Joined: April 2005
Let's bear one thing in mind: biology is a really basic part of high school education. Every high school student I've ever known had to take some biology. Evolution is pretty much the heart and soul of biology, so when the wing-nuts take aim at evolution, they get the attention of a large proportion of scientists.
|So I ask, where are the scientists in the IQ debates, eugenics, AIDS and homosexuality or abortion and conception? Why don't we hear the triumphant findings of the scientists in these areas of scientific exploration as it pertains to public education? Where is the objectiveness?|
The "IQ debates"? What are they? How do they relate to high school curricula? What subject area should they be taken up in?
AIDS and homosexuality? What do you want the schools to teach? So far as I can tell, it's the same wing-nuts that want to downplay evolution who don't want the schools talking about sexuality at all. Heck, isn't Phil Johnson - the godfather of ID - one of the most outspoken skeptics of HIV as a cause of AIDS? Is that what we should be teaching? Yes, homosexual men are at somewhat higher risk for contracting HIV than other groups. Most scientists favor more education on the subject, not less. But it's not scientists who stand in the way; it's the wing-nuts with their abstinence-only nonsense.
Abortion and conception? There's nothing particularly "scientific" about assigning an arbitrary definition to "when life begins". Scientists have been trying to tell you that life began more than 3 billion years ago. But again, the wing-nuts don't want to hear about it.
One could argue that scientists should be more active, and more public, about issues like pollution, global warming, etc. but somehow I don't think that would make Thordaddy very happy.
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.