What does this mean regarding our standing in the global community?
Posted on 07/10/2006 12:22:16 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
Education
Creationism taught by design
CREATIONISM is finding its way into university lecture halls, raising concerns with some academics that the biblical story of creation will be given equal weight to Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Compulsory lectures in intelligent design and creationism are going to be included in second-year courses for zoology and genetics undergraduates at Leeds University, The Times Higher Education Supplement (June 23) reveals.
But there’s a twist: lecturers will present the controversial theories as being incompatible with scientific evidence. “It is essential they (students) understand the historical context and the flaws in the arguments these groups put forward,” says Michael McPherson, of Leeds University.
Despite the clear anti- creationist stance of these lecturers, the move has set warning bells ringing across the UK science community.
“It would be undesirable for universities to spend a lot of precious resources teaching students that creationism and intelligent design are not based on scientific evidence,” says David Read, the vice- president of the Royal Society.
Yet other academics are keen to see evolutionary theory challenged in university lecture halls.
“The scientific establishment prevents dissenting views,” says Professor Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick. “I have a lot of respect for those who have true scientific credentials and are upfront about their views.”
Students, though, seem open to creationism. One study, carried out by Professor Roger Downie, of the University of Glasgow, found that one science student in ten did not believe in evolution.
“This gives a very poor prognosis for their understanding of what science is and their ability to be scientists,” Prof Downie says.
I think he is referring to a ranch in Texas where human/dino footprints were found in a creek bed by a church group. The site is closed to paleontologists. That's sufficient for me to know something fishy is going on.
Just an FYI ping.
Personally, I think it's a good thing to spend a few credit hours going over some of the nonsense future scientists will come across in their professional careers, especially the stuff that spills out of biology and into other disciplines.
The material is too thin for an entire course. The course should be something like the philosophy of science, with emphasis on the scientific method, and various assaults it has endured. At least one course in logic should be a prerequisite.
It might make an interesting, optional 1 credit hour course. And you are right. A good study of the philosophy of science and in logic early in a scientist's academic career would be most constructive. Alas, most science departments are crammed full of core courses for thier respective majors that it is difficult to squeeze in other, non-science elective courses, let alone what you propose. And then adding a particular university's graduation required social studies courses related to affermative action or gender studies just makes it worse.
Paley's Revenge!
Actually, these threads always give us a good chuckle.
I am, in fact, chuckling as we speak.
Science isn't flawed?
At one time science DID take into account what was once considered *supernatural* and it found that there were *natural* explanations for those things, like disease. Who knows what we might be missing discovering simply because some scientists are uncomfortable with anything that does not fit in their narrowly defined, restricted world. The problem is that by categorising things into *natural* and *supernatural*, science is shortchanging the world. It is not very open minded to refuse to examine anything that conflicts with your belief system.
Why the emphasis on Biblical *literalism*? It seems that that is the only way scientists can discredit faith; by placing it in a rigid framework that allows for no other interpretation. If *literalism* weren't in these discussions, there would be much more agreement with science than many here would be comfortable with. I guess we can't have anything from the Bible being given any credibility, because then someone might be forced to consider that other aspects of Scripture might also be true.
I don't expect you to believe it, but here is a real live transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
You finally got something right.
The term projection comes to mind.
Let me ask you: How do you think reproduction of the earliest organisms "evolved" when there was no earlier biology? Or do you think life and Earth are eternal?
Both sides have the same physical evidence. The presuppositions of the "interpreter" of the physical evidence is what is in question.
The dumbing down of America continues.
Why do you keep saying that when you know it is not true? You have been busted time and time again running that same line of crud and it ain't sticking.
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.