Posted on 08/25/2006 9:19:40 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
Rep. Waxman asks for details regarding the exclusion of evolutionary biology, a core component of the biological sciences, from the eligibility rules for the Department of Education's new "National Smart Grant" program.
Rep. Waxman's letter is reproduced below:
August 24, 2006
The Honorable Margaret Spellings Secretary Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20202
Dear Madam Secretary:
I am writing to express concern about the exclusion of "evolutionary biology," a core component of the biological sciences, from the eligibility rules for the new federal "National Smart Grant" program. According to a recent account in the Chronicle of Higher Education, the list of college majors for which students may be eligible to receive the Smart Grants has only a blank line where the listing for evolutionary biology would be expected to appear.
I recognize that certain political constituencies oppose the teaching of evolution. But it is not the Department's job to pander to the anti-science movement. Federal Smart Grants must be awarded based on the educational and scientific merits of fields of study, not political considerations or creationist beliefs.
In a report in today's New York Times, a spokesperson for the Department of Education said that the omission was inadvertent. But independent observers questioned the accuracy of this assertion. Regardless, the omission of evolutionary biology has not yet been corrected.
The Smart Grant Program
The new National Smart Grant program, designed to award grants to college students in the fields of science and mathematics, was proposed by the Administration in the President's Fiscal Year 2006 budget and enacted by Congress as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
The program marks the first time that Congress has directed the Department of Education to create eligibility requirements for a federal grant program based on the subject studied. On May 2, 2006, the Department of Education announced these requirements, including a list of fields of study that the "Secretary [of Education] has designated ... as eligible."
The list of eligible fields of study mirrors the set of science majors that are included in the classification system developed by the National Center for Educational Statistics for tracking educational trends. Of the 81 fields of study in the "Biological and Biomedical Sciences," the Smart Grant eligibility list omits only two: "Evolutionary Biology" and "Exercise Physiology." In each case, the line where the field of study should have appeared was left blank. And in each case, no explanation is provided for the omission.
Evolutionary Biology
The field of evolutionary biology studies changes of populations and species of living organisms. It draws from a number of biological disciplines such as genetics, molecular biology, physiology, ecology, paleontology, and it helps unify these fields into one theoretical framework. As such, evolutionary biology is considered by many the "cornerstone" of modern biology. The field has many applications, such as an understanding of the evolution of disease strains and mounting a vaccine response.
President Bush's science advisor, Dr. John Marburger, has acknowledged the importance of the field on multiple occasions. When asked during a university symposium about the President's position on the teaching of evolution, Dr. Marburger stated that "Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. Period. What else can you say than that?" Similarly, in an interview with the Society for Neuroscience, Dr. Marburger stated that "Evolution ... is an appropriate, indeed an essential, component of a modern science curriculum."
In contrast, President Bush has wavered on the value of teaching evolution. While campaigning for president in 2000, he stated his belief that "children ought to be exposed to different theories about how the world started." More recently on August 1, 2005, President Bush was asked about his position on the teaching of intelligent design, a non-scientific view on the creation of life. He stated that "both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about." President Bush also specified that "part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought" and "whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas ... the answer is yes."
This position is contradicted by a consensus of major scientific and educational organizations including the National Science Teachers Association and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science. The National Academy of Science has found that "[c]reationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." Dr. Marburger similarly agrees, having stated that "'intelligent design' is not a scientific theory." He went on to say that he does not "regard 'intelligent design' as a scientific topic."
Questions
Despite the importance of evolutionary biology and its countless contributions to the advancement of science, medicine, and technology, an anti-science movement in states and school districts across the county has attempted to remove evolutionary biology from science curricula and replace it with nonscientific views of the origin of life.
Supporting strong and independent scientific study in the face of such nonscientific attacks should be a top priority of the federal government. The exclusion of evolutionary biology undermines the very goal of the Smart Grant program: promoting the advancement of science. I request that the list of eligible majors be corrected to include evolutionary biology immediately, and that steps be taken to remedy any inappropriate denials of grants that may have occurred because of the omission.
I request a further explanation of how and why evolutionary biology was excluded from the list of fields of study. I request copies of any communications (1) between the Department and private organizations or individuals or (2) within the Department or other parts of the federal government that relate to the preparation of the list of eligible fields of study or the exclusion of evolutionary biology from that list.
I request a response by September 1, 2006.
Sincerely, Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member
What the heck did Henry Waxman evolve from? Looking at his ugly mug will convince anyone of the truth of evolution.
Nope. Chimera. Human/Porcine.
In a most strange confluence of events, I find myself agreeing with Henry "Nostrilitis" Waxman - for the first time ever.
Waxman looks like he was hit with a 2X4 while his face was still setting.
Icky.
I wish some conservatives would get more sense. I hate agreeing with the Ratman.
He looks like that thing from Pinky and the Brain.
Good line.
Makes sense to me. Smart people don't believe in evolution; why should there be such a thing as a government "smart grant" for it?
I agree-this is where I part ways with the Right. Evolution and Creationism can be easily reconciled. Im taking BIO101 right now, and I wonder why people cant look at the miracle of life and how its created, maintained, and even evolved and NOT see God's hand? The sheer complexities of some metabolic processes could only come from Spirtual guidance and mediation..Donning asbestos now..
A lot of conservative evolutionists frequently scratch their heads at their strange allies. The ACLU, Democrats, DUmmies, lefties, etc. AND their enemies. (President Bush, Bill Frist, David Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter...you know, moderates such as these.)
Some smart people believe in evolution. Nobody's perfect.
LOL
Actually now that I'm looking at the pic, he looks like a little of BOTH of them.
"What the heck did Henry Waxman evolve from? Looking at his ugly mug will convince anyone of the truth of evolution."
If one used strict evolutionist theory one would deduce that his ancestors lived in very thin air.
A lot of folks who reject knowledge and presume to know the mind of their creator frequently find themselves without allies.
Except God, the "intelligent designer", who may have created evolution.
Whoever told you that lied to you. And you believed it!
Remembering lower division courses I was taught that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" as a fact. Coelacanths were extinct and evidence of evolutionary changes. Of course now we know that was incorrect because we have the technology to totally refute it and we have thousands of coelacanths living in their normal habitat just as they apparently did years before. We also know that the peppered moths issue was faked as well. Be careful you don't reconcile too many fraudulent claims. It wasn't God's hand pinning those dead insects on the trees for photographs. Healthy skepticism is simply that HEALTHY!
Waxman is one guy in need of an evolutionary mulligan.
My God man. Think of what you are saying. If he is the missing link we would somehow be related to him.
I think Waxman is a biological error that somehow survived.
Don't believe all you read on those creationist websites. They will lie to you. See the following refutations of creationist claims regarding the "dead insects" (there are hundreds of other refutations at the same site--so many that they have had to be numbered!):
Sorry, its easy for me to understand, and Im a 39 year old college student! SOMEONE set the whole process of life in motion. It is my belief that God planned it all. Interesting you bring up the moths, though. Im looking at a picture of them now. Something about moths changing color because their habitat was near a factory that put a lot of soot in the air....
Yep, it's those backward science-hating fundamentalists and their theocratic political campaign against, um... exercise physiology.
Looks like the extreme makeover didn't take.
If he is correct, I would not be surprised.
Creationists include in their harem Bush.
Where did you get that? Proof?
No, Dave, those are not our "allies". Those are the people who love you to death for handing them the issue on a silver platter, about which party is the party of science and reason and rational thinking. Those are the people who love you undyingly, for allowing them to claim the mantle of reason while simultaneously allowing them to paint conservatives as uneducated superstitious troglodytes.
We are the ones warning you not to let that happen.
You are their ally, whether you mean to be or not.
The real fight, behind the scenes, is this:
Control freaks gather crowds. Crowds of folks that do not want to think for themselves.
They rely on a book to tell the crowd what they should do and not do.
Now, am I talking about the Taliban? Of course I am. Follow the Koran.
Or am I talking about another book?
Certain "Experts" tell the sheep what the book means. Koran.
Or maybe not.
"The Smart Grant eligibility list omits only two: 'Evolutionary Biology' and 'Exercise Physiology.'"
I can understand this administrations motives for omitting the evolutionary biology item, but why the exercise physiology. Isn't the government lamenting the obesity epidemic, and isn't exercise very important in countering obesity? So what is the reasoning? Don't exercise, get fat, die sooner, don't collect Social Security, and get to see God that much sooner?
Interesting articles refuting anti evoluiton claims.
I liked a cartoon I saw recently. Man goes to doctor for a flu shot. Doctor asks, "Do you believe in evolution?" Man asks, "Why does that matter?" Doctor replies "Because if you believe in evolution I will give you the latest flu vaccine. If you don't believe in evolution, I can't help you."
Of course there are those who argue that evolution works for single cell organisms and viruses, but not for large animals. This is, of course, ridiculous since each of us is just a large collection of assorted individual cells, which have been busy evolving for a long, long time.
Ah, Henry Waxman. The only congresscritter with his very own emoticon:
:8)
"If one used strict evolutionist theory one would deduce that his ancestors lived in very thin air."
Seems to me that Waxman continues to live in an oxygen deprived state.
And, the sad thing is that, like DU, this entire thread will be about how ugly he is....rather than a discussion of his comments.
Some freepers just need to grow up...they're embarassing to thinking people.
Darwinian evolution is itself an unscientific theory and should be presented just like all other "unscientific" theories. However, there isn't enough evidence to elevate
it to the level of a scientific college major.
He came from Area 51 -- the one that got away.
Pig-face?
It's verbatim from Waxman's press release, but with the footnotes omitted. From the committee Web site: http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20060824142444-62753.pdf
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2005/db051218.gif
Not sure about the rules for embedding images ...
False.
The only folks on these threads who espouse such a view are coming from a religious, not a scientific, background.
Scientists determine what is a scientific discipline. It is not a decision which those who have only a religious, not a scientific, background are qualified to make.
(I have actually studied this field in college--six years of grad school--and I can assure you, it is scientific. There is a lot of evidence for the theory of evolution. Would you like me to post some?)
ROTFL! All I know is he is somehow related to Karl Marx! :-)
He could star in a remake of The Elephant Man and save them that expensive makeup budget. No wonder he's a flaming socialist, you would be too if you had that mug! The guy just radiates contempt.
I think we went through this before on another thread: I can
cite many valid examples disproving the theory, but let's do it another day.
Are any of them working scientists? Lets take a look:
Stephen C. Meyer: Ph.D., vice president, Discovery Institute; director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery InstituteHmmmmm. I think I see a pattern here.William Lane Craig: Ph.D., Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute
Robin Collins: Ph.D., Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute
Michael J. Behe: Ph.D., Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute
Jay Wesley Richards: Ph.D., Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute
Jonathan Wells: Ph.D., Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute
Care to try again?
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.
