Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 01/17/2012 12:28:44 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
A flash point has emerged in American science education that echoes the battle over evolution, as scientists and educators report mounting resistance to the study of man-made climate change in middle and high schools.
Although scientific evidence increasingly shows that fossil fuel consumption has caused the climate to change rapidly, the issue has grown so politicized that skepticism of the broad scientific consensus has seeped into classrooms.
Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom.
In May, a school board in Los Alamitos, Calif., passed a measure, later rescinded, identifying climate science as a controversial topic that required special instructional oversight.
"Any time we have a meeting of 100 teachers, if you ask whether they're running into pushback on teaching climate change, 50 will raise their hands," said Frank Niepold, climate education coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who meets with hundreds of teachers annually. "We ask questions about how sizable it is, and they tell us it is [sizable] and pretty persistent, from many places: your administration, parents, students, even your own family."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Amusing! Only a creationist would insist that the evidence of changing climate over millions of years are completely wrong! It was actually massive change in climate over only a few thousand years.
I suppose the adaptation of land mammals to the latest Ice Age all happened in a short period of time also?
Wouldn't that be evidence of very rapid evolution?
What they found were some clear parallels between evolution and climate science. Because of these similarities, the NCSE has decided that their past experience can be helpful. “The anti-climate change controversy is about where the antievolution controversy was 20 years ago,” Scott told Ars. “We’ve learned a lot—we including the scientific community—dealing with the evolution controversy and, with luck, maybe we can get ahead of this.” One of the things they’ve learned is that the “deficit model”—the idea that people don’t like the science because they don’t understand it—doesn’t really apply. “You’re not going to be effective if you are talking about only throwing more science at people who hold different views from you—you have to deal with the ideological component as well,” Scott said. “Our experience with that will hopefully be useful.”
.
>Absence of evidence = evidence of absence? Really?
>It’s funny, the “creationists” that you so deride have studied and given serious consideration to BOTH your interpretation of the evidence and the contrary interpretations of the same evidence. You cannot say the same, and are thus reduced to basically name calling.
Adaptation of land animals since the post-flood ice age?
Absolutely, and why not? Such ability was created in the animals from the start.
>Would that be evidence of very rapid “evolution”?
Yes, if by “evolution” you mean “change”, but to say this is some sort of proof of millions of years, goo-to-you evolution is silly and an obvious application of the logical fallacies of conflation and equivocation.
I have given the more consideration than is due to the religiously motivated hypothesis that the long ages of the Earth and the massive changes in climate we can see the evidence for over that time all happened within the last few thousand years.
There is simply no way to divorce the evidence of the change in climate with the evidence that these changes took place many MILLIONS of years ago.
Sort of like asking people to take you seriously that that items found in ancient Egypt were all made within the last fifty years, but you can still somehow tell a lot about ancient Egypt by studying them!
So HOW would this ability to rapidly change be “created in” “from the start”?
The evidence of HOW is that DNA is mutable, and that natural selection acts upon variations such that those that lead to better reproductive outcomes (warm fur in an Ice Age) will predominate in subsequent generations.
Amusing that creationists claim to not accept evolution - until they need animals to rapidly change in response to a rapid Ice Age - or rapidly differentiate from those few species that could fit on a boat - and then they accept evolution at a speed and with a power well beyond that ever proposed by evolutionary biology - just so long as you don't CALL IT the dreaded “e” word!
Hilarious!
Neela. Your statement about science consensus increasing that global warming is caused by man is LAUGHABLE. Neela. Why do you think the skeptics are growing in number and the warmists are collasping faster than al gore can change into his hollywood disquise before gasing up his SUV. One clue Neela. IT WAS ALL BASED ON A POLITICAL SCAM. Neela, try learning a little about the subject before writing an article.
There is a huge difference between species adaptation (evolution), and the ORIGIN OF A SPECIES. Which by the way is what Darwin was claiming with his THEORY of evolution. Hence the title to his book The Origin of Species.
I do not think it is unreasonable for a species to adapt in a few thousand years to genetic or environmental pressures. Creationism and this evolution or intelligent design are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I remain open minded, which is more than can be said for most of those who believe in Darwin’s THEORY.
But, according to Darwin, this is only a small part of this THEORY. He believed that an entirely new species would emerge from this so called evolution.
If you are going to ridicule people’s religious beliefs, yours had better be above reproach. And yes, fervent and uncompromising belief in the THEORY of evolution is no different than any other religious fanatic. Since it is at best an unproven theory, how do you pretend to be superior to those who do not agree with you, and believe me, your posts convey exactly that sentiment.
Thanks Baynative.
AGW is a religion. The proponents bow to the icons of Karl Marx and Gaia.
Whoops, thanks Ernest! [blush]
Speciation, the arising of new species from existing species, is a consequence of evolution. The result of speciation is species that share a common ancestor some time in the past.
Apparently, when Creationists need them to, animals have an amazing ability to evolve and speciate - such that every species that exists could have come from those few that could fit on a boat within the last few thousand years.
So yes, they are not mutually exclusive - creationists apparently believe in speciation and evolution at a speed and power well beyond what evolutionary biology proposes - when they need it to happen, and so long as you don't call it evolution too much!
My Christianity has very little to do with scientific theory. No theory is ever proven they are all “unproven theory”.
The reason science is superior to creationism is that a theory allows for accurate prediction and useful application - while creationism leads nowhere and is useless.
Wow... from reading your screed, I see the wisdom of the ages - that there are none so blind as those that will not see. So many strawmen, misrepresentations, assumptions, and just willful blindness.
It’s not up to me to convince you, that’s the job of the Holy Spirit.
As for giving consideration to the scientific interpretations of the evidence through the lens of creation instead of through the lens/assumptions of millions/billions of years & evolution, you’re simply lying to yourself, not to us, we can see through it. Ever read a book by Dr John Morris, for instance?
I suppose you assume that you’re smarter than all the PhD physicists, astrophysicists, biologists, geologists, hydrodynamic engineers and others that are creation scientists.
And your blindness cannot be any more evident in your “amusement” about distinguishing a difference between rapid adaptive ability of species and goo to you “evolution”.
Really? Do you really believe that the adaptation of, say, a polar bear somehow proves that goo through millions of years became you? Do you see how amusing THAT is?
This line was especially revealing of your blinders:
“So HOW would this ability to rapidly change be “created in” “from the start”?”
You say that such ability to adapt is created in from the start - but you don't understand what is changing to allow the adaptation.
I am unconvinced on scientific matters by the influence of the Holy Spirit. But it is illustrative that you seek such guidance on physical material matters from immaterial theological sources.
Appeal to authority? The authority of a small and unproductive group of religious kooks who managed to earn scientific credentials instead of the reasonable evidence based science of actual scientists? Not likely!
If you look to the Holy Spirit for conclusive evidence about the physical world you have led yourself into the dead end of creationism that leads nowhere and produces nothing of any value.
If you look to the scientific method for conclusive evidence about the physical world you can discover new information and a WEALTH of knowledge and useful application.
Science is of use.
Creationism is useless.
Thus my nick for you, “strawmendream”.
Nothing I set up was a strawman, but nice attempt at using actual real logic!
Creationists REALLY DO accept evolution - when they need animals to change rapidly - and so long as you don't call it the dreaded “e” word. It is really quite amusing.
Pity that your so ignorant of your opposition that you don’t even KNOW that you’re misrepresenting their argument.
Again, you’ve proven time and again that you don’t, or aren’t even willing to understand what you’re arguing against.
Pyromaniac in a field of strawmen. You’ll “win” that one every time.
Creationists say they don't accept evolution - unless they need animals to rapidly change - then it is OK - so long as you don't call it the “e” word.
Creationists say the ability to adapt is “designed in”, but they cannot explain how or how this ability to adapt is not explained by natural selection of genetic variation.
Creationists claim I should rely upon supernatural guidance for determinations of physical reality! That is amusing!
Creationisms is so backwards that one may as well just outright reject that the Earth is in orbit around the Sun - as several FR creationists do!
No strawman needed, the creationists posters on FR are kooky and deranged and deluded enough that I need not waste a second in attempting to present their views as even MORE kooky deranged and deluded and USELESS.
What is your explanation as to how it is rational to believe that both a male and female of some new species happened to have resulted from an identical mutation at the same location at the same time, survived to adulthood and somehow found each other and successfully mated and reared offspring?
It is statistically impossible.
It’s easy to simply say the word “evolution.” The reality of proving it is an entirely different matter.
First there is genetic transfer from cell to cell. This is still extant, not some ‘missing link’. Then there is hermaphroditic exchange of genetic material during reproduction among multicellular life forms - once again extant and not at all “missing”.
So there was no need for males and females to develop simultaneously and in isolation, amazing that you have never heard of hermaphrodites.
Did you know that in utero we are still hermaphrodites? That based upon hormone levels one set of genitalia develops (usually) and the other is reabsorbed?
This is a typical creationist fallacy - sort of like asking how the new member of a species could find a mate.
That is as idiotic as asking how the first speaker of Italian born from parents that spoke Latin found someone to talk to.
Do you need me to explain why to you, 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.