Posted on 08/04/2005 10:31:34 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
WASHINGTON - "President Bush, in advocating that the concept of 'intelligent design' be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America's schoolchildren at risk," says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. "Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses."
In comments to journalists on August 1, the President said that "both sides ought to be properly taught." "If he meant that intelligent design should be given equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's science classrooms, then he is undermining efforts to increase the understanding of science," Spilhaus said in a statement. "'Intelligent design' is not a scientific theory." Advocates of intelligent design believe that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory."
"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says. "The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis."
"Ideas that are based on faith, including 'intelligent design,' operate in a different sphere and should not be confused with science. Outside the sphere of their laboratories and science classrooms, scientists and students alike may believe what they choose about the origins of life, but inside that sphere, they are bound by the scientific method," Spilhaus said.
AGU is a scientific society, comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists. It publishes a dozen peer reviewed journal series and holds meetings at which current research is presented to the scientific community and the public.
Ping!
Like hell it does. By telling students there are different views about evolution it can only add to their education.
Yeah, schoolchildren are at risk if they learn evolution may not be true. All children left behind - lol.
It's a very good article and cuts straight to the heart of the matter, in my opinion.
There's no need to encroach on the rights of parents to teach their children whatever religious beliefs they desire by forcing children to hear one particular religious belief being taught as science in the classroom. Especially when, as the article correctly indicates, the particular religious belief has no basis in science at all anyway.
Only 43,000? Come back when you have some real numbers.
Ping. Get a load o' this.
Trouble is, if you don't believe in Intelligent Design, or at least acknowledge it's as valid as say, Relativity, then you've bought into the notion that the universe was created through CHANCE.
Natural selection, Evolution, Big Bang, whatever - you can't possibly be thinking clearly if you believe the universe was created and that we've arrived where we're at purely through random collisions of subatomic particles.
I have a theory: all land animals are descended from animals that lived in the sea millions of years ago. Let's test my theory! Ohhhhhhh, wait. We can't really test that can we? All we can do is theorize based on accumulated evidence. But we can't test it.
I guess Evolution can't qualify as a scientific theory. But some folks have a lot of faith in evolution. I guess people believe what they want, and if someone's Faith is centered on Evolution, I won't begrudge it.
There are different views about almost everything. Should we teach students in history class that some people don't think Napoleon Bonaparte ever existed, and others think Jesus Christ lived in the 11th century?
Darwin's theories are testable?
Really, I thought this was going to be a NY Times headline.
"Are you a scientist"
I think the real problem is the confusion between the "real" science of plate tectonics and the very choppy, and much debated human evolution chain.
More the ideas presented better the decision- what needs to be taught is moral judgement.
I don't think the President of the United States, or any agency of the Federal Government, has any business commenting on classroom content.
We don't allow the government to dictate the content of our newspapers, so why do we allow it to dictate the content in our classrooms?
I am unable to lay my finger on that section of the Constitution that gives the Federal Government any role whatsoever in influencing or attempting to determine education curricula.
Sure we can. We can compare the genomes of modern land and sea creatures. We can look for common ancestors, and then ask, from their morphology, whether they lived in the sea.
No, it doesn't require that.
Any scientific theory is subject to revision as technology and understanding progress.
Is there that much controversy about Napoleon as there is about evolution? Are the people so fervently divided and outspoken about Napoleon, hmmm?
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.