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.

[freedumb2003]

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.

*doh* I should know better. I please "morning posting."

Thanks for the clarification.

[js1138]

Of course, on FR, one cannot assume that the earth revolving around the sun is undisputed.

I have seen it disputed, and I have noticed that the creationist and ID posters seem to approve of teaching the controversy.

[DannyTN]

"he'll deepen his knowledge of genetics and be better able to cure disease."

I wouldn't mind as much evolution being a part of the supplementation for a medical degree or part of a genetics degree. But a degree in evolution? Sorry, that just seems like a waste of taxpayers money.

I'm not convinced that evolution adds anything to the study of genetics or medicine. In my opinion, evolution has done more harm than good in those fields. And it was afterall, the creationist, George Mendel, who discovered genetics.

[js1138]

Are scientific discoveries validated by the religion of their discoverer?

[Coyoteman]

...or fake skulls

You still babbling about fake skulls?

I have challenged you before to document your claims, but all I hear is silence. I must conclude you have no evidence to back your claims. But, lets try once more.

Is this skull fake? If so, how?

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

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

[johnnyb_61820]

What a bunch of wolf-cryers. Evolutionary biology want not a major in the list, but an ENTIRE CATEGORY (26.13)! I don't how that can be construed as "removing" evolutionary biology. And, even if you had an evolutionary biology major not in their list of 8 majors, they still had an "other" category WITHIN evolutionary biology to make sure that any evolutionary biology major counts.

Here are the relevant entries:

26.13 Ecology, Evolution, Systematics and Population Biology

26.1301 Ecology 26.1302 Marine Biology and Biological Oceanography
26.1304 Aquatic Biology/Limnology
26.1305 Environmental Biology
26.1306 Population Biology
26.1307 Conservation Biology
26.1308 Systematic Biology/Biological Systematics
26.1309 Epidemiology
26.1399 Ecology, Evolution, Systematics and Population Biology, Other

(emphasis mine)

[My2Cents]

That you apparently do not like those fields (or more likely, the results they produce), most likely for religious reasons, does not reduce their legitimacy.

If there was a shred of evidence that all that we see of life on earth came from a slime pit, your point would be well taken.

[My2Cents]

The modern myth

The 19th Century mystery religion.

[My2Cents]

Evolution appears to be the only "scientific theory" which drives the interpretation of evidence...where the evidence doesn't drive the theory. Researchers assume that macro evolution is a fact (based on what?), and then every little bone fragment they find must fit the theory.

[VictoryGal]

Evolution is back on the PDF. Probably hastened back on due to the news article's outcry.

[Constantine XIII]

Launching roflcopters, stand by...

[FreedomProtector]

"The 19th Century mystery religion."

very true....couple of quotes and my 2 cents :) below...

By the way, you have a very nice homepage, "My2Cents".


Thanks to the theory of evolution, naturalism is now the dominant religion of modern society… Although most of Darwin’s theories about the mechanisms of evolution were discarded long ago, the doctrine of evolution itself has managed to achieve the status of a fundamental article of faith in the popular modern mind. Naturalism has now replaced Christianity as the main religion of the Western World, and evolution has become naturalism’s principal dogma.
Evolutionists like to portray their system as a philosophy that stands in opposition to all faith-based world-views, pretending that it is scientifically and intellectually superior precisely because of its supposed non-religious character.
Not so. Religion is exactly the right word to describe naturalism. The entire philosophy is built on a faith-based premise. Its basic presupposition—a rejection of anything supernatural—requires a giant leap of faith. And nearly all of its supporting theories must be taken as well.




As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "Religion Without Revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:
“Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.” [Huxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and `Row, 1964) pp. 125, 222.]
Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern.” [Ibid., p 222.] Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."



All people have a religious worldview.
All people have presuppositions about ultimate reality.
No one is neutral.

Evolutionists start with the presupposition that evolution is “scientific fact”. This results in conclusions which are often times contradictory to the observed world. Evolutionists frequently refuse to come to rational conclusions, or even follow evidence where it leads on the basis that to do so would result in a contradiction of their previous metaphysical beliefs.



“Two loves have created these two cities, namely self-love to the extent of despising God, the earthly;
love of God to the extent of despising one’s self, the heavenly city. The former glories in itself, the latter in God. For the former seeks the glory of men while to the latter God as a testimony of the conscience is the greatest glory. The former lifts its head in self-glory, the latter says to its God: ‘Thou art my glory and the lifter of my head’….”

-Augustine, An Augustine Synthesis (arranged, Erich Przywara), “The City of God,” (Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith), p265.


“…because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even capable of doing so.”

Romans 8:7

Evolution is one of the central doctrines and provides the foundational basis for the religion Secular Humanism.

The Humanist Manifesto I states, “Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.”


Biologist Julian Huxley devoted most of his life to integrating evolution and the Humanist worldview. He states,
“I use the word ‘Humanist’ to mean someone who believes that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or a plant, that his body, his mind, and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution, and that he is not under the control or guidance of any supernatural Being or beings, but has to rely on himself and his own powers.”


Humanist Manifesto I:

We therefore affirm the following:
First: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
Second: Humanism believes that man is part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of continuous process

Humanist Manifesto II:

As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity……humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves…..human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces….

“Secular Humanism is even more openly religious than Marxism. The first Humanist Manifesto described the agenda of ‘religious’ Humanists. The 1980 preface to the Humanist Manifestoes I & II, written by Paul Kurtz, says, ‘Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.’ John Dewey, a signatory of the 1933 Manifesto, wrote A Common Faith, in which he said, ‘Here are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class or race. . . . It remains to make it explicit and militant.’

In Torcaso v. Watkins (June 19, 1961), the U.S. Supreme Court stated, ‘Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.’


"19th Century religion"

Man elevating himself to the place of God, and worshiping the created things rather then the Creator is nothing new to the 19th century...

It has going on for very long time, Darwinian evolution is merely the lastest flavor.....

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.

Rom 1:20,25

[js1138]

Evolution appears to be the only "scientific theory" which drives the interpretation of evidence...where the evidence doesn't drive the theory.

Then there's Einstein:

"The human mind has first to construct forms, independently, before we can find them in things."

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison."

[Dimensio]

Evolutionists start with the presupposition that evolution is “scientific fact”. This results in conclusions which are often times contradictory to the observed world. Evolutionists frequently refuse to come to rational conclusions, or even follow evidence where it leads on the basis that to do so would result in a contradiction of their previous metaphysical beliefs.

Please provide evidence to support these claims.

[GourmetDan]

"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."

The claim of being 'scientific' is merely an admission that acceptable answers are strictly limited to naturalistic methodologies.

"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.

If the very question you are trying to answer is natural vs supernatural creation, limiting your acceptable answers to only 'natural' ones would seem to be extremely willful ignorance in it's own right.

Don't expect the 'scientists' to recognize this anytime soon, though.

[freedumb2003]

The claim of being 'scientific' is merely an admission that acceptable answers are strictly limited to naturalistic methodologies.

Yup. Those are the only ones that fit. I leave supernaturalistic methodologies for philosophy and theology.

If the very question you are trying to answer is natural vs supernatural creation, limiting your acceptable answers to only 'natural' ones would seem to be extremely willful ignorance in it's own right.

If it can't meet the criteria it isn't science. To say that eschewing supernatural explanations is "willful ignorance" is an ignorant statement (no offense). Supernaturalism doesn't do anything for science since it is unusable.

Don't expect the 'scientists' to recognize this anytime soon, though

You can quote me at your next seance. But I have pinged Chugbrew to your statement. I am sure you two have lots of sophomore philosophy to cover.

[freedumb2003]

Evolution appears to be the only "scientific theory" which drives the interpretation of evidence...where the evidence doesn't drive the theory.

Appearance doesn't mean anyting. You are, of course, wrong. Once evidence is found that provides the framework for a different scientific theory, then that theory will be tendered.

Researchers assume that macro evolution is a fact (based on what?),

It is a theory that is based on the evidence.

and then every little bone fragment they find must fit the theory.

Please provide proof of a fossil or any other datum that pointed to anything other than TToE (do so and you will be rich beyond the dreams of averice).

[whispering out loud]

did you read the previous statement, or does the dementia prevent that?

[xzins]

It's not really a job-focused major.

I wish they'd not give federal tax money away, but if they're going to, I'd like them to give it for fields that produce a bachelor degree that a person can get a job with.

I appreciate history, but a history degree produces no job. (Now a teaching certificate to go with a history major does....the same with evolutionary biology.)

[PatrickHenry]

100