61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 05:01 am
@spendius,
I see where Dr Dawkins has stated that hes going to have himself videotaped while hes dying so that he can assure his critics that he wont have a "deathbed conversion". WHat a fuckin ego. WHO would really give a solitary **** about that old crinkled dweeb.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 06:04 am
@farmerman,
Right- one down. How many more are there?

How about him who talked us through the CERN project. I daresay most of the girls in the pub could soon turn him into a juddering jelly.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 08:27 am
@farmerman,
Does he believe he is Voltaire? Or maybe Carl Sagan, Jay Gould, or Sir Richard Attenborough? Of course, none of their deathbed experience is in any credible record, let alone video taping. How many people actually do that in these times, even if a devout Catholic calls for last rites?

Sir RIchard Attenborough was criticized by the Creationuts for leaving God out of his famous documentaries. His reply, and I quote:

They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in East Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 10:36 am
@Lightwizard,
My opinion is a bit different; I see too many deformed babies that are born. Too many babies who starve to death. A "loving" god is an oxymoron.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 11:53 am
@cicerone imposter,
What utterly silly arguments those are. As if those two examples compromise the sum total of suffering in this world. It's bordering on obscene that people will use such things to flatter themselves for being atheists and it's embracing arrogance to not expect people to laugh them to scorn for doing so.

And it is worse than ignorance to imply that creationists are not just as bothered by them some of whom are out in poor countries working under difficult conditions to find solutions and ameliorations rather than sticking a few easy words on here in between episodes of self indulgence.

It is also a gross insult to the intelligence of A2Kers to address such fatuities at them.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 12:15 pm
The British Government and H.M.'s Opposition are united in supporting the priority of political process in the face of 3 scientific resignations and threats of more from the scientists, who are having meetings in private, that the Drugs Advisory Council will be disbanded.

These scientists have taken it into their heads to publicly call into question Government policy and they are being put in their rightful place. Out of the door.

Political commentators are predicting that the rest of the advisors will back down to retain their position as servants of the Government rather than unelected "on the hoof" policy makers. But that can't be guaranteed.

Such bodies as the NCSE are also unelected. Until such time as there is as much public trust and confidence in scientific and legal advice as there is in the electoral process scientists and psuedo-scientists might be better being content with a less exalted position in national affairs than they seem to think they deserve.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 12:20 pm
@spendius,
Your thinking is convoluted to such a degree, it's hopeless.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 02:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I suppose he believes the Creationut and IDiot "scientists" are elected. The public electing scientists to posts is so positively stupid it's indescribable. Or should I state, in PSXXX case, indescri-babble.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 02:08 pm
@Lightwizard,
When have I ever lined myself up with any of the spokespersons for Creationism or ID?

And I hardly think it reasonable to suggest I have recommended electing scientists.

Perhaps you should think of attending remedial reading lessons Wiz.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 05:18 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Such bodies as the NCSE are also unelected.
. Whats the point? So is the NRT, the NCAA, and the NET
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 06:27 pm
@farmerman,
I didn't know that any of those was trying to determine what a nation's kids should be taught without standing up on the hustings.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 08:38 am
@farmerman,
Thanks for clarifying who needs remedial reading lessons -- of course with a mind numbed with the ole suds, what would you expect?
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 09:36 am
Only the Pope is elected by the plutocracy of Bishops and all the rest of the Catholic bureaucracy are appointed. But wait! The Catholic church has made peace with Darwin, as they belatedly made peace with Galileo and other scientists they either didn't accept or downright persecuted. I guess Hitler because he wasn't a scientist but a deranged psychopath who misused evolution as a tool for the Holocaust was in their book was just fine.

So should the Creationuts or IDiots in the church be elected?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 09:45 am
All unelected:

Department of Education is to create programs to generate funds for education and enforcement of privacy and civil rights laws.

On March 23, 2007, at 11:51. AM President George W. Bush signed into law H.R. 584, which designates the ED Headquarters building as the Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building.

* Office of Communications and Outreach (OCO)
* Office of the General Counsel (OGC)
* Office of Inspector General
* Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs (OLCA)
* Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
* Institute of Education Sciences (IES)
o National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
+ National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
+ Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)
* Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII)
* Office of the Chief Financial Officer
* Office of Management
* Office of the Chief Information Officer
* Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development
o Budget Service
* Risk Management Service

Chief Operating Officer

Office of the Under Secretary (OUS)

* Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)
* Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE)
* Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA)
* President's Advisory Board on Tribal Colleges and Universities (WHITCU)
* President's Advisory Board on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (WHIHBCU)

Office of the Deputy Secretary (ODS)

* Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
o Office of Migrant Education
o President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans
* Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students (OELA)
* Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)
o National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)
o Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
o Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA)
* Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools (OSDFS)
* Office of Innovation and Improvement

Associated federal organizations

* Advisory Councils and Committees
* National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB)[3]
* National Institute for Literacy (NIFL)[4]
* Federal Interagency Committee on Education (FICE)

Federally aided organizations

* Gallaudet University
* Howard University
* National Technical Institute for the Deaf
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 09:45 am
Quote:
Creationism, Minus a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World
(By KENNETH CHANG, The New York Times, November 3, 2009)

AMHERST, Mass. " Creationism is growing in the Muslim world, from Turkey to Pakistan to Indonesia, international academics said last month as they gathered here to discuss the topic.

But, they said, young-Earth creationists, who believe God created the universe, Earth and life just a few thousand years ago, are rare, if not nonexistent.

One reason is that although the Koran, the holy text of Islam, says the universe was created in six days, the next line adds that a day, in this instance, is metaphorical: “a thousand years of your reckoning.”

By contrast, some Christian creationists find in the Bible a strict chronology that requires a 6,000-year-old Earth and thus object not only to evolution but also to much of modern geology and cosmology, which say the Earth and the universe are billions of years old.

“Views of scientific evolution are clearly influenced by underlying religious beliefs,” said Salman Hameed, who convened the two-day conference here at Hampshire College, where he is a professor of integrated science and humanities. “There is no young-Earth creationism.”

But that does not mean that all of evolution fits Islam or that all Muslims happily accept the findings of modern biology. More and more seem to be joining the ranks of the so-called old-Earth creationists. They do not quarrel with astronomers and geologists, just biologists, insisting that life is the creation of God, not the happenstance consequence of random occurrences.

The debate over evolution is only now gaining prominence in many Islamic countries as education improves and more students are exposed to the ideas of modern biology.

The degree of acceptance of evolution varies among Islamic countries.

Research led by the Evolution Education Research Center at McGill University, in Montreal, found that high school biology textbooks in Pakistan covered the theory of evolution. Quotations from the Koran at the beginning of the chapters are chosen to suggest that the religion and the theory coexist harmoniously.

In a survey of 2,527 Pakistani high school students conducted by the McGill researchers and their international collaborators, 28 percent of the students agreed with the creationist sentiment, “Evolution is not a well-accepted scientific fact.” More than 60 percent disagreed, and the rest were not sure.

Eighty-six percent agreed with this statement: “Millions of fossils show that life has existed for billions of years and changed over time.”

The situation in Turkey is different and changed only in the past couple of decades. One of the conference participants, Taner Edis, said he never encountered creationist undertones when he was growing up in Turkey in the 1970s. “I first noticed creationism when I came to America for graduate school,” said Dr. Edis, now a professor of physics at Truman State University in Missouri. He thought it an American oddity.

Some years later, while browsing a bookstore on a visit to Turkey, Dr. Edis found books about creationism filed in the science section. “It actually caught me by surprise,” he said.

In Turkey, officially a secular government but now ruled by an Islamic party, the teaching of evolution has largely disappeared, at least below the university level, and the science curriculum in public schools is written in deference to religious beliefs, Dr. Edis said.

Harun Yahya, a Turkish creationist of the old-Earth variety, has gained prominence in Turkey and elsewhere. A quarter of a world away, most of the biology teachers in Indonesia use Mr. Yahya’s creationist books in their classrooms, the McGill researchers found, although some said they did that to provide counterarguments to materials their students were reading anyway.

In the McGill research, fewer students in Indonesia than in Pakistan thought evolution a well-accepted scientific fact, yet 85 percent agreed that fossils showed that life had existed for billions of years and changed over time.

The quality of biology education “varies highly depending on what country you’re in and what school you’re in,” said Jason R. Wiles, a professor of biology at Syracuse University and associate director of the McGill center.

In addition, the situation in Iran, where the Shiite sect of Islam dominates, may be far different than in neighboring Iraq, where Sunnis are more numerous. There is no single leader, like the Roman Catholic pope, who can dictate an official view that holds for all Muslims.

Even finding out how different countries teach evolution can be difficult, Dr. Hameed said. Saudi Arabia, for example, does not let foreigners see the biology textbooks. “We don’t have much information,” he said.

For many Muslims, even evolution and the notion that life flourished without the intervening hand of Allah is largely compatible with their religion. What many find unacceptable is human evolution, the idea that humans evolved from primitive primates. The Koran states that Allah created Adam, the first man, separately out of clay.

Pervez A. Hoodbhoy, a prominent atomic physicist at Quaid-e-Azam University in Pakistan, said that when he gave lectures covering the sweep of cosmological history from the Big Bang to the evolution of life on Earth, the audience listened without objection to most of it. “Everything is O.K. until the apes stand up,” Dr. Hoodbhoy said.

Mentioning human evolution led to near riots, and he had to be escorted out. “That’s the one thing that will never be possible to bridge,” he said. “Your lineage is what determines your worth.”

Biology education, even in places like Pakistan that otherwise teach evolution, largely omits the question of where humans came from.

Some academics at the conference worried that the rejection of some aspects of evolution might leave Islamic countries at a disadvantage in scientific education. Dr. Hameed said a negative reaction to evolutionary theory could reflect a struggle to retain cultural traditions and values against Western influences, even though Islamic creationists readily borrowed many of the arguments from Western creationists, just removing the young-Earth aspects.

There is some indication that in the West, where non-Islamic influences are strongest, Islamic creationism may be stronger in reaction to the outside pressure. For example, high school students at Islamic schools in and near Toronto were far more doubting of evolution than students in Indonesia or Pakistan, the McGill researchers found. A majority of the students at the Canadian Islamic schools disagreed that a significant body of data supported evolution and that all life came from the same common ancestors.

At the same time, many of the Canadian Muslims even acquired young-Earth creationist beliefs, which are thoroughly Western in origin. Only half the students surveyed at the Islamic schools in the Toronto area thought fossils showed that life had existed for billions of years and had changed over time, compared with the 86 percent of the students in Pakistan.

In a study financed by the National Science Foundation, Dr. Hameed and his colleagues will survey the beliefs of Muslim doctors in five Muslim countries " Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan and Turkey " and compare them with Muslim doctors in non-Muslim countries " Turkish doctors in Germany, Pakistani doctors in Britain, and Turkish and Pakistani doctors in the United States.

“We actually expect, especially in Europe, where they have a harder time merging in the culture,” Dr. Hameed said, “harsher rejection of evolution in England and Germany” than in Muslim countries.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 09:50 am
@Lightwizard,
Quote:
Thanks for clarifying who needs remedial reading lessons -- of course with a mind numbed with the ole suds, what would you expect?


You were challenged on your statement that I had gone into bat for creation and ID and that making such a statement meant you hadn't read my posts. By reading I do, of course, mean understanding. I don't mean skimming through looking for phrases to latch onto as an easy ride for your extremely dire wit.

That blather does not answer the challenge and if you think A2Kers will think it does you must have a very low opinion of their intelligence.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 09:52 am
From examiner.com

Link:

http://www.examiner.com/x-10722-Orlando-Science-Policy-Examiner~y2009m10d10-This-week-in-science

(Bold italics are mine)

Josh Rosenau, the public information project director at the National Center for Science Education, has penned a thought provoking article well worth reading:

Especially in contentious debates over science and religion, religious moderates have much to add. When fundamentalists are allowed to stand in for all religious people in discussions with atheists, the conversation falls back into historically naive visions of a war between science and religion ...

For more than two decades, a handful of underpaid NCSE staffers (In fact, for years it was a single, dedicated anthropologist named Genie Scott) and expert volunteers have successfully thwarted the well funded, national efforts of the religious right to eliminate everything from evolution to climate change from the science curricula of K-12 public schools. Including, more recently, the spectacular victory for biology in Dover V Kitzmiller.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 09:55 am
PSXXX constant smoke screens are fake digitally generated nonsense and there isn't anyone on this thread who can't see through it.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 10:00 am
Entire article:

In an age when shouting matches have migrated from Jerry Springer to cable news to town hall meetings to award shows, it’s hard to find anyone expressing nuance, fostering an open discussion of ideas, or deepening the public debate. Religious moderates could lead this charge and bring sensibility (and less stridency) to the public debate. But they need to step forward and make themselves heard.

Especially in contentious debates over science and religion, religious moderates have much to add. When fundamentalists are allowed to stand in for all religious people in discussions with atheists, the conversation falls back into historically naive visions of a war between science and religion (for more on that, see Ron Numbers’ excellent Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion). In discussing topics like evolution, it is too easy for both sides to talk past one another. Scientists often inadvertently ignore the theological concerns of religious nonscientists, while religiously conservative creationists obscure the scientific process by denying any finding that might conflict with their preconceptions of how the Bible should be read. You could easily assume it is an accepted fact that belief in God requires rejecting science and that accepting science means abandoning religious faith.

This situation effectively disenfranchises those in the middle"theists, atheists, agnostics, and others who see no need to set religion and science in opposition. In a survey this summer, 68 percent of white mainline Protestants denied that science conflicts with their religious beliefs, as did 62 percent of black Protestants, 52 percent of Catholics, and 79 percent of those with no religious affiliation. Only among evangelicals did a majority see a conflict, and that majority was a narrow 52 percent. This leaves a sizable fraction of the public that holds, or at least is sympathetic to, a moderate view on these questions, but their voices are too rarely heard in public debates. And when nontheists like the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould attempt to advance a vision of harmonious relations between science and religion, it can be seen as either disingenuous or naive. Religious moderates would do better to shoulder that burden themselves.

There are many simple ways to change things. Start at church. Most mainline Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, and most Jewish rabbinical groups (even in the Orthodox community) integrate faith with science, accepting science’s value as a method and as a source of knowledge (as documented in the National Center for Science Education’s publication Voices for Evolution). More than 12,000 American Christian clergy and a growing number of American rabbis have signed strong statements affirming their belief that science and religion can work hand in hand. It’s easy to find out if your congregation’s leaders have signed such a statement, and to urge them to do so if they haven’t. If they have, urge them to talk to the congregation about science and faith from time to time. This year contains numerous scientific anniversaries and is being celebrated as a Year of Science, which presents lots of opportunities for such a sermon. Why not aim for November 21 or 22, the weekend nearest the 150th anniversary of the Origin of Species’ publication?

But don’t confine this discussion to church. Surveys show that one in three high school biology teachers (according to an informal survey by the National Science Teachers Association) face pressure to exclude evolution or to present creationism. How many of those teachers have heard from religious and nonreligious parents who oppose teaching creationism and who want to see more evolution in class? Most teachers spend less than two weeks on evolution. Yet evolution is the foundation of modern biology, medicine, and biotechnology. Let school administrators and your children’s teachers know that you support the integrity of science education and oppose bringing religious beliefs into science classes. Make sure they know you support them in presenting a full and honest account of evolution, not the censored version advocated by fundamentalists.

Elected officials face similar pressures, and the more vocal the constituency for science (religious and nonreligious voters alike), the more likely that science education will get a fair shake in the halls of power. In letters to editors and other public forums, contest attempts to shut out moderate views on central questions, and insist that columns or stories about religion include voices from the moderate camp along with more extreme views.

This shift to a more vocal constituency for science is crucial. In Congress, in statehouses, and in the classroom, decisions are being made about how to balance science and religion, and we all benefit by ensuring that those discussions involve everyone. Religious moderates are the majority of that constituency, and there is no reason their voices should not be heard.

Josh Rosenau is the public information project director at the National Center for Science Education.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 10:20 am
@Lightwizard,
But religion and science are in opposition if the psychosomatic realm is stuck on Ignore as a convenience.

Similarly with cultural evolution.

If you ignore those two matters in economics you end up staring at mass futility.

One only need look a the female beautification industry, which might well be, if all the side-shoots and connections are considered, the biggest industry of all in the western world. So take the psychosomatic realm and the cultural evolution out of that and there's nothing left. It becomes an economic black hole from a scientific point of view.

If you ignore them altogether, which anti-IDers definitely don't except for the purpose of mounting intellectually flawed arguments when it suits them, there would only be primitive mankind.

What use is Euclid and Pythagoras if the culture they operated in ended in rubble and desolation. Their work was saved in monastries and religious orders.

How would you go from primitive mankind to this world with atheism?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 06/16/2025 at 12:42:35