Natural Selection Shrinks Herd of Kansas Darwinists, page 1

Natural Selection Shrinks Herd of Kansas Darwinists
by Scott Ott

(2005-05-03) -- Elderly residents still recall stories of the dust clouds that rolled through Salina as herds of Darwinists thundered across the Kansas plains unchallenged by competition -- unquestionably dominating, and some say destroying, their environment.

But as selective pressures mounted, Darwinists forced to fend for themselves in the natural arena of logic often fell prey to scrappy skeptics who contended for equal space in the Darwinist's natural habitat.

Some celebrate the success of the skeptics as healthy for the overall environment, while concerned conservationists race against the clock to raise funds and public awareness to rescue and shelter the Darwinist.

As they were driven from the public square in recent decades, Darwinists sought shelter in classrooms where they received protection from competing species and intellectual predators.

However, even in this cloistered preserve, Darwinists often struggled for survival among themselves, with competing variants turning on each other in a desperate attempt to pass on their own blueprint for life.

Some see a metaphor for the plight of the Darwinist in current efforts by environmentalists in California to kill off 3,000 feral pigs in order to protect a dwindling population of Santa Cruz foxes from birds of prey which may have come originally to feed on piglets.

In any case, the survival of the once-proud Darwinist may rest in human efforts to protect it from natural selection in the isolated zones which have become its last bastion of hope.

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:

"The argument was always in the past the monkey-ancestor deal," says Mr. Williamson, who teaches at Olathe East High School. "Today there are many more arguments that kids bring to class, a whole fleet of arguments, and they're all drawn out of the efforts by different groups, like the intelligent design [proponents]."

It creates an uncomfortable atmosphere in the classroom, Williamson says - one that he doesn't like. "I don't want to ever be in a confrontational mode with those kids ... I find it disheartening as a teacher."

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?

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?

Originally posted by junglejake
First, I found this article hilarious.

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

He's refering to microevolution as evolution of cells

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

That's right, kids. Asking Mr. Williamson questions he doesn't have the answer makes him uncomfortable

Because the questions are moronic.

Such as

Darwin's tree of life. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

and

Vertebrate embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry - even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

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

Critics of evolution are supplying students with prepared questions on such topics as:

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.

It creates an uncomfortable atmosphere in the classroom, Williamson says - one that he doesn't like. "I don't want to ever be in a confrontational mode with those kids ... I find it disheartening as a teacher

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.

If something didn't click or make sense, there was no shame in asking for more information or clarification.

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:

Human origins. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

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.

You're considered stupid if you ask questions

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

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

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?

Why does the thought of students asking questions to the teacher make the teacher uncomfortable?

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'.

junglejake
The questions are from a scientific basis pointing out the holes in evolution.

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.

As Ken pointed out, only 20% of them are being pressured by their parents, while 22% of them are questioning on their own.

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.

kenshiro
Take a look at the questions that "Icons of Evolution," is promoting.

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

then why should the teacher not instruct the students why these "religous beliefs" are wrong

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.

the article
In this climate, science teachers say they must find new methods to defuse what has become a politically and emotionally charged atmosphere in the classroom

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.

ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

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

Or some more recent research.

DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

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

HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

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.

VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

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

ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

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.

PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

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)

DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

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

MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

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.

HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

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

EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

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]

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]

Ex-Vatican Translator, Mauro Biglino\'s Alternative Creation/Translation Theory
  Posted 10 days ago with 40 member flags

EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 17 days ago with 24 member flags

"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags

Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 19 days ago with 4 member flags

Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 18 days ago with 3 member flags

Radical Theory Explains the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life, Challenges Conventional Wisdom
  Posted 15 days ago with 3 member flags

Please be more specific about which type of creationist you\'re speaking of...
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags

Proof that the pharoes did not build the pyramids, so who did FIND OUT HERE
  Posted 14 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: