South Carolina PingAdd me to the list. / Remove me from the list.
Posted on 05/07/2007 6:52:03 PM PDT by Between the Lines
This is a start...critical thinking requires looking at the pros and cons each position.
Coming next semester —
Astrology 358 - Been around too long to be false
Alchemy 520 - Needs-based metallurgy (lab)
Phrenology 102 - Keep an open mind and bumpy head
Zoroastrianism 204 - A million Assyrians can’t be wrong
Flying Spaghetti Monster 100 - The Intelligent Designer?
You’d think....
Great! Now, how about teaching both students and teachers that the theory of evolution does not deal with origins. Origins come under other areas of biology.
We talked about scientific inquiry and the necessity for science to be based on fact rather than personal values and beliefs.
Science is based on facts and theories. Facts alone have little meaning. A theory organizes those facts. A powerful theory accounts for old facts and new facts, and allows accurate predictions to be made. The theory of evolution is one of the best-supported theories we have.
Snipes found “many students concluded that both stances have merit and that the two do not have to be mutually exclusive.”
One is science, and the other is religion.
The new standards encourage teachers “to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.”
Do the standards allow critical analysis of the "alternatives" to the theory of evolution? I bet they don't.
“I found myself hesitating a bit,” Gilbert High’s Valerie Waites said. “I try to watch what I say because I don’t want to offend anybody’s beliefs.”
So science must self-censor so as not to offend anyone? That's pretty silly.
High school biology teachers were caught in a crossfire last year when state Sen. Mike Fair campaigned to give educators flexibility in discussing theories that challenge “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” credited to Charles Darwin.
Darwin did not come up with "survival of the fittest." That came from another author some years later. And, as it is perceived by the layman, that phrase is inaccurate.
“She was very flexible,” sophomore Edward Bell said. “If someone had a question about something that conflicted with what she was teaching, we had a full discussion. She didn’t emphasize one (theory) over another.”
There are not two competing theories. There is the theory of evolution, and it is being challenged on the basis of religious beliefs.
Burch and Bell did not recall any heated discussion about alternatives to evolution during class.
Not surprising. In the realm of science, there are currently no competing theories to the theory of evolution. There are claims made by believers in different religions, but there are no competing scientific theories.
Across the country, however, educators have clashed with people who embrace a theory known as “intelligent design,” an alternative view that credits a larger intelligence — perhaps a divine hand — with influencing the diversity of life.
Intelligent design is based on religion. It is not a scientific theory. It is at best a hypothesis, but the evidence which has been put forth in support of that hypothesis has been disproven. This does not come anywhere close to the definition within science of a theory (see my FR homepage for definitions of scientific terms).
Fair, a Greenville Republican, lobbied for revisions to S.C.’s biology standards, backing language that challenges students to scrutinize how scientists arrive at conclusions about life’s origins.
Life's origins have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. That's another field entirely.
Hilary Moore, also a sophomore at Dutch Fork High in Lexington-Richland 5, said her biology teacher told students “this is just an idea. It’s not something we’re trying to preach.”
That's a very bad mistake. The theory of evolution is not an "idea." It is a theory. In science, terms have specific meanings, and to alter them on a whim is dishonest. And you don't "preach" science, you "teach" it. You teach the facts behind the theories, and how the theories came to be accepted. If there are competing theories you teach those also. For the theory of evolution there are no competing theories.
“I’m very religious,” Moore said. “I’m able to separate my ideas and beliefs.”
Great! Can you separate facts, and well-supported theories from your beliefs?
Dan Publicover, another Dutch Fork High sophomore, said students in his class “didn’t seem to make a big deal about (evolution). I believe God created everything. The scientific evidence is pretty strong, but my religion tells me differently. (The teacher) never forced evolution facts on us.”
Facts are facts! They don't go away if you don't believe in them, or if you close your eyes. Pesky little guys, they are. You can't wish them away!
Jones said she tells her students, “This is a science class. Everything is based on data, accumulating evidence, drawing conclusions, making predictions.
Good. About time we hear this! Took until the end of the article.
Is Dyson contending that people ought not have any convictions?
Not really, science and scientists have had to censor themselves throughout history. It is a job that produces a product so the boss (powers that be) must be kept happy, otherwise no funding and no job. Just as often science has been skewed to favor the results that the employer wants.
Pure science for knowledge sake is a rare thing.
Do you prefer the old way of expelling them from class for their objections?
It seems that to some, critical thinking means silencing dissenters.
It seems that to some, critical thinking means silencing dissenters.
"Critical thinking" in science means doing science, not providing an affirmative action program for religious belief!
The rules of evidence are very different between these two fields. Revelation, belief, and scripture have no place in science. There is no scientific evidence behind them. Critical thinking, if done correctly, is a natural part of science.
Unfortunately, "critical thinking" has now become a talking point of creationists, which freely translated means "we can pass off our religious belief as science and you can't challenge it, but we can use our belief to challenge the most well-established science and you have to accept our belief as scientific evidence."
Further, there are not "two competing theories" as apologists would have us believe. Within science, there is no competing theory to the theory of evolution.
What I am seeing here seems to stem from the Wedge Strategy, which promotes a scheme to battle the facts and theory of science with PR and misinformation, while claiming that both sides are scientific theories and deserve an equal hearing.
The Dover decision put that lie where it belongs.
“We talked about scientific inquiry and the necessity for science to be based on fact rather than personal values and beliefs.”
Does that go for Global Warming as well?
I’m waiting for them to critically analyze chemistry.
Sorry, I did not know that I was using creationistspeak, how very un-PC of me.
I think he is saying that people should respect each others views and not push them on others.
As a Christian who believes in theistic evolution (as well as acknowledging the realities of geology, biology, plate tectonics, astronomy, and all the other scientific disciplines that prove the earth is a heck of a lot older than 5,000 years!) I applaud your excellent post and encourage you to keep up the fight.
Ask Galileo. He’ll tell you. It sucks when we’re able to prove the Bible is wrong.
Just imagine how the Mormon’s must feel.
“I’m waiting for them to critically analyze chemistry.”
:-)
“I think he is saying that people should respect each others views and not push them on others.”
I had a girlfriend who tried to convince her 3rd year Astronomy professor to respect her views about Astrology. What do you think? Did she have a point?
I just listened because she was hot and wanted to sleep with me.
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.