Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Michigan Science Curriculum; We want your feedback...NOT
Topic Started: Sep 13 2006, 06:41 AM (3,025 Views)
BoaterDan
Principal
And let us not lose sight of the real point of this thread:

"State Superintendent Mike Flanagan told the board that his recommendations for the science curriculum would not change. But he said it's an important part of the process to give lawmakers time to make their suggestions to the board."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NFarquharson
Member Avatar
Principal
BoaterDan
Sep 18 2006, 10:48 AM
I could easily be dragged into this as a great debate topic, ... but ah, if only I had the time. I'll probably just make this one comment...

First, let me make a differentiation between evolution of the type that has been observed over the course of one person's lifetime in many examples and Darwin's theories on the origins of life. Nobody in their right mind with even cursory scientific knowledge denies the first - it is only the idea that all life came from the "ooze" that is in question.

It may interestest some of you to know that the Intelligent Design movement was started by a handful of scientists who did NOT have a Judeo-Christian faith in common. That is, some of them were staunchly agnostic at least. It has been adopted by many leaders of faith organizations for obvious reasons, but it is at its core decidedly not theological, and that is not just lipservice given by religious people so as to give it the appearance of credibility.

The premise of ID is basically that there are details of our world, like the irreducably complex structures like the cellular flagellum, for which there is no possible explanation via evolutionary processes. The ID scientists say that we must therefore conclude some process other than evolution is responsible for them, and the obvious alternative is some kind of intelligent design.

In fact, the only possible solutions really are either that we just don't know enough about evolutionary processes yet or that there's some other process. To suggest that one is a silly leap of faith and the other is scientific deduction is itself ludicrous. It may also interest you that Darwin himself said basically that if evidence is found contrary to his theory that the theory must be thrown out with the bathwater.

I don't want the public school teaching religion - Not christian creationism, not buddhism, and not islam, unless in the context of some kind of "religions of the world" class. What I also object to is the teaching of origin evolution as proven scientific fact, which is the way I've seen it represented my kid's textbooks. And I'm saying this not as a crazed religious nut who's heard on some radio show about somebody somewhere who's second cousin's brother-in-law blah blah blah - I'm saying what I have personally read in my kids' textbooks is a little disturbing from a scientific point of view alone in the way that it discourages them from even considering the real science (or lack thereof) behind statements like "that's because 200,000,000 years ago..."

I would like to see the public school teaching simply: that origin evolution is one possible explanation for our existence which has a lot of supporting evidence up to a point, but is also by definition unproven and completely unable to explain some of our observations. That these latter points have led some scientists to conclude there must have been some kind of intelligent force responsible for at least those phenomena. And that the most popular alternative to complete origin evolution is some variation of a theological belief that a creative being was responsible for bring our world into existence, possibly via evolutionary processes to some degree. Since that last point is not really a scientific proposition we will not really be examining or discussing it any further than this mention.

My kids have not covered this topic yet in school so I have not seen the textbooks. I am surprized that they would state as fact the idea of life coming from the the primoridial sea and organic "ooze" as you call it. That is very wrong from a scientific standpoint...regardless of one's religious beliefs. At best this idea is a hypothesis that has very little evidence to support it. That does no mean that the only other explanation is intelligent design, which is another concept with little supporting evidence. There could be other explanations. I have even seen some support the idea that life on THIS planet came from extraterrestrial life.

I could be wrong, but as I remember it Darwin's work focused on evolution of species...how living things change over time via natural selection...not on how the very first life began. I don't really consider the idea of life coming from organic ooze to be a part of the theory of evolution at all, but it has been years since I studied this stuff. What I do remember is that the idea of spontanious generation of life from the primordial sea was presented to me in public school as hypothesis...certainly not as a fact. I even remember mention of the failure of several attempts to re-create the conditions and "create" life. If this idea is indeed being taught as a fact that is wrong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fyi
Principal
There is scientific proof of evolution and adaptation. All living things adapt to changes in their environment. Antibiotic resistance is an example of how bacteria change and adapt in order to survive. That ant poison you use on your house eventually won't work because the ants become resistant to it. The next generation or so of ants probably won't even be affected by it. Natural Selection--only the strong survive.

As a religious person, I understand how evolution occurs and how the genetics of living things can change over time, but I do have a hard time believing that we descend from apes or "ooze."

When it comes to what should be taught in a public school science class, I think the concept of evolution should be taught, but how life began should be left up to individual interpretation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fyi
Principal
BTW, after a recent consultation with my dentist, who recommended the removal of my impacted wisdom teeth, I asked why we even have wisdom teeth. He explained to me that, due to dietary changes, they are no longer needed. He said they stopped coming in because we no longer eat bark. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NFarquharson
Member Avatar
Principal
I am further evolved than you. Only 3 wisdom teeth even existed in me. I am a step closer to the human of the future with none. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fyi
Principal
NFarquharson
Sep 18 2006, 02:29 PM
I am further evolved than you.  Only 3 wisdom teeth even existed in me.  I am a step closer to the human of the future with none.   :lol:

I forgot to add that our jaws are smaller (than earlier humans) due to a softer diet---per my dentist.

Wow. Nancy is proof that eventually humans won't even have wisdom teeth. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fyi
Principal
I have another one for you....

In the future.....women will no longer need to have cesarean sections due to a small pelvis. Eventually, the female pelvis will evolve and be able to navigate a
15 pound fetus. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NFarquharson
Member Avatar
Principal
As long as the wisdom doesn't leave with the teeth, that would be good! I hated having the other 3 extracted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NFarquharson
Member Avatar
Principal
fyi
Sep 18 2006, 02:40 PM
I have another one for you....

In the future.....women will no longer need to have cesarean sections due to a small pelvis.  Eventually, the female pelvis will evolve and be able to navigate a
15 pound fetus. :P

Or perhaps we will develope a hinged pelvic bone. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zeke
Member Avatar
Principal
fyi
Sep 18 2006, 03:21 PM
BTW, after a recent consultation with my dentist, who recommended the removal of my impacted wisdom teeth, I asked why we even have wisdom teeth. He explained to me that, due to dietary changes, they are no longer needed. He said  they stopped coming in because we no longer eat bark. :P

We're not supposed to eat bark!

UH OH!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grant1
Member Avatar
We have just begun to fight!
Zeke
Sep 18 2006, 02:43 PM
fyi
Sep 18 2006, 03:21 PM
BTW, after a recent consultation with my dentist, who recommended the removal of my impacted wisdom teeth, I asked why we even have wisdom teeth. He explained to me that, due to dietary changes, they are no longer needed. He said  they stopped coming in because we no longer eat bark. :P

We're not supposed to eat bark!

UH OH!

Just remember what happened to this guy...
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmic
Member Avatar
Principal
fyi
Sep 18 2006, 03:21 PM
BTW, after a recent consultation with my dentist, who recommended the removal of my impacted wisdom teeth, I asked why we even have wisdom teeth. He explained to me that, due to dietary changes, they are no longer needed. He said they stopped coming in because we no longer eat bark. :P

I don't have wisdom teeth, never did! That is funny.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NFarquharson
Member Avatar
Principal
cmic is way ahead of her times!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmic
Member Avatar
Principal
OH yeah!!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
loyaltolivonia
Member Avatar
Principal
fyi
Sep 18 2006, 02:40 PM
I have another one for you....

In the future.....women will no longer need to have cesarean sections due to a small pelvis. Eventually, the female pelvis will evolve and be able to navigate a
15 pound fetus. :P

Oh thank goodness I am past child-bearing!!! My two babes were just over 6 pounds each. 15 pound newborns.................OUCH :o :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Archive · Next Topic »
Add Reply