NCSE moans that "only" about 10% of class time is devoted to evolution
In an article in the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, staff members of the National Center for Science Education (National Center for Selling Evolution?) whine,
The Darwinists have gone far beyond merely suppressing criticism of evolution and have been grossly and shamelessly exaggerating evolution's importance and relevance. Unfortunately, the science education standards of some states really hoke up evolution -- for example, the new Florida state standards call evolution "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology" and misdefines "theory" as being "well-supported and widely accepted"(there are strong theories and weal theories). What sane people should do is fight back at the local level -- local school boards, individual schools, and individual teachers -- to discourage implementation of such crackpot state standards.
. . . . . . the average amount of time devoted to evolution was only 13.7 h.. Because states typically require approximately 120–150 h of instruction for high school classes, only approximately 10% of the average high school biology class is devoted to a principle without which, in Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous phrase, nothing in biology makes sense.
The Darwinists have gone far beyond merely suppressing criticism of evolution and have been grossly and shamelessly exaggerating evolution's importance and relevance. Unfortunately, the science education standards of some states really hoke up evolution -- for example, the new Florida state standards call evolution "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology" and misdefines "theory" as being "well-supported and widely accepted"(there are strong theories and weal theories). What sane people should do is fight back at the local level -- local school boards, individual schools, and individual teachers -- to discourage implementation of such crackpot state standards.
Labels: Intelligent design (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 10/19/2010 06:04:00 AM
9 Comments:
Unfortunately you seem to have confused the scientific term 'theory' with the word 'hypothesis'.
How you can call "well-supported and widely accepted" an incorrect definition of 'theory' is quite staggering, given that even a cursory glance at the definition of a scientific theory on the web would reveal that this is an underlying concept of the term.
Furthermore, what alternative are you postulating? Intelligent design, a 'theory' that states that the origin of intelligence is intelligence, a concept that is obviously self-refuting? Not to mention the lack of a single scrap of evidence for a creator.
Oh and you should probably remove the intro to your blog where you smugly state that there is no comment moderation, as there clearly is.
>>>>>>> How you can call "well-supported and widely accepted" an incorrect definition of 'theory' is quite staggering, given that even a cursory glance at the definition of a scientific theory on the web would reveal that this is an underlying concept of the term. <<<<<<<
Wrong -- as I said, there are strong theories and weak theories. Not all theories are "well-supported and widely accepted."
>>>>>> Furthermore, what alternative are you postulating? <<<<<<
I am not postulating an alternative -- I am just discussing the definition of "theory."
>>>>> Oh and you should probably remove the intro to your blog where you smugly state that there is no comment moderation, as there clearly is. <<<<<
That is a reminder of what the blog was originally intended to be, before trolls sabotaged it.
Larry did mumble Not all theories are "well-supported and widely accepted
The theory of evolution, however, is.
Let the hand-waving commence in 3... 2... 1....
Whateverman said...
>>>>>> Larry did mumble Not all theories are "well-supported and widely accepted
The theory of evolution, however, is. <<<<<<<
Irrelevant, Whateverman. The Florida state science standards was defining the meaning of the word "theory" in general.
No, sorry, it's NOT irrelevant. The theory of evolution, as defined by the scientific community, IS "well-supported and widely accepted". In the context of the this, Florida uses the word properly.
The irrelevant part is you trying to claim that because there's uncertainty in other scientific theories, this means that the same level of uncertainty exists in ALL scientific theories.
>>>>>> No, sorry, it's NOT irrelevant. The theory of evolution, as defined by the scientific community, IS "well-supported and widely accepted". In the context of the this, Florida uses the word properly. <<<<<<
Did you even read what I wrote, doofus? I said that the Florida state science standards were defining the general scientific meaning of the term -- they were not talking about evolution in particular.
>>>for example, the new Florida state standards call evolution "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology"<<<
Well, this is true, so why do you object?
>>>and misdefines "theory" as being "well-supported and widely accepted"(there are strong theories and weal theories<<<
A "weak theory" is "well-supported and widely accepted" whereas a strong theory is extremely "well-supported and widely accepted." Again, why do you object?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>for example, the new Florida state standards call evolution "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology"<<<
Well, this is true, so why do you object? <<<<<<<
Bozo, in a recent survey, 13% of high-school science teachers said that an "excellent" biology course could exist that does not mention Darwin at all.
>>>>> A "weak theory" is "well-supported and widely accepted" <<<<<
Show me a dictionary that defines "theory" in that way, doofus.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>for example, the new Florida state standards call evolution "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology"<<<
Well, this is true, so why do you object? <<<<<<<
Bozo, in a recent survey, 13% of high-school science teachers said that an "excellent" biology course could exist that does not mention Darwin at all.
>>>>> A "weak theory" is "well-supported and widely accepted" <<<<<
Show me a dictionary that defines "theory" in that way, doofus.
Post a Comment
<< Home