Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]
Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

Posted on 07/09/2003 12:08:32 PM PDT by PatrickHenry

FORT WORTH, Texas - (KRT) -
The long-running debate over the origins of mankind continues Wednesday before the Texas State Board of Education, and the result could change the way science is taught here and across the nation.

Local and out-of-state lobbying groups will try to convince the board that the next generation of biology books should contain new scientific evidence that reportedly pokes holes in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Many of those groups say that they are not pushing to place a divine creator back into science books, but to show that Darwin's theory is far from a perfect explanation of the origin of mankind.

"It has become a battle ground," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of theNational Center of Science Education, which is dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the classroom.

Almost 45 scientists, educators and special interest groups from across the state will testify at the state's first public hearing this year on the next generation of textbooks for the courses of biology, family and career studies and English as a Second Language.

Approved textbooks will be available for classrooms for the 2004-05 school year. And because Texas is the second largest textbook buyer in the nation, the outcome could affect education nationwide.

The Texas Freedom Network and a handful of educators held a conference call last week to warn that conservative Christians and special interest organizations will try to twist textbook content to further their own views.

"We are seeing the wave of the future of religious right's attack on basic scientific principles," said Samantha Smoot, executive director of the network, an anti-censorship group and opponent of the radical right.

Those named by the network disagree with the claim, including the Discovery Institute and its Science and Culture Center of Seattle.

"Instead of wasting time looking at motivations, we wish people would look at the facts," said John West, associate director of the center.

"Our goal nationally is to encourage schools and educators to include more about evolution, including controversies about various parts of Darwinian theory that exists between even evolutionary scientists," West said. "We are a secular think tank."

The institute also is perhaps the nation's leading proponent of intelligent design - the idea that life is too complex to have occurred without the help of an unknown, intelligent being.

It pushed this view through grants to teachers and scientists, including Michael J. Behe, professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. The Institute receives millions of dollars from philanthropists and foundations dedicated to discrediting Darwin's theory.

The center sent the state board a 55-page report that graded 11 high school biology textbooks submitted for adoption. None earned a grade above a C minus. The report also includes four arguments it says show that evolutionary theory is not as solid as presented in biology textbooks.

Discovery Institute Fellow Raymond Bohlin, who also is executive director of Probe Ministries, based in Richardson, Texas, will deliver that message in person Wednesday before the State Board of Education. Bohlin has a doctorate degree in molecular cell biology from the University of Texas at Dallas.

"If we can simply allow students to see that evolution is not an established fact, that leaves freedom for students to pursue other ideas," Bohlin said. "All I can do is continue to point these things out and hopefully get a group that hears and sees relevant data and insist on some changes."

The executive director of Texas Citizens for Science, Steven Schafersman, calls the institute's information "pseudoscience nonsense." Schafersman is an evolutionary scientist who, for more than two decades, taught biology, geology, paleontology and environmental science at a number of universities, including the University of Houston and the University of Texas of the Permian Basin.

"It sounds plausible to people who are not scientifically informed," Schafersman said. "But they are fraudulently trying to deceive board members. They might succeed, but it will be over the public protests of scientists."

The last time Texas looked at biology books, in 1997, the State Board of Education considered replacing them all with new ones that did not mention evolution. The board voted down the proposal by a slim margin.

The state requires that evolution be in textbooks. But arguments against evolution have been successful over the last decade in other states. Alabama, New Mexico and Nebraska made changes that, to varying degrees, challenge the pre-eminence of evolution in the scientific curriculum.

In 1999, the Kansas Board of Education voted to wash the concepts of evolution from the state's science curricula. A new state board has since put evolution back in. Last year, the Cobb County school board in Georgia voted to include creationism in science classes.

Texas education requirements demand that textbooks include arguments for and against evolution, said Neal Frey, an analyst working with perhaps Texas' most famous textbook reviewers, Mel and Norma Gabler.

The Gablers, of Longview, have been reviewing Texas textbooks for almost four decades. They describe themselves as conservative Christians. Some of their priorities include making sure textbooks include scientific flaws in arguments for evolution.

"None of the texts truly conform to the state's requirements that the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories be presented to students," Frey said.

The Texas textbook proclamation of 2001, which is part of the standard for the state's curriculum, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, requires that biology textbooks instruct students so they may "analyze, review and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weakness using scientific evidence and information."

The state board is empowered to reject books only for factual errors or for not meeting the state's curriculum requirements. If speakers convince the state board that their evidence is scientifically sound, members may see little choice but to demand its presence in schoolbooks.

Proposed books already have been reviewed and approved by Texas Tech University. After a public hearing Wednesday and another Sept. 10, the state board is scheduled to adopt the new textbooks in November.

Satisfying the state board is only half the battle for textbook publishers. Individual school districts choose which books to use and are reimbursed by the state unless they buy texts rejected by the state board.

Districts can opt not to use books with passages they find objectionable. So when speakers at the public hearings criticize what they perceived as flaws in various books - such as failing to portray the United States or Christianity in a positive light - many publishers listen.

New books will be distributed next summer.

State Board member Terri Leo said the Discovery Institute works with esteemed scientists and that their evidence should be heard.

"You cannot teach students how to think if you don't present both sides of a scientific issue," Leo said. "Wouldn't you think that the body that has the responsibility of what's in the classroom would look at all scientific arguments?"

State board member Bob Craig said he had heard of the Intelligent Design theory.

"I'm going in with an open mind about everybody's presentation," Craig said. "I need to hear their presentation before I make any decisions or comments.

State board member Mary Helen Berlanga said she wanted to hear from local scientists.

"If we are going to discuss scientific information in the textbooks, the discussion will have to remain scientific," Berlanga said. "I'd like to hear from some of our scientists in the field on the subject."


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 4,351-4,387 next last

1 posted on 07/09/2003 12:08:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
2 posted on 07/09/2003 12:09:24 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Local and out-of-state lobbying groups will try to convince the board that the next generation of biology books should contain new scientific evidence that reportedly pokes holes in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

I agree. If there is scientific evidence that creates problems for the Theory of Evolution, I'd like to hear it. I won't hold my breath waiting for someone to present what amounts to genuine scientific (as opposed to pseudoscientific or nonscientific or, as is most common, non-sequitur) evidence, though.
3 posted on 07/09/2003 12:11:14 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Many of those groups say that they are not pushing to place a divine creator back into science books, but to show that Darwin's theory is far from a perfect explanation of the origin of mankind.

What a bunch of liars. "Liars for Christ", I call 'em.

4 posted on 07/09/2003 12:11:41 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
We're On A Mission From God
Help us make our 3rd quarter fundraising goal in record time!

5 posted on 07/09/2003 12:13:39 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
INTREP
6 posted on 07/09/2003 12:14:09 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I noticed this in the article:
The institute [Discovery Institute] also is perhaps the nation's leading proponent of intelligent design - the idea that life is too complex to have occurred without the help of an unknown, intelligent being.

It pushed this view through grants to teachers and scientists, including Michael J. Behe, professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. The Institute receives millions of dollars from philanthropists and foundations dedicated to discrediting Darwin's theory.


7 posted on 07/09/2003 12:17:41 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
controversies about various parts of Darwinian theory that exists between even evolutionary scientists,"

There is disagreement on specifics, no doubt about that at all. But the number who question the basic idea are going the way of the dodo bird. Perhaps those who question the basic idea of evolution have a political agenda, and if so, they ought to be upfront about it because right now they simply appear to be irrational.

8 posted on 07/09/2003 12:22:53 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I don't understand the attitude around here that crevo threads add nothing to the purpose of this forum. This article is a case in point. Creationism is a religious/political movement which threatens to marginalize the conservative movement and is thus fair game for any political discussion.

That said, I am officially declaring certain posters herein (or soon to be herein) on my "virtual ignore" list. You know who you are; my not answering you has nothing to do with the accuracy of your arguments but rather with my desire to avoid flame wars which will can never result in any good.

9 posted on 07/09/2003 12:25:00 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
But don't forget that communists like the theory of evolution because it supports laze-faire capitalism   supports Nazism   supports Marxism   supports whatever you want it to support.
10 posted on 07/09/2003 12:26:23 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Local and out-of-state lobbying groups will try to convince the board that the next generation of biology books should contain new scientific evidence that reportedly pokes holes in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

They need to try keeping up.

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is as obsolete as "Newton's theory of Gravity".
Today science has moved on to much more precise theorums, Punctuated Equilibrium Evolution and General Relativity.

So9

11 posted on 07/09/2003 12:27:04 PM PDT by Servant of the Nine (Real Texicans; we're grizzled, we're grumpy and we're armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The Texas Freedom Network and a handful of educators held a conference call last week to warn that conservative Christians and special interest organizations will try to twist textbook content to further their own views.

Only liberals and other evolutionists are allowed to do that!

12 posted on 07/09/2003 12:27:24 PM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
communists like the theory of evolution

Nobody doesn't like Sarah Lee.

13 posted on 07/09/2003 12:27:39 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
You must, one day, explain your codes. Curiosity is killing me...
14 posted on 07/09/2003 12:27:48 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Perhaps those who question the basic idea of evolution have a political agenda, and if so, they ought to be upfront about it because right now they simply appear to be irrational.

Perhaps those who refuse to question the basic idea of evolution have a political agenda, and if so, they ought to be upfront about it because right now they simply appear to be irrational

15 posted on 07/09/2003 12:29:07 PM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Junior
You must, one day, explain your codes.

He did a couple weeks ago. Just some kind of quasi-military jargon for bookmarks of an already awesome and still growing database.

16 posted on 07/09/2003 12:29:53 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All
A very few links from the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. From Scientific American
Project Steve (if you think scientists are abandoning evolution)
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis.

The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 21].

17 posted on 07/09/2003 12:30:05 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Alabama, New Mexico and Nebraska made changes that, to varying degrees, challenge the pre-eminence of evolution in the scientific curriculum.

This is untrue, at least as regards Nebraska. The Board of Education voted 5-3 last year to uphold evolution-only science teaching.

State science standards:

12.4.3  By the end of twelfth grade, students will develop an understanding of the theory of biological evolution.

Example Indicators


18 posted on 07/09/2003 12:32:44 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
Creato-rationalism serves no purpose. Many scientists would find their work impossible without a working hypothesis, and as a practical matter find creato-rationalism to be nonfunctional.
19 posted on 07/09/2003 12:34:38 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Support Free Republic
We're On A Mission From God

Oh dear. Wrong fundraising slogan for a crevo thread!

20 posted on 07/09/2003 12:34:44 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; RadioAstronomer
In other words: NGO!

This is a motive to put a wedge and break apart the strength of the conservatives.

Our targets are our symbols of strength, richness, and our power. That comes from our science and technology. If this is compromised, we will fall like the towers.

Everyone should have faith. This keeps us morally above the animal. But if we lose our science, we lose one of our strengths.
21 posted on 07/09/2003 12:34:45 PM PDT by Calpernia (Remember the three R's: Respect for self; Respect for others; Responsibility for all your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
"Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is as obsolete as "Newton's theory of Gravity".

That's not a bad analogy. Newton's equations are still quite adequate for NASA to launch satellites and steer probes to other planets. The algorithms for computing transfer orbits do not need to factor in relativity.

But at the fine level, relativity provides more precision, especially when dealing with extremes of velocity or gravity.

In a similar way, Darwin's primary hypothesis of variation and selection is still completely valid, but has been refined over the decades, and further refined by molecular biology.

22 posted on 07/09/2003 12:35:15 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; PhiKapMom; TLBSHOW; I_Love_My_Husband; MHGinTN
Ping
23 posted on 07/09/2003 12:37:46 PM PDT by Calpernia (Remember the three R's: Respect for self; Respect for others; Responsibility for all your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
This is a motive to put a wedge and break apart the strength of the conservatives.

Good point. I'm surprised the Dems haven't tried to use evolution as a wedge issue. There was a Garry Trudeau cartoon needling GWB's reported belief in creationism a while back, but it never went very far. I can only suppose it's because a high fraction of their voters are also creationists.

24 posted on 07/09/2003 12:38:32 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: js1138
In a similar way, Darwin's primary hypothesis of variation and selection is still completely valid, but has been refined over the decades, and further refined by molecular biology.

And the parts of evolution that creationists are usually busy attacking are the parts that have been recognized by scientists as inadequate for 75 years and long ago updated.

So9

25 posted on 07/09/2003 12:40:04 PM PDT by Servant of the Nine (Real Texicans; we're grizzled, we're grumpy and we're armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Creato-rationalism serves no purpose. Many scientists would find their work impossible without a working hypothesis, and as a practical matter find creato-rationalism to be nonfunctional.

I rechecked my post. It didn't even mention "creationism." I simply implied that anyone who refuses to question his own hypotheses is a fool and sucks as a scientist!!!

You are the one who implies that you cannot allow yourself to question evolution because you guess that there is only one other option and you are afraid of it! Great scientific method you've rediscovered! It was previously used for most of the Dark Ages!

26 posted on 07/09/2003 12:43:51 PM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
And the parts of evolution that creationists are usually busy attacking are the parts that have been recognized by scientists as inadequate for 75 years and long ago updated.

Actually, this is often used as a point of attack by creationists. Science, they say, is so inadequate that it must constantly revise itself to account for newly discovered data. Religion, on the other hand, remains the same no matter how much it is shown to be completely contrary to reality.
27 posted on 07/09/2003 12:44:46 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I don't understand the attitude around here that crevo threads add nothing to the purpose of this forum. This article is a case in point. Creationism is a religious/political movement which threatens to marginalize the conservative movement and is thus fair game for any political discussion.

I agree. If one political party becomes tagged with the label of supporting pseudo-science, it becomes discredited. Liberals have already got half the country convinced that "socialism is the intelligent position," and that's why idiots out in Hollywood run around spouting leftisms -- so they'll be thought of as more than just a pretty face. We have our work cut out just convincing people of the truism that conservatism is the intelligent position. We don't need the millstone of "scientific creationism" to be dragging us down.

That said, I am officially declaring certain posters herein (or soon to be herein) on my "virtual ignore" list.

Right. Visitors to this thread should be aware that a small cadre of anti-science (and especially anti-evolution) people have perfected the practice of trolling for insults, so that when their provocative posts are answered, they can then complain of "abusive" behavior. They do this in the hope of having our threads pulled. Such people are a detriment to this website, and to the conservative cause. Everyone is therefore urged to NEVER respond to such posters. It can be difficult, because they are skilled at inciting flame wars; but it is only in this way that we can maintain a high standard of civil discourse, and preserve Jim Robinson's excellent forum as a place where conservatives can gather.

28 posted on 07/09/2003 12:44:47 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
And the parts of evolution that creationists are usually busy attacking are the parts that have been recognized by scientists as inadequate for 75 years and long ago updated.

There is a preponderance on these threads of quotes from prior to 1980, and I would guess that 75% of all anti-evolution quotes date back to before 1925. I wonder how atomic energy woud fare if its science was judged by 1925 standards.

29 posted on 07/09/2003 12:45:50 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
I simply implied that anyone who refuses to question his own hypotheses is a fool and sucks as a scientist!!!

Empiricists work without hypotheses.

30 posted on 07/09/2003 12:48:34 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
You are the one who implies that you cannot allow yourself to question evolution because you guess that there is only one other option and you are afraid of it! Great scientific method you've rediscovered! It was previously used for most of the Dark Ages!

Perhaps rather that deal in generalities, you would care to mention some specific case that is not being addressed by modern biology and geology and paleontology, perhaps some specific error that has gone uncorrected by the science community.

31 posted on 07/09/2003 12:48:50 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Junior
See here for the mystery of LiteKeeper: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/941809/posts?page=9#9
32 posted on 07/09/2003 12:50:00 PM PDT by Calpernia (Remember the three R's: Respect for self; Respect for others; Responsibility for all your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Empiricists work without hypotheses.

Fine. That is very different from having hypotheses and refusing to question them.

33 posted on 07/09/2003 12:50:38 PM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
So when this thread gets an INTREP, that means we're intelligent, right?
34 posted on 07/09/2003 12:53:10 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: js1138
75% of all anti-evolution quotes date back to before 1925

That particular phylum had nearly disappeared from the evolutionary tree by then. What we see now is a new efflorescence growing out of a different base, a new verticil with the partial spectrum of things that crawl, swim, and fly. It remains to be seen if this efflorescence will develop fully or if it will an abbreviated branch.

35 posted on 07/09/2003 12:54:24 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
Many thanks. How's Caesar doing? Still getting those stabbing pains, is he? (Just showing off my classical training...)
36 posted on 07/09/2003 12:55:30 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Perhaps rather that deal in generalities, you would care to mention some specific case...

No...I am perfectly comfortable dealing in generalities.

37 posted on 07/09/2003 12:55:45 PM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Right. Visitors to this thread should be aware that a small cadre of anti-science (and especially anti-evolution) people have perfected the practice of trolling for insults, so that when their provocative posts are answered, they can then complain of "abusive" behavior. They do this in the hope of having our threads pulled. Such people are a detriment to this website, and to the conservative cause.

Another one of your pathetic lies. You guys press the abuse button regularly and have admitted as much. Creationists have no desire to have the threads pulled. The "monkey" business exhibited by the evolutionists does their cause more harm than good. Let the entire public observe!

38 posted on 07/09/2003 12:55:45 PM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I found this interesting...

""Our goal nationally is to encourage schools and educators to include more about evolution, including controversies about various parts of Darwinian theory that exists between even evolutionary scientists," West said. "We are a secular think tank." "

A secular think tank?

Who so they think they are fooling?

And various parts of Darwinian Theory, where? what the devil is he talking about.

I would love to see the scientific evidence that questions the theory, how about the SPECIFICS of the theory.

The general theory is sound, and has NO one in the scientific community fighting anyone else.

Not only do they lie, then they generalize, and expand it into something that it most definitely is not.

39 posted on 07/09/2003 12:56:12 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: js1138
yes
40 posted on 07/09/2003 12:56:27 PM PDT by Calpernia (Remember the three R's: Respect for self; Respect for others; Responsibility for all your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I'm impressed. Many assume my nickname is from Kill a Mockingbird.
41 posted on 07/09/2003 12:57:22 PM PDT by Calpernia (Remember the three R's: Respect for self; Respect for others; Responsibility for all your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
Various parts of evolution are constantly being questioned and tested for. How do you think all those biologists meet their "publish or perish" quotas? No theory ever simply stands still; once it's put on paper, every researcher and his brother in that particular field will begin to play with it -- it is, after all, simply a tool.
42 posted on 07/09/2003 12:58:07 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Empiricists work without hypotheses.

Interesting. I would assume that folks collecting data are working within a framework and guided by a hypothesis. I suspect that most researchers are guided by a rather narrow hypothesis and could certainly perform their duties without having an opinion about something as overarching as evolution.

But not having an opinion about the controlling paradigm of their profession would preclude them from noticing something new and exciting.

43 posted on 07/09/2003 12:58:30 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: All
Troll detected. Troll deflected. Resume normal operations.
44 posted on 07/09/2003 12:59:05 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
And so it begins.
45 posted on 07/09/2003 1:00:24 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
"Liars for Christ" is a good one.

After watching the evolution vs. creationism debate played out many times over the years, it appears to me that the sole factor that tips the balance is the percentage of fundamentalists that are in on the decision-making process.

I don't think very many school board members are coming to the table without already having an opinion on the matter.

I haven't labored in the trenches as long as some on this thread have, but it's crystal clear to me that the vast majority of creationists are fundamentalist literalists who believe that the fossil record is due to one of the following:

1. Put here by the Devil to fool mankind; OR
2. Put here by God to test mankind; OR
3. Can be explained entirely by the Noachian flood.

Of evolutionists, I believe that the majority believe in theistic creation, that is, that God created the universe in a way that can be explained by scientific methods, and a minority are agnostics or atheists.

In the Red Zone, creationists outnumber evolutionists. In the Blue Zone, evolutionists outnumber creationists.

The "swing votes" are theistic evolutionists who are persuaded by the "arguments" of Intelligent Design, namely, that some things are too complicated to be explained by present day scientific knowledge and therefor MUST NOT have happened by chance and therefore are ipso facto evidence of Intelligent Design.

These tend to be the same type of people who subscribe to Biblical Archeology and are fascinated by attempts to prove that biblical events actually happened.

In other words, they want science AND the Bible to be compatible, and don't question the fallacious arguments advanced on behalf of Intelligent Design.

46 posted on 07/09/2003 1:03:24 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
That's right. She was the maid, right? I read that book (twice) in High School, but that was more than 20 years ago.
47 posted on 07/09/2003 1:03:29 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: js1138
folks collecting data are working within a framework and guided by a hypothesis.

That's one kind of empiricist. The other works without hypothesis and is deservedly shunned by the first.

48 posted on 07/09/2003 1:04:51 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Amazing. If, as the trolls proclaim, they are innocent of all misconduct and we are the ones trying desperately to get these threads pulled, then ... why do we bother to create these threads in the first place?

Again, I urge everyone to ignore the trolls. Let's have a thread that Jim Robinson will be proud of.

49 posted on 07/09/2003 1:05:10 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
A good science textbook should present, in a fashion that schoolchildren can comprehend, the current principals and theories of the scientific establishment, period. Parents who wish to teach their children that the Bible has a different explanation are free to do so. Parents insisting that their children be entirely ignorant of actual science are free to place their children in schools that teach no real science. Once we have school choice, that will be a fiscally-neutral move, but, for now, that may cost 'em.

Anything else, regardless of the motivation, is simply a recipe for further devestating the state of American science and technology education, where there are fewer native-born B.S.'s every year, and where 50% or more of graduate students are imported from abroad.

And those of you who complain about H1Bs and outsourcing -- do you think that the elite prep schools and engineering colleges in India devote much time to life-giving breath of Vishnu or whatever else the Hindu theory of creation might be?
50 posted on 07/09/2003 1:05:41 PM PDT by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 4,351-4,387 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson