Posted on 10/28/2005 2:36:03 PM PDT by scientificbeliever
3. Kansas Biology Teacher On the front lines of science's devolution "The evolution debate is consuming almost everything we do," says Brad Williamson, a 30-year science veteran at suburban Olathe East High School and a past president of the National Association of Biology Teachers. "It's politicized the classroom. Parents will say their child can't be in class during any discussion of evolution, and students will say things like 'My grandfather wasn't a monkey!'"
First, a history lesson. In 1999 a group of religious fundamentalists won election to the Kansas State Board of Education and tried to introduce creationism into the state's classrooms. They wanted to delete references to radiocarbon dating, continental drift and the fossil record from the education standards. In 2001 more-temperate forces prevailed in elections, but the anti-evolutionists garnered a 6-4 majority again last November. This year Intelligent Design (ID) theory is their anti-evolution tool of choice.
At the heart of ID is the idea that certain elements of the natural world—the human eye, say—are "irreducibly complex" and have not and cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Therefore, IDers say, they must be the work of an intelligent designer (that is, God).
The problem for teachers is that ID can't be tested using the scientific method, the system of making, testing and retesting hypotheses that is the bedrock of science. That's because underpinning ID is religious belief. In science class, Williamson says, "students have to trust that I'm just dealing with science."
Alas, for Kansas's educational reputation, the damage may be done. "We've heard anecdotally that our students are getting much more scrutiny at places like medical schools. I get calls from teachers in other states who say things like 'You rubes!'" Williamson says. "But this is happening across the country. It's not just Kansas anymore."
(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...
The problem is that the evolutionists don't want to admit there are any weak points in the theory of evolution because if they admit there are any flaws in the theory, they would have little choice but to bring ID/creationism into the picture to explain the many weaknesses of the evolutionary theory.
Unfortunately, many evolutionists (not the ones here in FR land, of course) don't have the intellectual honesty to admit there are any flaws in the theory at all. They take evolution by faith, which is more faith than your average YEC has.
First, I am one of those dreaded "evolutionists." Actually I TA'd and taught the subject briefly 30+ years ago. So, it's not "them" we are talking about. "We" don't mind admitting gaps in the fossil record, for example. What we don't like is people who believe that a gap in the fossil record is evidence for CS/ID. That has the same logic as saying the moon rises in the northwest so peanuts have yellow shells.
And no, faith is not involved in evolution. Faith is involved in "belief" systems:
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true [implication--without supporting evidence].
There is a lot of evidence for evolution. A good summary is here: PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.
I'm not insulting all of them, I'm insulting the school board and the idiots who voted them in. And it's my constitutional right and duty as a Nebraskan to insult Kansans.
Evolution theory has no scientific challengers. Those who challenge it do not resort to science. Therefore a debate between science and non-science is foolhadry because the two sides use entirely different epistolmologies and also that science deliberately avoids topics dealing with the supernatural.
That's because few of you have any teeth left after you reach the age of 12. :-(b)
My grandfather wasn't a monkey ping.
Creationism and ID both have valid answers that evolution does not, such as the start of life, the universe, and everything. Not to mention the many flaws in evolution that should lead us to look for possibilities that can fill these evolutionary unfillable gaps.
"Evolution theory has no scientific challengers. Those who challenge it do not resort to science. Therefore a debate between science and non-science is foolhadry because the two sides use entirely different epistolmologies and also that science deliberately avoids topics dealing with the supernatural."
What does this have to do with what you quoted me on?
In science you can't just offer 'answers', you have to offer empirical evidence. And tautologies (the world couldn't be this way without a Creator) don't count.
Rotten cornhuskers. You know that you're nothing more than a roadblock for Northerners trying to get to the great land of Kansas, don't you? ;-)
It should occur now to you since I suggested it. If you're so confident in your opinion then act on it.
I prefer physicians who have had a thorough grounding in all the basic sciences, including biology.
BTW are you a physician? If not, how do "know" "it is not relevant?" I know, you played one on TV.
Ha!
I think you've just perverted the meaning of "valid."
Like the convoluted ideas they have for the recent formation of the Grand Canyon?
Their ideas about the Channeled Scablands of Washington State?
There is that, too. In fact, many of the things that supposedly help evolution could be looked at in a way as to be much stronger for ID than evolution. But as evolution is taight to be 'flawless,' we kill the inquisitve minds of our kids.
"Where is there "scientific evidence" of a CREATOR?"
Again I do NOT believe in creationism, but if someone posted a link to something I'd go and read it. I have a feeling you are just like the people on the other side of the debate, not willing to read or consider anything other than what you already believe.
The point is that ID and Creationism have no PHYSICAL SCIENTIFIC evidence to back up their claim of a "creator."
I speak as one who believes that even secular schools should include classes in theology and philosophy. Making up "science" to fit a metaphysical agenda, however, does not belong in any serious study of the hard sciences, however.
Ha!
What a brilliant answer! Thank you for taking the time to grace us with your impeccable wit! ::rolls eyes::
See post #77. There is a place for ID/Creationism in Metaphysics. My argument is that they belong in philosophy or theology class, not science class.
That reply was my way of saying..."No."
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.