Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List

New York Times ^ | August 24, 2006 | Cornelia Dean

[balch3]

Evolutionary biology has vanished from the list of acceptable fields of study for recipients of a federal education grant for low-income college students.

The omission is inadvertent, said Katherine McLane, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, which administers the grants. “There is no explanation for it being left off the list,” Ms. McLane said. “It has always been an eligible major.”

Another spokeswoman, Samara Yudof, said evolutionary biology would be restored to the list, but as of last night it was still missing.

If a major is not on the list, students in that major cannot get grants unless they declare another major, said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Mr. Nassirian said students seeking the grants went first to their college registrar, who determined whether they were full-time students majoring in an eligible field.

“If a field is missing, that student would not even get into the process,” he said.

That the omission occurred at all is worrying scientists concerned about threats to the teaching of evolution.

One of them, Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University, said he learned about it from someone at the Department of Education, who got in touch with him after his essay on the necessity of teaching evolution appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 15. Dr. Krauss would not name his source, who he said was concerned about being publicly identified as having drawn attention to the matter.

[Fester Chugabrew]

And I knew you could not seriously contest the statement.

[editor-surveyor]

About time these propagandists had their funding cut off.

'Evolutionary Biology' is not science, nor is it biology. It's the manipulation of terms and data of the legitimate science of biology for the presentation of opinions as evidence. An intelligent person should be able to sort it out, but if they are predisposed to accepting evolution, they use this propaganda as a crutch.

[editor-surveyor]

"I said the Theory of Gravity -- not the experience of Gravity. You need to learn what a scientific theory is before you can really participate in this discussion."

Amusing, but quite nonsensical.

FP pointed out that we all are aware of the existance of gravity, thus need no theory to know that it is fact. Evolution, on the other hand, has yet to present us with a single piece of palpable evidence that fails to better support all other competing ideas.

"Please see PH's links for more information about this subject."

Please don't waste your time; nothing in PH's links amounts to anything more than opinions, and rationalizations, combined in such a way as to create very deceptive Propaganda.

[freedumb2003]

Amusing, but quite nonsensical.

Not if you understand science. I suggest that you return to the Religion threads where you are involved in discussions where you know the subject matter.

You are making a fool of yourself here and I have come to like you too mch to allow you to do this.

[freedumb2003]

And I knew you could not seriously contest the statement.

Philsiophical musings can't be contested. They have no value to science (or anything else important), but they can't be contested.

[editor-surveyor]

Evolutionists have their own private definition of 'science' that ignores the open, objective search for real knowledge that has been the heart of real science for millenia. I assume that that is the source of your confusion.

[Liberal Classic]

No, you're incorrect on both counts. Evolutionary theory is foundational to our modern understanding of biology and the ommission seems to have been a typographical error.

[Coyoteman]

Evolution, on the other hand, has yet to present us with a single piece of palpable evidence that fails to better support all other competing ideas.

Really? Here is some good evidence for evolution.

Where does creation theory place this transitional fossil. (Note its position in the chart which follows; hint--in the upper center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[freedumb2003]

Evolutionists have their own private definition of 'science' that ignores the open, objective search for real knowledge that has been the heart of real science for millenia.

The one we post is the one accepted in all real sciences. Please provide a link from a Hard Scence source that contradicts the one we work from.

The fact you don't know it or understand it is your problem.

[highlander_UW]

It's odd that about the only use for a degree is evolution is to propagate it's teaching. How many people work as "evolutionists"?

[freedumb2003]

How many people work as "evolutionists"?

I got my degree in Business Administration. Does that mean I should have gone on to be a "business administrator?"

A degree in Evolution has applicability across a broad spectrum of Life Sciences.

[editor-surveyor]

No, not evidence, but opinion.

Nothing about those skulls offers a shred of proof of evolution. Your subjective grouping of them is without basis, outside of the intense desire to promote evolution.

[Coyoteman]

No, not evidence, but opinion.

Nothing about those skulls offers a shred of proof of evolution. Your subjective grouping of them is without basis, outside of the intense desire to promote evolution.

Those are two casts of the same skull.

You are so blinded by your hatred of evolution you didn't even look at them enough to notice!

I suggest your opinions on evolution are without foundation or merit.

[highlander_UW]

I got my degree in Business Administration. Does that mean I should have gone on to be a "business administrator?"

It means you COULD have gone into business managment. Rather you do so is up to you (and potential employers).

A degree in Evolution has applicability across a broad spectrum of Life Sciences.

The science portion of the degree is applicable to life sciences...the evolution portion only functions in the promotion of evolution. Heck, even basket weaving majors can at least make a basket. The only thing an evolution major can do is work as an adviser on a dinosaur movie telling them they know for a fact what sounds some dinosaur made.

[driftdiver]

"A degree in Evolution has applicability across a broad spectrum of Life Sciences."

Perhaps it has applicability if the jobs pertains to propaganda. Otherwise what does it really prepare you to do any more than a liberal arts degree? Both of which qualify people to be janitors and copy boys in most companies.

[freedumb2003]

Perhaps it has applicability if the jobs pertains to propaganda.

Statement like that are the reason America is losing or has lost its leadesrhip position in the Bio and Life sciences.

TToE is at basis for all research (including Genetics) in the Life Sciences.

Anyone in the Life sciences who doesn't understand TToE is a craftsman and/or practitioner only. They can never be a researcher on the leading edge of anything.

And even those practitioners will be operating by rote without understanding the underlying principles of what they are doing.

[freedumb2003]

Nothing about those skulls offers a shred of proof of evolution. Your subjective grouping of them is without basis, outside of the intense desire to promote evolution.

You know sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nya nya nya nya" isn't generally recognized as argumentation.

You have to support your positions. "I don't believe you" is what third graders use.

[driftdiver]

"Statement like that are the reason America is losing or has lost its leadesrhip position in the Bio and Life sciences."

Nonsense, IMO the major factors in America losing its leadership position are two factors 1) Foreigners are frequently accepted over Americans, and 2) the liberals in charge of most universities are more interested in pushing their socialist agenda than science.

"TToE is at basis for all research (including Genetics) in the Life Sciences."

See my answer above.

"Anyone in the Life sciences who doesn't understand TToE is a craftsman and/or practitioner only. They can never be a researcher on the leading edge of anything."

Again, see my answer above. A scientist should have an open mind and not limit their thinking to the party line.

[driftdiver]

"Now, whose interpretation of the Bible is 100% true?...I mean, whenever I read the threads on the religion forum here at FR, there is constant disagreement on what various passages actually mean"

Thats disagreement over individual understanding not interpretation. And since the anti-christians can't even agree on the meaning of "is" I don't think Christians are behind the curve here.

[driftdiver]

"You know sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nya nya nya nya" isn't generally recognized as argumentation."

Wasn't there a prominent evolutionary scientist who was recently found out to have lied about his findings for many skeletons and bone fragments? He lied about where his findings took place and also falsified things such as the carbon dating of the bones.

I'll need to reseach and see if I can find his name.