It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists Boycott Evolution Hearings

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
apc

posted on May, 14 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
kenshiro2012 it must have been a reeeeeally long time since you were in school, because you've forgotten that students DO ask questions. Even tho the coursework already makes clear that evolution is a theory, how long do you really think it takes before a student raises his or her hand and says "What about... ?"

What these attempts at policy changes suggest is the addition of a "Magic" chapter in the textbooks. It is not possible to instruct in this area without drawing from religion, which obviously is a bad idea in public education.

Your child now being in 7th grade should be having a seperate science hour if they haven't already. Take a good look at the coursework and textbooks and see just how things are worded. Im sure you will try to interpret them in a negative light, but what are the words really saying?




posted on May, 14 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   

TIt would also change the definition of science to allow for explanations that do not rely on natural causes.


I'm sorry, what? Since when do you get to redefine science? Why don't we redefine US History to not include Kansas, because they had a bloody fight into the Union? Oh, and I don't like Bush, so let's not teach the Republican Party in school, mmkay? You can't legislate that sort of thing. They destroying all sorts of things, including above all their own education system and the students.


What is seriously being missed here is the definition of theory.

Wikipedia


In the sciences, a theory is a model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon. Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method.


That means a scientific theory, e.g. evolution, is a model that describes what happens.


A good example of a non-scientific "theory" is Intelligent Design. Likewise, other claims such as homeopathy are also not scientific theories, but pseudoscience.


That means Evolution and Intelligent Design are not on the same footing. The former is a well tested "theory" that explains what happens, while the latter is a "theory" based on faith. Don't confuse the two.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Who banned the book Lord of the flies?

It is only number 70 on the list.


Lewisville ISD in Texas.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   
apc,
You may have missed what actually prompted the Hearings.
The underlying problem was that there is a religious group that is handing out flyers to the kids encouraging them to ask questions to their teachers.
The teachres were quoted to say they felt that the students asking the questions and them haveing to answer / respond was confrontational.
That is why I refered to the students not able to at least ask questions on the subject.



kenshiro2012 it must have been a reeeeeally long time since you were in school, because you've forgotten that students DO ask questions. Even tho the coursework already makes clear that evolution is a theory, how long do you really think it takes before a student raises his or her hand and says "What about... ?"



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Amorymeltzer,
There are a couple of definitions for Theory. the one that you posted as well as the one that I posted earlier on this thread.



the·o·ry (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the•o•ries 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


I am not promoting either theory. What I am promoting is at least the acknowkedgement that there are other theories and that the students should at least be able to ask the questions, the teachers should at least be able to answer the questions or direct the students to places / people to get the answers.
The reason for the hearings is that the teachers feel that it is a confrontational setting to allow the students to ask questions on this subject and the teachers having to respond to those questions.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   


1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than


The definitions are misleading. There is an enormous difference between the scientific theory and a theory someone has. The scientific one is tested and held up to extreme standards, you can't shrug that off saying it's "just a theory" like you could a nonscientific one.

So, then again, you could just redefine science...



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Amorymeltzer,
A scientific theory remains only a theory as long as there is something in which the theory can not explain or makes the theory falsifable.. That is the major difference between a scientific fact or scientific law and a scientific theory.
There are missing components to which the theory of evolution has not been able to fully explain.
Since Mr Darwin's first introduction of the theory of evolution, the theory itself has undergone some changes.
The theory (granted non-scientific) of creationism as presented by the bibe also has undergone changes. It now incorporates that the word used in the bible "YOM" can mean both day or era so that the creation does not literaly mean that everything was made in 7 days.
The inteligent design theory also incorporates dna / evolution data. The belief that something / someone created man in thier own image is now being seen as the image is actually spiritual and not physcial. Thus, our ancestors,may they be homo spaiens through the primordial slime, all contained a spirit in the creators "image". The end result, is that evolution has brought us to our present form but does not neccessarily mean that we will stay the same.
The only thing that I have an issue with in this whole fiasco, is that the teachers feel that answering student questions on the issue is putting them in a conforntation situation. Add to that the fact that the scientific community refuses to even respond to the hearings only perpetuated what the scientific community believes to be false.
The teachers should not believe responding to student's questions as being confrontational. If the teachers feel that they cannot answer the questions posed by the students, then the teachers should point the students in the direction of where they can obtain the answers for themselves.


apc

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Wow...

A scientific theory remains only a theory as long as there is something in which the theory can not explain or makes the theory falsifable.. That is the major difference between a scientific fact or scientific law and a scientific theory.

As Amory has already said, this is a poor interpretation of a theory.
There are no scientific facts or laws in reality, only theories.
A theory is not a theory because there is something it cannot explain, a theory is a theory because it explains what we cannot know.
If something arises that a theory cannot account for, the theory is adapted or discarded in favor of a new theory that does account for the new data.

Intelligent Design is not a theory. Creation, in the Biblical sense, is not a theory. Neither make predictions, offer testable data, or are the same from one party to the next.

Because the students are operating under the same misguided beliefs as you, they are going to become defensive when they think what they are being taught contradicts their faith, when actually there is no such contradiction (unless you believe dolphins are our gods or some other radical faith).

It is the falsely gained perceptions about science that are putting the teachers in a picklel, not the curriculum.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
The definitions are misleading. There is an enormous difference between the scientific theory and a theory someone has. The scientific one is tested and held up to extreme standards, you can't shrug that off saying it's "just a theory" like you could a nonscientific one.


Well...has any scientist been able to prove God doesn't exist, or that he didn't create the universe?

What extreme standards are you talking about? There are plenty of problems with the evolutionary model. Thats why it's a theory.

What makes people think that those who wrote the Book of Genesis were not the scientists of their age?

[edit on 15-5-2005 by simtek 22]


apc

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Well...has any scientist been able to prove God doesn't exist, or that he didn't create the universe?

Refer to...

Noone ever said evolution was without a doubt a correct thesis, but no evolutionist has ever said that the theory proves gods do not exist. Perhaps evolution is actually describing God's methods.

.....

What extreme standards are you talking about? There are plenty of problems with the evolutionary model. Thats why it's a theory.

Refer to...

There are no scientific facts or laws in reality, only theories.
A theory is not a theory because there is something it cannot explain, a theory is a theory because it explains what we cannot know.
If something arises that a theory cannot account for, the theory is adapted or discarded in favor of a new theory that does account for the new data.


And...

What makes people think that those who wrote the Book of Genesis were not the scientists of their age?

If scientists today are as drunk and high as the authors were, wow...



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
apc,
?????
You have talked youreself into a corner on this one



As Amory has already said, this is a poor interpretation of a theory. There are no scientific facts or laws in reality, only theories. A theory is not a theory because there is something it cannot explain, a theory is a theory because it explains what we cannot know. If something arises that a theory cannot account for, the theory is adapted or discarded in favor of a new theory that does account for the new data. Intelligent Design is not a theory. Creation, in the Biblical sense, is not a theory. Neither make predictions, offer testable data, or are the same from one party to the next. Because the students are operating under the same misguided beliefs as you, they are going to become defensive when they think what they are being taught contradicts their faith, when actually there is no such contradiction (unless you believe dolphins are our gods or some other radical faith). It is the falsely gained perceptions about science that are putting the teachers in a picklel, not the curriculum.


First, suggestion that take the time to look up the definitions of
Scientific Fact, Scientific Law, and Scientific Theory.
As for the adaptability of theory, as I have stated previously, evolutionary theory has undergone changes in order to adapt to new information. The same for creationism, It has adapted to fit new information.
Your argument to negate the validity of creationism actually negates evolution at the same time. The evolutionary theory does not predict anything. Datum used to substaniate evolution has come under fire as being unreliable. Look at the ongoing debate on the validity and reliability of carbon dating. There is no direct linkage of dinosaur to avians yet that is the present theory. There is no DIRECT linkage of ape to man. These are two issues that the evolutionary theory has not been able to resolve.
The age of the human species has actaully more than doubled since I was in school. The estimated age of the earth has also increased. Science has had to re-evaluate various theorums in order to incorporate these facts(?).
If you had read my posts earlier, I also mentioned the interpetation of the (7 days) of creationism. The hebrew word that was used was "YOM" which has more than one meaning. One means day which is what biblical scholars had promoted for centuries. Now, they are looking at Yom's other meaning which is era. This would incorporate the timeline difference that lies between science and the bible.
Your statement as to putting the teachers in a pickle due to "falsely gained perceptions" is a sad testament to what we expect form our education system. When a teacher fears responding to a students question either to prove that it is nvalid or to point a student in the direction os someplace or someone that would be better able to answer the question is extremely disheartening.

Also, I do have to correct you dear sir, If you have read my posts, then you would have discovered that I actually am not a subscriber to either theory. The entire theme of my posting here in this thread have been to either allow a discussion of both or a denial of both. So I am not under some "misguided beleifs" Please refer to my earlier postings on this thread if you need further clarification. I am promoting the nability to at least discuss the matter instead of ignoring it.
Also snide statements such as




(unless you believe dolphins are our gods or some other radical faith).

are quite un called for sir and unappreciated. So kindly leave out any personal attacks.


[edit on 15-5-2005 by kenshiro2012]



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Kenshiro......


Yes, this isn't a creation vs. evolution debate. The real debate is what should be taught in our schools.

The people who want our children only hear the evolution side of things are sad and close minded. I don't understand why they are afraid of other theories.

BTW-There is scientific evidence out there that supports creationism.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
There is no direct linkage of dinosaur to avians yet that is the present theory. There is no DIRECT linkage of ape to man. These are two issues that the evolutionary theory has not been able to resolve.


1. Actually, there is some evidence that suggests a direct linkage of dinosaur to avians.

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2002/02/14/MN85194.DTL&type=science
news.nationalgeographic.com...
www.geocities.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...

2. The theory does not suggest that man evolved from apes, but rather that the 4 great apes (orangutangs, humans, gorillas, and chimps) all developed independently from a common ancestor. This is why people looking for a missing link will come up short. Humans did not evolve from "apes", but rather humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor that was "ape-like". (And yes, fossils of this creature have been found).

There is also lots of evidence to support this theory. Breakthroughs in genetics and DNA studies can point out genetic markers in chromosomes that give us relative times that we started to evolve away from the common ancestor. Humans branched off first and that is why we are quite a bit different from the other apes (but still share 99% of the same genetic structure of chimps, and 97% the same as gorillas). The idea that we (humans) are drastically different from apes is a bias we have as a member of one of the species.

There is enough fossil evidence from the past couple of million years that show the human form has been under consistent change.

www.gate.net...
abcnews.go.com...
news.nationalgeographic.com...


[edit on 15-5-2005 by Hajduk]


apc

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Scientific Fact
dictionary.reference.com...

Scientific Law
dictionary.reference.com...

Scientific Theory
dictionary.reference.com...

Now that that's out of the way...


As for the adaptability of theory, as I have stated previously, evolutionary theory has undergone changes in order to adapt to new information. The same for creationism, It has adapted to fit new information.


Yes, the theory of evolution has undergone change, as it should. It is a theory. There are some original Darwinian aspects that are no longer held to be true, and some new ones have been added. The theory has repeatedly and accurately predicted the outcome of environmental conditions played out on the populus (whether they be man, bird, or bug). This is why it must be taught in the science classroom. If a student would want to understand what would happen to a particular species in the event of a certain natural disaster in some specific locale, they can, accurately, using the evolutionary model.

SOME creationists have adapted to present day knowledge, and accepted evolution as a part of their god's plan. Unfortunately, as these hearings demonstrate, these creationists seem to be a minority. The majority being the insulting manipulative type you previously described.


Look at the ongoing debate on the validity and reliability of carbon dating. There is no direct linkage of dinosaur to avians yet that is the present theory. There is no DIRECT linkage of ape to man. These are two issues that the evolutionary theory has not been able to resolve.

As far as Im concerned there is no debate, just blind fools who try to misinterpret the data in favor of themselves and others alike who dont understand.
There is also no DIRECT evidence that I am actually typing at this computer right now. I am merely relaying electrochemical signals being transmitted through my nerves and brain. For all you know, I am actually an artifical intelligence engine always set to 'chaos' mode.
But that cant be the case, now can it? It also does appear that I am indeed typing at a computer, as the evidence suggests (this posting), therefore I must conclude that I am indeed making a post.
Feel me?


The age of the human species has actaully more than doubled since I was in school. The estimated age of the earth has also increased. Science has had to re-evaluate various theorums in order to incorporate these facts(?).

Yes, again this is how theories work. A large amount of the calendar of human history is arranged according to how long it would take such-and-such event to occur. The estimates are repeatedly verified through the evidence.


This would incorporate the timeline difference that lies between science and the bible.

Thank you I am glad you are not a literalist.


Your statement as to putting the teachers in a pickle due to "falsely gained perceptions" is a sad testament to what we expect form our education system.

Actually it is a sad testament to the education children are receiving from their parents and religious leaders.

You are indeed under misguided beliefs of what quantifies a theory, and how scientific theory should be presented in the classroom.


(unless you believe dolphins are our gods or some other radical faith).

Actually that was a far more general remark and not directed specifically at you. The point being that these issues have arisen because of students not understanding that evolution does not contradict the true sense of creation by God, hence, there is absolutely no REAL reason why the curriculum should be changed to include aspects that do not even fall into a theoretical construction.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Unfortunately,
Many here on ATS seem to either forgotten that evolution is still a theory or else they equate theroy as fact.

Unfortunately,
Many here on ATS are also too ignorant to realise that scientific theories are not just something someone came up with randomly. Everything in science is explained with a Scientific Theory. Google for Scientific Method or something.

Makes those look pretty stupid who attack the idea purely because its known as Evolutionary Theory right?



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Hajduk, APC, you're missing the point of the debate here, you present good information in support of evolution, but the thread has to deal with putting 2 different theories into school text books. Nothing you have presented has shown me why both theories can't be taught together in a public school.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Quite simply, because Evolution is a testable Scientific Theory as defined by the Scientific Method. "Intelligent Design" is nothing of the sort.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
The creationists and evolutionists are at either end of a very long rope... pulling the marker this way and that...sometimes gaining, sometimes losing, but never, ever winning.
What they are both doing quite well is ignoring what is important...taking care of what we have, however it came to be.


apc

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Nothing you have presented has shown me why both theories can't be taught together in a public school.

The problem is you cant stick God in a beaker and take his temprature.
You cant give multiple choice tests.
You cant fail a student who disagrees with the coursework.

You cannot teach religion in public education.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Hajduk
granted,. nor have i denied any of it. other than the direct linkage. which is still in question. If in fact is does indeed bear scientific scrutiny and is verifiable, then the evolutionary theory would then be upgraded to either a scientific law or a scientific fact.
As for the dna evidence, there is about a 3% variance in the dna of the vairous ape-like ancestors and man there is less than 1.3% difference between modern man and the chimpanzee so we are closer genetically to the chimpanzee than we are to Lucy for example.
I have not denied evidence that supports the theory of evolution, what i do question is the education system's fear of asnswering questions, of the scientific community also not responding. This only will prepetuate the Ignorance that both teachers and scientist claim to ultimately do away with.

Here we are, running the questions back and forth, in a free exchange. Yet, if the educational system and the scientific community had it's way, then we would not be able to question the validity of either evolution or creationism.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join