首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Back in Seattle, around the comer from the Discovery Institute, Stephen Meyer offers some peer-reviewed evidence that there trul
Back in Seattle, around the comer from the Discovery Institute, Stephen Meyer offers some peer-reviewed evidence that there trul
admin
2013-01-15
51
问题
Back in Seattle, around the comer from the Discovery Institute, Stephen Meyer offers some peer-reviewed evidence that there truly is a controversy that must be taught. "The Darwinists are bluffing," he says over a plate of oysters at a downtown seafood restaurant. "They have the science of the steam engine era, and it’s not keeping up with the biology of the information age."
Meyer hands me a recent issue of Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews with an article by Carl Woese, an eminent microbiologist at the University of Illinois. In it, Woese decries the failure of reductionist biology—the tendency to look at systems as merely the stun of their parts—to keep up with the developments of molecular biology. Meyer says the conclusion of Woese’s argument is that the Darwinian emperor has no clothes.
It’s a page out of the antievolution playbook: using evolutionary biology’s own literature against it, selectively quoting from the likes of Stephen Jay Gould to illustrate natural selection’s downfalls. The institute marshals journal articles discussing evolution to provide policymakers with evidence of the raging controversy surrounding the issue.
Woese scoffs at Meyer’s claim when I call to ask him about the paper. "To say that my criticism of Darwinists says that evolutionists have no clothes," Woese says, "is like saying that Einstein is criticizing Newton, therefore Newtonian physics is wrong." Debates about evolution’s mechanisms, he continues, don’t amount to challenges to the theory. And intelligent design "is not science. It makes no predictions and doesn’t offer any explanation whatsoever, except for God did it."
Of course Meyer happily acknowledges that Woese is an ardent evolutionist. The institute doesn’t need to impress Woese or his peers; it can simply co-ocpt the vocabulary of science— "academic freedom," "scientific objectivity," "teach the controversy"—and redirect it to a public trying to reconcile what appear to be two contradictory scientific views. By appealing to a sense of fairness, ID finds a place at the political table, and by merely entering the debate it can claim victory. "We don’t need to win every argument to be a success," Meyer says. "We’re trying to validate a discussion that’s been long suppressed."
This is precisely what happened in Ohio. "I’m not a PhD in biology," says board member Michael Cochran. "But when I have X number of PhD experts telling me this, and X number telling me the opposite, the answer is probably somewhere between the two."
An exasperated Krauss claims that a truly representative debate would have had 10,000 pro-evolution scientists against two Discovery executives. "What these people want is for there to be a debate," says Krauss. "People in the audience say, Hey, these people sound reasonable. They argue, ’People have different opinions, we should present those opinions in school.’ That is nonsense. Some people have opinions that the Holocaust never happened, but we don’t teach that in history."
Eventually, the Ohio board approved a standard mandation that students learn to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." Proclaiming victory, Johnson barnstormed Ohio churches soon after notifying congregations of a new, ID-friendly standard. In response, anxious board members added a clause stating that the standard "does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design." Both sides claimed victory. A press release from IDNet trumpeted the mere inclusion of the phrase intelligent design, saying that "the implication of the statement is that the ’teaching of testing of intelligent design’ is permitted." Some pro-evolution scientists, meanwhile, say there’s nothing wrong with teaching students how to scrutinize theory. "I don’t have a problem with that," says Patricia Princehouse, a professor at Case Western Reserve and an outspoken oppnent of ID. "Critical analysis is exactly what scientists do."
Which of the following is NOT one of the responses to the standard approved by the Ohio board?
选项
A、Many of ID scholars expressed friendly-welcome to the standard
B、Some anxious board members suggested an additional clause
C、IDNet understood the standard as a permission of teaching or testing of intelligent design
D、Pro-evolution scientists claimed that critical analysis is exactly what scientists should do
答案
A
解析
选项B、C、D的内容在最后一段都作为responses提到了。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/Wn2O777K
0
考博英语
相关试题推荐
Thenurse______thedoctorintheoperationroom.
Howdoesithappenthatchildrenlearntheirmothertonguesowell?Whenwecomparewithadultslearningaforeign11.______
JudgmentwassuspendedtillthefollowingMondaybecauseofthelackofevidence.
Inacarengine,more______.meansbetteracceleration.
Thedesigningofasatelliteintheheavenlyenvironmentis______aneasyjob.
Engineeringstudentsaresupposedtobeexamplesofpracticalityandrationality,butwhenitcomestomycollegeeducationIam
InthefirstyearorsoofWebbusiness,mostoftheactionhasrevolvedaroundeffortstotaptheconsumermarket.Morerecentl
Tocontrolqualityandmakingdecisionsaboutproductionareamongthemanyresponsibilitiesofanindustrialengineer.
Manyinstructorsbelievethataninformal,relaxedclassroomenvironmentis【1】tolearningandinnovation.Itisnotuncommon
随机试题
中耳乳突窝胆脂瘤常破坏的结构是
成人基础代谢率为+45%,其甲状腺功能为
女性,28岁,患风湿性心脏病二尖瓣狭窄6年,日常活动即出现胸闷、气短,但休息时无症状,做心脏彩超示重度二尖瓣狭窄。
急性CO中毒与急性脑血管疾病的鉴别要点错误的是
男性,35岁,烧伤总面积70%,三度烧伤60%,在院外度过休克期,创面有感染,伤后4d入院,近2d来腹泻、黑粪,以往无溃疡病史。在明确诊断后,首先采取的治疗是
A.药品零售指导价格B.药品政府指导价格C.常用药品的价格D.药品生产经营成本药品生产企业应当向政府价格主管部门提供()。
工程施工过程中的费用监理,主要是对工程计量与支付的监督和管理。()
阅读材料,回答有关问题。1869年.门捷列夫发现了元素周期律和元素周期表,在元素周期律的指导下,利用元素之间的一些规律性知识来分类学习物质的性质,使化学学习和研究变得有规律可循。之后,元素周期表被不断完善,成为化学研究的重要工具。直到20世纪初,
缺碘对儿童最严重的后果是导致()
节点地址全部为1表示(48)。
最新回复
(
0
)