At 02:18 PM 11/10/98 -0800, Richard D. Spencer wrote:

>>Those of us who
>>understand

>Where have I heard that before?

Ahhh...so we want to start a flamefest, now, do we?

>> that the only way to understand biology is through a thorough
>>understanding of evolutionary sciences

>A very narrow view-point indeed! This would even eliminate the most
>important activity on earth - bird watching!

Birding is a *recreational* activity, not a science. Perhaps this
misunderstanding helps explain why you believe "scientific" creationism
is science?

Jim's correct, you can't understand the SCIENCE of biology without
understanding evolutionary theory, because the latter is the very
foundation of biology. As has been pointed previously, remove evolution
and you demolish modern biology, just as thoroughly as removing
quantum theory and relativity would demolish modern physics.

Why don't we talk about something else in the bible, for instance
literal statements that can only be true if the earth is flat. You
know, there is a Flat Earth Society that still has an active membership.
All you biblical literalists should join...

>> are concerned with the many forces
>>that are trying to destroy that type of education. It requires a constant
>>vigilence to keep track of these forces so we can manage to keep the U.S.
>>somewhat involved with modern science.
>
>I taught Darwinism for 7 years in a public school quite a while back and I'm
>not sorry that I did. What I do regret is that I did not know then that
>there is some data that doesn't quite fit within the concept of classical
>Darwinism and I should have been teaching that information as well.

None of that data has anything to do with scientific creationism, though.

1. where did that data come from? SCIENTISTS
2. what did they do with that? What always happens in science, they modified
classical Darwinism. They're fighting over just how to account for new
facts.

>Of
>course, this information was not brought to my attention while I was
>studying to become a teacher and the situation has not changed any. I
>wonder why?

For the same reasons most high school physics teachers are not intimately
familiar with string theory and the like.

1. Introductory texts lag behind research. This will always be true, it
takes time to write texts and most school districts will try to get a
decade or so use out of expensive texts.

2. Textbooks are always simplifications. In physics, perhaps a 100 or so
mathemeticians in the world are capable of digesting the latest theoretical
model current in partical physics. It is silly to presume all high school
teachers, much less all high school students, could do so.

We still teach Newtonian physics in High School, along with very watered
down versions of relativity.

Does this mean high school physics students are being "lied to"? Should we
now jump to the conclusion that earth is flat?

>I also think that an understanding of animal/human behavior and anatomy and
>an understanding of ecology could be very useful to a student of biology
>even if that student had no knowledge of evolution.

You can't understand ecology in any deep sense without understanding
and least the basics of evolution.

> Native Americans did
>very well for thousands of years with an working understanding of these
>subjects minus evolution.

What does this have to do with biology? They were successful at killing
animals therefore they had an innate understanding of biology? I don't
get it.

>>It is difficult to remain polite and
>>considerate with people who are determined to undermind the education
>>effort.

>Difficult but not impossible. "Word rage" doesn't get much done.

Some times it makes people go away. In the case of so-called "scientific
creationists", that's a good thing.

>
>> If they wanted to just go off and talk to themselves that would be
>>fine but they keep trying to make in-roads into the education system and
>>that is when they cross the line, in my opinion, and to me it is not a
>>matter of being nice or having any kind of fun. It is quite serious.

>What is even more serious is that in our local school system it is possible
>for a student not to receive any science instruction at all for 1 year!
>Why? Because the school is constantly having to deal with a whole range of
>real and imagined problems. So basic education gets less and less time and
>money. Is it reasonable to note that these problems are coming from a
>society that has generally rejected the Bible and the wisdom/values that it
>teaches?

It is more reasonable to note that it is the conservative Christian Right
that keeps pushing an agenda to fuck up our schools. It is from this
segment of society that proposals to disband the Department of Education
stem from. It is this segment of society that works to cripple our public
schools.

Strangely, it seems to be folks like myself who aren't religous who keep
screaming that we need more funding for public schools, that the fact
that public university tuitions in my state of Oregon, which have increased
far faster than inflation due to (again) the actions of the conservative
Right which dominates our legislature, are disgracefully out of reach of
many poorer students unless they put themselves tens of thousands of
dollars in debt, etc.

So you can note imagined correlations all you want. A better thing to
do is to convince the Christian Right to quit trying to demolish our
public school system just because they can't teach religous subjects
in them anymore - including but not limited to so-called "scientific"
creationism.

>Now I have a question. Do you get just as serious when other
>religious/special-interest groups inject themselves into the public
>education system who are as nonscientific as these apparently lunatic
>Christians with whom you are doing battle? Such as those who agree with
>your stand on evolution? Just curious.

Sure.


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net