Evil Genie wants evolution in every college biology course
Eugenie "Crackpot" Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said in a Science magazine interview,
She didn't just say that evolution needs to be brought into more courses of biology -- she said that evolution needs to be brought into "every" course of biology. Certainly there are some biology courses where evolution is irrelevant. She is fanatical about evolution.
How this crackpot has been getting all those awards is beyond me.
"Universities need to do a better job of teaching evolution because that's where high school teachers get their training. Evolution needs to be brought into every course of biology instead of getting tacked on as a unit to the intro class."
She didn't just say that evolution needs to be brought into more courses of biology -- she said that evolution needs to be brought into "every" course of biology. Certainly there are some biology courses where evolution is irrelevant. She is fanatical about evolution.
How this crackpot has been getting all those awards is beyond me.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/07/2009 02:15:00 AM
14 Comments:
Larry, there are no biology courses in which evolution is irrelevant. Sorry to disappoint you.
>>>>> Larry, there are no biology courses in which evolution is irrelevant. <<<<<<<
You are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears, bozo. In a recent national survey of high school science teachers, a remarkable 13 percent of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that an "excellent" general biology course could exist that does not mention Darwin or evolution theory at all, and even I don't agree with that statement.
It should also be noted that that same study showed that 16% of high school science teachers believed evolution was false.
That means that about 20% of high school science teachers who believe evolution to be false still think that it is necessary to include it in an "excellent" general biology course.
da Viking said,
>>>>>> It should also be noted that that same study showed that 16% of high school science teachers believed evolution was false.
That means that about 20% of high school science teachers who believe evolution to be false still think that it is necessary to include it in an "excellent" general biology course. <<<<<<
You are jumping to conclusions -- you have assumed that practically all of the 13% (i.e., teachers who agree or strongly agree that there could be an "excellent" general biology course without evolution) believe that evolution is false. In fact, it is theoretically possible that practically no teachers are in both groups, i.e., the 13% and 16% groups -- this would mean that 100% of teachers who believe evolution to be false would still think that it is necessary to include it in an "excellent" general biology course and that 100% of the teachers who believe that it is not necessary to include evoluton in such a course would think that evolution is true (I know this sounds unlikely, but it is theoretically possible).
it is theoretically possible that practically no teachers are in both groups
Just as it is "theoretically possible" that the moon landings were a vast conspiracy staged with the help of Hollywood, a position which you have also advocated.
I've no doubt that da Viking has the subset intersection assessed correctly. Not likely off by even one.
This is the sort of thing that happens when you allow woolly fantasies free rein without checking back with reality from time to time.
>>>>> I've no doubt that da Viking has the subset intersection assessed correctly. Not likely off by even one. <<<<<<
By your line of reasoning, the two groups should be exactly the same, but at least ~20% of the teachers who believe that evolution is false nonetheless think that general biology courses should always include it. That happens to be pretty much my position -- I doubt evolution but nonetheless think that it should be taught for the following reasons: (1) it is currently widely accepted among scientists; (2) it is historically important; and (3) evolutionary concepts are used in cladistic taxonomy.
name me a biology course where evolution is completely irrelevant.
"Completely irrelevant"? I didn't say "completely" irrelevant. I suppose that if things are stretched far enough, it would be possible to introduce evolution into practically any biology course (like saying, "and by the way, these organisms that we are now studying evolved"). So let me say "unimportant" or "insignificant" instead.
so you dont think it would possibly further the understanding of the topic of a course (lets say amoeba) to know how amoeba got to that point before trying to just jump straight into studying them?
As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.
obviously im a troll. was it that obvious? i mean....all the obvious signs were there...asking questions...trying to have a discussion...
bravo *claps*
i can see why you have your own blog. you have EARNED it
Bozo, do amoebas have any known ancestors?
Obviously. The amoeba of today are different from those of the primordial seas. Also, I doubt if you could name me a scope or context of biology in which evolution does not figure. In fact, I challenge you to find one.
>>>>>>> The amoeba of today are different from those of the primordial seas. <<<<<<<
Really?
>>>>>>> I doubt if you could name me a scope or context of biology in which evolution does not figure. <<<<<<<
In a recent national survey of science teachers, 13% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that an excellent biology course could exist that does not mention Darwin or evolution at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home