Natural Selection Shrinks Herd of Kansas Darwinists

First, I found this article hilarious. It's from scrappleface.com, where Scott Ott satarizes the news but provides links in his stories to the real story, so you can know what he's talking about. At first, I was just amused by this little story, but then I clicked some of the links. There were two books that were linked to which Amazon.com carries. One was written by a biochemist from Lehigh University, explaining that, while there is evidence of macro evolution, the theory just doesn't hold up with micro evolution. Kinda the opposite arguement of most creationists today until you look at what defines micro. He's refering to microevolution as evolution of cells, and with his research he doesn't believe it to be possible. The other book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds kinda speaks for its self.

What I found really interesting, though, was this article from CBS News

It is a biased article complaining about horrible children coming into their biology class with questions that evolution can't answer. The gist of the article is that it's causing a disruptive learning environment, and that kids should just stop asking questions and accept what they're told. Here's a quote by one of the teachers interviewed:



That's right, kids. Asking Mr. Williamson questions he doesn't have the answer makes him uncomfortable, so sit down, shut up, and accept what anyone in authority tells you. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Well, let’s see, kids being coached by their parents to disrupt class in order to promote their (or more accurately, their parents) particular religious viewpoint.

Yep, I do have a problem with that. If you are in a public school, then sit down and shut up. If you want to proselytize, then go to a private school.

Personally, I was raised to question everything. If something didn't click or make sense, there was no shame in asking for more information or clarification. If someone was stating something as fact, and I knew it to be wrong but didn't have the extensive knowlege to address the incorrect assumption, I was taught to go to sources I suspected did. A lot of the time, that was my parents.

For instance, my sister (raised the same way) took US Government in High School during the impeachment of Clinton. Her government teacher was raising a storm about impeaching a president for having sex. My sister knew that wasn't the case, but absloutly could not go toe to toe with a government teacher when it came to politics. So what did she do? Well, she went home, talked with my parents. They didn't coach her, but they did tell her to call her grandfather, David Schippers, who was the Chief Investigative Counsel for the Hous Judiciary Committee to Impeach President Clinton. He did coach her, and she came into class and made a monkey of that teacher. Not because she was being disruptive, but because the teacher had no arguement my sister wasn't prepared for, yet the teacher never relented in saying it was all about sex. The rest of her class did, though.

So as for "coaching" children on talking points and questions, I'm ok with that. They're still developing, and don't have the ability to, on their own resources, question effectivly someone who's been teaching the same subject for years.

Besides, sitting down and shutting up is a major problem with public school. You're considered stupid if you ask questions, but you're also stupid if you don't learn the way a teacher teaches. Interactive teaching is a heck of a lot more effective than lecturing, as the students get involved and retain a lot more.

Couple of things here.
Darwins "Theory of Evolution" is just that. It is only a theory. Yes one that has a fairly large amount of evidence to support it The facts have been in contention since he first wrote his book

From the news article that junglejake provided,

By the finding of this informal poll, only 20% point the finger at the parents while 22% point the finger at the students as to who is pressuring the teachers.

Reading the article, makes no mention of children being coached by parents to be disruptive in class.

Question, what is the purpose of school? Either public or private?
It is a building where chilred are educated.

Education



Since Evolution is still considered to only be a theory, why only promote that theory above all others? Why supress other theories?

Why does the thought of students asking questions to the teacher make the teacher uncomfortable? The teacher is there to teach. What happened to the lofty aim of teachers to

The problem is that these are science classes, not comparative religion classes. If a kid has a reasonable question regarding science then ask away, but if the child attempts to interject religion into the discussion, then they are in the wrong classroom. That is the long and short of it. And yes, those kids are coached at home. I guarantee 100 percent that those kids attempting to interject religion into a science class have been coached and pressured by their parents into doing so. The parents are too chicken bleep to confront the school teachers themselves, so they are using the kids as proxies.

But that's what they're doing. Read the article. The questions are from a scientific basis pointing out the holes in evolution. At least now I understand why you felt the way you did; coaching kids to disrupt a science class with religion isn't good. It's not the time nor the place. However, questioning evolution by pointing out holes in it in the classroom is the time and the place.


This, too, is addressed in that article and is not the case. As Ken pointed out, only 20% of them are being pressured by their parents, while 22% of them are questioning on their own.

Take a look at the questions that "Icons of Evolution," is promoting.
They are of a scientific nature and are questions that a teacher should not find uncomfortable but should actually welcome. I promote open mindness with my son as puch him to question everything (not just the evolutionary theory)
Here is a link to what these 10 questions are:
Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution.

If a science teacher believes that these questions are only for the promotion of religious agendas, then why should the teacher not instruct the students why these "religous beliefs" are wrong. Would you not agree that this would actually teach the children?

I was not raised to question everything, but I did. I asked the ministers and pastors at my church many questions they could not answer. That made them uncomfortable too. It was by questioning suspect material and views that I eventually broke away from the Prison of Christianity.

So yes. One should always ask those in power who try and feed you any party line questions. I wonder if these kids jave asked those same questions of their religous leaders? I bet they get mighty uncomfortable too.

GEORGIA SCHOOLS TO STOP TEACHING LAW OF GRAVITY Murphy’s Law Could Be Next, District Warns


Thats dumb, I don't care if he has a PHD. I think you are talking about Michael Behe.


Because the questions are moronic.

Such as


and

Actually, that second one wasn't just moronic, its a lie. Embryos are similar, Haeckles drawingsweren't faked, they left out some details, and those drawings aren't even used anymore anyway.

The questions are

They are using these kids to create drama in science classrooms. They don't bother to give the kids the answers to these questions, which they already know.


He doesn't want to have to confront these kids who have been suckered into creationis propaganda and who's entire beleif system is ready to fall apart.


Those questions aren't about questioning evolution, they are designed by anti-creationist activists and distributed to students to ask in class to disrupt it. They are not valid questions.

I mean, do you honestly think that this:

is an open and honest question? Its b/s, its propaganda, its garbage. Look at what these people are doing, they are literally distributing this stuff to kids, getting them to disrupt classrooms, trying to get 'materialism' and such discussed so that the class can become a religious discussion. Maybe scientists should start going to churchs and snatching the communion wafers out of preachers hand's to run protein analyses on them.

If a kid had been thru a proper science education, and still asked some of those questions, then the kid is stupid.


Evolution is the best supported theory, its also the consensus theory, and there's been a consensus on it for, what, a hundred years? Why bother to teach students theories that either

1. been refuted, like lamarckism or goldschmidt's theories
   
2. Are not scientific hypotheses, like creationism or intelligent design

What alternative to evolution do you suggest be taught?

Context. The article is about questions formulated by anti-evolutionists to distrupt classroom science education, to draw out a political issue. The teacher is uncomfortable, specifically, because he doesn't want to have to confront the student anddebate his faith or disrupt the class. The questions are made so as to serve as a back door for religion, not merely 'question science'.


Incorrect. The questions are not scientific, they are propagandistic, and they don't point out any 'holes' in evolution. They are old questions, that have been addressed numerous times, but the creationist activist camp is still pushing them, because they can be used to discuss religion in science classes, not because these people care about actual science. This is pseudo-science.

Not for nothing, but thats rather disengenius. What percentage of these kids have parents who accept evolution??? Probably none. These kids are brought up in a creationist household, the parents don't need to exert overt pressure on them.

These are the questions that are being promoted. They are bunk.

Because then they'd be discussing religion. Do you really want the state debunking religion in science classes? Testing kids on it? Failing students and making them repeat unitl they understand that 'ressurection is not physically possible' and 'textual analysis of gospel texts reveals contradictions that prove that its not the infallible word of god' etc etc??? Better, for everyone, to leave religion out of the discussion.


As if there isn't enough problems in schools, as if these kids who are running around killing each other aren't already stressed/damaged enough. Now science teachers have to worry about this, they have to present their topic to students in such a way as to prevent emotional outbursts and breakdowns from these students. I've known a number of people who were raised creationist, and when they considered the evidence, over time, they eventually came to accept evoltuion, but their entire faith had been built up around these ludicrous religious assertions about evolution, and they had seen the obvious lying and hypocrisy and deceptiveness, that they ended up loosing all faith, at least temporarily before eventually assimilating it all. Teenagers are 'fragile' enough, we don't need these kinds of things going on in school. Just teach them science. Its b/s that any of these parents, let alone 20 percent (at least) are forcing this issue with their kids and literally putting them in danger.

You are asking about abiogenisis. A simple explanaition of some abiogenisis theories on the origin of life.

Or some more recent research.



The so called “Cambrian explosion” occurred over a period of 20 to 30 million years. Hardly a rapid onslaught of new life forms.

Homology is a phenomena that is supported by the theory of evolution, and only makes sense in the context of evolution. As for a the claims the a specific textbook might or might not make, I can’t help you there unless you provide specific examples.

Again, unless you provide specific examples of poorly written textbooks, what is the point?

What?
Archaeopteryx is a creature that shares traits with both birds and dinosaurs. I do not think that the current theory is that all birds descended from the archaeopteryx. The archaeopteryx is merely the earliest creature yet discovered with clearly birdlike features.

Clarification on the peppered moth story Furthermore, research has shown that peppered moths do rest on tree trunks 25% ot the time. The rest of the time they are on branches (25%) or branch trunk junctions (50%).

So this question isn't even valid. (source)


WOW, what a perfect example of evolution in action. Thanks.

So what if one day, the flies with the extra wings were able to survive because of the extra wings, while the others died. That would be the process of evolution. As it stands now, the mutant flies don’t survive. This is perfectly in keeping with the theory of evolution.

I think most paleontologists are in agreement that Australopithecus is a human ancestor.

Evolution is a theory based on available evidence. So far no credible eveidence has been presented to negate it.



[edit on 3-5-2005 by HowardRoark]

so Nygdan, are you just trying to say that it is wrong for students to question those who are teaching them?
If the questions are bunk? Then what is wrong with the teacher pointing this out? Educating the students as to why the questions are bunk and are incorrect?

As I stated, Evolution is a theory and one that does have a good deal of evidence to back it up, You basically re-worded what i said. As for what alternatives can / should be taught. a simple statement that evolution is only a theory and that there are others. If a student wants to learn more of them, please visit the library.

By a teacher and or parent denying the instruction or explaination ( to the best of their ability) either of these theories are wrong and will lead to our children just accepting what others "teach" them. If Darwin had done this, then we would not be having this discussion as he would have blindly accepted the creationist beliefs as was predominate back then.

I thought that the motto of this site was to deny ignorance, by not at least presenting both sides of any matter the begining of man or any other subject ionly promotes ignorance.

I've always thought giraffes and whales (any swimming mammal) are great evolution examples. The giraffes feed on tender, tasty (so I'm told !) leaves on treetops. As the theory goes the giraffes with longer necks, and therefore better survivability, reproduced in greater numbers, and essentially gained ground in the gene pool until the shorter neck giraffes just didn't survive.

Whales have bones in their flippers similar to elephants or other land mammals. The theory goes that they were land mammals that started to live/feed/reproduce in the water until eventually those with adaptations for swimming had better survivability, reproduced in greater numbers, and essentially gained ground in the gene pool until the land lubbers just didn't survive.

The evolution is a hypothesis which is rather well supported by the fact. The mechanism of the evolution is very complex, though. It is essentially a parallel computing problem, whereby the "genetic algorithm" is run on a very large number of "machines", i.e. the individual organisms. We are talking billions of "CPUs".

The parralel nature of this computational process explains the very high degree of complexity of its product. I don't see why one should resort to intelligent design to explain the existing life forms.

In addition, I find the term "intelligent design" blasphemous. If anything, it should be "divine".

I like how you finished your statement by comparing questioning evolution to school shootings. So, Nygdan, what's your solution? All those stupid parents (if, of course, they've gotten a "proper" scientific education, otherwise they're just ignorant, I hope) stop indoctronating thier kids with idiot mumbo-jumbo like creation and just accept a scientific theory whose proponents cry out "stop being stupid and see it the way we do" whenever they're questioned.

Let's face it, the theory of evolution is practically a religion unto its self. You're supposed to just accept it, and view the facts that support the theory while ignoring those that do not. At the same time, people who don't believe are criticized, labeled stupid, and demonized if they have any scientific credibility at all. How can you not expect kids who have been taught something vastly different to not have questions? Yeah, now the kids are getting talking points. However, teachers have had talking points for a while now, why not the kids?

Most importantly, in my opinion, is the hearts of the children. If they're bringing up these points in an effort to disrupt class, then no, they should not be asking those questions. If, however, they are asking the questions because they want answers or to understand, let them ask the questions. The questions you quoted from that ten link were pretty easy to refute. Granted, the teacher doesn't have the answers in his teacher's handbook, but they're pretty straight forward if the person has done any research into the topic they're teaching on. Besides, that ten link really ruined some good questions. For example:



Were I to be writing these talking points, I wouldn't be going at the angle of a cover-up. It's more, in my opinion, willing ignorance. The question about the Peppered Moth I would pose is why do evolutionists use the peppered moth study, an obvious example of micro evolution, to prove macro evolution?

As for the Archaeopteryx, I spent about a page discussing this little buddy a while back on ATS, and don't feel like going again due to time constraints. And with that, I'm off to work some more.

I did my best using Google (usually works quite well on various subjects) and I didn't find any compelling facts that would disprove the evolution theory. Yes, it's complex and a few things might be hard to explain -- I'll give you an example -- predicting the weather -- we should be able to do it reliably based on well known physics laws, but solving a system of such complexity numerically, and the system being intrinsically unstable, is still a challenge.

I would love to see proponents of the "intelligent design" extend their effort to proclaming "intellignet weather patterns". They should boycott any TV station that has a weatherman.



Between the DNA evidence and fossils, the evolution theory has nailed it down cold. One can still claim the earth is flat, how are we expected to react to that.

What is sad is that you question science, good kid, you question christianity, YOU GO TO HELL!!! KILL!!!! RAPE!!!!! SLAUGHTER!!!!!!! SATAN!!!!!

Also, only people who say evolution is wrong are christians/religous people. Lets remove the cross and replace it with a ostrich with it's head in the sand, is a much better reprensentation of creation.

Theory, IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!! Theory is not guess, shot in the dark, or acid trip gone bad, it is FACT! Theory of GRAVITY! Theory of RELATIVITY! Theory of WHATEVER! is FACT! Or is gravity a pigment of my immigration?(figment of my imagination) Theory is how science says fact, but always more to learn!

Case in point, gravity affects things with mass, but it affects light photons, something that doesn't have mass. If it did we would be dead, even one atom moving at the speed of light would pierce your body, times billions, you dead. So, how do BlackHoles suck in light when light photons don't have mass, and gravity only affects things with mass. Won't find the answer in the bible, but you will in science! Read Stephen Hawking Universe in a Nutshell, Theory of Everything, and Black Holes and Baby Universes.(or galaxy, been awhile since I read it) Why it is THEORY of GRAVITY. It exists, it is real, it is fact, but still studied to figure out all the effects/abilities/whatever of gravity.

So all the christians running around screaming "THEORY! KILL! THEORY! RAPE! SKY IS FALLING! THEORY!" are far more ignorant then any science teacher dealing with religous nut jobs.

Evolution in action !!!!!

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Are ugly children less loved?
Report: Parents more attentive to attractive kidsMSNBC
Updated: 12:33 p.m. ET May 3, 2005Most parents would deny it, but Canadian researchers have found that physical attractiveness affects how children are treated, according to a report Tuesday in The New York Times.


Researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton watched how parents interacted with their children while shopping in supermarkets and found that so-called ugly ones were more neglected and allowed to engage in potentially dangerous behavior.
The team lead by Dr. W. Andrew Harrell, executive director of the Population Research Laboratory, followed more than 400 parents and their 2-to-5-year-old children around 14 Canadian grocery stores, noting whether the adults strapped their youngsters into the grocery cart seat, the newspaper reports.

Researchers also observed how often the child wandered more than 10 feet away and whether the kids were allowed to engage in risky behaviors such as standing up in the shopping cart.

The children's attractiveness was rated on a 10-point scale by the research team.


Best genetic material?
The differences were striking. The researchers found that 1.2 percent of the homely children were buckled into the shopping cart, compared with 13.3 percent of the prettiest ones. When a man was in charge of shopping, none of the unattractive children were strapped into the carts, while 12.5 percent of the cute children were.

Less attractive children were also allowed to wander further away and were out of sight of their parents more often.

Age played a factor as well. Younger children were more likely to be secured and older adults were more lax about letting kids wander out of sight.

The researchers speculated that Darwinian behavior was responsible for the parents' actions. Pretty children represent the best genetic material and, therefore, get more attention, the researchers hypothesized.

Other experts disagreed, saying that there's no evolutionary reason for parents to favor pretty children over less attractive ones, the newspaper reported.


[edit on 3-5-2005 by syrinx high priest]

I think we are getting close to making that facts fit the theory rather than proving the theory. Not much change there, this have been going on as long as I can remember, as far as evolution goes.

I really don't need to say anything more, but I just wanted to say that Hawking's da bomb! Love that guy!

Well, I'm not a "religious nut" and I'm not sold on this theory. Evolution, eh maybe, adaptation, probably.

BTW, I would and did challenge my teachers. What the hell, it was the 70's.