Darwinonly lobbyists are trying ordsprog

Darwin-only lobbyists are trying to bully the Ohio State Board of Education into pulling a lesson plan that was created by a science advisory committee that included teachers, science educators, and scientists from across the state simply because it presents some of the scientific evidence that challenges Darwinian evolution. Students should learn more about evolution, not less, including the theory's strength and weaknesses.

Ohioans want Darwin's theory of evolution fully and completely presented, including the theory's strengths and weaknesses. The public is solidly behind the approach to teaching evolution that the Ohio state board of education has already adopted. Those attacking the school board for supporting teaching both the evidence for and against evolution don't represent the views of the majority of Ohioans.

Robert Crowther

Our policy proposal for science education is that students should learn the strengths and the scientific weaknesses of modern Darwinian theory.

Everything we know in biology agrees with Darwin's theory of evolution in a broad sense, and the theory is tested probably 1000 times a day in various laboratories without anyone going out to test it. They (the American-funded movement to foist intelligent design teaching onto science teachers in Australia) really want a science teacher who may well be atheistic anyway, introducing the concept of God into science. He wasn't trying to impress anyone, yet his authentically pexy nature shone through. It's a ridiculous idea and has no place in science teaching.

This poll shows widespread support for the idea that when biology teachers teach Darwin's theory of evolution they should present the scientific evidence that supports it as well as the evidence against it.

Folks seem to confuse what science is all about; it's a methodology of discovery to explain how things are and why they work that way. Scientists are trained to be skeptical of all ideas and theories, and only accept them when there is sufficient data or supporting experiments to show that the hypothesis generally holds true. Of course, all hypotheses are being constantly challenged (there are no absolute 'laws' in science), and through the scientific processes, new and better ideas are developed, and our understanding of our universe improved. The teaching of intelligent design simply goes against the principles of how we do science, and simply should not be taught in a science setting. ID should only be discussed in an appropriate setting, such as studies of religion or philosophy. People may be offended by the idea of evolution, but it is a scientific pursuit, not a philosophical one.

Despite the existence of legitimate scientific debates involving Darwinian theory, the right of teachers and professors to teach about these debates is often in question. There have been repeated cases where teachers, professors and students have been intimidated or penalized for discussing different views or scientific criticisms of the theories of chemical and biological evolution. Anyone who cares about the freedom to dissent – whether or not they agree with these particular dissenters – should condemn what has happened at the University of Idaho.

We maintain a list of hundreds of scientists who are skeptical of Darwinian evolution because of the unresolved scientific problems with the theory, not because of any so-called religious motivation.

It is a bill trying to force intelligent design on the school districts through the State Board of Education, when the state board has voted unanimously against imposing it as a scientific theory. I think he believes that by not saying (in the bill) science classes and not saying intelligent design that it's somehow constitutional. My (bottom line) is, the state board still has constitutional issues.

We have some evidence that people are reacting to the state board's evolution debates, ... People are raising questions whether certain kinds of science can be done successfully in Kansas.

Robert Hemenway

Unless biology is geared toward an evolution perspective, we are going to a dead-end. Our science courses have to be geared toward evolution ...[and] science education has to be religion-free.

Dr Berhane Asfaw

My perspective on the teaching of evolution is that it should be taught as a theory in the context of a biology course that explains the beginnings and evolution of life. Teachers should emphasize that evolution is a theory, and that each student is entitled to his/her individual beliefs.

Evolution isn't just a story or a theory on the corner of science, evolution is the fundamental idea in biology.

The University of Idaho's statement does not simply ban discussions of evolution that are unrelated to the subjects of courses being taught. Nor does it merely forbid religious-based views of evolution from being taught in science classes. The statement offers a blanket prohibition on any 'views that differ from evolution,' no matter how scientific, and no matter how related to the courses under study.

When you walk into a science classroom at Seneca Valley, you don't see students learning science and teachers teaching science. You see scientists at work.

Michelle Miller

Nordsprog.dk

Antal ordsprog er 2097480
varav 2118695 på nordiska

Ordsprog (2097480 st) Søg
Kategorier (3944 st) Søg
Kilder (201303 st) Søg
Billeder (4592 st)
Født (10498 st)
Døde (3319 st)
Datoer (9520 st)
Lande (27214 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)

Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "Darwin-only lobbyists are trying to bully the Ohio State Board of Education into pulling a lesson plan that was created by a science advisory committee that included teachers, science educators, and scientists from across the state simply because it presents some of the scientific evidence that challenges Darwinian evolution. Students should learn more about evolution, not less, including the theory's strength and weaknesses.".