and Crick's original paper describing their work with DNA. Did they rely on evolutionary theory to predict its structure or function?
Your rhetorical question is hand-waving, in my opinion. "Oh, it's not really all that important after all." You claim you're not trying to reduce it's importance, but I'm not convinced. Evolutionary theory is a fundamental part of our understanding of biology, just as quantum theory is a fundamental part of our understanding of physics. I think an appreciation of evolution will only become more important to medicine in the future.
Actually, it should be clear that I have been trying to minimize the importance of evolution. Specifically, I have argued that it is vitally important to some fields and irrelevant (or nearly so) to others. But you may be right that the importance of the theory of evolution will increase in the future. We shall see.
Wait for a creationist to claim that they got a rock...and are waiting for it to evolve into life (as the theory of evolution says it will -- at least, in the delusions of creationists who haven't studied it)
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.