@wandeljw,
Quote:"Only one model " the theory of evolution " is widely accepted, and any other model should not be used in the science classroom," Eberle said. "Students are easily impressed and are not often able to comprehend the complexity of adult arguments."
Mr Scharrer's science is "overly broad and not deep enough." He obviously doesn't know any "adult" arguments.
The social system which has produced science, including evolution science, owes it's very existence to throwing evolution science out of the window. In fact, it is vehemently opposed, to the very roots of our Christian culture, to that particular bag of tricks. It is enthusiastic about all other types of science (more or less), the Pope has satellite TV to see what we are up to, because they aid its progress whereas evolution science undermines it unless a new type of human being is destined to inherit these lands off us.
Mr Scharrer, and those in the camp of the Houston Chronicle's editorial policy which will be that of the Hearst Corporation, a multinational corporate media conglomerate based in the ether, avoid, with some alacrity, any challenge in the "social consequences" field regarding the end product of their policy recommendations. They will not face up to the new type of human being they are bent on creating. And creating human beings is what the educational system is for.
It is not the "overly broad" roots, which Mr Scharrar's piece is a representative of, but the "deep" ones which are opposed to this theory and which he self-evidently knows nothing about.
It would be fair enough teaching monkeys or gerbils evolution science because they live it. The wild ones I mean. But they can't teach it. They can't even read or write donchaknow?
I spent five years battling with a provincial newspaper which purported to represent the local interests loyally but which was owned in the Big City far away through a series of other companies, presumably designed to hide something, and however mealy-mouthed they got I could see they were a vehicle for loading our money onto trains. On one famous occasion they attacked a recent interest rate rise vehemently and the Financial Times produced a table showing winners and losers and, lo and behold, my area was a leading beneficiary of high interest rates and all the suits in the conglomerate had big mortgages. And the same with the National Lottery which is a form of theft in its Sunday Best.
I lost of course. Now we are like Big City people more and more and, I must admit, there are advantages. But there are disadvantages as well.
Evolution theory is winning hands down. Why you keep defending it I don't know. It's as if you have no perception. Just as most of the key words Mr Schaffer uses he has no perception of the reality they abstractly stand for.
He's posturing.
What on earth are you doing having people who know no science organising science classes? If ever there was a route to ruin that seems to me one of the best candidates. You have "greed" organising it. The Business Ethic. It has nothing to do with science. I don't know what this thread is doing on here.
