vision2020
Re: Moscow's right/wrong conspiracy?
What testable hypothesis has evolution put forth?
Mike Rush
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Cooke" <scooke@uidaho.edu>
To: "sean" <o2design@wsu.edu>
Cc: "Vision2020 Listserver List" <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 10:32 AM
Subject: RE: Moscow's right/wrong conspiracy?
> Dear Sean,
> Creationism is a competing scientific theory if and only if it generates
> testable hypotheses that cannot be disproved. What testable hypothesis
does
> Biblical creationism suggest that have not been disproved? That the world
> was created in 7 24-hour days? Geology 101 disabused me of that
possibility.
> Woman was made from man? Was this the result of a cloning experiment gone
> terribly wrong? The other way around would be easier to believe. That man
is
> unique from other animals? We have some unique characteristics, but we
> acquired them the same way other animals and plants acquired theirs. Am I
> missing something?
> The rub for fundamentalist seems to be that they take the Bible literally,
> and when it does not bear up under close scrutiny then the scrutinizers
are
> wrong and bad. I don't think so. Alternatively the fundamentalist could
see
> the Bible's creation story as a metaphor and a beautiful one at that,
which
> is what I think it is. Every culture has creation stories that are
fanciful
> and the one in the Bible is no different. Is one any less a good Christian
> if they accept the Bible's creation story as a metaphor?
> Do we really want to teach our children that we think the Bible story may
> be right even though all the evidence is to the contrary? The world is
> confusing enough to children without denying the facts before their eyes.
> Steve Cooke
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sean [mailto:o2design@wsu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 2:33 PM
> To: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: Moscow's right/wrong conspiracy?
>
> Thanks for that info, Sue. I see more clearly some of the criteria
> that are applied, however I'm still not sure if those established
> scientific concepts allow for or encourage differing theory. I
> assume they do, as the challenge of evolving theory is at the core of
> investigation and discovery (ie, science). I was struck by this fact
> and how the established view can preclude growth as I watched the
> lastest (?) PBS show on Idaho landscapes ("Shaped by Floods"). In
> it, the scientific establishment (geologists in this case) rejected
> the theory of fellow inquirer.
>
> I remain curious to know how the major alternative theories of how
> our world came to be (is that a safe phrase?) are handled at the
> different secondary ed "establishments" in our town. Are they each
> presenting alternative views, or are they teaching acceptance without
> weighing evidence, challenging assumption, and considering
> alternatives?
>
> Thanks to anyone who might share examples to answer this question.
> s
>
> >
> >Science teachers will probably weigh in on this question as well, but
I'll
> >start the ball rolling.
> >
> >Sean,
> >
> >Elementary teachers as will as secondary science teachers have a science
> >curriculum that is designed to be age appropriate and based on
established
> >scientific concepts. Much of what they teach is tied to the National
> >Science Education Standards published by the National Academy of Sciences
> in
> >Washington, D. C. These standards are based on what academy members
refer
> >to as "unifying concepts and processes," and are:
> >Systems, order, and organization
> > Evidence, models, and explanation
> >Constancy, change, and measurement
> >Evolution and equilibrium
> >Form and function
> >
> >Teachers often refer to the above as "big ideas in science" and textbooks
> >and workbooks often use that term, too. Those big ideas are designed to
> >provide students with ways to examine and investigate scientific data
and
> >reflect on their results.
> >
> >I hope this provides you with the information you wanted.
> >
> >Sue Hovey
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "sean" <o2design@wsu.edu>
> >To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
> >Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 9:59 AM
> >Subject: Fwd: Moscow's right wing conspiracy?
> >
> >
> >> Can someone explain what the policy is that governs teachers' right
> >> (or mandate) to cover the different theories relating to science or
> >> other topics in the schools?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> s
> >>
> >> >
>
Back to TOC