|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
From today's New York Times: Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy
Might require a subscription, but it's free. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Fix link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
more unadulterated bullshit {Worthless and inflammatory half of a one-liner hidden. 24 hour suspension almost handed out. Stop it before I quit feeling so tolerant! - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Original message "hidden" and "{Worthless and inflamitory half of a one-liner hidden. 24 hour suspension almost handed out. Stop it before I quit feeling so tolerant! - Adminnemooseus}" posted in its place. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
I feel I was being generous when I didn't issue a 24 hour suspension for the previous message. Post material that moves an on-topic debate forward, or don't post.
This message also functions as a flag so I can more easily track that I did a moderation effort here. No replies to this message - Doing such also might get you a 24 hour suspension. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Something that would be both funny and helpful at the same time:
Put together a curriculum collecting creo misunderstandings and explain why these things in fact are not weaknesses of the ToE. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
What do you know, creos do evolve after all. And I was hoping ID was an evolutionary dead end.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The wonder is why Texas school boards are important to Idaho, and when people will decide that science textbooks should be based on science and not popularity.
quote:Different name, same old (hide the pea) game. From the link:
quote: The fact that no other explanation exists doesn't seem to disturbe them ... Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Just something a little off the side. I think we have only ourselves to blame for the continuing misunderstanding of the cambrian explosion. An explosion is by definition a sudden release of energy in a short time. Ignorant people take one look at "cambrian explosion" and they get the idea that millions of species came out of no where over night.
I also blame popular sci-fi movies for spreading the false pretense that evolution means a cat morphing into a dog and then morphing into a bear in a couple days. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Deftil Member (Idle past 4456 days) Posts: 128 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Why would anyone take anything the Discovery Inst. says about science seriously? Everyone knows they were behind ID which has mostly been shot down. And after the Wedge Document was exposed, aren't any claims they make regarding evolution automatically discredited?
Wedge strategy - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
The wonder is why Texas school boards are important to Idaho, and when people will decide that science textbooks should be based on science and not popularity. That answer is alluded to in the article: Texas has a central approval process for textbooks, and a big population. If a publisher can get on the approved list here, he's almost assured a pretty good chunk of sales just in Texas. If I remember right, only five texts were approved for high school biology in 2003, the last time biology books were reviewed. And if he can publish just a single biology text that's on the Approved List somewhere, he can likely sell a lot of copies in other places, too - including states that let local school boards approve their own texts. Fun state to live in
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I wonder if there is some kind of annual secret creo convention where creos meet to conjure up ways to take over the world.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Coragyps writes: Fun state to live in Yes, looks like my daughter may have to go out of state to continue her education. No use in getting a degree from a state whose educational system is an international laughingstock. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Actually, Texas right now has the most prosperous economy in the union. Because of high oil prices, oil wells that previously weren't worth getting to are now worth getting to.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5764 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
I read the article in the New York Times with interest for a number of reasons. I have not kept up with this dispute over the years, so I had not been aware of the intensity of the arguments or the enmity that is evident in the controversy between the two sides until I came to this forum. This article does give me a little better perception from an outside source.
The article does not appear to present any ground breaking news. The controversy has been going on for many years, and it appears that there has been many attempts in the past to have the scientific world recognize that there are “weaknesses” in the “theory of evolution.” I would think that there are weaknesses in all scientific theories to one extent or another. I would also think that when you study those theories that you should be made aware of the strengths and weaknesses. It seems obvious to me that when you study a particular scientific theory the emphasis in teaching will be upon the strengths of that theory, but you should not ignore the weaknesses. That brings a question to my mind which was also raised in the article as can be seen by this quote:
quote: What would be the reason for a group of people to argue that the weaknesses of a particular theory should not be required to be taught? Why would they argue that they are under attack when another group proposes that any weaknesses to the theory of evolution be taught in the classroom? Is it because the theory has no weaknesses? If that is the case, which I doubt in this situation, then it would be legitimate to argue that you should not teach weaknesses that do not exist. Is it because the proponents of the theory are concerned that the strengths of the theory cannot overcome the weaknesses that would be taught? If this is truly a fear, then I believe it would be dishonest to conceal anything. The facts of the theory need to be taught in the classroom. If there are facts that provide strength to the theory then they should be taught. If there are facts that weaken the theory then they should be taught. Is it because the proponents of the theory are concerned that by allowing weaknesses to be taught it would give some the opportunity to teach alternative theories, or religion in the guise of science? I believe this may be the reason for the controversy. Proponents of the theory of evolution are concerned that if you require teachers to reveal and discuss the weaknesses of the theory of evolution then it will open the door for those teachers to introduce alternative theories including creation or intelligent design in the science classroom. Therefore, it seems that proponents of the theory would sacrifice the teaching of the facts because of the fear that alternative theories may be introduced, and some of these theories they may consider not to be scientific or suitable for the science classroom. Now my question would be, should that fear by the proponents of the theory of evolution allow something other than the full truth about evolution to be taught? In my opinion, of course not! Should safeguards be introduced so that supernatural explanations will not attempt to replace true science (which only allows natural explanations) to become a regular part of the science curriculum. In my opinion, of course they should be put in place. But this should not mean that all of the significant strengths and weaknesses of the theory cannot and should not be taught. As I said above, this article is really not news. The language that they are referring to as a new weapon in the creationist arsenal has been part of the curriculum standards in the state of Texas for around twenty years. The state has been mandating that the weaknesses of the theory of evolution be taught. Evidently, those who promote the theory of evolution have had control of the education board in the past and have been able to argue that the textbooks do adequately cover the weaknesses of the theory. That is interesting because when you look at another discussion that is taking place in another forum on this website they are discussing some frauds (lies) in the field of evolution. Many of these frauds have ended up in the textbooks. It seems that many of the textbooks in the past have had problems with misrepresenting the strengths of evolution. So it seems to me that the proponents of evolution are very interested in making sure that the weaknesses of evolution are not represented in the textbooks, but they do not seem to use the same diligence to make sure that the strengths of evolution are not misrepresented in those same textbooks. Maybe this is my misperception. However, I think it is something to consider. Here is a quote that discusses when this requirement became part of the curriculum standards in Texas.
quote: The later part of this quote seems to tell us why this has become news. It is not because of new standards for textbooks. It is not because there have not been arguments for many years that the weaknesses of evolution should be taught. That is not why this is news today. It is news because the makeup of the education board appears to be shifting from one which is favorable to the promotion of the theory of evolution to one that is willing to challenge the theory as taught today. The board is changing to a makeup of one that is more inclined to demand that the weaknesses of the theory of evolution be taught in the classroom. This is evident by another quote in the article.
quote: It seems logical to me that if we want to educate the people in the world then they should be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories, and they should also be aware of alternative theories and explanations. If we want to indoctrinate the people in the world, then teach them only a limited view of what is possible. When we look at this controversy carefully, who is attempting to limit what is being taught? Why would a group of people want to limit what is being taught in a particular field of science? What do they possibly hope to achieve by pursuing this course of action? As I have said earlier, I have not kept up with this controversy. I was in college in the state of Arkansas about thirty years ago when the creation debate was in the courts in that state. Since that time it appears that the arguments have raged on, and many different theories have been proposed. Why is it so important that a group of scientists would lobby, and promote propaganda to support a scientific theory? In the end, will it not be the facts that will be the determining factor? There is another quote in this article that I believe may lead us to some conclusions to these questions. Is their motive a search for the truth? Or, are they concerned about how the world will view them if they allow the weaknesses of a theory that has been accepted by the scientific world to be taught? The following quote may shed some light on this matter.
quote: I have raised a lot of questions in my review of this article which is the topic of this thread. I am not trying to start a debate about each or any of these questions. The general idea that I am attempting to put across is that there are two sides to every controversy. In the end, the theory of evolution will either stand or fall based upon the evidence. The theory will grow in strength or be weakened or falsified by the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence. It makes me wonder about the significance of the evidence when there are those who would promote that they are being attacked when they are confronted with the idea that the weaknesses of a particular theory should be taught. This article is not news about changes in the arsenal of one group in a controversy. It appears that the only news in this article is the change in the makeup of a group of people who are making decisions about what is going to be put in a textbook in a particular state. Should the weaknesses of the theory of evolution be included in these textbooks? What do you think? "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Taz writes: Actually, Texas right now has the most prosperous economy in the union. Because of high oil prices, oil wells that previously weren't worth getting to are now worth getting to. So what happens after the creationist governor and his cronies suck the wells dry that the geologists have already found. Use a combination of 'water witches,' 'doodlebugs,' and prayer to find more? What happens to the state if they destroy the education system with the politics of so-called Christian demagogues? Guess they will have to import enough foreign talent to 'keep the trains running on time' so as to please the primary concern of what currently passes as the average Texas voter. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: The answer to this question, specifically as it relates to evolution, ir quite simple. The things that creos want to get presented in schools are not weaknesses in the theory of evolution. Broadly speaking, and off the top of my head, they all fall into one of these catagories: 1. A misunderstanding of the ToE. 2. A (probably intentional) mischaracterization of the ToE. 3. Nothing to do with the ToE. 4. Something actually quite well explained by the ToE, but creos don't get it. Whether there are "weaknesses" in the ToE depends entirely on what one means by weakness. If you mean questions that the ToE can't yet answer, everyone who knows anything at all about it knows that there are millions and millions of questions that the ToE can't answer. Although it seems paradoxical, the fact that there are unanswered questions is one of the hallmarks of a vital and flourishing theory in any science. Any important scientific theory is going to point to vast areas of new research for further inquiry. Thus, if you mean that we should teach that evolution doesn't answer every question in the field of biology, I can't imagine that any scientist would object. The reason why people are fighting against creo attempts to "teach the weaknesses" is because their idea of "weaknesses" is bad science, and because it's a blatant attempt to continue in their efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution. The obviousness of this is demonstrated by the fact that they don't want to teach the "weaknesses" in geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, botany, or any other field of science (except, occasionally the portions of those disciplines that contradict their narrow reading of the bible). I can absolutely guarantee that it has nothing to do with scientists being "afraid" of facing the "weaknesses" in the ToE. As many people have explained in many places on this forum, the lifeblood of science is exposing weaknesses of theories. Any scientist who could present an objection to the ToE that would undermine the acceptance of the theory would win a Nobel Prize and be the most famous scientist since Darwin. Broadly speaking, the work of scientists can be broken down into three different types of activity. The first is creating and refining hypotheses and theories. The second is putting those theories into practical effect. The third is doing one's best to prove that any given theory is wrong, and the more well-accepted a theory is, the more to be gained by disproving it. That in large part is why Einstein is so famous. Not just because his theory is so revolutionary, but because the theory that he disproved, Newtonian Mechanics, was probably the most widely-accepted theory in the history of science. The problem is not that there are no "weaknesses" or that scientists are afraid of "weaknesses." The problem is that the "weaknesses" that creos want taught aren't "weaknesses" at all, and certainly bear no relation to science in any way. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024