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 ...
Next time you go to a physician make sure you pick one who disavows evolution.
Um...where was I wrong in what you quoted?
First of all, medicine is as much art as science. Very little of what a practicing physician does is affected one way or the other by the theory of evolution. Surgeons, for instance, learn their specialty by doing surgery, not by studying evolutionary biology.
Second, I am not convinced that a belief in Intelligent Design is necessarily a rejection of science. (Young-earth creationism is another matter—it is both bad science and bad theology.) Neither evolution nor ID are relevant to the physical sciences: a person could accept ID and still do excellent work in astronomy, chemistry, physics, or geology. Even in some biological fields, evolution is not a big issue.
Either you lie or you're just ignorant concerning evolution. I got news for you, it's being done daily all over the planet in laboratories and in the field. The evidence supporting evolution would literlly overwhelm you. Ask PatrickHenry for a list.
Yes they are. If I remember correctly, it goes hypothesis, theory and ends as fact. A theory is something that can be tested and confirmed, but not 100% conclusive. Theories can also be tested and be proven wrong any day.
That is what I remember. It's been 30 years.
Facts are data: the size of the moon, the hardness of a rock, age of a fossil, the fact that change occurs through time.
Evolution is a theory. A theory is used to organize data. Heinlein said it well:
Look again at the definition of a theory that I posted above:Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
In addition to being a fact (things change over time), evolution is an explanation of how things change over time. The theory of evolution has withstood 150 years of challenges, including by fields of investigation--genetics and radiometric dating, for example--that did not exist when the theory was proposed. Every fossil that is found, and every DNA sequence that is decoded constitutes a test of the theory of evolution. It has passed all test to date.
And every time they find a new intermediate fossil, that opens up two new gaps in the fossil record on either side. They think they're gathering evidence, but they're only undermining their own case! Fools!
The problem is that the evolutionists don't want to admit there are any weak points in the theory of evolution because if they admit there are any flaws in the theory, they would have little choice but to bring ID/creationism into the picture to explain the many weaknesses of the evolutionary theory.
Unfortunately, many evolutionists (not the ones here in FR land, of course) don't have the intellectual honesty to admit there are any flaws in the theory at all. They take evolution by faith, which is more faith than your average YEC has.
Uh, have you ever set foot in a science class? We studied evolution and its applications in my high school science class, in the context of the scientific method.
Truly, drive 100 miles south of here in Lincoln, NE, and you're back in the early 19th century.
I went to a religious high school and grade school, and they taught evolution, thank God.
It would never occur to me to ask whether my physician believes in evolution. It is not relevant. If I need a surgeon, I care only about how well he does surgery. I do not care about how he votes, what church he attends (if any), what hobbies he pursues, or what he thinks about the origin of species.
"Ask PatrickHenry for a list."
The guy who believes evolution is the only science in the world?
Both extremes on this debate are absurd. On one you got the people who call anyone who believes in evolution "an atheist," "an agnostic" or "someone who doesn't like God." Also the people who believe that evolution has no evidence or choose to ignore it.
Then you got your people who act like evolution is the only science there is. Also believe or choose to ignore that there is evidence against evolution.
Is this debate every going to evolve?
There are lots of different branches of Science. But ID isn't one of them
I doubt you've read the standards. They didn't open the classroom to possibilities of problems; they invented problems that don't exist.
"Perhaps you've missed this, but the Kansas school board has been taken over by fundamentalists, who've added scientifically nonsensical content to the biology curriculum, to make it conform with the addled theories of the Discovery Institute. It's so bad, in fact, that the National Academy of Sciences has refused to let Kansas use any of it's copyrighted material to draw up their new standards.
Truly, drive 100 miles south of here in Lincoln, NE, and you're back in the early 19th century."
Oh this is nice. Insult the entire region and pretend like you know more than most of them.
That would be factually incorrect, as there is a difference between micro and macro evolution.
2: The holes in the fossil record present no difficulty for the theory of evolution
If we find it impossible to fill those gaps, how can we prove evolution to be truth? Without a record of Pluto's position yesterday, you can't prove whether it was in the predicted place or not.
But if we'd like to practice and teach our kids sloppy "science," evolution as fact is certainly the way to go.
Sure you can. Produce a scientific theory to counter evolutionary theory, and have at it. So far, though, no such theories are in evidence.
You are either in denial, or just being close-minded. Creationism has valid science backing, as does ID. You just don't want to see it, so you close your eyes and go "nuh-uh." Most people get over that before they leave elementary school.
ID, however, is not science.
Actually, if you check the facts, that's not true. Kansas, for example, claims there are problems with molecular evolution that actually don't exist.
Where is there "scientific evidence" of a CREATOR?
(Crickets chirping)
Oh, he probably doesn't expect us to be insulted. Us darn hick Kansans can't even pronounce his big ol' words.
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.