Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List

New York Times ^ | August 24, 2006 | Cornelia Dean

[balch3]

Evolutionary biology has vanished from the list of acceptable fields of study for recipients of a federal education grant for low-income college students.

The omission is inadvertent, said Katherine McLane, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, which administers the grants. “There is no explanation for it being left off the list,” Ms. McLane said. “It has always been an eligible major.”

Another spokeswoman, Samara Yudof, said evolutionary biology would be restored to the list, but as of last night it was still missing.

If a major is not on the list, students in that major cannot get grants unless they declare another major, said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Mr. Nassirian said students seeking the grants went first to their college registrar, who determined whether they were full-time students majoring in an eligible field.

“If a field is missing, that student would not even get into the process,” he said.

That the omission occurred at all is worrying scientists concerned about threats to the teaching of evolution.

One of them, Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University, said he learned about it from someone at the Department of Education, who got in touch with him after his essay on the necessity of teaching evolution appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 15. Dr. Krauss would not name his source, who he said was concerned about being publicly identified as having drawn attention to the matter.

[ReignOfError]

We need to go after the Bohrists now, who thrive on federal subsidy by claiming to do research on such wacko theories as electrons spinning around the nucleus. /sarc off

And then the Copernicists, the Newtonists, and the Pasteurists.

[DannyTN]

Of all the disciplines that a low income student needs supplementation for, evolution has got to be the bottom of the list.

Teach a man to fish and you feed him forever.
Teach a man to think he evolved from apes and ....?

• he'll act like one?
• he'll spend his time trying to convert you to his belief?
• he'll vote for rats (with a few frevo exceptions)?
• he'll need even more subsidies so he can travel the world to digs?
• he'll interpret everything he sees in evolutionary terms?

[whispering out loud]

When you post scripture on a Crevo thread as an argument, you lose the thread. I propose calling this "Godloses' Law"

Problem with this law? .... God never loses. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. he always wins.

[whispering out loud]

hmmmm Was no one else taught gratitude when they we're growing up? I'm tired of this sense of entitlement sweeping the nation today. It's not enough that they qualified for the grant in the first place, but now they want to make demands on what the grants should cover. What ever happened to thank you for what you have done, no, now it's "I know you've given me tens of thousands of dollars, but that's just not gonna do it for me."

We live in the greatest nation in the world where we are free to believe what we want. If you want to believe in evolution please feel free, but don't try to force the government into forcing the spread of your belief. If you feel so strongly about it, why doesn't the evolutionary community take this burden upon themselves. But we are entitled to nothing, if we receive a government grant, that's more than we had when we started. Be thankful and shut up about it.

[wireman]

Pass me that venomous serpent please!

[Dimensio]

Problem with this law? .... God never loses. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. he always wins.

As God has posted neither on this or any other Freerepublic discussion, I do not see how your statement is relevant.

[Dimensio]

What is interesting about a story stating that a clercial error -- soon to be corrected -- has removed a subject from a list?

[razzle]

I liked your explanation to the darwinists. Wow, these types come out in Force whenever anyone questions their religion don't they. They are as fanatical as the mad mullahs, forcing their illogical, unscientific beliefs down everyone's throats. God help us if they ever get some believable evidence (rather than the phony embryo drawings, totally random RNA results or fake skulls).

[FreedomProtector]

Thank you...blessings on your head....: )

Blessings are on the head of the righteous. Prov 10:6a

[PatrickHenry]

freedumb2003: When you post scripture on a Crevo thread as an argument, you lose the thread.

Virginia-American: I propose calling this "Godloses' Law"

It's not losing. You can't lose if you're not in the game. Scripture-quoting certainly has its place; but it's so irrelevant to a science discussion that it's really a declaration by the scripture-quoter that he's not entering the debate at all.

[SmoothTalker]

I tend to agree with you that that is an appropriate avenue for federal spending. One thing that really worries me is losing our scientific supremacy. I look at major universities and the graduate science programs and I see more Chinese and Indian kids than Americans. It worries me that such a high percentage of the young scientists we are training are not Americans. Some will stick around surely but many won't and these people will help narrow the gap between us and other countries and may eventually lead to us losing our scientific supremacy.

[GourmetDan]

Just the vast, right-wing conspiracy in action.

[freedumb2003]

I liked your explanation to the darwinists.

Most people are embarrased by showing their ignorance in public.

Wow, these types come out in Force whenever anyone questions their religion don't they.

Yes, like those who have the "religion" of physics, the "religion" of chemistry, the "religion" of astronomy, etc.

They are as fanatical as the mad mullahs, forcing their illogical, unscientific beliefs down everyone's throats. God help us if they ever get some believable evidence (rather than the phony embryo drawings, totally random RNA results or fake skulls).

TToE is science. It meets all the criteria and has the support of millions of scientist around the world. Please prove any of the supporting evidence for TToE is fake.

We who understand TToE fight against willful ignorance. Only in America do we dumb ourselves down and then try to pat ourselves on the back for it.

[freedumb2003]

In conclusion, the distinction is in the complexity of the idea, and certainly not a measure of uncertainty as is sometimes misconstrued by laypeople.

I am sorry, but you are not quite right. A Scientific Theory attempts to explain phenomena. Laws are data points within the framework of a theory.

[VictoryGal]

Teach a man to fish and you feed him forever. Teach a man to think he evolved from apes and ....?

• he'll act like one?
• he'll spend his time trying to convert you to his belief?
• he'll vote for rats (with a few frevo exceptions)?
• he'll need even more subsidies so he can travel the world to digs?
• he'll interpret everything he sees in evolutionary terms?

Well, if I wanted to manipulate the facts based on how I feared they might be used, I'd be a Dimocrat.

But here's some more outcomes to your scenario.

• he'll deepen his knowledge of genetics and be better able to cure disease.
• he'll be more awed by the complex mechanisms God has built to accomplish his plan for us.

A knife can be used to murder or to save a man's life in the jungle. Neither outcome is the fault or credit of the knife, but he who wields it.

[freedumb2003]

I tend to agree with you that that is an appropriate avenue for federal spending. One thing that really worries me is losing our scientific supremacy.

Anti-science fundamentalism is doing everything within its power to ensure we do lose that position.

You have only to look at these threads to see willful ignorance in action. Sadly, many of these people have children and are preaching their ignorance to those unfortunate kids.

[js1138]

Facts are data points (or broad undisputed statements, such as the earth revolves around the sun). Laws are (generally mathematical) statements of relationships among data points, such as Newton's laws. Theories are, as you say, explanatations.