Posted on 08/23/2006 11:09:23 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"hmmm well cloning, climate, aids research, global warming, population, lets see I'm sure theres more.
Those are political movements not scientific studies."
Cloning is a political movement? better tell that to Dolly the sheep.
"Science has become a religion in this country. Don't dare to question the "findings" or you will be branded a heretic.
No, just willfully ignorant or perhaps stupid."
See and the attacks begin because I don't accept "science" as this pure and without sin field.
OK, so is it science or a fake? You list it as a fake.
See and the attacks begin because I don't accept "science" as this pure and without sin field.
Is there an alternative? Philosophy is fun but it won't make your computer work.
"OK, so is it science or a fake? You list it as a fake."
No I listed those disciplines as examples where scientists are not following your supposed scientific process. In those fields scientists have commited fraud, are committing fraud, or are twisting their findings to support a predetermined agenda. How many scientific "studies" do we hear about that surprisingly support the cause of the people who paid for the study?
"Is there an alternative? Philosophy is fun but it won't make your computer work."
Science is fine, but scientists are just people and as such are no better or no worse than anyone else. And just like other people they rarely admit to their biases. If you don't buy their "results" hook line and sinker then you are branded as a heretic, "willfully ignorant", or "just plain stupid".
As I said, they are politics. You have yet to provide evidence of TToE practitioners doing anything less than following the letter of true scientific methods.
Science is fine, but scientists are just people and as such are no better or no worse than anyone else. And just like other people they rarely admit to their biases. If you don't buy their "results" hook line and sinker then you are branded as a heretic, "willfully ignorant", or "just plain stupid".
Well at least you get to to choose, since you provide no proof of an alternative.
Science is fine, but scientists are just people and as such are no better or no worse than anyone else. And just like other people they rarely admit to their biases. If you don't buy their "results" hook line and sinker then you are branded as a heretic, "willfully ignorant", or "just plain stupid".
This is why scientists don't publish nonsense in peer reviewed journals. You've inadvertently, blindly, and likely with continuing befuddlement, stumbled on why science has a really great track record.
"As I said, they are politics. You have yet to provide evidence of TToE practitioners doing anything less than following the letter of true scientific methods."
You're evading. Cloning, climatology, population studies are all fields which have scientists studying things. Sure there are politics involved and that makes my point. Thank you
"This is why scientists don't publish nonsense in peer reviewed journals. You've inadvertently, blindly, and likely with continuing befuddlement, stumbled on why science has a really great track record."
Once again with the insults. Is that scientific as well? Now we understand why certain scientists were jailed 500 years ago for their new scientific ideas.
Time to abandon thread.
Once again with the insults. Is that scientific as well? Now we understand why certain scientists were jailed 500 years ago for their new scientific ideas.
First, where's the insult? Did you take offense at the 'continuing befuddlement' phrase. If so, sorry, but I've been following the thread and I've concluded you don't understand the scientific process. Second, why the 'again' comment?
In any case, you are not addressing the point of my post, which is that the process requires scientists to submit their data, hypothesis, and conclusions to peer review, and the track record of this process has been outstanding and without precedent successful in human history.
Most likely a wise course. I'll probably do the same.
Your replies are what constitute sophomoric musing (if they even rise to such a level). You've not supplied any form of scientific hypothesis to determine the distinction between natural and supernatural, but assert the distinction as necessary to science. You've also failed to give a single reason why intelligent design should be considered supernatural when you continually and "naturally" employ the same.
LOLOL! You're killing me here. Fester! A "scientific hypothesis to determine the distinction between natural and supernatural!" ROTFLMAO! You're killing me!
Have (yet) another beer on me.
Me, too (abandoning)
But it was funny before it degenerated.
You're the one who has the pure handle on "what is science." If figured at least you'd be able scientifically to define its terms. The only thing forthcoming has been acerbic ridicule.
Time once again to follow your lead cheerleader and abandon thread. You know: quit while you're behind.
Some of them (the proper term is paleontologists) recently used the Theory of Evolution to determine what to look for in an amphibian-like fish transitional, and also where to look for it. They found Tiktaalik.
There's some shots that'll cure that.
As opposed to a degree in Biblical or Koranic studies.
Who digs up all those neat fossils? Who analyzes and publishes on the finds? Who does the museum exhibits?
Well, you've rightly compared an evolution degree with a religious one.
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.