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 ...
(Note to creationists: that was sarcasm.)
Laugh if you will but they actually teach the 'drift theory' within the creo circles. ($79.95 for the 3 CD set). Creationism Faqs #43 "Drift Theory". Before the flood, there was only one continent and all the animals lived within a days walk to the ark. After the flood, the animals again spread out and then the continents suddenly drifted apart. That explains how the animals got to Australia.
The proof of that is that some animals are in Australia and nowhere else. So it works.
They have another theory that explains why there are no humans down with the trilobites. It doesn't explain the actual geologic column (why, for instance, there are no humans with the dinosaurs), but it explains what it sets out to explain.
If you have a fact that embarasses YECism, they'll add a new theory to their ever-growing catalog to explain your fact. It doesn't matter that none of their theories are consistent with each other or any fact except the specific fact they were invented to explain. I don't know why it doesn't ... but it doesn't.
I would say there are "mountains" of denials of the fact that there's little to no evidence for "missing links". In most fields,they reasonably presume that a lack of evidence means that something has not occurred but that goes out the window when it comes to "missing links".
If one has a random pile of human and ape/chimp skulls, an evolutions presumes that the skulls which would show a pattern of evolution are "missing" even though there's no other evidence for this than the evolutionist's own fit of fancy. That is what passes for evidence among many evolutionists.
The idea that a computer requires a maker but the universe did not is an utter denial of common sense and "mountains" of evidence. This why it takes more faith to be an evolutionist than to be a creationist (of any sort).
No, what I am saying is that it is impossible to figure out which one is the "ancestor" of the other because there's no evidence that there are "links" to connect humans to apes/chimps, except in the mind of evolutionists who seem to prefer to believe that their great-great-great-great-grandpappy was a chimp.
The existence of fossils is NOT evidence of evolution. That evolutionists interpret them that way is simply evidence of their own anti-G-d, anti-supernatural biases.
I have never met an atheist who believes in creationism or ID and I have never met an evolutionist who truly believes in G-d (at least the G-d in the Christian Bible) because anyone who could believe that G-d used evolution to make the world believes in a G-d that makes Allah/Islam look downright merciful.
'nuff said.
Pung is actually the diminutive of Kong.
An ensemble of statistical unpredictable individuals may have a statistically determinist behavior.
Chaotic systems and emergent phenomena are taken to be the sum result of a myriad of individually predictable actions.
Don't you mean "individually unpredictable actions"?
All taxonomy of animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, viri, (prions?), etc. are evolutionary based.
That's not been my reading of the debate -- and I have friends in the front lines.
Folks read the press coverage, fail to weed out the agenda of said press, and think they know the "facts." Strange... I'd expect more from a "professor." *wink*
But, then, according to you, we're all a bunch of unsophisticated hicks from the sticks...
Yes... that is what I said, isn't it? That has been the point from the beginning -- the one the press keeps forgetting to report. Strange how that happens, isn't it?
How curious. My evolutionary biology professor taught me in a seminar on evolution that I took as an undergrad taht there were such gaps. He's been on the opposing side of the Kansas Board, and yet even he admitted there were issues of discussion worth discussing. But, of course, he probably knows nothing compared to you.
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.