61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 03:26 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
Quote:
The board, which now has 10 Republicans and five Democrats, has drawn national attention recently for its decisions on public school instruction.

These have included:
Approving a Bible-study curriculum.

This is still the PUBLIC school we're talking about, right?

It seems rather unpatriotic (not to mention illegal) for public officials to blatantly ignore The Constitution of the US.

But maybe this is just a "history of theology" course. Then again... there are thousands of religions you might study. I guess they just picked one at random.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 03:33 pm
@rosborne979,
I guess ros must think that modern science could have arisen out of the Taimat/Marduk legends or even more esoteric configurations.

The choice is not in the least random.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 05:24 pm
@rosborne979,
yes, we are confident that, in Texas, they are proposing a mere survey course of the Christian Religian (as practised and professed by "right thinking" Texas style Christains).

Is this a great country or what.

"Dont **** with my first amendment rights or Ill introduce you to my rights under the second amendment" --CEEJ
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 05:36 pm
@farmerman,
Talk's cheap.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 10:36 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
You see Blickie--ladies train consumers to be such co-operative little goody-goody two shoes and ladies hate them after they have been exposed to them a short while........ If you tried explaining evolution theory to them they would run a mile. Or put me on Ignore. Which is the same thing really.


So you refuse to entertain the notion that any women running for a school board can have an understanding of evolution equal to your own?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 05:34 am
As the farmer said to Che Guivera when Che was being hauled away.
Che told the farmer that'
"We were only trying to protect you"

"From what?" said the farmer
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 05:40 am
@Blickers,
Welcome blickers. I can only give you information from my own experience with spendius. He is probably the archetypal misogynist (at least he will do till something better comes along).

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 08:33 am
@Blickers,
Quote:
So you refuse to entertain the notion that any women running for a school board can have an understanding of evolution equal to your own?


If they had a proper understanding of that subject I very much doubt they would be in favour of exposing the kids to it. Or even mentioning it in polite company.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 08:36 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
He is probably the archetypal misogynist


If viewing the ladies in their natural state rather than as well-trained conveniences is misogynistic I readily plead guilty.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 08:38 am
Quote:
Board's actions could put students at a disadvantage
(By ALAN I. LESHNER, Houston Chronicle Commentary, Oct. 22, 2008)

Texas has earned a reputation as an innovation powerhouse in fields ranging from agriculture and life sciences to high technology and space exploration.

But in a report issued this summer, a panel of Texas business, education and government leaders warned that without "critical changes" in state schools " especially in science-related instruction " the state will lose its global competitive edge.

It appears, however, that some members of the State Board of Education are working on a different agenda. Last week, they appointed three anti-evolution activists, including a leader of the "intelligent design" religious campaign, to a six-member panel that will review proposed new science curriculum standards.

The new standards will shape how science education is taught in Texas for the next decade, and it would be a terrible mistake to water down the teaching of evolution in any way.

Given the concerns about the state's future work force, the appointments are a troubling signal. At a time when most educators are working to prepare students for 21st century jobs, the board members' action threatens to confuse students, divide communities and tarnish Texas' reputation as an international science and technology center.

Intelligent design advocates on the state board have been maneuvering for months to undermine the teaching of evolution in science classes. They say that students need to hear about the strengths and weaknesses of evolution, which of course is true. But then they argue that the universe is so complex that it required an intelligent designer and that should be taught in science classes as an alternative to evolution. This is a religious belief, not a scientific argument. There is no science base to the notion of an intelligent designer.

In addition, there is no scientific controversy. Mainstream science and medical organizations in the United States and worldwide, representing tens of millions of scientists, accept evolution as the best explanation for how life developed on Earth.

Yes, the anti-evolution campaign has lined up a small number of scientist supporters, but most have no expertise in biology or evolution. U.S. courts have seen through their arguments, repeatedly ruling that creationism and intelligent design are religious ideas that should not be taught as science in public schools.

Does that mean that science and religion are inherently in conflict? Not at all. They ask different questions and are separate realms of knowledge.

Science uses experiments and repeatable observations to build understanding of the natural world; it has nothing to say about the supernatural or spiritual realm. What experiment can test for the working of an intelligent creator? What hard evidence can prove it, or disprove it? This isn't a scientific issue. It's a matter of faith.

Certainly many scientists feel that their work presents no conflict with their faith. And nearly 12,000 Christian religious leaders, more than 500 of them in Texas, have signed the Clergy Letter Project, which supports evolution and opposes intelligent design in science class.

That consensus doesn't make headlines, but it shows us some constructive common ground.

Bringing nonscientific ideas into biology classes creates unacceptable risks. It will confuse young students and teach them to distrust well-established scientific facts. Classrooms could become religious battlegrounds. Lawsuits over policy could drain local school districts. And employers everywhere would worry about the quality of Texas' students.

To maintain the state's strength as an engine of U.S. research and innovation, Texas education leaders should stick to the basics. Students need a solid science foundation to thrive in the 21st century. We don't want our children to be stragglers in an age when clear understanding of science and technology are crucial to the economy and to so many issues of modern life.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 01:14 pm
@wandeljw,
Good grief wande. What on earth are you up to?
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 02:12 pm
source

Not to be taken without your recommended daily intake of NaCL...

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/darwin_article_large.article_large.jpg


DAYTON, TN"A steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather in this small Tennessee town today to witness what many believe is an image of Charles Darwin"author of The Origin Of Species and founder of the modern evolutionary movement"made manifest on a concrete wall in downtown Dayton.

"I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits," said Darlene Freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last Monday on one side of the Rhea County Courthouse. The building was also the location of the famed "Scopes Monkey Trial" and is widely considered one of Darwinism's holiest sites. "Forgive me, O Charles, for ever doubting your Divine Evolution. After seeing this miracle of limestone pigmentation with my own eyes, my faith in empirical reasoning will never again be tested."

Added Freiberg, "Behold the power and glory of the scientific method!"

Since witnesses first reported the unexplained marking"which appears to resemble a 19th-century male figure with a high forehead and large beard"this normally quiet town has become a hotbed of biological zealotry. Thousands of pilgrims from as far away as Berkeley's paleoanthropology department have flocked to the site to lay wreaths of flowers, light devotional candles, read aloud from Darwin's works, and otherwise pay homage to the mysterious blue-green stain.

Capitalizing on the influx of empirical believers, street vendors have sprung up across Dayton, selling evolutionary relics and artwork to the thousands of pilgrims waiting to catch a glimpse of the image. Available for sale are everything from small wooden shards alleged to be fragments of the "One True Beagle""the research vessel on which Darwin made his legendary voyage to the Galapagos Islands"to lecture notes purportedly touched by English evolutionist Alfred Russel Wallace.

"I have never felt closer to Darwin's ideas," said zoologist Fred Granger, who waited in line for 16 hours to view the stain. "May his name be praised and his theories on natural selection echo in all the halls of naturalistic observation forever."

Despite the enthusiasm the so-called "Darwin Smudge" has generated among the evolutionary faithful, disagreement remains as to its origin. Some believe the image is actually closer to the visage of Stephen Jay Gould, longtime columnist for Natural History magazine and originator of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, and is therefore proof of rapid cladogenesis. A smaller minority contend it is the face of Carl Sagan, and should be viewed as a warning to those nonbelievers who have not yet seen his hit PBS series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage.

Still others have attempted to discredit the miracle entirely, claiming that there are several alternate explanations for the appearance of the unexplained discoloration.

"It's a stain on a wall, and nothing more," said the Rev. Clement McCoy, a professor at Oral Roberts University and prominent opponent of evolutionary theory. "Anything else is the delusional fantasy of a fanatical evolutionist mindset that sees only what it wishes to see in the hopes of validating a baseless, illogical belief system. I only hope these heretics see the error of their ways before our Most Powerful God smites them all in His vengeance."

But those who have made the long journey to Dayton remain steadfast in their belief that natural selection"a process by which certain genes are favored over others less conducive to survival"is the one and only creator of life as we know it. This stain, they claim, is the proof they have been waiting for.

"To those who would deny that genetic drift is responsible for a branching evolutionary tree of increasing biodiversity amid changing ecosystems, we say, 'Look upon the face of Darwin!'" said Jeanette Cosgrove, who, along with members of her microbiology class, has maintained a candlelight vigil at the site for the past 72 hours.

"Over millions of successive generations, a specific subvariant of one species of slime mold adapted to this particular concrete wall, in order to one day form this stain, and thus make manifest this vision of Darwin's glorious countenance," Cosgrove said, overcome with emotion.

"It's a miracle," she added.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 03:22 pm
@slkshock7,
It's good to see that some Americans put a little effort into their literary endeavours.

That trash wande posted just above was the pits of the ******* earth and spoke volumes on what the Houston Chronicle Commentary thinks of its readers.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 05:48 pm
@wandeljw,
The civic leaders in Texas clearly have it right.

It's a similar tactic to what was successful in Kansas. The parents in Kansas some years back got ID off the curriculum by pointing out their high school youngsters will be at a disadvantage when they go off to college and have to compete in biology class against students from states where they don't burden their students with ID.

Clearly these Texas civic leaders are pusuing a similar theme.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 06:25 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
(He [Scalia] seemed to have a bug up his ass about having to have the law be implemented by schools in order to be tested in court. )

No need to be derisive about it. Laws can be unconstitutional on their face, or they can be unconstitutional as applied. For example, traffic laws are constitutional on their face, but if the police only tickets black drivers, they become unconstitutional "as applied".

From your description (I haven't read the case in a while), Scalia found Louisiana's Balanced Treatment Act constitutional on its face, and found he couldn't judge whether it was unconstitutional as applied -- because it hadn't been applied yet. Assuming that this is what Scalia was arguing, the point that the law hadn't been implemented yet was perfectly valid for him to be making.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 06:54 pm
@Thomas,
What do you think of the situation in Texas, Thomas? I remember that you almost relocated to Texas to take a job offer.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 07:09 pm
@wandeljw,
I believe it's cowardly and dishonest to teach junk science just because it happens to please religionists. I don't want schools to waste everyone's time teaching creationism.

I also suspect that the opponents of creationism are making a tactical mistake with the utilitarian arguments they are putting forward. I don't believe that Texas's competitiveness as a technological innovator will be greatly impacted either way by what the schools do about evolution. And the claim that it will is not going to persuade fence-sitters for long.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 04:41 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
Scalia found Louisiana's Balanced Treatment Act constitutional on its face, and found he couldn't judge whether it was unconstitutional as applied -- because it hadn't been applied yet. Assuming that this is what Scalia was arguing, the point that the law hadn't been implemented yet was perfectly valid for him to be making



Nevertheless its a "least pressure" stance to take because his, as being only one of two dissenting , was the ONLY one who dissented on that basis. I believe it to be a disengenuous position to take.
Settling a concept in LAw is what the SUpreme Court does, by taking this position in his dissent , he was, in effect, not completely living up to his charge. He was seeking an extension for the continuation of the law(Hed been quite clear of that later,). Ive never been too respectful of justices who cant separate their personal biases.

As far as my tone, I think better when Im pissed and tired of the high sounding "anti-science" arguments on this entire subject.

As far as affecting high tech position of Texas, I dont believe that the major Universities like Rice or UT want any association with the state ed boards, however , they do divert precious time to be voices of reason .
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 04:51 am
@farmerman,
That makes Scalia's legal position about as small a minority as my factual position on how we came into being -- through evolution, without any contributions by any deities, including the Judeo/Christian/Muslim god.

My point being, questions of true or false are not up for majority vote.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Oct, 2008 05:07 am
except when you adjudicate, then it becomes an embarassing exercise in listening to a bunch of amateurs(lawyers) who are being payed to represent opposing sides of an artificially created argument.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 04:45:29