The Worst Jobs in Science No.3- Kansas Biology Teacher

Popular Science ^

[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."

[Borges]

Nothing is taught as flawless. Scientific knowledge is in constant flux open to any challenge or experimentation to disprove existing assertions. Creationism is neither provable nor falsifiable nor has it led to any other breakthroughs in any other fields. Hence...it's not science.

[Logophile]

Where is there "scientific evidence" of a CREATOR?

You have put your finger on the source of the controversy over evolution.

If by creator you mean God, there can be no scientific evidence for a creator. Natural science, by definition, excludes both teleological explanations and supernatural ones. It therefore cannot address questions related to God, either to prove or disprove his existence.

The problem is that some rabid secularists have tried to use the prestige of science to support an anti-religious agenda. They say, in essence, that because science does not prove the existence of God, that is proof that God does not exist. They can then reject traditional moral teachings based on religion.

Creationism is a reaction to this misuse of science. Unfortunately, it is also a misuse of science.

[Rudder]

Also believe or choose to ignore that there is evidence against evolution.

Gee, I'm not aware of that evidence. Please tell me what that evidence is.

[microgood]

And it's my constitutional right and duty as a Nebraskan to insult Kansans.

LOL..And mine as a Wyomingite to insult Nebraska. As they say in Wyoming, Wyoming blows and Nebraska sucks.

[Rudder]

They say, in essence, that because science does not prove the existence of God, that is proof that God does not exist.

Thankfully, those are few and far between and, furthermore, when they make such pronouncements they are going beyond the bounds of science

[Tamar1973]

What we don't like is people who believe that a gap in the fossil record is evidence for CS/ID.

Evolutionists have had over 150 years to find a "missing link" and everyone of them that I know of has been shot down. They also insists there are "gaps" in the fossil record, even though there's no real evidence for this either.

Evolutionists haven't found a fossil with their pre-conceived notions of a "missing link" yet they insist on the existence of such creatures. The belief in the existence of a "missing link" or many "missing links" in and of itself is based more on faith than observational science.

[Right Wing Professor]

LOL..And mine as a Wyomingite to insult Nebraska

It's always relief to learn there are actually people living in Wyoming. Sometimes when I'm driving across the state I get a sudden panicked feeling the entire human race has been replaced by sagebrush bushes.

[Erasmus]

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!

I call it the Zeno's Paradox of the Missing Link.

[Coyoteman]

Evolutionists have had over 150 years to find a "missing link" and everyone of them that I know of has been shot down.

Where in this sequence would you place the missing link? There really is a pretty good sequence here. It would be nice to have a few more good crania, but I don't think the overall picture is too far off.

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[Tamar1973]

Like the stretch creationists have to make in order to contradict the results of radiocarbon and other forms of radiometric dating?

There are all sorts of problems with most forms of radiocarbon and other forms of radiometric dating. The methods themselves are based on assumptions routed in evolution. Different asusmptions arrive at different results. For example, rocks and debris at Mt. St. Helens, which we know to be only 25 years old have been dated to be thousands and even millions of years old.

Dating Methods FAQ

What about carbon dating?

Dating in conflict Which ‘age’ will you trust?

The Radiometric Dating Game

[Dimensio]

The guy who believes evolution is the only science in the world?

PatrickHenry has never indicated such a belief. How can we take you seriously when you deliberately misstate the beliefs and views of others?

Then you got your people who act like evolution is the only science there is.

Who has said this? References to actual quotes please. Evolution is a very large field of study in the science of biology, but it's hardly the only science out there. There's also cosmology, quantum physics, chemistry, etc.

[Logophile]

Thankfully, those are few and far between and, furthermore, when they make such pronouncements they are going beyond the bounds of science

Well, you and I agree that anyone who says God does not exist is going beyond the limits of science.

However, you may be underestimating the number of people who will say such things. There are still millions of people who call themselves Marxists (or "scientific socialists") who take the official line that science disproves the existence of God. In American universities, it is common to hear religious belief equated with superstition. Even here on Free Republic, we have had lively arguments about whether a religious believer can be a scientist.

[Dimensio]

That would be factually incorrect, as there is a difference between micro and macro evolution.

What is the difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Please explain by providing an example of "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution and pointing out the distinctions.

If we find it impossible to fill those gaps, how can we prove evolution to be truth?

THEORIES IN SCIENCE ARE NEVER PROVEN

Without a record of Pluto's position yesterday, you can't prove whether it was in the predicted place or not.

Correct. Yet only a complete idiot would claim that a lack of such a record is a failing of existing equations for planetary motion.

Creationism has valid science backing, as does ID.

Please provide examples of the "scientific backing" for creationism and ID. Give specifics. Explain how a supernatural supposition such as creationism can be scientific when science by definition can only offer explainations completely constrained within the natural universe.

[Coyoteman]

Like the stretch creationists have to make in order to contradict the results of radiocarbon and other forms of radiometric dating?

There are all sorts of problems with most forms of radiocarbon and other forms of radiometric dating. The methods themselves are based on assumptions routed in evolution. Different asusmptions arrive at different results. For example, rocks and debris at Mt. St. Helens, which we know to be only 25 years old have been dated to be thousands and even millions of years old.

Dating Methods FAQ
What about carbon dating?
Dating in conflict Which ‘age’ will you trust?
The Radiometric Dating Game

I am familiar with radiocarbon dating and with those websites. I have reviewed them carefully and they are, collectively, nonsense. Every time I defend radiocarbon dating, someone on the other side pastes these links.

Here are a couple of links, all with a religious orientation, which you may find more educational:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

The American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

[Tamar1973]

Your interpretation of these skulls indicates a patter of "evolution" from ape to man. That is an assumption evolutions have imposed. I could just as easily assume, with equal merit, that those skulls are simply a mix of simian and human skulls and none of them are a "link" to something else.

I find it interesting you included Homo sapiens neanderthalensis in this list because until relatively recently, scientists didn't want to admit that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was acutally human at all.

Skull wars: new ‘Homo erectus’ skull in Ethiopia?

Is there really evidence that man descended from the apes?

After all, as one person opined in Discover magazine, 11(8):58, 1990, "Fossils are fickle. Bones will sing any song you want to hear."

[Tamar1973]

Please explain by providing an example of "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution and pointing out the distinctions.

Macroevolution is the "goo to you via the zoo." Microevolution is basically "natural selection".

[Coyoteman]

Your interpretation of these skulls indicates a patter of "evolution" from ape to man. That is an assumption evolutions have imposed. I could just as easily assume, with equal merit, that those skulls are simply a mix of simian and human skulls and none of them are a "link" to something else.

I find it interesting you included Homo sapiens neanderthalensis in this list because until relatively recently, scientists didn't want to admit that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was acutally human at all.

That was not my interpretation. Look at the caption; the photograph is clearly attributed to the Smithsonian Institution. You are not just arguing with me...

[WestVirginiaRebel]

These Creationist whackjobs won't be satisfied until we're all living back in the Dark Ages. I've already seen the Dark Ages; they're called Muslim societies. Thanks but no thanks.

[Constantine XIII]

I worry about how much hate some of our brothers and sisters have for anyone who disagrees with the flavor-of-the-moment Behe-style ID movement. It isn't good for the Christ's church, and it certainly doesn't help melt the hearts of folks who haven't come home yet.

[Constantine XIII]

Uh, what exactly do you think of the debate?