Posted on 10/18/2002 11:16:06 AM PDT by xsysmgr
No, public opinion has no place in science. The public ABSOLUTELY has a say in what is made a part of tax-funded educational curricula.
My two cents: Inquiry is not a threat to truth.
Who cares what madness they teach in their government schools?
I went to school some 40-50 years ago; I'm not sure I'd recognize much of it these days.
The DeWeese Report 2/2000 Tom DeWeese For those who have fought the battle to save education from the education establishment, and especially from the National Education Association (NEA), November 12, 1999, was an unexpected surprise. On that Friday evening, the ABC television program 20/20 aired an expose' of public education and its unqualified, yet protected, unionized teachers. Since its airing, the NEA has been screaming bloody murder over what it calls muck-raking journalism. Sometimes the truth hurts. The 20/20 report clearly showed that public schools have failed under a system of huge government bureaucracy and unionized teachers. Bad teachers protected by union contracts and union lawyers... 20/20 tried to recruit teachers to take a national teacher's test, but few would participate. Of the teachers who did, 15% did not know that Bill Clinton had been governor of Arkansas. Two thought Brazil was in Asia and five thought Shakespeare had written the story for the movie, "Shakespeare in Love."
The key word here being truth.
How could anyone oppose critical analysis? The problem, as I see it, is the tools these students would have to 'critically analyze' anything. Since these selfsame students are probably not taught the skills of 'critical thinking' they aren't capable of making any such analysis. This then just opens the door to 'its my opinion against yours' which is futile, as has been so well demonstrated here with supposed adults, let alone children.
A few other things caught my eye.
What they don't accept is macroevolution, or the transition from one species to the next - as in ape to man.
Typical mis-characterization of the theory.
Scientists in the "intelligent design" community don't advocate any particular religion, but they do believe that some higher intelligence - though not necessarily the God of the Bible - created life in all its forms.
I like this one. This leaves the door open for anything. Why I believe that little green men on Saturn took pieces of the Rings there and shot them to earth and each piece of the ring that landed here became a new species, (the rings are really made up of DNA, don't ya know). They are more intelligent than we are and that's why we have UFOs, they are checking up on their experiment!
On the other hand.
While the public may be clamoring for open-mindedness about evolution, scientists argue that public opinion has no place in science education.
This statement bothers me, as does,
"Science is not democracy," said professor Lawrence Lerner
These are dangerous viewpoints. If you don't have public review of science education then what happens when some group of scientists 'prove' that Jews are genetically inferior? Would there be any Jews left by the time anybody proves that they were mistaken?
And finally,
"There's an objective reality about science. If the Discovery Institute is really interested in convincing scientists that their reality is false, then they would be attending scientific meetings rather than selling their ideas in the marketplace of political ideas."
This gets back to the 'critical thinking' aspect of this debate. What is 'critical thinking' and has it been taught to these children as a prerequisite of the discussion? The idea here is that children would be able to 'conclude' something from 'critically analyzing' the evidence. This presupposes that children are taught logic in order to reach rational conclusions. This is the clearly not the case with a vast majority of adults, (as the comment on astrology demonstrates - Nearly every newspaper and magazine in this nation has an astrology page, despite the fact it is utterly irrational) so how could it be true for children?
So the cart is before the horse here. Children should be taught critical thinking skills before they are given subjects to critically analyze.
What this really brings into question is whether we should actually have public education sponsored by the government. Why should I pay taxes to educate the general populace when they aren't being educated, but taught opinions?
No, it's just that someone is finally noticing other than Michael Behe.
Thanks for the story. Reading Behe's book now. Of course he (as an evolutionist) is only so far saying things I have thought all along. Evolution can explain the differentiation of species, e.g. perhaps originally there was only two or three different kinds of deer which diverged. I think most Creationists would concede that. But a reptile never changed into a bird changed into a mammal. Likewise Darwin always avoided trying to explain the origin of actual *life* - he started a step later, once life was begun.
Another book I had skimmed at one time was _From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo_ by Harold Hill.
Exactly the point. And the unions are an incredible source of fleeced money, coerced manpower, and miscast votes for the liberal democrats and they will oppose any possible competition with the last ounce of their socialist breath. Kill it, kill it now!
Hiya PH! When I told you I wasn't a creationist, I suspected you didn't believe me. The above excerpt is an excellent description of my position in this never-ending dispute between evos and crevos. It's clearly not an observation from the creationist position. (So there! :^P) :^)
IMHO neither side has the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Reality continues to unfold, and there is still much for man to learn. To say the evolution issue has been dispositively "decided," therefore all further discussion is moot, is the complete antithesis of how Western science has proceeded in the past. Or so it seems to me.
Real advances in human knowledge and human progress, IMHO, require that we keep our minds open to the idea that we as humans do not know what God knows. FWIW.
Thanks so much A-G for the bump; and thanks to you, xsysmgr, for the marvelous post.
BB, you are always in my dreams! It's nice that we agree on something, like the above sentence. Of course, no one in the biology field would ever make such a statement, so you can relax. No point getting worked up over a position that no one has ever taken.
Very astute observation, VR. Can you imagine why that might be the case?
As far as "mainstream science" goes, I'd feel a whole lot happier right now if I had reason to believe that "mainstream science" was still operating as "mainstream science."
Sorry for the apparent redundancy. Just taking liberties with common English usage to make the point.
If it's any comfort, BB, I agree that the so-called "social sciences" are virtually all hogwash. But I can't believe you have issues with astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. (And, believe it or not, they're all consistent with evolution.)
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.