Posted on 03/22/2005 6:56:35 AM PST by metacognative
Well this is certainly odd. The battle cry of the creationists is "present all sides, even if our side has nothing to do with science" and "let the children decide." This is, of course, a thinly disguised variation of the very "children's self-esteem" agenda you are decrying above.
"Feel good" curricula is no more appropriate in science classes than it is in math or history.
it goes hand in hand. It justifies doing whatever you want to your fellow man, so it is not surprising that ideologies like Communism will adopt it.
I don't know where to begin with this article, so I'll start with this little gem.
The idea presented here is that there is a linear relationship between the number of base pairs in a genome and morphology, or the shape an animal takes. This implies to me that the author lacks understanding of molecular biology and genetics. I am not a molecular biologist, but I seem to recall from my biology classes that the expression of genes and construction of proteins does not work in a linear fashion. Furthermore, the science of comparitive genomics has shown that the chimpanzee has less DNA in common with homo sapiens than we originally thought, though it still remains are closest cousin.
To me, making this point constitutes nothing more than a rhetorical trick to insert some figures into an argument, but the figures don't really mean anything significant.
Well, what can I say, we disagree. I'm not going to try and convince you (which I imagine would be impossible anyway)nor will I be baited into relating our opinions to intelligence.
Not at all. Our ape ancestors started as tree-dwellers. They had fur and were quite agile. However, a group of our ancestors ended up living on the savannah, where the mutations for endurance, hairlessness, upright walking and intelligence were more advantageous than the alternatives. Gorillas and chimps, our nearest relatives, life primarily in the jungle. They'd be easy food for the predators that live on the savannah.
I takes one to know one...
I said nothing about making the 'kid feel good.' IN fact, Creationism tends to do the opposite by implying there might be Someone out there more powerful than men. That tends to make people feel bad about ... things they should feel bad about. So far I have one girl that understands my point, and one that probably could care less. So it's not that I'm indoctrinating them very successfully when I have got a 50/50 success percentage. (the youngest is too young to understand yet).
Nonsense. Scientific theories do not give moral guidance. They are, in the purest sense of the word, ammoral. Scientific theories explain a discrete slice of reality, nothing more.
Is chemistry responsible for the use of Zyklon B in the death camps?
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."5 Mein Kampf.
LOL
If it's bad, Darwin's responsible for it.
For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will.Source: Book 2, Chapter 10, Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.
-- Adolph Hitler, creationist
Schools should stick to reading, writing, and arithmetic. I can't imagine that a "feel bad" curriculum would be any improvement over a "feel good" curriculum.
He was a darwinite!
""A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."27 (Hitler believed that Aryans are holy and were created in God's "image", while other races evolved from apes, hence his hatred for racial mixing because it diluted God's image).
Of course, I don't hold out hope that he'll get the point that quotes are worthless in this debate.
So, what does our history tell us? Three things. First, if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry. Second, there is indeed a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am saying that this popular evolutionism--often an alternative to religion--exists. Third, we who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time.
Michael Ruse, Science 299, 1523 - 1524
Sounds a lot like certain other creationists' attitudes toward evo types.
Of course. There was no evil in the world before 1859, when Darwin published Origin of Species. No war, no racism, no communism (well, maybe a little bit, like in Sparta, the Plymouth Plantation, etc.), no poverty, no disease, no tyranny, no crime. Darwin has destroyed us all.
You had to say this, didn't you. The chemistry textbook stickers are now on their way to Kansas.
Considering that neoconservatives are descendents of communists, it is not surprising to see them want to challenge evolution. Perhaps they have a soft spot for Lysenko as well as Trotsky. They're not right about much so they might as well join the bandwagon of losers of ID.
Why does it not surprise me that a liberal is on a ping list for 'conservative' evolution believers?
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.