Public Universities and Creationists

[jeff]

Collect incriminating photographs to use against them when they become politicians and lobbyists? (do we have a game thread opportunity here?)

[academe]

"Know thine enemy"?

"We have met the enemy... and he is us"

Pogo (Walt Kelly)

[Inquartata]

"Enema of the State".

[Lemonaide]

The Pledge of Allegience.
We had better think of revamping the whole thing and I have come up with a plan. 25 kids in a classroom was the limit, and they slowly increased it to 31 kids per classroom. Let's go back to 25 kids per classroom maximum. Next: K-6 in one school; then we have jr.HS in another school; then 10-12 in another school. There're at totally different stages of intellectual development and need to grow in different places.[whaddya think?]

In the past we all recited the following:

I Pledge of Allegience to the Flag,
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic
to which it stands,
One Nation,
Under God,
With Liberty and Justice for All.

Then we either sang along with or at least listened to:

My country tis of thee,
Sweet Land of liberty
Of thee I sing,
Land where our fathers died,
Land of the Pilgrams pride
From every mountainside
Let Freedom Ring.

[Lemonaide]

I simply typed in all of that to demonstrate that if we start by including the Pledge in school, we will redevelop a spirit of belonging together in the same world.
Did you all see the movie last night about the Scopes Trial? The answer is right there. Darwin merely wrote a theory. I think maybe we should remember what a theory is...... it's an organized idea, but it doesn't make it fact. I still believe it is possible to teach many theories in a classroom to answer the question of "Where do we come from" as in: "Mom, how did we get here" including the answer "that some things are just a mystery and we may never know the 'answer'. The main thrust of the debate in Creationism vs Darwinism is that Creationists feel strongly that Man is 'inherently' spiritual, and that we are derived from something Higher - God; whereas the Darwinists are willing to believe that mankind has evolved from something lower - primates - which in turn have evolved from an even lower animal, and that lower animals do not have the same capacity. We have spent fortunes - emptied the Kings coffers so to speak in trying to 'trace' Lucy to ourselves; as well as find out where out beginnings come from. While much of our ancestry is interesting, I still believe that we should try to let certain things alone.

[mrbiggs]

I think maybe we should remember what a theory is...... it's an organized idea, but it doesn't make it fact.

I think you need to brush up on your definition of "theory" as it applies to science.


As a hint, it has to do with a hypothesis that has not or cannot ever be proven, but has been substantiated by overwhelming evidence.

[jeff]

What he said! And, we call it "the theory of gravitation", but nobody says "well, it's only a theory", and then walks off the edge of a cliff.

[Lemonaide]

A theory is supposedlly a proven Hypothsis. If Darwins' ideas are being taught in a science classroom then it is incorrect as it doesn't classify as a Theory because there is no evidence to support his hypothosis. I don't need to brush up on this too much, I majored in a science and completed a Master of Science and completed my own research project using the Standard Deviations derived when applying normal statistical calculations to my Hypothosis. I would never dream of teaching my Hypothosis in a classroom. Hypothosis is merely mentioned in science as a way of explaining what leads up to a Theory. A Theory is more developed and supported by a certain amount of emperical evidence, which is also supported through a replication of the data in order to derive the same conclusion. Gravity is not a Theory, it is classified as a Force which can be described using a theory, but it is not classified as a theory.

Ipso Facto

[jessicasimpson]

What he said! And, we call it "the theory of gravitation", but nobody says "well, it's only a theory", and then walks off the edge of a cliff.

Don't discriminate against the mentally ill

[mrbiggs]

A theory is supposedlly a proven Hypothsis. If Darwins' ideas are being taught in a science classroom then it is incorrect as it doesn't classify as a Theory because there is no evidence to support his hypothosis.

lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lolololololololol


There's plenty of evidence to support evolution. For example, drug resistant tuberculosis. It wasn't around 100 years ago, but as we've used drugs to treat TB, evolution has caused drug resistant strains to appear.

There are fewer modern examples with animals because they generally don't breed quickly enough to have a noticeable effect over a generation or two. However, there are plenty of experiments where animals such as fruit flies were put into an unusual environment and they evolved to adapt to it. Look it up.

[Inquartata]

There's plenty of evidence to support evolution. For example, drug resistant tuberculosis. It wasn't around 100 years ago, but as we've used drugs to treat TB, evolution has caused drug resistant strains to appear.

THAT'S not evidence of evolution, clearly that's evidence that the Devil is at work creating new strains to vex us!

[Philistine]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but Lemonaide=Mango, right?

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Almost certainly. More incarnations than a Hindu goddess, that one.

[lemon__fresh]

I think we should look less at the definition of a theory, and more at the actual emperical evidence that evolution exists, and the replication of the data to derive the same conclusion.

i reccomend a geology: history of life course and an introductory Anthropology course.

But seriously though, as far as grade school is concerned the idea is not to teach highly contested ideas about the way the world works. I think that should be saved for University. So as it stands the overwhelmingly accepted theory is Evolution.

It took us long enough to actually start understanding that things just didnt magically appear, lets not move backwards.

[academe]

We have spent fortunes - emptied the Kings coffers so to speak in trying to 'trace' Lucy to ourselves; as well as find out where out beginnings come from. While much of our ancestry is interesting, I still believe that we should try to let certain things alone.

Actually, the Creation Science folks (like the Discovery Institute and other religion in the schools folks) are spending HUGE amounts of money trying to use a pseudo-scientific argument (Intelligent Design) as a wedge to get religion back into schools. Witness the latest glossy, big bucks marketing campaign for Intelligent Design:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

Actually, I'm starting to think it would be easier to teach if we adopted the religious approach to the teaching of science. Standardized tests would be no problem, there would only be One answer to all the science questions...

[mrbiggs]

I just lost all respect for Ben Stein.

[I_luv_saber]

So as it stands the overwhelmingly accepted theory is Evolution.

Kinda like the overwhelming theory used to be that the world was flat?
Just kidding.

At any rate... I don't think this is a singular issue. Science DOES seem to say "this is the way it is" much too quickly. For example... I read an interesting article about a scientist in San Francisco who (supposedly) accurately predicted earthquakes for a number of years by studying the reactions and behaviors of animals (also, I believe this was done before by a researcher in Japan). Also (again, supposedly), he predicted these earthquakes with classified ads in the papers beforehand. It was written off as a completely unreliable method of prediction right away.

EDIT: OK, got it a bit mixed up. He predicted earthquakes from peaks in the "Lost Pets" section of the paper. The idea being that the animals were breaking loose from their homes more often to escape some calamity they sensed. Also, it's in China where they use animal behavior studies to attempt earthquake prediction.

I'll try to dig up the article and some sources on this...
EDIT: Found A source... take a look and formulate your own opinion...
http://www.johnmartin.com/earthquake...s/00000072.htm

At any rate, to me, it just seems like the scientific community is too afraid to simply say... this is how we think everything works, but we're not sure yet. And are sometimes even more close-minded than the religious groups.

Personally, I still believe Evolution as a theory, although I believe it to be the best probability of how we got here. As far as proof through what we see now... I disagree to a point. If a moth mutates to, say, change color... does that make it a new animal? Where is that line drawn? At what point can you say, okay... this is a new animal that has evolved from this old one. Maybe I'm missing something (VERY possible), but I just don't see that as conclusive proof still. My 2 cents... I believe in evolution, but I try to keep an open mind...