The State Board of Education is to vote Feb. 19 on controversial new science standards that for the first time would require teaching evolution in Florida's public schools. The new standards are intended to beef up lackluster science education in schools.
They call evolution the "fundamental concept underlying all of biology" and say it is "supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence."
Foxfyre wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Spendi, you've mentioned the 'psychosomatic' issue a number of times. I agree that religious faith is a positive influence on children and helps to give them a strong sense of personal worth and a more positive outlook on life in general. I am guessing that should a comprehensive study be conducted, it would show that children with strong religious faith get into trouble less than other children, are less violent, commit fewer anti-social acts, and are generally happier. I personally think that it was specifically when God was declared unwelcome in the school systems that we began to see increased violence and for the first time ever parents worried about their kids being seriously assaulted or molested or gunned down in the classrooms and hallways.
But none of that matters in this debate that must be judged on First Amendment establishment clause criteria. It is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class. It is equally inappropriate, even illegal, to teach against ID in science class. It is appropriate and constructive for the teacher to allow both ID and Darwin to coexist peacefully in science class.
How exactly is it illegal to teach "against ID in science class" ?
And how is it appropriate to let the two coexist in science class when one (ID) has absolutely ZERO scientific credibility?
To teach against ID is to teach Atheism which is a violation of the establishment cause. To allow the two to coexist peacefully in science class does not presume that ID will be taught in science class. I have stated and restated and restated ad nauseum now that it is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class. It is correct to say that ID cannot be taught as science, because it isn't. It is perfectly fine for the teacher to explain that to the student. But for the same reason, ie that ID cannot be proved with science, it also cannot be falsified with science and it would be incorrect, as well as illegal, to tell a student that ID has ZERO credibility. To allow ID
To teach "against" ID is not the same as teaching Atheism - especially if the proponents of ID keep insisting that ID is not religious.
Teaching "against" ID is perfectly reasonable the same way we teach "against" the idea that the sum of two even numbers is an odd number. We have every reason to doubt it, it has no evidence to support it. Teaching "against" ID is to teach in favor or logic and reason. The fact that ID cannot be falsified does not protect it from scientific scrutiny or attack. We can craft all sorts of claims that cannot possible be refuted because their basis is of magic or dreams - that does not immunize them - especially if they claim to explain a situation for which we do have massive amounts of evidence and data.
Comments like this just point out how oblivious these people are to science. I say, let them pull their children out of the schools, boycott the tests. The only ones hurt by that are the children themselves. What happens when these kids try to go to college? I suppose they could always pump gas or server fries for a living...
Evolution
The similarities between the behavior of human population growth as described by Malthus and that of cancer cell growth are not metaphorical. They reflect deep and important underlying principles of nature.
In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work. (3)
-- Charles Darwin
And so was discovered the single most important principle in all of biology and one of the most important in all of science, Darwin s Theory of Evolution. (Alfred Russel Wallace about the same time reached similar conclusions.)
Darwin's Theory of Evolution explains how natural selection or "survival of the fittest" can lead to the development of the highly complex structures characteristic of life. Minor random variations that confer a reproductive or survival advantage are naturally selected for and become enriched in the population. New random variations arise and the process repeats. The gradual cumulative effect of a very large number of these selection cycles can generate the complex machinery of life. Evolution is a repetitive, iterative process. The output from one cycle becomes the input for the next. The net result is the development of a population that is increasingly well adapted for survival and reproduction in its environment. In the process, highly complex, ordered structures and functional machines such as life forms can emerge.
Evolution is not just about dinosaurs and of ages long past
Evolution is typically considered to require very long periods of time, millions to hundreds of millions of years. This is true if you're talking about drastic change. It took about 600 million years for multi-cellular organisms to evolve into humans. However, evolution is a continuous process. It occurs on a daily basis. It is readily observed when large populations of organisms, (millions to billions of organisms) are subjected to a severe selective pressure. For example, exposing bacteria to penicillin causes massive death and the destruction of sensitive organisms. The few variant bacteria, perhaps one out of one million, that are resistant to the penicillin survive and repopulate. The resulting population that grows can then thrive in the presence of penicillin that so readily poisoned and killed the prior generation. Expose this penicillin-resistant population of bacteria to a second antibiotic such as tetracycline and the same process is repeated. The net result is a population that has evolved resistance to both penicillin and tetracycline. In short order, by repeating the process, super-germs that are resistant to multiple antibiotics can evolve.
The evolution of antibiotic resistance is a major problem in medicine today. According to the CDC there are approximately 67,000 deaths in the U.S. every year from bacteria that are resistant to multiple antibiotics. According to the World Health Organization there are about 2 million deaths each year for TB. Approximately 4% of these are due to TB germs that are resistant to multiple antibiotics.
The evolution of drug resistant strains of AIDS virus is especially rapid for two reasons. First, the error rate in the replication of the AIDS virus is very high. Second, very large numbers of viral particles can be produced every day in a patient. (Approximately 10 billion viral particles) (4) The mutation rate can be so high that essentially every viral particle can be slightly different. (5) The net result is that HIV infection provides a large pool of variants for natural selection to act upon. Drug resistance can rapidly develop. Cancer cells behave in exactly the same manner.
It is a tribute to the remarkable genius of Darwin that he recognized that evolution was not dependent upon long periods of time. Darwin writes in Origin of the Species:
The mere lapse of time does nothing, either for or against natural selection. Lapse of time is only so far important, and its importance in this respect is great, that it gives a better chance for beneficial variations arising and of their being selected, accumulated, and fixed.
-- Charles Darwin
It is the underlying probabilities that count. In cancer, with billions of cells, each with a large number of mutations, the underlying probabilities strongly favor evolution.
millions to hundreds of millions of years.
One example of evolution underlying all of biology. This is an excerpt from the "Cure Cancer Project". You can visit their web site and judge the credentials of those who run and support it for your self.
Quote:
Evolution
The similarities between the behavior of human population growth as described by Malthus and that of cancer cell growth are not metaphorical. They reflect deep and important underlying principles of nature.
In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work. (3)
-- Charles Darwin
And so was discovered the single most important principle in all of biology and one of the most important in all of science, Darwin s Theory of Evolution. (Alfred Russel Wallace about the same time reached similar conclusions.)
Darwin's Theory of Evolution explains how natural selection or "survival of the fittest" can lead to the development of the highly complex structures characteristic of life. Minor random variations that confer a reproductive or survival advantage are naturally selected for and become enriched in the population. New random variations arise and the process repeats. The gradual cumulative effect of a very large number of these selection cycles can generate the complex machinery of life. Evolution is a repetitive, iterative process. The output from one cycle becomes the input for the next. The net result is the development of a population that is increasingly well adapted for survival and reproduction in its environment. In the process, highly complex, ordered structures and functional machines such as life forms can emerge.
Evolution is not just about dinosaurs and of ages long past
Evolution is typically considered to require very long periods of time, millions to hundreds of millions of years. This is true if you're talking about drastic change. It took about 600 million years for multi-cellular organisms to evolve into humans. However, evolution is a continuous process. It occurs on a daily basis. It is readily observed when large populations of organisms, (millions to billions of organisms) are subjected to a severe selective pressure. For example, exposing bacteria to penicillin causes massive death and the destruction of sensitive organisms. The few variant bacteria, perhaps one out of one million, that are resistant to the penicillin survive and repopulate. The resulting population that grows can then thrive in the presence of penicillin that so readily poisoned and killed the prior generation. Expose this penicillin-resistant population of bacteria to a second antibiotic such as tetracycline and the same process is repeated. The net result is a population that has evolved resistance to both penicillin and tetracycline. In short order, by repeating the process, super-germs that are resistant to multiple antibiotics can evolve.
The evolution of antibiotic resistance is a major problem in medicine today. According to the CDC there are approximately 67,000 deaths in the U.S. every year from bacteria that are resistant to multiple antibiotics. According to the World Health Organization there are about 2 million deaths each year for TB. Approximately 4% of these are due to TB germs that are resistant to multiple antibiotics.
The evolution of drug resistant strains of AIDS virus is especially rapid for two reasons. First, the error rate in the replication of the AIDS virus is very high. Second, very large numbers of viral particles can be produced every day in a patient. (Approximately 10 billion viral particles) (4) The mutation rate can be so high that essentially every viral particle can be slightly different. (5) The net result is that HIV infection provides a large pool of variants for natural selection to act upon. Drug resistance can rapidly develop. Cancer cells behave in exactly the same manner.
It is a tribute to the remarkable genius of Darwin that he recognized that evolution was not dependent upon long periods of time. Darwin writes in Origin of the Species:
The mere lapse of time does nothing, either for or against natural selection. Lapse of time is only so far important, and its importance in this respect is great, that it gives a better chance for beneficial variations arising and of their being selected, accumulated, and fixed.
-- Charles Darwin
It is the underlying probabilities that count. In cancer, with billions of cells, each with a large number of mutations, the underlying probabilities strongly favor evolution.
Not that anything like this would change anyone's mind but it does show that in seconds you can find tons of examples of practicing scientists using the theory to help mankind. Maybe even curing your child's cancer one day.
Teaching Of Evolution Hotly Debated In Public Meeting
(Central Florida News Online, February 11, 2008)
A group of almost 100 people sat in a room in Orlando Monday discussing science textbooks and whether the subject of evolution should be included.
"We had to have some changes take place," said Professor Richard Ellenburg.
Ellenburg helped write the standards in science that had so many people fired up at Monday's meeting. But he is defending the rules that would introduce Florida public-school students to evolution.
"The most basic thing we've changed is the scientific literacy. We've changed the level of literacy to world class standards," Ellenburg said.
The opposition comes from opponents like John Stemberger, of the Florida Family Policy Council. He spoke out at the State School Board meeting Monday and defended the idea that life began as a result of an intelligent force or being, and not by evolution. He said the state has never listened to his side of the case.
"There's been hearings held with no press release and no notice. Hearings cancelled with no notice and the state Board of Education has never heard from the public directly," Stemberger said.
The state Board of Education members were not present at the meeting Monday, but their press person did promise they would watch the live feed and read the thousands of e-mails received in the past few months.
"The people who are making the decision need to see the whites of the eyes of the parents of the children who are being affected," Stemberger said.
The state Department of Education is expected to approve the new standards later this month.
Some characteristics of Aspergers Syndrome:
-- considerable difficulty acknowledging that they have made a mistake
-- hypersensitive to any suggestion of criticism, yet overly critical of others
-- others are likely to capitulate to avoid yet another confrontation
Get Help. I'm here for ya buddy!
Although I will say FM will be happy to know you and your latex friend have managed to concieve!
Well I don't "preach" anything and I apparently don't pass your test as a "thinking person."
Or to put it another way
As Wandi Says:
Quote:
Some characteristics of Aspergers Syndrome:
-- considerable difficulty acknowledging that they have made a mistake
-- hypersensitive to any suggestion of criticism, yet overly critical of others
-- others are likely to capitulate to avoid yet another confrontation
I choose number three.
USAFHokie80 wrote:Foxfyre wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Spendi, you've mentioned the 'psychosomatic' issue a number of times. I agree that religious faith is a positive influence on children and helps to give them a strong sense of personal worth and a more positive outlook on life in general. I am guessing that should a comprehensive study be conducted, it would show that children with strong religious faith get into trouble less than other children, are less violent, commit fewer anti-social acts, and are generally happier. I personally think that it was specifically when God was declared unwelcome in the school systems that we began to see increased violence and for the first time ever parents worried about their kids being seriously assaulted or molested or gunned down in the classrooms and hallways.
But none of that matters in this debate that must be judged on First Amendment establishment clause criteria. It is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class. It is equally inappropriate, even illegal, to teach against ID in science class. It is appropriate and constructive for the teacher to allow both ID and Darwin to coexist peacefully in science class.
How exactly is it illegal to teach "against ID in science class" ?
And how is it appropriate to let the two coexist in science class when one (ID) has absolutely ZERO scientific credibility?
To teach against ID is to teach Atheism which is a violation of the establishment cause. To allow the two to coexist peacefully in science class does not presume that ID will be taught in science class. I have stated and restated and restated ad nauseum now that it is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class. It is correct to say that ID cannot be taught as science, because it isn't. It is perfectly fine for the teacher to explain that to the student. But for the same reason, ie that ID cannot be proved with science, it also cannot be falsified with science and it would be incorrect, as well as illegal, to tell a student that ID has ZERO credibility. To allow ID
To teach "against" ID is not the same as teaching Atheism - especially if the proponents of ID keep insisting that ID is not religious.
I have not said that ID is not 'religious'. I have said that ID does not necessarily have to include a concept of a supreme being as testified by Plato, Aristotle, and Buddhism. Therefore to teach against it is almost always going to be teaching against a religious belief. Is there another word that would define that other than Atheism?
Quote:Teaching "against" ID is perfectly reasonable the same way we teach "against" the idea that the sum of two even numbers is an odd number. We have every reason to doubt it, it has no evidence to support it. Teaching "against" ID is to teach in favor or logic and reason. The fact that ID cannot be falsified does not protect it from scientific scrutiny or attack. We can craft all sorts of claims that cannot possible be refuted because their basis is of magic or dreams - that does not immunize them - especially if they claim to explain a situation for which we do have massive amounts of evidence and data.
It can be clearly demonstrated that adding two numbers representing equal value cannot produce an odd number. But you can add two groups of uneven quantities and arrive at an odd number of the quantities but not an odd number of groups. In other words, math is verifiable and falsifiable and can depending on what the numbers represent. You cannot use any known science or any other means to verify or falsify ID. Therefore to teach against it is not only the teacher's personal opinion and effort to indoctrinate students with a particular dogma, but it is a violation of the establishment clause.
mesquite wrote:wandeljw wrote:His idea, known as the Clergy Letter Project, began with 467 churches in 2006 and has grown to 800 this year.
Hmm, back in 2005 I was discussing the Clergy Letter Project here. At that time they had over 7000 signatories.
Here is an excerpt from the letter.
Quote:We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.
To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our creator.
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
So it'd be ok to read this letter in class, promoting a religious view? Or no?
Do you really think it is appropriate for schools to endorse one religious view over another?
Foxfyre wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote:Foxfyre wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Spendi, you've mentioned the 'psychosomatic' issue a number of times. I agree that religious faith is a positive influence on children and helps to give them a strong sense of personal worth and a more positive outlook on life in general. I am guessing that should a comprehensive study be conducted, it would show that children with strong religious faith get into trouble less than other children, are less violent, commit fewer anti-social acts, and are generally happier. I personally think that it was specifically when God was declared unwelcome in the school systems that we began to see increased violence and for the first time ever parents worried about their kids being seriously assaulted or molested or gunned down in the classrooms and hallways.
But none of that matters in this debate that must be judged on First Amendment establishment clause criteria. It is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class. It is equally inappropriate, even illegal, to teach against ID in science class. It is appropriate and constructive for the teacher to allow both ID and Darwin to coexist peacefully in science class.
How exactly is it illegal to teach "against ID in science class" ?
And how is it appropriate to let the two coexist in science class when one (ID) has absolutely ZERO scientific credibility?
To teach against ID is to teach Atheism which is a violation of the establishment cause. To allow the two to coexist peacefully in science class does not presume that ID will be taught in science class. I have stated and restated and restated ad nauseum now that it is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class. It is correct to say that ID cannot be taught as science, because it isn't. It is perfectly fine for the teacher to explain that to the student. But for the same reason, ie that ID cannot be proved with science, it also cannot be falsified with science and it would be incorrect, as well as illegal, to tell a student that ID has ZERO credibility. To allow ID
To teach "against" ID is not the same as teaching Atheism - especially if the proponents of ID keep insisting that ID is not religious.
I have not said that ID is not 'religious'. I have said that ID does not necessarily have to include a concept of a supreme being as testified by Plato, Aristotle, and Buddhism. Therefore to teach against it is almost always going to be teaching against a religious belief. Is there another word that would define that other than Atheism?
Quote:Teaching "against" ID is perfectly reasonable the same way we teach "against" the idea that the sum of two even numbers is an odd number. We have every reason to doubt it, it has no evidence to support it. Teaching "against" ID is to teach in favor or logic and reason. The fact that ID cannot be falsified does not protect it from scientific scrutiny or attack. We can craft all sorts of claims that cannot possible be refuted because their basis is of magic or dreams - that does not immunize them - especially if they claim to explain a situation for which we do have massive amounts of evidence and data.
It can be clearly demonstrated that adding two numbers representing equal value cannot produce an odd number. But you can add two groups of uneven quantities and arrive at an odd number of the quantities but not an odd number of groups. In other words, math is verifiable and falsifiable and can depending on what the numbers represent. You cannot use any known science or any other means to verify or falsify ID. Therefore to teach against it is not only the teacher's personal opinion and effort to indoctrinate students with a particular dogma, but it is a violation of the establishment clause.
You forget that mathematics is largely theory in itself. Besides, the point remains. We will always be able to come up with complete nonsense but claim is it not falsifiable and therefore should be taught as an alternative solution. It's crap.
Oh, and science is not required to be PC or religion sensitive. It speaks truth, regardless of the impact it could have on religion. Perhaps you think we should teach that the sun revolves around the earth?
USAFHokie80 wrote:Foxfyre wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote:Foxfyre wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Spendi, you've mentioned the 'psychosomatic' issue a number of times. I agree that religious faith is a positive influence on children and helps to give them a strong sense of personal worth and a more positive outlook on life in general. I am guessing that should a comprehensive study be conducted, it would show that children with strong religious faith get into trouble less than other children, are less violent, commit fewer anti-social acts, and are generally happier. I personally think that it was specifically when God was declared unwelcome in the school systems that we began to see increased violence and for the first time ever parents worried about their kids being seriously assaulted or molested or gunned down in the classrooms and hallways.
But none of that matters in this debate that must be judged on First Amendment establishment clause criteria. It is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class. It is equally inappropriate, even illegal, to teach against ID in science class. It is appropriate and constructive for the teacher to allow both ID and Darwin to coexist peacefully in science class.
How exactly is it illegal to teach "against ID in science class" ?
And how is it appropriate to let the two coexist in science class when one (ID) has absolutely ZERO scientific credibility?
To teach against ID is to teach Atheism which is a violation of the establishment cause. To allow the two to coexist peacefully in science class does not presume that ID will be taught in science class. I have stated and restated and restated ad nauseum now that it is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class. It is correct to say that ID cannot be taught as science, because it isn't. It is perfectly fine for the teacher to explain that to the student. But for the same reason, ie that ID cannot be proved with science, it also cannot be falsified with science and it would be incorrect, as well as illegal, to tell a student that ID has ZERO credibility. To allow ID
To teach "against" ID is not the same as teaching Atheism - especially if the proponents of ID keep insisting that ID is not religious.
I have not said that ID is not 'religious'. I have said that ID does not necessarily have to include a concept of a supreme being as testified by Plato, Aristotle, and Buddhism. Therefore to teach against it is almost always going to be teaching against a religious belief. Is there another word that would define that other than Atheism?
Quote:Teaching "against" ID is perfectly reasonable the same way we teach "against" the idea that the sum of two even numbers is an odd number. We have every reason to doubt it, it has no evidence to support it. Teaching "against" ID is to teach in favor or logic and reason. The fact that ID cannot be falsified does not protect it from scientific scrutiny or attack. We can craft all sorts of claims that cannot possible be refuted because their basis is of magic or dreams - that does not immunize them - especially if they claim to explain a situation for which we do have massive amounts of evidence and data.
It can be clearly demonstrated that adding two numbers representing equal value cannot produce an odd number. But you can add two groups of uneven quantities and arrive at an odd number of the quantities but not an odd number of groups. In other words, math is verifiable and falsifiable and can depending on what the numbers represent. You cannot use any known science or any other means to verify or falsify ID. Therefore to teach against it is not only the teacher's personal opinion and effort to indoctrinate students with a particular dogma, but it is a violation of the establishment clause.
You forget that mathematics is largely theory in itself. Besides, the point remains. We will always be able to come up with complete nonsense but claim is it not falsifiable and therefore should be taught as an alternative solution. It's crap.
Oh, and science is not required to be PC or religion sensitive. It speaks truth, regardless of the impact it could have on religion. Perhaps you think we should teach that the sun revolves around the earth?
Sure. You can say you saw little green men from Mars this morning and there is absolutely zero means to verify or discredit your statement. The only criteria that can be used is implausibility based on logistics coupled with lack of confirmation or anybody else's experiences. But a scientist would keep an open mind on the possibilities in what you claim to have seen and would add your report to others, should others report the same phenomenon.
Should you insist that the sun revolves around the Earth, however, we do have scientific means to discredit your opinion on that.
Science has absolutely zero means of discrediting ID, however, and therefore it is not a matter of PC to not attempt to do that. It is simply good science.
I think any person who would close his/her mind to any concept for which s/he has no scientific criteria or empirical evidence to draw from cannot rightfully claim to be a scientist. At best s/he will be a parrot
