Posted on 07/05/2008 5:23:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
Celebrate the courage of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal in the fight for freedom. He has shown tremendous courage in signing the Louisiana Science Education Bill, an important blow for academic freedom.
"Our freedom to think and consider more than one option is part of what has given America her competitive edge in the international marketplace of ideas,” said biology scientist Caroline Crocker to the Louisiana House Committee on Education. "The current denial of academic freedom rights for those who are judged politically incorrect may put this in jeopardy.”
Crocker was testifying on the bill allowing supplemental materials into Louisiana public school science classrooms about evolution, cloning, global warming and other debatable topics. The legislature went on to unanimously (35-0) pass the bill. Now it has become law because of Gov. Jindal’s courage.
One would think legislation which allows an environment that promotes “critical thinking” and “objective discussion” in the classroom would please everyone -- it did the bipartisan group of legislators in Louisiana -- but such is not the case. The New York Times felt threatened by the legislation, calling it “retrograde,” naming its editorial on the topic, “Louisiana’s Latest Assault on Darwin.” They were attempting to pressure Gov. Jindal to not sign the law, using a number of tactics including implicit ridicule, subtle belittling insults and untruths.
The law is straightforward and clearly restricts any intent to promote a religious doctrine. There is no mention of either intelligent design or creationism. Darwinism is not banned and teachers are required to teach students from standard textbooks. But the Times calls the legislation a “Trojan horse” because the state board of education must, upon request of local school districts, help foster an environment of “critical thinking” and “open discussion” on controversial scientific subjects. This allows teachers to use supplemental materials to analyze evolution and show views other than Darwin’s theory. It allows evolution to be criticized, and the law protects the rights of teachers and students to talk freely about a wide range of ideas without fear of reprisal.
The Times’ fear is that objective discussion “would have the pernicious effect of implying that evolution is only weakly supported and that there are valid competing scientific theories when there are not.” They called any school district “foolish” if they “head down this path.”
Evolutionists use a variety of methods to silence alternate viewpoints. They say people are trying to “inject religious views into science courses.” Besides calling it a “retrograde step”, the Times used implicit ridicule of Governor Jindal, saying, “As a biology major at Brown University, Mr. Jindal must know that evolution is the unchallenged central organizing principle for modern biology.”
Many reputable scientists and scholars disagree with Darwin’s theory of evolution and certainly challenge it. Evolutionists say they don’t want biased religious views forced on students. Ironically, Darwin’s evolutionary theory is based is atheistic naturalism, a religious belief.
Dr. William Provine of Cornell University explained his and Darwin’s shared atheistic beliefs in this way: “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal -- directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.”
Scientist Casey Luskin, a scholar with the Discovery Institute said, "We would like to see evolution taught in an unbiased fashion and also want students to learn how to think like scientists and to weigh the evidence for and against."
Academic free speech rights for Louisiana’s public school students and teachers are now guaranteed because of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s signature. Trying to strike a modicum of balance to the scientific discussion in classrooms and allow students to hear more than one view, Gov. Jindal acted wisely.
Other states are considering similar legislation. Students deserve academic free speech rights to hear alternate views, ask critical questions and debate controversial topics. This freedom will in turn strengthen our country.
Many reputable scientists and scholars disagree with Darwin’s theory of evolution and certainly challenge it. Evolutionists say they don’t want biased religious views forced on students. Ironically, Darwin’s evolutionary theory is based is atheistic naturalism, a religious belief.
Dr. William Provine of Cornell University explained his and Darwin’s shared atheistic beliefs in this way: “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal -- directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.”
Scientist Casey Luskin, a scholar with the Discovery Institute said, "We would like to see evolution taught in an unbiased fashion and also want students to learn how to think like scientists and to weigh the evidence for and against."
Academic free speech rights for Louisiana’s public school students and teachers are now guaranteed because of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s signature. Trying to strike a modicum of balance to the scientific discussion in classrooms and allow students to hear more than one view, Gov. Jindal acted wisely.
Other states are considering similar legislation. Students deserve academic free speech rights to hear alternate views, ask critical questions and debate controversial topics. This freedom will in turn strengthen our country.
What a stupid argument. If your thesis cannot be proven consistently by different observers, then it’s trash.
The space for cretion gets smaller though doesn't it?
You’re talking about indirect evidence. Evolution is a theory about a PROCESS, not the current (testable/falsifiable) DNA in lizards today or fossils deposited in the past. As a process that hypothetically takes millions of years, unless humanity lives for a few more millions of years (and keeps a constant state or progress of civilization, observation, and records), or develops a time machine, one cannot observe the process happening. Do organisms mutate, adapt and change? Of course, no one denies that as it’s testable and falsifiable. But do they change for the better by progressively becoming more complex? In spite of thousands of studies on fruit flies, bacteria and the like, I know of no study that proves that...
This idea is not original to me. Dr. Norman Geisler, a respected conservative philosopher, brought this out: Since both creationist AND evolutionist hypotheses are about the distant and pre-historic past, which as the past is NOT subject to falsifiable experimentation and testing, theories need to be kept more humbly and without dogmatism. The fact is, neither you nor I KNOW what happened millions of years ago—since all we have is bones and layers of dirt—so are ideas are testable only in a most indirect way, and it’s sheer arrogance to profess that we do or even can know any pre-history for certain.
If legitimate historians argue about how Custer lost the Battle of Little Bighorn, a bit over a century ago, in an era of written records, and lots of forensic evidence and even eye witnesses, why do we have such overconfidence to describe events many million more times farther away?
To posit a bottom line that random processes made the Universe, and even more fantastically, that these made the scientifically proven unimaginable complexities of organic life, is, at its core a religious, albeit materialistic, faith. Even some great evolutionary scientists have acknowledged this problem (Jasper and the pan-spermia idea—which merely puts origins somewhere else, not solving the problem). Lacking that time machine, origin issues are, by their very nature religious issues, and scientific knowledge, like religious knowledge, but in different ways, is limited.
I simply don’t have enough faith to believe order “arose” from disorder, especially when a scientifically accepted law (and testable/falsifiable) on energy (2nd Law of Thermodymics) says just the opposite. Order arose from an Orderer...and is that religious? Yes, it is where religion and science meet, as there logically they must.
I agree with you. Religion does not belong in a science class. But I do believe that full discussion about evolution needs to be presented to students. The problems confronting the theory evolution need to be addressed, as well as evidence for evolution. Evolutionists do not want this kind of discussion presented to students in the study of evolutionary science.
That's the whole problem. In schools across the nation, evolution is presented as scientific fact. It is therefore, the schools that are teaching "evolution" wrongly.
Silly statement. No one is forced to believe any religious teaching (at least in a free society). I choose to believe in God, you don't.
As far as God speaking words in a vacuum, if there is a God then there never was a vacuum (not to mention that God transcends any scientific explanation). Of course, if you can prove to me there is no God, then I'll gladly eat my words.
That would depend on which question you're trying to answer.
Many believe the evidence proves the hypothesis. What would you require for it to be 'proven'?
Thus the need to open up discussion.
How far would you open it?
I can't speak for all but if I were asked that question then I would point to that hundreds of transitional fossils have been identified, most of which are listed here.
Certainly. I could think of several things that would destroy evolution. If you were to find a fossil of a homo sapien in with Brontosaurus, for example. Of if you found a fossile of a modern horse that is millions of years old. Both would refute evolution as we know it.
so why doesn’t the outcome of an experiment consistent with Lamarckian transmission of acquired characteristics ,and not conistent with Darwinian theory ,falsify Darwinism as the comprehensive explanation you purport it is?
The theory of evolution is being taught as a theory.
In science, a theory incorporates the following:
There is generally only one theory going in a particular field at a given time. There are often hypotheses being raised and studied and these are often incorrectly referred to as theories, using the layman's use of the term.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. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
The theory of evolution is taught not as a fact (although it certainly is; see the definition below), but as the best explanation for the observations that have been made. There are no competing theories. There are religious beliefs that run counter to the theory of evolution, but within science there are no competing theories.
But what creationists are really demanding is that their religious beliefs be accorded the status of scientific theories without going through the rigorous process to be accepted as a scientific theory. (Kind of like a special affirmative action program for religion, eh?)
So, given that the theory of evolution is the only theory covering its field, and there is only religious belief without scientific evidence or standing in opposition, its only appropriate to teach the theory of evolution in schools and religion in churches.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become recognized as a fact.
Here’s someone who agrees with you that academic freedom has constraints imposed by elite consensus:
“Writing to Houghton Mifflin Company, Hansen asks for changes in the textbook to reflect what he considers to be the truth and consensus:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/hansen-pressures-textbook-publisher/
Apparently, there is no room for debate in the classroom on these issues. Apparently also there is no uncertainty. Hansen also makes a mention of “so called activist scientists”. I think he proved the point about activist scientists quite well with this letter.”
That is an interesting question. It's like life begins, then almost nothing happens for billions of years. Then all of sudden, one day, the Cambrian explosion begins. Almost all phyla appears in a short span of geological time. Then its back to stasis. Now if it was the increase of oxygen (which scientists have theorized) that caused the explosion, then why aren't new phylum being created all the time?
It's like nothing happened, nothing happened, nothing happened. Then one day, "Surprise!". A big surprise party that lasts for a short time, then everyone goes home. Instead of the "theory of evolution", maybe it should be called the "theory of surprise parties". Only that these surprise parties happen only once every few billion years. (Oh, and BTW, when they do happen we'll give them a fancy name such as "punctuated equilibrium". Not that it really explains anything, but it sounds nice.)
First of all, evolution in not a fact, as you claim! It is only a possibility.
Secondly, it is being taught in many schools that there is absolutely no other explanation for our existence other than evolution. That is not teaching a theory. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should teach Creationism in science class. But as someone pointed out earlier, a theory is not fact.
So how about this? We start off teaching evolution by explaining just exactly how the first cell evolved. Remember though, it has to be more than just pointing out the components of a cell and how they function.
just checking
"My research comes from VERY old books and LOTS of beople believe it too. Shouldn't that be good enough?Belief does not equate truth.
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.