Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'
BBC ^ | Thursday, 4 October 2007

Posted on 10/05/2007 6:26:08 AM PDT by SubGeniusX

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 281-290 next last
To: Tax-chick

Hah! Disdain for the Christian view but accommodation of the Muslim. Spotlight on hypocrisy.


81 posted on 10/05/2007 7:50:30 AM PDT by tennteacher (Duncan Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ericc4
Q ...but is there a different between Creationism and Intelligent Design?

A One of them is honest and up front about the fact that their theory is based in religion, and the other tries to hide it by pretending to be science.

Bingo ! We have a winner !

82 posted on 10/05/2007 7:50:33 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Why must falsification criteria be specifically peer-reviewed? Why isn’t “a rabbit in the precambrian” valid as a falsification criteria? Is ID “empirically justified”?


83 posted on 10/05/2007 7:52:15 AM PDT by Boxen (If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards...Checkmate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: elpadre
It seems to me that a teacher has the responsibility to teach, not just the prevalent view, or required information, but also all other possible, contrary views as well.

The preponderance of evidence wins.

Isn’t that what scientific inquiry is all about?

"Scientific inquiry" is not conducted in grade school or high school classrooms, with the exceptions of things like science fair projects. What is conducted is science education. Students are provided with the results of scientific research, they do not actually do the research; they are not yet qualified.

And as for teaching "all other possible, contrary views" in grade school and high school -- that idea is silly. Think it through and you'll see why.

84 posted on 10/05/2007 7:52:58 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
"Why must falsification criteria be specifically peer-reviewed?"

Because that draws a line in the sand. We're looking for empirical evidence/justifications for theories (falsification criteria gives us the tests for a theory)...best not to leave that out of the peer-review process.

Fail the test, fail the theory.

Fail to even have a test, even worse...

85 posted on 10/05/2007 7:56:22 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX
One very good example of a dedicated Christian, a creationist, who proves that current technology development depends on current testing and application and is not hindered by rejecting evolution, is the late Robert G. LeTourneau. I cite here an excerpt from the LTI (LeTourneau Technologies) web site.

“The LeTourneau name became synonymous with earthmoving worldwide. R. G. LeTourneau was largely responsible for the invention and development of many types of earthmoving machines that are in wide use today. He designed and built machines using technology that was years, and sometimes decades, ahead of his time, and became recognized worldwide as a leader in the development and manufacture of heavy equipment. The use of rubber tires in earthmoving; numerous improvements relating to scrapers; the development of low pressure heavy-duty rubber tires; the two-wheeled tractor unit (Tournapull); electric wheel drive, and mobile offshore drilling platforms, are all attributed to R. G. LeTourneau’s ingenuity. During his lifetime, he held hundreds of patents on inventions relating to earthmoving equipment, manufacturing processes and machine tools. HIS FACTORIES SUPPLIED 70 PERCENT OF ALL HEAVY EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT USED BY THE ALLIED ARMED FORCES DURING WORLD WAR II. [emphasis added] LeTourneau also pioneered numerous manufacturing processes and the development of specialized machine tools.

“LeTourneau was a firm believer in the effectiveness of practical instruction combined with classroom studies and, in 1946, he purchased an unused military hospital, accompanying land and buildings in Longview, Texas. There he established the LeTourneau Technical Institute to provide sound technical and mechanical training, traditional college courses, and TRAINING FOR MISSIONARY TECHNICIANS BASED ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF COMBINING WORK, EDUCATION AND CHRISTIAN TESTIMONY [emphasis added]. The LeTourneau Technical Institute became a college in its own right in 1961 and eventually gained university status to become LeTourneau University. LeTourneau University is still in operation today, offering liberal arts and engineering courses WITH A STRONG CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE [emphasis added].”


A creationist provided 70 % of the heavy equipment that helped win WWII. Dangerous! s/

I’d like someone explain how Darwinianism would have improved LeTourneau’s technical genius, for example. It would not have!

86 posted on 10/05/2007 7:57:10 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dmz

Both or neither. Not either-or.


87 posted on 10/05/2007 7:57:16 AM PDT by tennteacher (Duncan Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"Your own link in your above post mentions falsification criteria. It just didn't hand-feed you by using those 2 specific words."

First you wanted “published specific peer-reviewed falsification criteria” for evolutionary theory alone, and not for any other scientific theory. Now you’ll settle for it to be “refutable by any conceivable event”. Excellent, we’re in agreement. “Published specific peer review” is not necessary and never has been for any theory to be considered scientific.

Thanks for your time. I've got to get busy and make up for time lost now...

88 posted on 10/05/2007 7:57:57 AM PDT by elfman2 ("As goes Fallujah, so goes central Iraq and so goes the entire country" -Col Coleman, USMC ,4/2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
You’d have to disprove God

And only an idiot believes proof of such a negative is possible.

Belief in God is most certainly rational. Saying it's a fact is not.

89 posted on 10/05/2007 7:58:03 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Can you answer my other questions as well?

Why isn’t “a rabbit in the precambrian” valid as a falsification criteria? Is ID “empirically justified”?
90 posted on 10/05/2007 7:59:39 AM PDT by Boxen (If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards...Checkmate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
"Excellent, we’re in agreement. “Published specific peer review” is not necessary..."

Don't you wish!

I'm afraid that you'll have to cling to such fantasies considering that your pet theory isn't up to the test, though.

91 posted on 10/05/2007 8:00:56 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX

ping for later reading.


92 posted on 10/05/2007 8:02:58 AM PDT by Tahts-a-dats-ago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
"Why isn’t “a rabbit in the precambrian” valid as a falsification criteria?"

Submit such criteria for publication and peer review. You'll find as others have, however, that no such test for Evolutionary Theory is permitted to be published by the current regimes manning the gates of "science."

" Is ID “empirically justified”?"

Yes, ID has been shown, empirically, to explain all modern transgenic life forms (e.g. pigs with DNA modified to grow human hormones).

93 posted on 10/05/2007 8:04:07 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: jimt
“Belief in God is most certainly rational. Saying it’s a fact is not.”

These two sentances put together are not rational.
94 posted on 10/05/2007 8:04:22 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Hackle
“how does one go about testing the idea of incremental random change over millions of years?”

Based upon the assumption of common descent the idea of incremental random change over millions of years is easily tested by comparing two species that last shared a recent common ancestor a million years ago.

Neutral mutation theory would state the the majority of the changes in the DNA of these two species would be in non-Coding DNA that shows no conservation between lineages and is assumed therefore to have no function (94% of the human genome). Changes in DNA that does code for protein would predominantly be in the third codon position where it doesn’t usually change the amino acid coded for. And most actual coding substitutions will be conservative substitutions or substitutions in part of the Amino Acid chain of the protein that mearly has a structural role.

When comparing two species that shared a common ancestor a million years ago and another that shared a common ancestor a half million years ago, one would find the same distribution of changes (mostly neutral changes in non-coding DNA, lots of changes in the third position, coding changes that are conservative, and a few actual coding differences) but roughly half as many changes in the species that only diverged from each other for half the amount of time.

It is called Phylogenetic analysis, and recent genomic information has tested the idea of incremental random changes over millions of years, and the theory of evolution through natural selection is a very good explanation for the data.

95 posted on 10/05/2007 8:07:40 AM PDT by allmendream (A Lyger is pretty much my favorite animal. (Hunter08))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
I’d like someone explain how Darwinianism would have improved LeTourneau’s technical genius, for example. It would not have!

Clearly you're correct. But if LeTourneau had operated on the principle that laying on of hands would triple the strength of steel his machines wouldn't have worked too well.

The question is whether or not to teach children to confuse scientific theory and belief.

And the answer is, we should not.

96 posted on 10/05/2007 8:12:18 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: jimt
"You’d have to disprove God [-elfman2]
And only an idiot believes proof of such a negative is possible. "

And that’s one reason ID is not a “scientific” theory, one that can be disproved. To prove it false would require a disproof of God. The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical fallacy

97 posted on 10/05/2007 8:12:25 AM PDT by elfman2 ("As goes Fallujah, so goes central Iraq and so goes the entire country" -Col Coleman, USMC ,4/2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"It is called Phylogenetic analysis, and recent genomic information has tested the idea of incremental random changes over millions of years, and the theory of evolution through natural selection is a very good explanation for the data."

Nonsense. That's like saying that digging through a junkyard proves that cars self-evolved because there were incremental changes over the years in various models. Utter rubbish.

Moreover, in both cases above such an "explanation" fails to explain things such as great leaps in technology/biology, DNA code skipping generations, irreducible complexity, etc.

The cars didn't self-evolve. Neither did the critters.

98 posted on 10/05/2007 8:12:40 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
"And that’s one reason ID is not a “scientific” theory, one that can be disproved. To prove it false would require a disproof of God."

No, the above just shows no understanding of ID.

ID is disproved in any system for which there is no bias. One need not disprove God to show that there is no bias in a vacuum, ergo, one need not need to disprove God to falsify ID.

Moreover, ID *is* a scientific theory because it is the only theory that explains all modern transgenic animals (e.g. pigs that grow human hormones in labs).

99 posted on 10/05/2007 8:16:21 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX

Are the teachers qualified to present the actual special creation position? Or, are they restricted to the talking points provided by evolutionists?


100 posted on 10/05/2007 8:19:10 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 281-290 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson