Posted on 12/17/2008 2:00:19 AM PST by CE2949BB
Professors routinely give advice to students but usually while their charges are still in school. Arthur Landy, a distinguished professor of molecular and cell biology and biochemistry at Brown University, recently decided, however, that he had to remind a former premed student of his that “without evolution, modern biology, including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn’t make sense.”
The sentiment was not original with Landy, of course. Thirty-six years ago geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, a major contributor to the foundations of modern evolutionary theory, famously told the readers of The American Biology Teacher that “nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution.” Back then, Dobzhansky was encouraging biology teachers to present evolution to their pupils in spite of religiously motivated opposition. Now, however, Landy was addressing Bobby Jindal—the governor of the state of Louisiana—on whose desk the latest antievolution bill, the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act, was sitting, awaiting his signature.
Remembering Jindal as a good student in his genetics class, Landy hoped that the governor would recall the scientific importance of evolution to biology and medicine. Joining Landy in his opposition to the bill were the American Institute of Biological Sciences, which warned that “Louisiana will undoubtedly be thrust into the national spotlight as a state that pursues politics over science and education,” and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which told Jindal that the law would “unleash an assault against scientific integrity.” Earlier, the National Association of Biology Teachers had urged the legislature to defeat the bill, pleading “that the state of Louisiana not allow its science curriculum to be weakened by encouraging the utilization of supplemental materials produced for the sole purpose of confusing students about the nature of science.”
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
Well I am sure that the governor will ‘save’ their jobs. /s
I kind of remember the original battle about science in the classroom was a plea for fairness, and for both sides to be available.
I s’pose the so-called scientists whose side is now the prevalent one aren’t too interested in that anymore.
Public schools are a joke anyway.
A front for an atheist organization. Yawn.
Eugenie Scott = discredited yahoo
and global warming pusher
The scientific professionals have forfeited their objective stand many times over and it's too late for them to garb themselves in SCIENCE.
If this is the degradation of 'science" then it has been accomplished by the willing hands of those charged w/ its protection, just as the entire education system in the US has been prostituted by professional educators for political ends.
The "we know better than you" line is over.
If you don't have the facts, argue for "fairness"
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. - Steve Rendall of FAIR
Nor should it. In an age of moral relativism w/ no absolutes a political perspective, unfortunately, must be a primary consideration.
Lord knows the conflicts of interest in academia are outrageous and for those people to pretend that their conclusions aren't motivated by self-interest is laughable.
Yup- their motto is “We can’t explain away the impossibilities of Macroevolution, so we’ll defend our Darwinian religion by attackign htose that don;’t drink our kool-aid, and dare to expose the ugly side of Macroevolution with scientific FACTS” Brilliant defense- ignore the FACTS and just spend all their time engaging in ad hominem attacks- Really undermines their credibility- Sad they can’t see htis though.
Sounds specious. How can one have the facts if they aren't allowed into the classroom? One cannot.
The fairness lies not in presentation but in validity. Creationism doesn’t bring much of anything to the table in terms of tertiary supporting evidence. Evolution makes sense so far with all presented evidence while creationism is a theory without any real evidence.
What do you mean by that? Makes sense to who?
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.