| Michigan Science Curriculum; We want your feedback...NOT | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 13 2006, 06:41 AM (3,020 Views) | |
| fyi | Oct 6 2006, 02:55 PM Post #106 |
|
Principal
|
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/scien...S00010000000001 Click on link for pictures: In April, scientists shared the discovery of the Tiktaalik roseae in the Canadian Arctic. The fish may have been a transition creature between sea and land animals. (6 of 8) [size=5]Scientists Discover Gigantic 'Monster' Fossil[/size] By Alister Doyle, Reuters OSLO (Oct. 6) - Scientists have found a fossil of a "Monster" fish-like reptile in a 150 million-year-old Jurassic graveyard on an Arctic island off Norway. The Norwegian researchers discovered remains of a total of 28 plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs -- top marine predators when dinosaurs dominated on land -- at a site on the island of Spitsbergen, about 800 miles from the North Pole. "One of them was this gigantic monster, with vertebrae the size of dinner plates and teeth the size of cucumbers," Joern Hurum, an assistant professor at the University of Oslo, told Reuters on Thursday. "We believe the skeleton is intact and that it's about 33 feet long," he told Reuters of the pliosaur, a type of plesiosaur with a short neck and massive skull. The team dubbed the specimen "The Monster." Such pliosaurs are known from remains in countries including Britain and Argentina but no complete skeleton has been found, he said. The skull of the pliosaur -- perhaps a distant relative to Scotland's mythical Loch Ness monster -- was among the biggest on record. Scientists would return next year to try to excavate the entire fossil, buried on a hillside. Plesiosaurs, which swam with two sets of flippers, often preyed on smaller dolphin-like ichthyosaurs. All went extinct when the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago. The scientists rated the fossil graveyard "one of the most important new sites for marine reptiles to have been discovered in the last several decades." "It is rare to find so many fossils in the same place -- carcasses are food for other animals and usually get torn apart," Hurum said. Hurum reckoned the reptiles had not all died at the same time in some Jurassic-era cataclysm but had died over thousands of years in the same area, then become preserved in what was apparently a deep layer of black mud on the seabed. At that time, the area of Spitsbergen under water several hundred miles further south, around the latitude of Anchorage or Oslo. Hurum said the presence of fossils was also an interesting pointer for geologists hunting for oil and gas deposits in the Barents Sea to the east. "A skull we found even smells of petrol," he said. |
![]() |
|
| fyi | Oct 13 2006, 12:25 PM Post #107 |
|
Principal
|
Local Commentary Evolution theory relies on faith, too Scott Bahr The gubernatorial race has again brought the creation-evolution debate to the forefront of public discourse. As always, creationism, or intelligent design, is accused of not being science, and it's not. However, evolution is not pure science, either, and to understand why, we have to review what science actually is. Science is defined by the scientific method. It begins with a hypothesis formulated to explain an observed phenomenon and concludes with the confirmation or dismissal of that hypothesis based on repeated observation through controlled experiments. In short, repeated observation is the test of science. Both creationists and evolutionists have logically derived hypotheses for the origin of our world and its inhabitants. Creationists believe in an Intelligent Designer who set nature in motion, and evolutionists believe that nature itself is the infinite being and the source of all we know. How theories differ Both theories cite the same evidence, but they interpret the evidence differently based on their presuppositions. For example, science shows that a wide variety of organisms share an extraordinarily high percentage of DNA sequences. Evolutionists see this as evidence of a common ancestor, but creationists see this as evidence of a common builder. The problem with answering the question of origins is that neither hypothesis is testable. We can't recreate the scenario to observe the process. We can continue to interpret the evidence according to our respective worldviews, but the underlying hypotheses cannot be proved or disproved scientifically. Each must be taken on faith, meaning Darwinism is just as faith-based as creationism. Another critical aspect of the scientific method is that only one piece of contrary evidence is required to disprove a theory. Evolutionists have presented plenty of supportive evidence, but any contrary evidence is unquestioningly cast aside. Several courts have even prohibited public schools from objectively presenting such contrary evidence. Why are scientists so averse to considering the potential flaws of evolution? I believe it's because many modern scientists are committed to science as a naturalistic idea rather than a method. To preserve this idea, they arbitrarily reject the possibility of supernatural origins. Science defends belief system Such reckless disregard for untested hypotheses is unscientific, but in the discussion of origins, much of the scientific community willingly accepts it. Science, therefore, is treated not as an objective pursuit of the truth, but as a defense of a belief system without God. Thus, the debate truly involves two opposing faiths: creationism and naturalism. Pundits should therefore be careful in endorsing "pure science" while decrying faith in the classroom, for doing so incriminates both creationism and evolution. The irony of this discussion is that even evolution requires intelligent design to be valid. The scientific method assumes an ordered universe that obeys natural absolute laws. If this were not so, experiments would not be repeatable and our efforts would be in vain. Repeatable observation is perhaps the strongest evidence for an Intelligent Designer, for even the most studied evolutionists cannot escape the fact that the very forces that drive their natural world had to come from somewhere. Sure, we can concoct explanations of how everything came to be, but these exist within the framework of an ordered universe of consistent natural laws. This is why an intellectually honest discussion of origins belongs in the classroom. Without a reasonable understanding of how this order commenced, scientific study has no purpose. Since both creation and evolution are faith-based belief systems, promoting one over the other is unconstitutional by the current legal standard. If we want our kids to learn pure science, we must teach them to honestly assess the validity of each hypothesis using all of the evidence. Scott Bahr is a freelance writer from Livonia. Please mail letters to The Detroit News, Editorial Page, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226, fax them to (313) 222-6417 or e-mail them to letters@detnews.com. |
![]() |
|
| fyi | Oct 13 2006, 12:27 PM Post #108 |
|
Principal
|
http://www.hometownlife.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...QvSa2LQvURqM%3D [size=5]More Evolution Facts[/size] This is in response to the letter printed in the Oct. 5 edition of the Northville Record, entitled "Creationism and Evolution: Facts and Theories." If anything the writer said was true, I can see why he'd be upset. The problem is that nothing that he said about evolutionary science is even close to being true. Such as: "Evolution started with the ruminations of a bigoted naturalist named Darwin."— "He came to that theory to justify his conviction that the Caucasian race was superior to races of color."—"To teach his theory...is blatantly racist." First of all, "evolution" didn't start with Darwin. Others, primarily Alfred Russel Wallace, (not knowing Darwin or Darwin's views at the time) independently arrived at the same conclusions. Darwin just published his ideas first. Secondly, Darwin was a bigot? When he was in divinity school (yes, Darwin was a divinity student and a Christian—and he's buried in a church), Darwin fostered his interest in natural science, studying, among other things, snails and other smaller creatures. When he got the opportunity to sign aboard a British ship, the HMS Beagle, as the ship's naturalist, he took it. The ship was bound for South America and eventually, the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean. It was in the Galapagos, noticing the variance of finches and turtles from island to island, he started thinking about why these differences occurred. It was here that his evolutionary ideas were formed—it had absolutely nothing to do with human beings or human racial differences. When you read The Origin of Species (his book) you probably noticed that human beings weren't even mentioned there. (You did read his book, didn't you?). If he was a bigot (which he was not), not mentioning anything about human races in his premier publication was a funny way of showing it. "You insult thinking people...(when) you have no facts to prove your point."—"... but neither has anyone scientifically proven the theory of evolution." There are literally tons of "facts" that prove that evolution has occurred throughout the Earth's history (and is occurring today). If you choose, go to the nearest library, or log on to the Internet (begin with: www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/index.html and click on "frequently asked questions") and start educating yourself. It'll take you years to get through all the pertinent information. Although those who know little about the subject may deny it on religious grounds, evolution is a factual study of the development of life on our planet. Whether you choose to believe it or not, evolution is how it happened. We not only know that it has happened, we know how it has happened. I agree with the writer that "Public schools should teach facts as facts and theory as theory." That's why evolution should be taught in science classes and items of religious faith should not. John C. Colling Northville |
![]() |
|
| BoaterDan | Oct 16 2006, 01:35 PM Post #109 |
|
Principal
|
Good gracious me, am I ever glad I bailed out of this thread back when I did. You think because someone went to divinity school it means they can't be racist? That's hilarious! I don't pretend to know one iota about Darwin's views on such things, but I do know there have been countless clergy KKK members over the years. Please. All this thread proves to me is how most lay people believing in origin evolution are absolutely no more scientific or objective than their religious counterparts. |
![]() |
|
| SJC | Oct 16 2006, 02:15 PM Post #110 |
|
Principal
|
I believe the author is suggesting that there isn't evidence that Darwin was a racist. At least there are no pictures of him riding a horse with a pointy hood. I think he says "divinity school" as opposed to "school" more as a fun-fact suggesting that perhaps he didn't see his theory of Evolution being in conflict with his faith because he left humans out of his equation. You're right though. People can always find ways to rationalize their faith with their violence and hate. Usually by suggesting someone else is less than human or a devil. |
![]() |
|
| bob | Oct 23 2006, 11:12 AM Post #111 |
|
1st Grade
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe if my daughter's classroom didn't have to share science books with another class, she would be able to bring it home and I would be able to review the current LPS science curriculum. <_< |
![]() |
|
| bjt | Oct 23 2006, 04:20 PM Post #112 |
|
Principal
|
I hear that! My son says there are a "few" science books in his classroom and the few times they have used them they had to share with 2-3 students per book! From what I have seen there is very little science curriculum in his class. |
![]() |
|
| fyi | Nov 6 2006, 11:41 AM Post #113 |
|
Principal
|
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/myfox/pages/Ne...TY&pageId=3.8.1 |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Archive · Next Topic » |








![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
9:09 AM Jul 11