Indoctrinating children with ideology instead of facts is an old technique, the goal of which is to shape society to fit the indoctrinator's idea of what a society should look like. The process takes time, but does have some effect. We only have to look at the leftist influences on our culture... for example, how mental illnesses regarding sexual orientation have been rebranded as variants of normal. Trying to indoctrinate children in an unscientific view of the world *will* have the effect of convincing them to turn away from science, and that *will* cause a decrease in the number of scientists in the long run. No country benefits from eschewing science.
Archaeopteryx is for all intents and purposes a mythical creature. Can science create him/her in a laboratory? What day of the week did the first archaeopteryx appear? Which strands of nucleic acids were the essential elements of it’s being a unique species from it’s direct predecessor? And how can any theories about archaeopteryx ever be rigorously tested under controlled conditions? How can any scientific hypothesis about archaeopteryx be put to the test?
Archaeopteryx was a multi-cellular organism. At this time, we do not have the ability to make multi-cellular organisms from scratch. Presumably, however, if I were to study the physiology of an archaeopteryx, I could recreate one by genetically modifying an existing bird species. As far as hypotheses (not theories) that can be tested under controlled conditions--well, there are plenty. For instance, I could test how well the wing structure was adapted to flight to determine if it was a true flying bird, or a gliding bird, because it is possible to build a model archaeopteryx wing. If I just want to test how the evolutionary process works, I don't need an archaeopteryx. Any organism will do.
This is a mythological realm. It will have no effect on the making of better cell phones. Nobody at LG or Samsung talks about this stuff on an hour by hour basis. Seoul National University will not be nailing 95 theses to it’s classroom doors.
Making cell phones does not require a knowledge of life sciences. Finding cures for human diseases and improving public health does. The US is still the leader in these areas--and while I'd like to see us keep the leadership spot, I want to stay there by honest competition, not by kneecapping our competitors.
I am actually pleased with Chicken Little responses to this kind of stuff. Hysterical dogmatics are funny.
Recognizing a dangerous trend and taking measures to nip it in the bud is not engaging in "hysterical dogmatics." For example: abortion was legalized when I was a pre-teen, and at that time, was mostly supported in the first trimester. When pro-lifers warned about the slippery slope--that abortion would eventually be commonplace up until birth--abortion advocates scoffed at them and claimed that it would never happen. We now have a president who supports overt infanticide. The anti-science victories now may be small, but that doesn't mean they aren't a threat to the future.
exDemMom I have you logged as predicting South Korea’s decline as an economic and technological powerhouse. Fair ‘nuff. I predict South Korea will be stronger relative to at least Southeast Asia and what we consider the West in the next few decades.
Re: knowing the physiology of extinct species meaning the theoretical ability to recreate it through...well I don’t know exactly...some sort of breeding program...I must admit I’ve never come across anyone make such a claim. I know we just have fossils, but out of curiosity, what bird species would you start with? What other prehistoric dinosaurs have ever tried to be back-engineered whether by breeding or something else?
Building a model wing based on fossilized remains of arch. doesn’t test evolution! Evolution isn’t physiology of an extant organism. The nuts and bolts of evolution has to do with mutations. There is, in fact, debate about whether or not arch. was an evolutionary dead-end. My reading suggests other possibilities for bird ancestry in the archosaurian family.
I don’t know anyone currently testing theories about arch., besides studying fossils relative to other fossils. Are we able to genetically deconstruct fossilized remains? I guess I’m pretty ignorant about that, if it is in fact going on somewhere. That would be the mechanics of truly studying and understanding evolution, not gross examination of fossilized recreations mixed with cool stories to fit a framework that just *has* to be true, by gum.