Until the theory of evol is conclusively proved by the scientific method, we must retain the s&w language.
B Do you not agree with me that what we don't know is what makes sci fun and exciting?
Art I think exploration of any type is what makes sci fun. I think it's damaging when we take one aspect of a theory and extrapolate that the whole theory is true.
Art agrees with Mercer that we need a definition of evol. Mercer again pointed out that Art, like others, think micro evol occurs, but macro - a primate as our ancestors - doesn't.
Art thinks darwinism is the greatest hoax foisted on mankind. Piltdown man is an example of that.
Arturo De Lozanne UT sci prof
Like Obama said, we need to restore science to it's rightful place.
Some of you say the proposed standards deny academic freedom or the ability of students to ask questions. The standards expose critical thinking, and describe the diff between hypotheses and theories. This is much more accurate than s&w. Sci love to discuss info that may support or not a theory. They do not address pseudo sci. And that is what some people have been discussing today.
B Do you think 'analyze and eval' is good sci language, and still allow discussions in the classroom.
Art Yes. Nowhere in the standards is there anywhere saying students should not ask Qs.
B An earlier speaker said there's no foundation for macro evol.
Art It would take an hour or two to explain that those are not valid criticisms of evol. We have the experts at UT who could do that just down the block. If you give me the time, I'd be happy to explain.
B Please expound upon pseudo sci. And your view of s&w vs. a&e.
Art S&w sounds reasonable, but it has been used to block the adoption of good textbooks, and to introduce textbooks that aren't scientific. A&e is a more modern view of sci than s&w. It's more in line with how sci is done.
SS This is the approach Darwin used when he said 'the current view' 'the standard view' 'the old view' instead of 'the stupid view' 'the wrong view'. It's good, non-confrontational language.
Art Students who don't have a solid edu in evol fall behind in admissions.
SS Is this true?
B You said you're concerned about possible lawsuits if we keep s&w. But there have been no lawsuits in the past 20 years with that language.
SS Good point.
B All the board wants our children to have a good understanding of evol. We differ on how far that understanding hsould go. Plesae give a specific example of pseudo sci.
Art The book in the hall says DNA sequence analysis can't determine ancestors. The book mis-understands some of the facts.
B Mercer If a student understands micro and macro evol, but doesn't agree with it, would that make them an unqualified candidate?
ARt Admissions aren't looking at people's beliefs. They are looking for a solid understanding of the evol process. If they don't have this, they won't be able to intregrate their understanding of bio processes. Their understanding is revealed in their GRE scores. Having doubts about how evol happens leads them to not understand how evol happens.
SS Very interesting statement. Is it true?
Art Evol starts once there's life. Origin of life is a separate issue/theory in sci. There is not one overarching theory for origin of life. There is one overarching theory for evol (already existing living organisms).
B So evol wasn't developed to explain the origin of life.
Art Correct.
10 minute break now
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment